| Revision as of 19:15, 17 September 2010 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm tweaked bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 09:18, 18 September 2010 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah incident/Archive 14.Next edit → |
| Line 40: |
Line 40: |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== Take away "Featured Article" == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article, from the first sentence, reads like propaganda. |
|
|
It should never have been granted "Featured Article" status. |
|
|
Mohammed al-Durrah was just one of at least 16 Palestinians killed in the first two days of an attack by Israel on civilians under their occupation. Nobody suggests the child was rioting, so "on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" is a deliberate distortion of his situation, including material that is completely irrelevant. No Israeli citizens in Israel were killed until November (B'tselem suggests 4 killed themselves in a booby-trapped car?) so the first retaliatory murder of murder may not have been until February of the following year. By which time over 300 Palestinians had been killed. Mohammed al-Durrah deserves a much fairer article, written by neutral outsiders not by anybody involved. ] (]) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have a specific proposal for a change, or is this just a rant? ] (]) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Take out the POV phrases "widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" in which MaD had no part. Then take out "caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces" for which there is no evidence offered. Take out "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility within three days" which is meaningless and looks like propaganda. No person neutral in regard to parties in this incident could possibly have ended up writing a version which reads so badly. Take away the "Featured article" status, which is undeserved. ] (]) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More press distortions == |
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that some English-language sources are claiming that a French court has recently ruled that the al Durrah case was "a hoax". However, this is just more of the distortion and flat-out lying that has characterised English-language reporting of Karsenty's litigation. AFP, which is where this story came from, is reporting nothing of the sort, as a look at demonstrates. I've created a separate section for this litigation - it's separate from the still-ongoing France 2 case - sourced to the French-language reporting. We need to be careful, as with the France 2 litigation, to follow the most reliable sources on this - the French media - rather than the ludicrously distorted accounts that have been propagated by English-language sources. -- ] (]) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ummmm... Ok. Do you have a suggestion for some kind of change or are you soapboxing? ] (]) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, should have provided a link: -- ] (]) 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I looked at your recent edit, and largely agree with it. Rereading this article, I don't understand why there is so much content about the "Philippe Karsenty litigation". This could probably be summarized and forked (if it even passes notability), especially considering the fact that this article is too long. |
|
|
:::Additionally, I'm a little concerned by tidbits like "The court heard that the boy put his hand to his forehad and moved his leg, after the cameraman had said he was dead, and that there was no blood on the boy's shirt". This sorta misrepresents the source and facts and really ought to be removed. ] (]) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm sure you're right - go for it. -- ] (]) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== On the "conspiracy theory" category == |
|
== On the "conspiracy theory" category == |
Please keep your proposals and any responses succinct. Many thanks.
Does anyone else feel the "conspiracy theory" category here is inappropriate? It seems to me that the conspiracy theories that might exist around this event constitute WP:FRINGE. Similar to the whole "Elvis was taken by aliens" thing. Is it even worth categorizing it as a real conspiracy theory? NickCT (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, moving out the conspiracy theories to their own article is something I have suggested in the past, but it has never managed to get accepted. // Liftarn (talk)
