| Revision as of 14:21, 8 September 2010 editLiftarn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,580 edits →On the "conspiracy theory" category← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:23, 10 September 2010 edit undoLibiBamizrach (talk | contribs)324 edits →On the "conspiracy theory" categoryNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| :::I'd agree ]. Unfortunately, when I've tried to make significant edits in the paste, there's been an army of editors cropping up shouting "It's a featured article. You can't change a featured article.". ] (]) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | :::I'd agree ]. Unfortunately, when I've tried to make significant edits in the paste, there's been an army of editors cropping up shouting "It's a featured article. You can't change a featured article.". ] (]) 14:16, 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. // ] (]) | 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. // ] (]) | ||
| **Like someone says above all conspiracy theories are fringe theories this is a silly argument to say that the category must go because it is fringe. Of course it is, that is what a conspiracy theory is. It should definitely stay this is a good example and helps people navigate on wikipedia. ] (]) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:23, 10 September 2010
| Skip to table of contents |
 | Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Note: Because 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another.
- Open each of your suggestions in a new section.
- 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.
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific proposal for a change, or is this just a rant? NickCT (talk) 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. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 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 its coverage 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ummmm... Ok. Do you have a suggestion for some kind of change or are you soapboxing? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have provided a link: -- ChrisO (talk) 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. NickCT (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're right - go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have provided a link: -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
On the "conspiracy theory" category
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)
- Not sure but for comparison Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin isn't in that category despite there being an entire Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories article (which is in a related category). Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Arent conspiracy theories almost always fringe? // Liftarn (talk)
- @Liftarn - To a certain point I agree. But some conspiracy theories are "more fringe" than others. For example, many people believe JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. Not many people believe the emergence of AIDs was a conspiracy to keep gay people down. The latter seems more "fringe" and less WP:NOTABLE than the former. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the inclusion of that cat is inappropriate. I remain concerned by the weight given to Karentsky in this article. His thesis and the court battles tha ensued should be covered in a spin off article and summarized here. The main story was the boy's death and not Karentsky complaints about Charles Enderlin's reporting. Tiamut 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree Tiamut. Unfortunately, when I've tried to make significant edits in the paste, there's been an army of editors cropping up shouting "It's a featured article. You can't change a featured article.". NickCT (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the inclusion of that cat is inappropriate. I remain concerned by the weight given to Karentsky in this article. His thesis and the court battles tha ensued should be covered in a spin off article and summarized here. The main story was the boy's death and not Karentsky complaints about Charles Enderlin's reporting. Tiamut 14:13, 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)
- Like someone says above all conspiracy theories are fringe theories this is a silly argument to say that the category must go because it is fringe. Of course it is, that is what a conspiracy theory is. It should definitely stay this is a good example and helps people navigate on wikipedia. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- FA-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles