Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:55, 26 August 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Issues

I'm not going to make any edits or (hopefully) spread the Al-Durrah debate to here, and I know it's only just been created, but there are some issues with this article -

• A lot of the information is sourced ultimately to Shahaf himself. See WP:SPS
• "World wide notability" is a bit strong surely? He's really not known outside the world of those obsessed with the al-Durrah "staged" theories
• I'm not asking for a "criticism" section (Misplaced Pages never benefits from them, even if plenty of critics of Israeli policies seem to have developed rather large ones over the years) but it should at least mention the debates around his work on the al-Durrah and Rabin cases.
• Once glance at his website reveals he pretty clearly has a political agenda. Regardless of whether one agrees with that agenda or not, this basic fact is not clear from the text of the Wiki article.

At the moment it reads like he's simply a well regarded and high profile scientist, as well as some sort of mainstream investigative journalist. --Nickhh (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference section (w/o adding any new ones), and it currently lists 3 independent sources, none of which are sourced to Shahaf or his website. Regardless, Self-publsihed sources are prefectly good to use about themsleves, so I don't see how WP:SPS applies, in any case. The lead sentence clearly says that the notability is due to his involvement in the Al-Durrah case. In that context, his name features prominently in mainstream media in the US, Europe and Australia, so I don't think "worldwide" is too strong. Our policy against original research does not allow you to scan in web site in order to reveal an alleged "political agenda". Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he meets the notability criteria for people. I've had the opportunity to check his notability on Factiva - he's mentioned in a number of articles but only ever in relation to the al-Durrah case. I've not come across anything that mentions him in any other context. I'm minded to nominate this article for deletion, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can identify a notability criterion that he satisfies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He easily satisfies the basic criteria - the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. There are more than a dozen such sources listed on the Al-Durah talk page, at least one of which you have been using extensively as a source on that article.Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my main concern is really that he appears to have absolutely no notability apart from the al-Durrah controversy. My Factiva search found no mentions of him before 2000 and every single mention of him after then has been in relation to the case. He's never mentioned in relation to anything else or on his own merits. If you take a look at a comparable example, the list of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the sidebar of 9/11 conspiracy theories, you'll notice that they were all notable before they became known for their views on 9/11. Shahaf, in contrast, appears to have been a thoroughly obscure figure before 2000, and there's no sign from any of the coverage that he's done anything significant since then except propagate al-Durrah conspiracy theories. We have a long-standing rule that "notability is not inherited" from another topic. I don't think it works to say "he's notable because of al-Durrah" if that's the only thing for which he's known. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a person's notability be related to more than one thing (as, ironically enough - the Muhammad al-Durrah article clearly demonstrates with respect to the article's namesake). Check out the long list of people whose only notability is as winners (or even losers) of reality TV shows. As I wrote above, Shahaf easily satisfies the basic criteria - the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - and you know this because you have been using several of these sources as part of your attempt to portray him in as negative a light as possible. Please don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point by dragging this through a frivolous AfD. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of OK with him having a page, but I do think it needs more mainstream media or specialist sources about him, describing who he is and giving more detail on his achievements and areas of expertise; as well as more about what he actually says about the Rabin and al Durrah cases, since this is what he is known for, and his views on these topics are controversial and disputed. For example I can't see the direct source for a lot of the claims that are there currently about his career (I may be missing something). The SPS point is relevant because, as the policy says, "anyone can claim to be an expert" - obviously we can include what people say about themselves in articles about that person, but the material should not be "unduly self-serving" and surely needs to be backed up by a reliable third party source? As to his political agenda, I merely noted it on this talk page. I never suggested we should simply dump my observation into the article without any reliable reference to back it up. --Nickhh (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any such 3rd party sources, or tag claims in the article which you think are not sufficiently sourced. I will add a 3rd party source regarding his career shortly. Canadian Monkey (talk)

This is getting silly now. We have four fringe sources/references here, including (in order as of today) - the website of an organisation apparently run by Dore Gold; a primary source which names Shahaf as having applied for a patent for a see-through wall (I'm no expert on patent applications, but if it was a serious application, wouldn't it have been done in the name of a company?); an interview given by Shahaf to a partisan pro-Israeli news agency; and two links about the award he was given by a right-wing pressure group. As I said, I do not wish to edit here, nor would I dispute that this guy might deserve a (balanced) article here, but can someone please provide some serious sources for this hagiography? --Nickhh (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And look, we can see Israel's Media Watch at their annual meeting, all 10 of them! Is someone playing some kind of joke, referencing this lot and their awards? --Nickhh (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed getting silly - first you falsely complain that the article is sourced to Shahaf's own site. When it's pointed out to you that that's incorrect, you complain about the 3rd party sources provided, falsely claiming that some are "fringe", and inventing ludicrous reason to doubt others in areas you know nothing about (i.e. that a patent is not serious if not done in the name of a company) - all the while stating you're not interested enough in the article to edit it. If you don't want to edit - fine, there's more than 2 million other articles for you to work on. But don't sit here on the sidelines lecturing editors about non-existent issues. This article reads like a fairly mundane biography to me, far removed from anything resembling a hagiography. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make stuff up and misrepresent what I said, or my reasons for not actually editing the article.

• I did not say the article is sourced to Shahaf's website. The very first point I made was actually that "a lot of the information is sourced ultimately to Shahaf", which is a very different point in case you still don't understand it. And just above I gave a list of the references, none of which I identified as being Shahaf's website (and that wasn't because I'd been corrected in some way)
• I'm fairly sure most people would take the view that an organisation that appears to consist of 10-20 people sitting in some tacky hotel meeting room, and has appointed itself as some sort of media watchdog, is indeed pretty fringe.
• I admitted I did not know a lot about the patent process, that's why I phrased my point as a question, which I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me (or apparently you) might answer with factual information one way or the other, rather than cheap abuse. However I stand by the assertion that an individual who has submitted a patent application in their own name is not necessarily a genius inventor or expert, simply by virtue of having submitted that application.
• I have not edited here, not because I am not interested as you claim, but for exactly the reason I suggested - because I did not want to transfer the al-Durrah spat here, and also because I thought I would be polite enough to allow the editor who started the article (or indeed anyone else) to improve what was here by adding the sort of mainstream sourcing that is expected in other Misplaced Pages articles, rather than starting to hack it apart myself or support calls for it to be put up for AfD.
• The questions and issues I have raised are of course entirely legitimate, relating ultimately as they do to fundamental policies here about verifiability and neutral point of view. It may read as a mundane biography, but that's exactly the point - he is not a mundane individual toiling quietly away in a research lab somewhere, by contrast he is a key figure in a minority viewpoint conspiracy theory (which in turn is the only thing his notability, such as it is, seems to turn on). And the issues I raised have not been addressed, either in your comments above or in the recent edits to the article. If you can't provide the serious sources for the content here, perhaps someone else will. --Nickhh (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added two good sources, will keep looking. Hope that helps. IronDuke 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's got us a quote from him. But what this page still really needs is decent secondary sources which analyse or report on him as an individual and on his work - something such as a profile of him in a major media outlet, some record of his scientific achievement or expertise in a specialist journal etc. As I say, this is a standard Misplaced Pages policy requirement, not some obscure and ever-shifting personal demand of mine. Plus it needs to be clear that what notability he has is primarily down to his views on the al-Durrah and Rabin killings - and that his views on these issues are disputed and controversial (and arguably part of fringe conspiracy theories, but let's not have that debate again). --Nickhh (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We have him in The Atlantic Monthly, CBS, and now the book I cited. This article exceeds the vast majority of WP articles in terms of notability, so I hope that's settled. As for noting why he is noted, if you find a good source saying his notability is tied specifically to al-Dura and Rabin, please include it. IronDuke 18:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The point you raised was a WP:SPS concern – which implies Shahaf’s personal web site, otherwise, it’s not “self-published”. I corrected you on two aspects, by noting that (1) the sources beig used were not self published; and (2) even if it was self-published, it would not be an issue on this article, as self-published sources are ok to use in articles about the subject.
  • Your claim that Israel's Media Watch’s membership is 10 people appears to be based on some very primitive and faulty original research, consisting of looking at a few pictures taken at one of their meetings, and miscounting the number of people seen in those pictures. I will take you, step by step, through the numerous logical fallacies and violations of Misplaced Pages polices involved in this, if you insist. Otherwise, please drop this foolish line of argumentation.
  • If you know very little about the patent process, kindly refrain from making baseless assumptions about it, especially those designed to denigrate the inventors. Don’t do it even if you’re using the rhetorical device of phrasing it as a question. (There is very little difference, in this respect, between ‘X isn’t a serious inventor’ and “I’d say, based on what little I know of the patent process, that X isn’t a serious inventor. Is he?” If you’d like to learn more about the patent process, and the relationship between inventor and assignee, ask someone who is knowledgeable, like me. I’d be happy to educate you. It goes without saying that submitting a patent or two, or even having them granted, does not make one a ‘genius inventor’ – and unsurprisingly, no such claim is made in the article. The relevant logical fallacy is Straw man, if you want to look that up.
  • If you don’t want to transfer the al-Durrah spat here, don’t. That means finding something else to do, not sitting on the sidelines and inventing non-existent issues, which is exactly transferring the al-Durrah spat here, albeit by transforming the Talk page into a Soapbox from which you attack the likes of Israel Media Watch or Dore Gold, rather than a direct disruption in the article itself. I will caution you, as I have cautioned ChrisO, that dragging this to a frivolous AfD (after you’ve already acknowledged that you think the subject is notable enough for an article) in order to make a point will not be looked upon favorably.
  • The questions and issues you have raised here have been addressed – the article does not rely on self-published sources, there is nothing fringy about the 3rd party sources provided, and the article does not read anything like a self-serving hagiography. If you want to add material you believe is missing form the article – go right ahead, this is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But don’t sit on the sidelines finding imaginary faults with what is currently there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I really can't go through all that patronising sh#t and respond to it point by point. Find some reliable, mainstream sources that tell us more about Shahaf (good or bad), and while you're at it stop accusing me of saying things I haven't said and employing arguments or rhetorical devices I haven't used. It's that simple. Talk pages are where you discuss and debate editing, sourcing etc and that's what I've tried to do, without - for reasons I've explained - actually making any direct edits myself. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You patronize me ("a very different point in case you still don't understand it"; "I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me (or apparently you)) - and I will galdly return the favor, it is as simple as that. Your concerns have been addressed. Go find something else to do if you don;t wnat to transfer other spats into this article. Canadian Monkey (talk)`

I made the first point because you repeatedly kept up the lie on this talk page that I had claimed material here was being cited or sourced to his website. On the second point I added the "or apparently you" because you chose to criticise me for supposedly "knowing nothing" about patent law while failing to answer the perfectly civil and factual question I had raised in respect of it. Subsequently you then claimed you do know all about the patent process, which makes your original response seem even more unhelpful. I did not start an argument here - I raised some questions about the article as it stood, then got accused of "original research" and eventually "soapboxing" among other sins. This article still seems to suggest that he is a disinterested scientist and expert in several fields, that he is also an "investigative journalist" and "media critic", and completely underplays the controversial nature of the role he is playing in the coverage of the al-Durrah incident. There are admittedly better sources here now than there were, but if he's as notable as the lead claims him to be, there should be more details about him and his work sourced to both specialist scientific journals and the mainstream media. Anyway, I have plenty else to do, and will get on with that. My points are clear, and I agree with you that there's only so long you can stay on a talk page without actually editing. --Nickhh (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I'm surprised that you would allow yourself to say as you did "I'm fairly sure most people would take the view that an organisation that appears to consist of 10-20 people sitting in some tacky hotel meeting room, and has appointed itself as some sort of media watchdog, is indeed pretty fringe." Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't? To help you and others, I took a few words off their site:

IMW has a regular column in the "B'sheva" newspaper - a weekly column that appears in the Shabat magazine of the

The group's President: Dr. Uzi Landau, Chairman: Prof. Eli Pollak - A past president was a member of the Knesset, another an Ambassador. What they call the "Presidium" comprises 12 members, 2 are listed as Dr.'s 3 as Professors and another is a General. Of the 12 members of the Board, one is listed as a Dr, and 2 as professors. Not being Israeli I have no idea about the others who may be quite notable in Israel. Since you seem sure that these are simply people meeting in "some tacky hotel meeting room" and are "fringe," perhaps you will either enlighten us or strike the remarks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It still seems a pretty small gathering (I know that's not conclusive, but I'm going on the photos they use themselves on their website, which you would have thought would be the ones they think show them in the best light). Anyone can set up a pressure group or website and get themselves some media attention, and sometimes those groups have some high profile members. However they remain small groups, usually with specific agendas. Having said that it's fine of course to note that they gave Shahaf an award (especially if there's a secondary source for it, ie not simply IMW themselves), but we have to be careful of making it seem more significant than it is, and it has to be balanced with more mainstream coverage and comment. Anyway, as above I'm off now. --Nickhh (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted for ....

In regard to this sentence: "He is known in particular for promoting the controversial theory that the incident was staged" , this reference was given: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909972.html. Aside from the Levy article being an opinion piece, it simply does not say this! I would say OR and/or POV... Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that wording was a broad paraphrase of elements of the piece - but was accurate nonetheless, in that a) he is known in particular for his campaigning over the al-Dura incident; and b) the hoax/staged theory is by any objective measure, controversial, whatever you happen to think about it personally. And the Haaretz article (yes, an opinion piece) makes these general points, even if not with the precise wording I put in. Perhaps the phrasing I used, which in part was a bid to avoid simple cut & pasting from a copyrighted source, could have been amended. It was not appropriate, as another editor did, to remove the source altogether. I'll put it back in, taking some more specific wording this time. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove your edit when you put it up, giving you some time to correct it. I'm not sure what the appropriate WP policy is (BLP?) but it strikes me as entirely inappropriate to have a statement that someone is an "eccentric obsessive" in the first 3 sentences of his article. I would not call Enderlin a liar in the first paragraph of his article either, even if I could find an RS to suggest it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree... it's a passing mention. Not sure it belongs at all, but certainly not in the lead. IronDuke 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

You are going to use an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post to characterize an individual as a "conspiracy theorist?" I am not sure that this is proper. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but he IS a conspiracy theorist, as is anyone who tries to shoehorn any suggestion that al-durrah is still alive and well and living in Rafah into articles here. How about he's been "described" as one? --Nickhh (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd take more than one reliable source, and more than an opinion piece, to characterize him as that in a WP:BLP. IronDuke 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just re-reading the BLP guidelines.

It says:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Nickhh - Please avoid making edits that violate WP:BLP, by making sure every contentious edit about a living person is sourced to impeccable sources, and that your edits reflect precisely what the source says. As other editors have noted, and as you yourself concede above, an Op-Ed by extreme-left partisan opponent of Shahaf is questionable at best. This source (the JP piece) mentions Shahaf only in passing, and does not call him a "conspiracy theorist" - please avoid paraphrasing questionable sources like that in a WP:BLP. In addition, the edit summary for this change is extremely uncivil. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that one source, an opinion column with the title "Rattling the Cage: Al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks", is not sufficient sourcing per WP:BLP to label someone a conspiracy theorist in a Misplaced Pages article. Unless additional sources can be used to verify the label, the information should be removed, or at least heavily reworked to better comply with BLP. It might also be a good idea to start a thread at the BLP noticeboard. --Elonka 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. May I weigh in here briefly. Thru a Nexis search, I noticed that the columnist, Larry Derfner, was given two chances to float his criticism of Shahaf. First, May 29th. Then again, June 19th. There he addresses "rebuttals by Philippe Karsenty and Richard Landes...(June 12), Jonathan Rosenblum (...June 13)." So there seems to have been quite a debate in the Israeli press about the conspiracy theorist claims. In addition, two newspapers in Australia (Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne The Age) carried an article by Ed O'Loughlin 10-6-2007, who also seems to consider Shahaf a conspiracy theorist.

"But the central thrust of the conspiracy theory is drawn from a semi-official military probe that seven years ago was seen as so dubious that even the Israeli army and Government declined to adopt its findings. The two Israelis appointed to conduct the probe, physicist Nahum Shahaf and engineer Yosef Duriel, were private civilians with no forensic or ballistic qualifications. They met through their roles in a campaign to prove the innocence of Yigal Amir, the settler arrested on the spot for the 1995 assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead, they blamed a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, now Israel's President. ...A report published in the liberal daily Haaretz on November 8, 2000, concluded that the investigation was so shaky the Israeli public would never accept its findings."

Well, I'm afraid I haven't looked into the article. But the claim that he's a conspiracy theorist does seem to be a point of contention in reliable media sources. Let me know what you think. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG.  :) My main participation here is just as an uninvolved admin, so I have no strong preference on what does or doesn't go into the article. But where there is a borderline case of whether something does or doesn't violate WP:BLP, I think it is better to err on the side of removing the information first, and then discussing it second. If there is debate in the press about Shahaf, then we can definitely include mention of that debate, but we should stick closely to what the sources actually say, and we should be careful not to give undue weight to the negative commentary. In the source that was being discussed, it was an obvious opinion column, there was only one line mentioning Shahaf, and even allowing for those two criteria, it still did not ever call him a "conspiracy theorist". So it was not an appropriate source for such a claim, on multiple levels. However, if someone would like to put information back into the article that is a better reflection of what the sources do say (and especially if more and better sources can be located), and if the information does not run afoul of WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE, I would have no objection to further changes. --Elonka 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is a BLP, and as such, contentious information sould be kept to a minimum, and be impeccably sourced. We are not at liberty to paraphrase or draw inferences - so unless a high-quality source (not a partisan OpEd) says, explictly, "Shahaf is a conspiracy theorist" we can't say that ourselves. We can say that Shahaf is a proponent of the "staged theory", which some comentators condsider to be a conspircay theory, but we can't use that derogatory description of the man directly, without a high quality source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with and appreciate Elonka's explanation, which would allow info as long as its a good reflection of the sources. By the way, the Haaretz article cited below (11-7-00) is a straight news piece (no byline) which is critical of Shahaf, but doesn't use the same conspiracy language:

The IDF has to decide when and how it will release the investigation's results. The army tried to stir some interest among some American journalists in the findings, but the attempt backfired - the professionals were not impressed by what they heard and decided not to use it. In choosing Shahaf and Duriel as partners in the al Dura inquiry, the IDF has again shot itself in the foot. Even if the investigation and its conclusions should pass muster on scientific and professional grounds, they simply won't be accepted by the public. That might make little scientific sense - but it's a hard public-relations fact. Duriel's ill-conceived "60 Minutes" interview was a case in point. The police officer, Yossi Almog, put it best: "If you want to release some conclusion that carries weight, it is important that the investigation be carried out by the most professional staff the state can put together." Why, then, did the IDF decide to involve Shahaf in its professional review? The IDF spokesman just refuses to relate to questions of this sort.

This kind of statement (and all the info in this piece) might also help frame the critique of Shahaf. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabin assassination

Again, sorry for not having deeper knowledge on this topic, but shouldn't his role w/studying the Rabin case be mentioned in the article? Both Derfner and O'Loughlin (cites above) consider this important. Did they get it wrong? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, O'Loughlin got it wrong. No one else, to the best pof my knowledge, has claimed that Shahaf accused Peres of being behind the Rabin assassination. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See next item, probably CM missed due to ec. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha'aretz published an article (November 7, 2000 "IDF keeps shooting itself in the foot") that links Shahaf in both the M. al Dura and the Rabin case. Here's an excerpt:

Two days after the {al Dura --HG}incident, Duriel wrote in Ha'aretz: "The IDF spokesman deserves a prize for stupidity ... Ten minutes after the incident a normal spokesman for a normal army would have released a categorically formulated statement saying that provocateurs opened fire against IDF soldiers, behind the back of a child, and made sure he would be killed in front of cameras; and after the boy, they killed the ambulance driver who tried to save him. All this was done to score propaganda points by depicting murderous behavior on the part of IDF soldiers." After Ha'aretz published these remarks, Shahaf phoned Duriel and suggested they investigate whether it was necessarily true that IDF soldiers shot the boy. The two were acquainted - they met when they jointly reviewed Shahaf's findings on an altogether different matter, the Rabin assassination. Shahaf claims to have in his possession "dramatic photographs which change the picture with respect to Yigal Amir's involvement in the murder." Shahaf and Duriel discussed ways of disseminating these Rabin assassination materials.

I hope this is useful information for the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not miss this. I am quite familiar with the O'Loughlin article, and have commented about it extensively over at Muhammad al-Durrah. You asked if O'loughlin got it wrong, and the answer to that is "yes". O'Loughin makes the following claim - "they blamed a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, now Israel's President.". This is simply wrong, and quite indicative (IMHO) of the shoddy quality of that article, which is little more than a hit piece masquerading as news. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Ha'aretz investigative piece makes the same statement. Do you have a source that undermines the Ha'aretz article? Thanks. (Bit later:) Ok, yes, I see that Muhammad al-Durrah article has more sources and it does use this Ha'aretz article, too. So we may want to look at how sources there have been used by editors. Thanks again, CM. HG | Talk 23:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Another mention of his ideas about Rabin, from Haaretz. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Basic human dignity

Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

I do not think that an opinion piece qualifies as a high-quality source, and that the characterization is at the very least "questionable". Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gideon Levy's criticism

Levy is a controversial left-wing advocate and, as a person who's often criticised for losing sight of objectivity to ideology, is not exactly the best neutral person to use for describing anyone as a person with an "eccentric obsession", at least not in an encyclopedia. Jaakobou 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We know you don't like Levy. That doesn't mean we can't use his comments here, or anywhere else for that matter - he is a well-known journalist/commentator who writes in a mainstream Israeli newspaper. His comments are as notable as any of the others cited here (whether favourable to or critical of Shahaf). In fact they are probably more notable - he is better known here at least than Derfner, Fallows or that advocacy group. On the broader point, and also in response to TB's comments above, the hoax theory is controversial and has attracted criticism and, in another context, court proceedings. To try to excise that criticism smacks more of whitewashing rather genuine BLP protection. As long the comments are attributed to Levy, and are noted as being his opinion, I don't see the problem. BLP issues arise more when we start using poor and unverifiable sources to make claims about supposed facts against someone, or use minor fringe comment sources in a way that gives undue weight to some alleged controversy. Also note that I removed the header because criticism is always better mixed in with the relevant topic rather than being given a standalone section. --Nickhh (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

When you say that my editing "smacks more of whitewashing rather genuine BLP protection", isn't that violating your promise not "will never make any genuinely offensive or irrelevant comment"? How am I whitewashing? Why do you think I'm whitewashing?

With respect, Jaakobou 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first apparent point, no. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to look over this, and from looking at edits to both this talk page, and the article, I can see that people seem to be getting worked up about something simple. My advice here is for everyone involved to try to see other people's points of view, take them into consideration, and think this over from the very beginning. Then establish a civil discussion here, and you should be able to figure out what to do next, which sources and information to include, remembering that we are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia, with no unreferenced controversial information, and as little other unreferenced information as possible. I'll also ask everyone to take a deep breath, and read through what you write/change before you save it, make sure that you are not incivil, or anything like that. I hope I am not sounding too "do this, do that", but I'm just trying to help, and I hope you don't mind me commenting on this here. :-) Stwalkerster 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent fact tag

per the following diff:

The information is cited in the given source but perhaps the phrasing is the cause for concern? I'm open to suggestions and even some form of omission to resolve this issue. Jaakobou 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What, the Hebrew source? I and most other people here can't check that one I'm afraid. And the problem as far as I'm concerned is that if someone was indead a leader in their field, you would expect a lot more coverage of them and their achievements in mainstream or specialist sources. These simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf. The wider problem is that this article is being used as a booster for content in the al-Durrah article. Shahaf is cited there as a major proponent of the hoax/staged theory; readers may then come here to find out more about him, and discover that he is supposedly a well-known and high-profile scientist and general expert on everything, who turned that expert and dispassionate gaze to the al-Durrah issue and has now exposed the truth about that sordid little episode in Palestinian mendacity. It is really not clear that this is the case in the real world. --Nickhh (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Specialist sources: Personally, I don't have access to the air-force unmanned crafts industry files but if you've gone over them and vouch that they indeed have nothing suggesting he was a leader in the industry, then I will accept your testimonial. If your statement was not based on review of the sources, however, then I suggest this argument be either explored or dropped.

al-Durrah issue: Would a translation in the reference satisfy your source related concern or would you prefer we omit this information because it somehow affects the al-Durrah case? I'm not sure there is support for the latter in Misplaced Pages policies.

With respect, Jaakobou 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Missed the point. Show me, as I've asked, other, secondary sources which establish his notability and authority to discuss the issue at hand. Or his status as a "leader" in any specific field. Simple really. --Nickhh (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been through newspaper databases in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian and found nothing about Shahaf except in reference to the al-Durrah case. That seems to be his only international claim to fame. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Topic of current thread: I opened this subsection because of Nickhh's concerns and fact tagging of the mention that Shahaf is "a leading figure in the Israeli unmanned aircraft development industry" (see the provided diff above). This has very little to do with international claims to fame and was already cited in the Hebrew reference which I proposed to translate to alleviate his concerns. I'm fairly certain that the al-Durrah issue is irrelevant for the "Israeli unmanned aircrafts industry"-related fact tag and I made note of this to Nickhh.

Extra verification: If I understand correctly, Nickhh notes that " simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf." and requested extra sources for corroboration of the currently cited Hebrew source -- which he is unable to read -- despite my suggestion for translation. In my reply I explained that, I'd be willing to further explore the claim that specialist sources exist/don't exist, but if Nickhh has indeed made a conclusive search in the specialist sources, then I am willing to take his word on it as it would be a waste of time to repeat the search and come up empty as well.

Nickhh, have you made a concerted effort going over specialist/mainstream sources and came up with no mention of his pilotless aircraft design work? I feel obligated to repeat that this is mentioned in the Hebrew source, but I'd be interested in your response non-the-less.

With respect, Jaakobou 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced the tagged statement to Amnonm Lord's JCPA article, which describes Shahaf as a leading figure in IAI's pilotless aircraft project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Folks, please remember that this article falls within the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As such, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place discretionary sanctions on the article and/or editors here: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. So please ensure that discussions remain civil, and that article additions are carefully sourced. Thanks, --Elonka 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources

Greetings. In threads above, I've quoted from an Australian newspaper article (10-6-08) and Haaretz (11-7-00) regarding Shahaf with the Rabin and al Dura cases. Here are two other sources that could help provide info for the article. First, a brief follow-up in Haaretz the next day (11-8-00) which concludes in a very critical tone:

Mofaz fielded questions about the investigation into the death of al Dura after Ha'aretz reported yesterday that the IDF had staged re-enactments of the Netzarim shootout. These re-enactments, Ha'aretz reported, were initiated by two civilians, physicist Nahum Shahaf and engineer Yosef Duriel, who contacted Samia and argued that it is implausible that the boy was shot by IDF bullets. Samia appointed Shahaf to head the committee despite the fact that the physicist lacks experience in areas critical to the inquiry. Questioning Mofaz about the committee's report, MK Ophir Pines-Paz (One Israel) said, "One gets the impression that instead of genuinely confronting this incident, the IDF has chosen to stage a fictitious re-enactment and cover up the incident by means of an inquiry with foregone conclusions and the sole purpose of which is to clear the IDF of responsibility for al Dura's death. ("MOFAZ: AL DURA PROBE WAS INITIATED BY SOUTHERN COMMAND" no byline)

Second, there's an 11-11-00 article in The Times (London: " Palestinians shot boy, disputed report says" by Sam Kiley) that deals w/the Haaretz info, including: " A nominally independent investigation by the Israeli Army into the death of Muhammad Dura, the 12-year-old Gazan whose killing was captured by a film crew and broadcast around the world, is expected to conclude this week that he was not killed by Israelis but by Palestinians. The conclusion, which comes as a result of an investigation by Nahum Shahaf, a civilian physicist appointed by Brigadier Yomtov Samia, the Israeli military commander in Gaza, has already been ridiculed as "absurd" and "obscene" by military officials and Israel's most prestigious newspaper, Haaretz."

Also, Ha'aretz again ("Stupidity Marches On" 11-10-00, it sound like editorial but not marked that way in Nexis) states: "It is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation. ...The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation - almost a pirate endeavor - on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying. " Granted, this criticizes the IDF more than Shahaf, who w/Duriel is said to have "had their own preconceived idea" going into their investigation.

Also, Jerusalem Post (March 17, 2008. "STILL NOT AT REST" by Bernard Edinger, Eetta Prince-Gibson): "The investigation by Shahaf and Doriel was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media, since neither are ballistics experts, they did not have access to film footage from any known news agency and, by that time, the actual site of the shooting had been razed so their investigation was based on a reconstruction of the scene."

Surely I do not mean to imply that each source needs to be quoted in our article. But there does seem to be some useful info here about the criticisms of Shahaf's work, which may improve the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, HG. I would be careful here, though: virtually all the sources that are most critical of Shahaf are from very early on (or refer to that time). If you look at the 2008 article you reference, it has this line:

"...now, seven and a half years after Enderlin's veteran cameraman, Palestinian Talal Abu Rahmeh, filmed some of the most recognizable news footage ever recorded, the question of who killed Mohammed a-Dura - or whether he was actually killed - has not been convincingly resolved. In fact, as time passes, the controversy has become more heated and the questions surrounding the event and its aftermath have become even more troubling." (Emphasis added, Extract is here)

What does this tell us? That what seemed farcically absurd in 2000 is less far-fetched in 2008. We shouldn't make it seem as though these criticisms are still being leveled at Shahaf, unless they in fact are. IronDuke 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the time context can be noted. But is there recent (countervailing) praise for his work? I'd be wary of inferring too much: doubts could continue to be raised about al-Dura for various reasons, even as Shahaf's work itself werre still be deemed low quality. Do you know what I mean? HG | Talk 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know. As for countervailing praise, there's quite a bit (in the article already), and it's also quite a bit more recent. In fact, it seems like the majority of the criticism is old, and the praise generally much newer. IronDuke 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, looking it over, what praise are you referring to? The Israel media watch award? Also, I just looked at the al-Durrah article and I don't quite see how Shahaf is vindicated. Instead, it seems to go back and forth about whether accusations can be made public, not about their validity. Is that right? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about vindication... am I reading something wrong? There is the Israel media watch award, but I think more important than that is his being quoted by Fallows in a highly-influential piece, on 60 minutes, and in a book by a reasonably well-known author. AFAIK, none of these people refer to his theories in the negative manner some were cast very early on. They do not say "Shahaf is the greatest physicist who ever lived," but they do seem to rely on him as a worthy source promoting an intriguing hypothosis -- not as a crank in any way. IronDuke 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just assumed that the praise would serve to vindicate him. But I see what you mean, he is treat in a legit manner, and from this our readers can infer a certain kind of praise or at least acceptance of him. That's fair enough. But the negative response to him (and Samia) probably should be added to the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't aware that Haaretz was Israel's most prestigious newspaper(?) On this article they are placed in two surveys at numbers 12 and 14, in both surveys, between TheMarker and Sports5(!). Regardless, ridicule by Gideon Levy (which is a recent issue due to his controversial journalistic standing) is not exactly official newspaper opinion. He has, in fact, professed in an interview that his opinions are at a minority at Haaretz.

• Source: סיכום המפגש עם העיתונאי גדעון לוי, מתאריך 26.2.2002
  • Translation: - Is it correct that you are left alone at Haaretz with these opinions of yours?
    - I'm not alone at Haaretz but I am at a minority, but it is ok. Original: - אם נכון שבהארץ נותרת בודד במערכת בדעותיך אלו?
    - אני לא בודד בעיתון הארץ, אם כי אני במיעוט, אבל זה בסדר.

I'd appreciate Gideon Levy criticism from Haaretz be omitted due to his highly controversial nature. I have no qualms in regards to the Jpost article though, it is a perspective that I expanded upon before this article became a war zone.

With respect, Jaakobou 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Jaakobou, I don't believe I cited the Levy opinion piece, so maybe your comment should go in that thread, above? Also, Haretz is a reliable source and used extensively. You could try objecting to its WP use at the RS noticeboard, though I don't think it'd be worth your time. Thank you for your and your comment on the JPost. W/respect back at ya, HG | Talk 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliability vs. Levy's op-eds: I have no major qualms about Haaretz's reliability. I don't, however, believe Levy's op-eds should be used to criticize people he disagrees with (the majority of Israel, Haaretz staff inclded) on an encyclopedia. Btw, you gave no links to the articles, so it was impossible to make note of whether or not their content was written by Mr. Levy and thus, I've made a comment to make sure that my concern is duly noted.

Extra input from Haaretz: I made a quick look into one of the articles, written by Adi Schwartz (i.e. not Levy), and it makes note of the removed investigator but neglects to mention he was not a leading figure in the investigation and was removed because he couldn't perform the needed tasks. Regardless, "Meir Danino, who holds a doctorate in physics and is the chief scientist at Elisra Systems" is noted in the article to agree with Shahaf's proposition regarding the al-Durrah incident.

With respect, Jaakobou 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, J, it's just that Nexis requires a subscription and I don't have other links (but I do mention if byline is given). There are various comments about Shahaf's work in that Schwartz article you cite, thanks, and I'd think that they may be germane to this article, as you suggest. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel Media Watch award

Hi. I'm having trouble confirms the praise/info on this award. The link to the website didn't disclose the info nor did my google search. If it's a notable award, why isn't it covered better? How good is the IMW and does it need some qualifier? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of links can be found through here and here.

• ICE News
• NFC news
• Omedia
• Haaretz

Cheers, Jaakobou 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Those work really well for me. Why don't you pick a couple of the them as footnotes? Perhaps people will complain about the language, but it's better than a non-working English link. Thanks very much, Jaakobou. HG | Talk 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles