| Revision as of 05:52, 11 April 2007 editKazakhPol (talk | contribs)8,391 edits →Awards section: hmm← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:42, 17 November 2024 edit undo750h+ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,647 editsNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=yes|disclaimer=no}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
|living=no |
|
|
|
|action1date=22:13, 25 January 2010 |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1 |
|
|priority=Low |
|
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|needs-infobox=no |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=340010517 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|maindate=30 September 2021 |
|
|
|otd1date=2023-09-30|otd1oldid=1177788526 |
|
|
|otd2date=2024-09-30|otd2oldid=1248563600 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|living=no|listas=Al-Durrah, Muhammad|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject HOP}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{Troll warning}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Photography|history=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views}} |
|
|
{{WPMH|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Not censored}} |
|
|
{{ARBPIA}} |
|
|
{{Notable citation|Goldman, Lisa. , ''+972'', October 11, 2010.}} |
|
|
{{tmbox|text=Sources for the development of this article can be found at ].}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(92d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = page |
|
|
| author = Phyllis Chesler |
|
|
| title = Palestinian Lies Never Die; Misplaced Pages and Google Keep Them Alive |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/04/27/palestinian-lies-never-die-wikipedia-and-google-keep-them-alive/ |
|
|
| date = 2020-04-27 |
|
|
| quote = Although Google continues to automatically link to Misplaced Pages, it eventually included the fact that a controversy about what happened to al-Dura actually exists. However, the controversy section appears at the very end of the Misplaced Pages entry, long after the false narrative has had its way with most readers. |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 2020-04-29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| subject2 = article |
|
*] |
|
|
|
| author2 = Omer Benjakob |
|
|
| title2 = The Second Intifada Still Rages on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-second-intifada-still-rages-on-wikipedia-1.9201705?lts=1601639306928 |
|
|
| date2 = 2020-10-01 |
|
|
| quote2 = As the debate swelled, it was decided that the entire Muhammad al-Durrah incident would be afforded an article of its own – a common solution on Misplaced Pages, meant to quell the growth of contentious articles. |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 2020-10-02 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
== 2 disputed links == |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
I removed two links from the article, both with specific rationales. ] reverted me, explaining only that he was doing so "for obvious reasons", and without addressing my rationale at all, so I have removed these again, pending discussion. |
|
|
|
| style = background: #DFE8FF; |
|
|
|
|
|
| text = As this is a featured article about a complex and sensitive issue, before making a substantive change to it—one that might reasonably attract an objection—please consider doing the following: |
|
# I removed the internal link ] from the "see also" section. Note that ] is linked, and while I find the term offensive, I have not challenged it. However, as I wrote when removing this, "If Hizbollywood is not simply a synonym for Pallywood, then it is off topic, if it is a synonym it is redundant." No one has even alleged that ] were in any way involved in this incident. |
|
|
|
#Post the proposed edit on this talk page as you would like to make it, and say where in the article you're proposing to place it. |
|
# I removed , ], ], which, as I remarked above and remarked again in my edit summary, is a ''World Net Daily'' rehash conveying as gospel truth someone's column in the ''Los Angeles Times'' claiming that the incident was a fraud. It adds nothing except noise. It is a weak tertiary source. - ] | ] 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#Post details of the source (name, title, publication, date, page number if appropriate), and if it's offline, type up here what it says. Consider posting what the source says even if it's online. |
|
|
|
|
|
#Explain why you feel the edit would improve the article. |
|
Without answering me here, KazakhPol has again restored the latter link with the comment "rv whitewashing". I have no idea why he is questioning my motives, and, for what it is worth, I resent it. (For what it's worth, to the best of my memory, I have no significant history with this user, but I presume I do with some of the other contributors to this article, and I think they can vouch for me not being one to whitewash things.) I think this further reversion without discussion amounts to edit-warring. And I still think this link does not meet the standards of ]. Will someone else please step into this situation so that this does not become a personal matter? Thanks. - ] | ] 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another. |
|
:No, I just in general am tired of you people trying to censor the theory of what happened that you dont like, since it puts into question your entire perspective on the overall issue. Since the article is already full of whitewashing, hence the TotallyDisputed template, I figure it's best to maintain its current, dissapointing state rather than make it worse. ] 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#Open each of your suggestions in a new section. |
|
:* And ''I'm'' tired of being on the receiving end of your ''ad hominem'' remarks such as "…you people trying to censor …since it puts into question your entire perspective". I have not been responding in kind. I am asking you to stop. - ] | ] 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#If a change you make is reverted, please do not restore it unless there is a clear consensus in support of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please keep your proposals and any responses succinct. Many thanks. |
|
::Jmabel, I'm not keen on that website and I wouldn't use it as a source, but as an external link, I think it probably does meet the standards. However, I stand to be corrected or persuaded because I know very little about it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
You donät think it's a bit undue weight to add links that support fringe theories? // ] |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Muhammad al-Durrah incident}} |
|
|
|
|
:Can you find verifiable and reliable sources that support the notion that alternative viewpoints are fringe theories? I think such links are appropriate, provided that the current too-long list of external links gets separated into logical subsections, such as historical accounts, criticism, alternative viewpoints, whatever. If the "alternative viewpoints" subsection gets too long, then links should be cut out, especially redundant duplicate viewpoints, blogs, discussion forums, editorials in vanity publications, etc. -] 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Um, I think you have things in reverse. It is not necessary to provide reliable sources that establish alternative viewpoints are fringe theories. Rather it is necessary to establish that an 'alternative viewpoint' it not a fringe theory by providing multiple reliable sources of a resonable caliber. People can't be expected to look into every single wacky theory out there and write that it is a fringe theory. ] 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also while I haven't looked at the site extensively I think I agree with Jmabel on this one. If the site is simply mentioning a theory from a reliable source that we already discuss, and it is not suitable as a reliable source, it has no merit as an external link. If the site is about the theory we already discuss but covers it in significantly more detail, then there might be merit, the site would need to be analysed more carefully. If the site is discussing a theory we don't mention, there is no merit to include it in EL. Unless the theory is mentioned in the article, there is no merit IMHO to include external links which discuss other wacky theories unless the site is (resonably) unbiasedly summarising the theories that exist. ] 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Undue weight == |
|
|
|
|
|
As per ] we should not give undue weight to a handfull of far out theories regarding what happened. We should give the story and then have a breief mention about the controversies. Just as the article about Earth deals with the theory of the flat Earth. // ] |
|
|
:When there is as much evidence that he was shot as there is that the earth i snot flat, you'll have a point. Until then, what we have is a highly questionable film, by a protagonist who has retracted parts of his accompanying testimony, contrasted with several serious documentaries by the likes of German Television. if anything, it is ] to claim he was shot based on specious propaganda claims. ] 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Liftarn. The article should reflect how this was debunked as a scam. The theory that Durrah is dead is a fringe theory. ] 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Get real! A handfull of propagandaists have claimed it was staged. The rest of the world agrees he was shot dead. Don't let the tail wag the dog. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
: A handfull of propagandists (including Liftarn) have claimed it was real. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Please avoid ad hominem attacks and stay civil. // ] |
|
|
:::telling other editors to "Get Real", and then complaining about civility is a case of ]. ARD Television is not " A handfull of propagandists" ] 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ARD Television is not used as a source in the article. Instead IsraelInsider is used as a secondary source. // ] |
|
|
:::::Are you denying that ARD produced such a documentary? Are you alleging that the claims about the documentary source to IsraelInsider are false? ] 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I don't know if they did or not. Anyway IsraelInsider are not claiming the whole thing was staged. Just that it is a "high probability" that he wasn't killed by an Israeli bullet. As far as I cen tell no reliable source have stated the boy wasn't killed. // ] |
|
|
::::::: You don't know ? Well how about doing some research, before making POV edits to the article, then?. Start here: ] 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that Isarig should bring up the documentary that aired on German televesion, since the director of the documentary in question (Esther Shapira) has stated unequivocally that she believes al-Dura was killed that day. Granted, she believes he most likely killed by Palestinian, not Israeli, gunfire, but nonetheless she does not dispute that he was killed. Neither does James Fallows, or Denis Jeambar, or Daniel Leconte, dispute that al-Dura was killed. I don't believe the article should state as fact that al-Dura was killed by Israeli gunfire; there is room for reasonable doubt on that point. But all the serious journalistic accounts report that he was killed during an exchange of gunfire between IDF forces and Palestinian shooters. The theory that al-Dura was not killed, and the whole incident was staged, should be treated in Misplaced Pages in the same way as we do ], that is, we can have an article that presents them without suggesting that they deserve as much attention as the consensus view. To say that al-Dura was "apparently" killed by gunfire, or put "alleged" in front of the word "shooting" wherever it appears, goes against the accepted ] standards, since it suggests that there is serious doubt on the matter by journalists, when in fact there isn't. ] 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Agree, it has to go as no reliable source say anything else than he was killed (exactly how is in dispute). We don't say "His alleged death" in the ] article even if there are people who beleive he's alive. // ] |
|
|
:: Some people will believe anything but there is a huge difference here. In case of Elvis, I am sure there is some documentation. Is there a reliable source in case of al-Durrah? ←] <sup>]]</sup> 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Plenty! What about BBC? "Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead" // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: A good example of an allegation by a biased, sensationalist and inaccurate news source that ate the crow too many times (see http://www.bbcwatch.com) Anything better? ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: BBC are a very reliable and much respected source. BBC have a strong integrety and doesn't swing with the popular opinion and it's only natural that some people have a problem with that. I don't think a peronal webpage (like http://www.bbcwatch.com ) is a reliable source, but I do think the BBC is. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlantic also has a lengthy article about this issue, in which many questions are raised about the authenticity of the incident. This is a really tricky problem - if this boy was actually killed (under any circumstances) it would be horrible to deny it; if he wasn't killed, it would be horrible to perpetuate a falsehood. But this is one of those things where if one aspect is in question, everything could potentially fall apart. "Alleged" does not imply something is true or untrue. We should be able to work this out. --] 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Unless a reliable source states he lives (or never existed) the article should not say "alleged". We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" or "Elvis is allegedly dead" even if some people have a different opinion. // ] |
|
|
:: We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" becuase there is plenty of scientific evidence, including simple observations you can do at home, that show this is not the case. We don's say "Elvis is allegedly dead" becuase there is plenty of reliable evidence, including an autopsy report, that he is dead. When similar evidence - e.g, an autopsy report, becomes available for al-Durrah, we will drop the "alleged" part here. Until then, we have Palestinian propaganda that alleges his death without any proof. ] 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As I've read quite a bit about this matter, what I'm left with is a sense of bewilderment and confusion. It might be simpler for everyone if this were a tragic incident of a boy and his father caught in the crossfire and all that we were left with was a dispute over ballistics; but as it is, there are serious questions as to whether there really was a Mohammad al-Dura; whether the person on the film was killed at all; etc. There simply are too many reasonable questions about all this to simply assume that what was originally reported was true. I'm not saying that it wasn't true, but there's no reason to be confident one way or another. --] 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Well, there are a lot of people who have questions about the Hollocauset as well for simmilar (but opposite) reasons. So far '''no reliable source''' have stated the boy didn't die, nor that he never existed. // ] |
|
|
:::::So you think the evidence that the boy was shot is equivalent to the evidence of the Holocaust's existence? I think we're just about done here, then. ] 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I'm just saying that some people dubt thing, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen and per ] such fringe opinions should not be given undue weight. // ] |
|
|
::::::: And I've already explained to you the difference between a belief in Flat Earth, or a belief in "Elvis lives" (and now, denial), and a belief that Al-Durrah was not killed. These events do not stand on equal footing from an evidence perspective. ] 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: From a ] standpoint we actually have ''better'' sources for that Elvis lives, the flat Earth and that nobody died during WW2 than we have for that he never dies. // ] |
|
|
:::::::::Really? what would those ] be, for the claim that 'nobody died during WW2'? ] 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: Ok, a bit overstated, but you get my meaning. No ] says the boy didn't die (or never existed). There is some different opinions on exactly ''how'' he died, but nobody dubts he did die. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
===interesting related linkage=== |
|
|
* http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/017/913.html (head investigator stating he believes the boy is alive) |
|
|
* http://rotter.net/cgi-bin/forum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&forum=gil&om=5103&omm=26&viewmode= (co-investigator claiming that the statement was not backed up strongly enough (i.e. no smoking gun despite the fathers faltering) and that timing about the findings relating to the shooting being released was more important - scroll down, there's also english in there) |
|
|
* http://stage.co.il/Stories/359928 open letter to first investigator about the timing effects of the pallywood defamation tactic and the way israel did not handle it well. |
|
|
* http://www.faz.co.il/thread?rep=69221 (nachum shachaf explaining why he believes the boy is not dead.) |
|
|
* on a side note, head investigator has been accused of a tendancy to believe in conspiracies, co-investigator hasn't been accused of such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
* just linkage, i don't have a solid opinion (as of now) on the 'alleged' designation on the death. (i think it fits on the being shot though). ] 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:1) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Head investigator of what? |
|
|
:2) Looks like an online forum. Those are generally not very reliable sources for anything. |
|
|
:3) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Open letter from who? |
|
|
:4) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. URL makes it look like an online forum. |
|
|
:So in conclusion thay re not to any use at all either way. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::], apparently you can't read much information on this event by any Hebrew sources, i.e. you cannot read the investigation reports (i did not find a link to them as of this moment) or any inside written commentary about them unless it was translated allready. perhaps you're not the most fitting editor for disputes on this article which is very much Israel related. ] 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Per ] ''"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."''. You should try to find a translation (or some online translator, I think I can handle a bit weird grammar) somewhere. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sources in foreign languages can be used in Misplaced Pages if there is no English language alternative, but the editor introducing foreign-language sources should provide an Engligh translation (his or her own if necessary). If there is a dispute about the translation that can be handled later by requesting assistance from bilingual Wikipedians not involved in the current dispute. However, before we even get to that point, there is a more fundamental issue to address, which is whether any of web sites mentioned by Jaakobou meet the ] standard in the first place, regardless of language. I'm not sure he is claiming that they do, he is just saying they are "interesting". By the way I would like to point out to Jaakobou, with regard to his comment about who is a "fitting editor", that this article is very much Palestinian related as well. Are all the contributers to this article fluent in Arabic? ] 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Some ''reliable'' sources to consider: |
|
|
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/954703.stm "The Israeli army has admitted that it was probably responsible for killing a 12-year old-Palestinian boy /../ Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead" |
|
|
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/955499.stm "Muhammad was shot dead by Israeli soldiers" |
|
|
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm "Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead" |
|
|
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,6191,377275,00.html "Mohammed is dead and his father severely wounded" |
|
|
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,376639,00.html "the evidence was pointing to a still more chilling conclusion: that the 12-year-old boy and his father were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers" |
|
|
* http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20001225/poy_mohammed.html "In any case, Mohammed al-Durra already lay quietly with a fatal wound to his abdomen." |
|
|
* http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/ai.nsf/afec99eadc40eff880256e8f0060197c/64f59dc0b44c5fef80256aff0058b1b8/$FILE/ch2.pdf "Muhammad died and his father was severely injured." |
|
|
and so on... Looking at the list os references I find some sources that are not very reliable like blogs, personal websites, biased political organisations and so on. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''OMG!!!''' did you just cite both BBC, the Guardian as reliable sources in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict??? i'm beyond being unamused. will cite examples of media bias by those sources a little later. |
|
|
|
|
|
small sample: .. final death toll of the event was 28 with 16 children but don't let that confuse the guardian who neglect even a retraction. (same with the BBC (4 out of 6 winner of HR bias media source between 2000-2006) and times.. you should really inspect honestreporting.com sometime). |
|
|
|
|
|
In any event, what would they do other than to reiterate the same as everybody did disregarding factuality issues? see "jenin massacre syndrome". ] 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. In fact, the IDF rushed to take responsibility for it, since they always get in trouble if they hesitate. It's the number of reliable sources since then that have raised unsettling questions. If the incident was staged, the boy was either killed deliberately by those who staged the incident, or else the death was fake. And if it was staged, and the boy was an actor, why would he appear under his own name? It's one of those things that if you poke a hole in one aspect of this, there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. --] 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So far no one has addressed the article from Time magazine that Liftarn found. So let's have it, Jaakobou, Leifern, Humus Sapiens, and Isarig: Is Time magazine a reliable source, or isn't it? A simple yes or no answer, please. ] 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Of course it has been answered- right above your post - Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. But, since then, many questions arose, and there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. ] 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, my question has not been answered. I asked whether or not you consider ] a reliable source. Not the Guardian, not the BBC, but Time magazine. Now please answer the question that was asked. ] 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::time is for the most part reliable, on this al-dura event, everyone was fooled.. even israeli channel 1 aired that he was killed... however, things have changed since then and many different reports have been aired. in any event, i wouldn't take the words of either BBC or guardian on most any story... last note, i was confused for a bit with "time mag" and a few other sources with the word "times" in them.. for example: the Los Angeles Times giving space to Saree Makdisi to ask "Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?"... gotta love hidden agendas. ] 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The situation is this: We have reliable sources saying he is dead. We have no reliable sources saying he is not dead. Ergo: The article should say he is dead. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
: Some news sources are sometimes reliable for reporting news. People thought this was news and then found that it is a hoax. There is a lot of confusion, deliberate and not, surrounding this tragedy. So far the evidence is inconclusive. Ergo: don't push one POV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Do you have a ] that says it was a hoax? If not it shouldn't be in the article. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Concerns regarding another ] hoax definitely exist. A few links at the top of this section may help. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I asked for ], not conspiracy theories posted on online forums. Misplaced Pages is an '''encyclopedia''', not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is '''attributable''' to a reliable published source, not whether it is ]. ] the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::here's another RS, backing up the other links i gave this one is from a respectable israeli news site. I think we should keep the issue of his death without any phrasing that's conclusive... i don't like either "killed" or "allegedly killed"... "reported as" is a phrasing i can live with. ] 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: You haven't managed to find a transation or translator? "reported as" could be a sollution altough I would prefer a source (in English) for the claim that he's not dead. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
offtopic, please don't push guardian articles as "WP:RS" per my link from above (there's more blatant examples)... it would be hard to find an english source on this matter because the guy (head researcher) waited so long until he finally published his piece that no news source gave a rat's ass (pardon the language) about something more than 6 months ago... however, there seems to be allready enough linkage in hebrew to show validity to the researchers POV (he doesn't have cutting proof, apart from the father fumbling saying the boy isn't dead and later saying "he meant that he's not dead because he's with allah" (lol?)... and people in the market calling some kid "al dura" for looking spot on like the boy). ] 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: An automatic translation would do, but yes, an English newspaper source would indeed be better. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I found http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,403831,00.html that is usable. It says the second investigation "casts serious doubts that the boy was hit by Israel defence forces' fire". // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''my lord''', this woman calls herself a journalist? everything about that article screems of "i decided allready who's the good guys and who's the bad guys... and israel clearly "washes its hands" from something it has done". |
|
|
::in my opinion we should have no more usage of the guardian without stating "the guardian, an anti-israel magazine claims" that... i suggest we use it as an example to standard pro-palestinian reaction, disregarding the investiagtion matter and accusing anyone who doesn't support the cause of being bais to a fault. |
|
|
::we should probably just not use it at all. ] 09:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Do you have a ] that ] is "an anti-israel magazine"? // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::go read the ] article, see what refs you come up with (I think a journalist who quits stating that as his reason is a good start). ] 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Any honest publication reporting on the middle east situation has at one time or another been accused of anti-Israel bias. It really says more about the acuser than the acused. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Please don't disregard how a few certain publications have recieved far more criticism than others, i.e. BBC, The Guardian, Robert Fisk and The Independentand and Adnan Hajj and Reuters. ] 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Yes, and? They may be criticised becasue they are right, not because they are wrong. Thet Robert Fisk is criticised is no wonder. He have stated he doesn't believe in being unbiased. He sais that is he reported about a bus of Israeli civilians being blown up by a suicide bomber he would make the story about the victims, not give half of the article to allow the terrorists to give their side of the story. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::In this case they are criticised for numerous times of getting things wrong *shrug*. ] 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to ] external links should be kept to a minimum, but this article has a long list. I intend to cut it down a bit. First all the sites used as references could be cut. Also some sites are linked more than once. Again an opportunity for some cuts. Then we'll see how many are left. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
: start with the guardian and move on to the BBC. ] 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'll do that. Some links may also be moved to ODP so we have one link instead of plenty. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::placing of 6 bias links in one to hide them is unnaceptable. ] 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Actually it's more than acceptable, it is reccomended per ] where it says ''"Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics."''. So please stop deleting valid content. That may be considered as vandalism. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::'''This is ridiculus''', the first link in that biased array is some artistic letter written by a '''blogger(!)''' in the name of "Palestinian martyrs". I'm not interested in a revert war here, and I request you remove this link from external links. ] 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: And? It's a list of links and you can add links to it if you want. Using ODP for external links is in a Misplaced Pages ] so it should definitely stay. Anyway, I've added a tag as well. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tag == |
|
|
Could we leave the tag off, please? The article was tagged for ages by someone who believed the boy was alive, and who felt this article didn't represent that well enough, and it was only removed recently. Now it's back on from someone who believes the boy is dead. Maybe that means we're getting something right, I don't know, but please work on the article rather than disfiguring it again. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Removing the tag will not make the controvery go away. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::What is the controversy? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Plenty! Undue weight to unreliable sources, unsourced statements, serios POV issues... // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Can you list the particular issues? This should be a relatively easy article to write up. Stick closely to what the sources say; and use only good, mainstream sources wherever possible, and if not mainstream they must be very credible. Which bits exactly are the sticking points? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see ]) yet the ] article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using ] the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on... // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rewrite needed== |
|
|
The article actually needs a complete rewrite. For example, if you look at the section called Incident as reported (or whatever the exact words are), we don't actually talk much about the incident at all. Each section seems to consist of just a chronological mixture of whatever we noticed in the media at the time of editing. It probably needs to be completely restructured. The difficulty with doing this is that certain editors revert almost any changes that are made. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, could whoever is changing refs to citation templates, please stop. See ]: templates shouldn't be added without prior consensus and especially not to refs that are already formatted, as these were. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==BLP== |
|
|
See this article's entry on ] which I posted yesterday. If there's a dispute over whether the subject is still alive, the article needs to be treated in accordance with ] principles. I've asked for BLP noticeboard regulars to take a look at the article and provide some feedback. I'm not going to be able to get involved myself due to an imminent vacation, but it could do with some input from neutral outsiders. -- ] 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::There are neutral editors here, Chris, and please don't imply otherwise. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There are also some extremely un-neutral editors (see Jaakobou's comments above for a case in point) and a dispute that's been ongoing for a while. I simply think that this article could do with some input from people who haven't been involved previously in this article. -- ] 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I can only repeat that there are neutral editors here already, and your implication that there aren't isn't helpful. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::''']''', i consider that a personal attack, perhaps some type of response to my reaction to your "occupation" image editing.<sup></sup> I request you keep your future remarks on a more neutral basis as I don't see the problem/bias with my unhappyness about a blog talking in the name of the dead boy... or is it that you think the Guardian and BBC have not been criticised more than others in their coverage of this conflict? regardless, you should not point fingers (repetatively i might add<sup></sup>) like this, it is seriously counter productive. ] 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sources== |
|
|
Liftarn, could you list here which sources you think aren't reliable? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Many are obviously biased like Jewish World Review, Seconddraft.org, eretzyisroel.org, WorldNetDaily, CAMERA and so on. Some are clearly not reliable sources like eprsonal websites and blogs of persons with an agenda. I noticed that soem of your cleaning seems to have introduced ''more'' POV instead of less. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Which of my edits introduced more POV? |
|
|
|
|
|
::Bear in mind that some of the links are merely courtesy links, not the actual sources. For example, you changed an LA Times citation to Jewish World Review, but the latter was only hosting the article. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: But the link (and thus the source) was Jewish World Review, not LA Times so it should say so. It is very confusing when it says it is one source and then you follow the link and end up somewhere you wasn't expected. Either find the LA Times link or change it to Jewish World Review as they are the source used. // ] |
|
|
::::No, the source was the LA Times. Jewish World Review provided a courtesy link. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: No, please check it again. Read the URL. Go to the link. See what it says on the top. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::See what it says on the bottom: "© 2005, Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate". It was first published in the L.A. Times on September 9, 2005. The original link was www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter9sep09,0,7325494.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions, since archived. Other sources on the web also attribute it to the L.A. Times. Care to revise your opinion? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Yes, I have noticed that, but that doesn't change that the source used is ''not'' LA Time. LA Times is the source of the source. If you want to say the source is LA Times you should use the LA Times link. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::The source is the article. The article was first published in the LA Times. The website we link to isn't the source, but just a courtesy link. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: Then give the real source instead. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The real source is given. It's not even required that we link to the Jewish World Review reproduction, we only do so as a courtesy to the reader who might not have access to the L.A. Times archives. Please desist from ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The initial broadcast== |
|
|
Does anyone know of a good article describing the initial broadcast and what the roles of Abu Rahma and Enderlin were exactly? We call Abu Rahma a cameraman but he says he was a correspondent. Enderlin provided the voiceover, but says somewhere that it was Abu Rahma who said on the tape that the IDF had killed the boy. Abu Rahma says he interviewed the father on camera the next day in hospital, an interview that was broadcast, which normally a cameraman wouldn't do alone. It would be good to clear up the confusion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've started trying to tidy this. Not finished yet, so it may look a bit upside-down at the moment. There's too much unnecessary detail about who said what, and who's connected to whom, and a lot of it is unsourced, but I've done as much as I can for today. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Diagram== |
|
|
THe diagram image page says it was provided by Rahma in his affidavit to blah blah... Wasn't this the affidavit that he denied giving? In which case we should caveat the diagram. ''] ]'', 10:37 ] ] (GMT). |
|
|
|
|
|
:He didn't deny explicitly that he had given the affidavit, but France 2 denied on his behalf that he had made one of the statements within it. It's confusing, but that's all we know at the moment. We should say something in the cutline. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Fact template== |
|
|
Liftarn, please don't engage in ] with fact templates. You're asking for sources for things that are obviously correct. For example, if none of the footage contained a death scene (none of it, including the rushes), then obviously none of the distributed footage did. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: PLease don't accuse me of engaging in ] with fact templates. I'm aking for sources where it seems like they are missing. Please excuse me if I missed it somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's just that some of the requests seem a little pointless. You want a source saying that the 59 seconds shown did not include the scene of the boy's death. Well, you can look at it and see that it doesn't, or you can read the article and see the scores of articles that have been written about the controversy; clearly, if the first report had shown the boy's death, there would be no controversy. You asked that just over three minutes of footage was provided to other news organizations. Okay, I can find a source, but you could have found one too; this is a well-known fact. France 2 provided the footage for free; I can provide a source for that. None of the distributed footage showed the boy being killed; see my first point. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Why are you repeating links in Further reading that are already included in the Notes section? Why have you added the cameraman's statement to the Guardian to the reported shooting section, and not the cameraman's story section? Why did you add that only "some" people doubt the affidavit's authenticity, when the cameraman is reported to have denied making at least one of the statements within it? Who doesn't doubt its authenticity after that? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The statement was by Suzanne Goldenberg, not the cameraman. As for repeating links I think you can understand why it's easy to miss and I thought it was better to be safe than sorry. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::As for repeating links, why did you repeat only those and not all of them? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, the statement was by the cameraman. How would Suzanne Goldenberg know? She wasn't there. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: She watched the evidence and draw her own conclusions? Look, I only put in what the article says. // ] |
|
|
:::::Actually, she didn't; you drew conclusions for her. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Liftarn, would you mind not adding citation templates, please? It makes the text harder to read in edit mode, and they're fiddly to change; for example, if the byline needs to be added, or anything else. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: But they makes the reference list soo much better. // ] |
|
|
::::::I don't see how, especially when the syntax is too complex to use; that's why you messed up reference 7. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: I don't think the syntax is that complex. But if you don't like it then you don't have to use it. All I ask is that you do not change them back to simple refs. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::If you don't think the syntax is that complex, why did you mess it up? And what do you mean by "simple refs"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: To err is human... Why not fix it instead of reverting it. It reminds me of an editor who deleted an entire section because there was a spelling error in it. Simple refs like <nowiki></nowiki>. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::] says templates shouldn't be added without consensus, so please don't. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::: Ok then. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::Thanks. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Funeral== |
|
|
It would be good to something on the funeral, but I haven't been able to find much about it. Does anyone know of any articles that talk about it? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Tag== |
|
|
Liftarn, please don't keep adding the tag instead of discussing. Instead, please list in detail what you think needs to change for the article to become neutral. Bear in mind that any suggestions must be actionable within the policies. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I have done so, see above. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Can you say where specifically? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Under '''Tag''' for instance. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::All you said was: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::<blockquote>First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations#Opinion polls) yet the Apollo 11 article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using Occam's razor the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on...</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::(1) The article doesn't say he's alive. We only repeat what the sources say. (2) Which sources are unreliable? (3) The last two sentences are your original research. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Are these your only objections? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) No, the problem is that the article ''doesn't'' repeat what the sources say it goes to great lenghts to use words like "was reported", "appears", "reportedly" and so on instead of saying directly what the sources say. The article also give way to much space and credibility to conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
|
|
|
:That isn't a problem. That's how we're supposed to write, especially when the issue is contentious. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Which conspiracy theorists does the article give too much space to? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Using ] as a source for this article is like using ] as a source for an article about the Holocaust. |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's an absurd thing to say. He's an academic. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Seconddraft.org and Augean Stables are personal websites, WorldNetDaily.com and CAMERA have an obvious bias... (3) ] does not apply to talk pages. // ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most of the sources have a bias. What matters is whether they're reliable enough. I agree that WorldNetDaily isn't a good source, but I can't see where we use it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Can you please state explicitly which factual errors you feel are in the article? Also, please do not equate respected university professors like Richard Landes with convicted and jailed Holocaust deniers like David Irving; it is an egregious violation of ] and you could be blocked for it if you continue. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Liftarn, when you add a citation, could you please give all the information: byline, headline, place of publication, date of publication? Also, could people please watch the writing? Sentences like "At the day school was closed due to a general strike" need to be fixed. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Significance and neutrality== |
|
|
Is this really significant enough to merit inclusion in the article? |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Muhammad was in fifth grade and enjoyed school. His English teacher said he was an excellent English student. He also enjoyed swimming at Gaza beach and looking after his pet birds. On the day of the incident, the school was closed because of a general strike." ] 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, it's background about his life. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why does his swimming at Gaza matter, much less his pet birds? It seems obscure. ] 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We don't know much about him, and this is what ''The New York Times'' said, so we may as well include it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I dont think the TNYT should determine what is and is not notable. The fact that it was mentioned does not mean it automatically matters. ] 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I also question the neutrality of entitling the section "Al-Durrah's life" as this implies he has died. Since the only part of the section that is worthing noting deals with his family I would suggest the title "Al-Durrah's family." ] 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How does talking about his life imply that he died? Also, bear in mind that he probably ''did'' die. It's a minority POV that he didn't. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The content I quoted above talking about his life is not notable to merit inclusion. The argument I am making against the current section title is a different point based on the pov-implication that he died. The argument you are making, that the view that the incident was staged and he is still alive is a minority view, is valid but irrelevant because the section primarily talks about his family. I also argue that the other content in that section is, again, irrelevant. ] 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::KP, this article is swinging back and forth between your POV (the boy is alive and the incident as filmed was staged) and Liftarn's (the boy is dead and the incident as filmed was real). In fact, reliable sources indicate that the majority POV is somewhere in the middle: that the boy is dead, and that the incident was not staged but that his death was not actually filmed either; and that the journalists who filed the initial report seem not to have explained that clearly, to put it diplomatically. Therefore, all we can do is carefully report who said what. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Please bear in mind that there are BLP issues involved here. His family are real and alive, and it is very insulting to them to imply that he isn't dead. We can report reliable sources who say this, but we can't write the article as though we agree. The writing therefore has to be very careful. (And the last-but-one section isn't and need to be rewritten.) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::SV, I take your concerns about insulting his family very seriously. I would hate to have them read English Misplaced Pages and find that we do not mention al-Durrah's love for his pet birds and which beach he swam at. I can only pray they have not already looked. ] 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That attitude isn't helpful. If you are wrong and this incident happened as reported, it is absolutely heart-breaking, and we have to write this article with that in mind. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is "Al-Durrah's family" not a good title for the section? ] 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because the majority of the section is not about his family at all. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Writing== |
|
|
KP, this — "Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview" — doesn't actually mean anything. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Are you stating that it is a sentence fragment or that the content value is meaningless? It is not a sentence fragment. If it is of no value then remove it. Another user posted it. ] 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::You wrote it. It is wrong gramatically and was fine the way it was. Your tidying is actually introducing errors. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I was unclear. I did not add the following sentence: |
|
|
:"This interview was given to Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape." |
|
|
I did change that sentence to: |
|
|
:"Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview." |
|
|
The first sentence is in passive voice, the second is not. If my tidying is introducing errors, factual or grammatical, please identify them here so I can rectify my mistakes. How is it wrong grammatically? Are you asserting that it is a sentence fragment? I would disagree if that is what you are saying. ] 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is nothing wrong with using the passive voice. I've explained this to you many times before. The correction you made introduced an error — people don't receive interviews. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Passive voice should be avoided as much as possible, as other users have stated in the past, on your talkpage. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of "gave" in this instance. Was this interview "given" to Rahma in the sense that he interviewed the person in question, or did he physically receive it? I interpreted it as he physically received it. If he conducted the interview then neither "given" nor receive" make sense in this context. ] 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Passive voice should ''not'' be avoided as much as possible. That's simply false. There are times when active is better, and times when passive is better, and judging which is which is part of what it is to be a good writer. Do you have a source for your "passive is always bad" claim? And what do you mean about him physically receiving the interview? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You have made the argument that the sentence as it is now is grammatically incorrect. I am making the argument that avoiding passive voice is ''preferable''. Did Rahma receive a tape of the video (physically) or was he "given" the interview in the sense that he interviewed Jamal? ] 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::He conducted the interview and filmed it, so who would he have received the tape from? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::KhazakhPol, what is wrong with the passive voice, and why do you insist on replacing a perfectly good and meaningful sentence with a meaningless one? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My username is KazakhPol, not KhazakhPol. Passive voice should be avoided as explained here. Jayjg, I would ask that instead of misspelling my username and asking me a rhetorical and condescending question, implying I intentionally posted meaningless content, you show me some respect and civility as I have showed SlimVirgin. ] 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::If you didn't intentionally post meaningless content, then why did you do so? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Could you please show us the source of your "passive is bad" belief, because you are always removing the passive voice, and it often leaves the sentence worse than befor you edited it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the source I already provided, for other sites arguing that passive voice should be avoided, see , , , and . ] 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You need to read your own sources. For example, "The passive voice is useful under certain circumstances; for example ... if the receiver of the action is more important ("The Emperor was assassinated last night")." That's exactly how it was being used here. We were discussing the interview, and that was our focus. Therefore, "the interview was conducted by X" is much better for flow than to abruptly switch the focus to "X conducted the interview." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wording of the third paragraph== |
|
::KP, of yours suggests you were previously editing that section without having read it. And what do you mean by "interesting" that I didn't have it in the body of the text? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Some of the wording in the third paragraph is a bit off. |
|
::All five sources say passive voice should be avoided whenever possible. I also find it hard to see how Rahma, a journalist, is more important than Jamal, who was directly involved in the incident. The answer to my earlier question regarding whether he conducted the interview rather than simply receiving it is "yes." This certainly begs the question as to why other editors felt this was not worth mentioning in the body of the article, or why his swearing he conducted the interview in an affidavit matters. ] 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Over the months and years that followed, commentators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.</br> |
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"French journalists who saw the raw footage confirmed that France 2 had cut a final few seconds in which Muhammad appeared to lift his hand from his face; they acknowledged that he had died, but said the footage alone did not show it. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could be sure who fired the shots."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying ] was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way: |
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Postage stamps in the Middle East carried the images; one of the images was visible in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
Unless it's just me who can't find any prominent media attention for this... ]? ] (]) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 2 October 2020 == |
|
Just in case it anyone forgot, this sentence: "This interview was given to Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape," which was there before I started editing, is impossible to understand. ] 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Page moved'''. <small>(])</small> ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
:I didn't mention it in the body of the article for two reasons: first, the background section comes before we explain how the cameraman filmed the incident, so it felt a little upside down to mention his interview the next day with the father; secondly, and more importantly, I wanted not to imply that the two had cooked up the story, and I felt that by highlighting who conducted the interview (the first journalist to reach the father), there was a danger of that. On the other hand, I felt it was important and shouldn't be left out entirely. Therefore, I went for the middle ground and added it to a footnote. |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd really appreciate the assumption of good faith here. When I added all that material, I tried to steer a middle course between the Pallywood theories, which assume it's all faked, and the initial reports, which assume it's all real. Striking that balance isn't easy. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Especially when your edits are being thwarted by a non-native English speaker who insists that al-Durrah's death was faked. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah}} – Since the boy was killed, this is the proper title. ] (]) 02:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
Thwarted, aye? Jayjg, I'm not a native speaker of English? Really? I guess that means I speak ]n. ] 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<small>—'''''Relisting.''''' ] <small>(please ] on reply)</small> 11:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
:::] forces me to assume many things about you, including that you are not a native English-speaker; the alternative is too disturbing to contemplate. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Neutral''' on moving the article's main title header to ], but would '''support''' move to ]. This article appears under ], where the majority of entries use the form "Shooting of..." Even if there is no consensus that Muhammad al-Durrah was killed by shots fired by members of law enforcement, there is agreement that his death was caused by gunfire. —] <small>] • ]</small> 03:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
::SlimVirgin, that's a pretty poor explanation. On the other hand you don't ''really'' have to explain yourself. No matter. I would argue the current phrasing of the paragraph is better than my previous version or past versions. Jayjg has chosen to revert my edits to this page, which, for the record, can be viewed here. Jayjg chose to revert with the edit summary "tidying." I would question the factual accuracy of that summary. ] 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: I'm fine with that. Other voters: feel free to indicate whether you prefer killing of or shooting of. ] (]) 11:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::It's more factual than the "tidying" edit summaries that preceded it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support move to ]''', a more typical formulation that has less of an implication of intent. —] (]) 22:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
::::Really? Reverting with the edit summary "tidying" is more factual than minor edits to sentence structure? I would disagree. Perhaps you should ]. ] 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' this request, YES, the boy was killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.--] (]) 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' per ]. The event is most commonly known as "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" and the article should stay at that title. (] · ]) ''']''' 01:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - I would prefer this page just be titled "Muhammad al-Durrah", but the proposed "]" is better than the current "]". Looking at Google books, ngrams, scholar, news, and web, I cannot find evidence that "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" is the common name, or even a common name, for this. I can find almost no examples in RSes, and those that I can find seem to be the product of ] originating in this article. "Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah" seems equally as prevalent, and I think it's a better choice than "incident", based on other "Killing of..." article titles for articles about homicides. "Incident" obscures what it is, and is euphemistic. However, I'm persuadable if there is evidence of common name. I notified ] and ] of this RM. I oppose "Shooting of" for reasons detailed at the concurrent discussion at ] (from whence I came). ]]] 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' – No evidence the current title is the clear COMMONNAME. Looking through GBooks, it appears both "Death of ..." and "Killing of ..." are more prevalent. I can't tell which of the two is more common. As an apparent homicide with video footage to confirm, this is should be titled as ''']'''. --- ]&]]) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "may not have been shot at all" == |
|
Among the accomplishments of Jayjg's reversion: |
|
|
*The militants who may have shot Durrah are referred to as "the Palestinians." |
|
|
*The identity of Jamal's interviewer is no longer mentioned. |
|
|
*The article now implies that the broadcasting of the tape ''internationally'', rather than what was depicted, led to international outrage |
|
|
*Run-on sentence in the third paragraph |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel the utter absurdity of the Israeli government conclusion that Muhammad al-Durrah may not have been shot, despite images of his corpse, his funeral, and examination of his corpse by doctors? I find his father's is quite apt: "Israel says my son isn't dead. He's not dead? Then bring him to me."''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I would argue my last version may be better. ] 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. Per ], "<i>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</i>". Therefore they ought to be able to present the living boy if they are claiming their well documented death was a hoax. Otherwise the claims look no better than ] pushed by ] et. al. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Awards section== |
|
|
Can anyone find a source for the section on rewards for the cameraman? I looked but have had no luck. If no one can find any sources I suggest someone removes it. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind the incident may have happened and do not want anyone to feel insulted... Maybe should we leave it up just in case... Who knows how Mrs. Amal might react... ] 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're out of order. Please be respectful of this, whether in the article or talk page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Out of order, eh? Kind of like this, eh? I dont have to be respectful of a fake or his fake mother... unless they get Misplaced Pages accounts. ] 05:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.
I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying Sandy Hook was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way:
Does anyone else feel the utter absurdity of the Israeli government conclusion that Muhammad al-Durrah may not have been shot, despite images of his corpse, his funeral, and examination of his corpse by doctors? I find his father's reaction is quite apt: "Israel says my son isn't dead. He's not dead? Then bring him to me."VR (Please ping on reply) 20:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
