Misplaced Pages

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:46, 11 September 2008 editN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Restrictions followup← Previous edit Revision as of 08:54, 11 September 2008 edit undoPalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 edits →Restrictions followupNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
::::Justifications have been presented. You just don't like them. The justifications are, again, that this page had been the site of continous edit-warring, BLP violations and gross incivility. The restrictions, which BTW, do not run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based, solved that problem. If you and other problematic editors were in any way remorseful, recognized your past mistakes and promised not to repeat them - there might be room for trying to see how it works w/o the restrictions. But everything I've seen so far indicates that as soon as those restrictions were lifted, you'd be back to your edit-warring, BLP-violating ways. ] (]) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Justifications have been presented. You just don't like them. The justifications are, again, that this page had been the site of continous edit-warring, BLP violations and gross incivility. The restrictions, which BTW, do not run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based, solved that problem. If you and other problematic editors were in any way remorseful, recognized your past mistakes and promised not to repeat them - there might be room for trying to see how it works w/o the restrictions. But everything I've seen so far indicates that as soon as those restrictions were lifted, you'd be back to your edit-warring, BLP-violating ways. ] (]) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I asked you to pull back from making sweeping accusations against good faith editors who do their best to abide by policy that they are "problematic" and "BLP-violating" and need - according to you - to show "remorse". Not only fundamentally inaccurate, but also incredibly self-regarding, and jaw-droppingly ironic given that you then proceed to complain about "gross incivility". Anyway, enough of all this childishness. There is no justification for the restrictions, as I have said, other than ''speculation'' about what ''might'' happen, based now it seems on your personal abilities as some sort of clairvoyant. Just so we do not forget what actually happened here - this article has long lingered here with about 50% of its material consisting of coverage of an obscure conspiracy theory which claims the whole event was staged and that the child is not dead. This theory has no serious purchase in any mainstream reliable source. I read pretty widely in the media and on international affairs and had never heard of this claim until I found the article on Misplaced Pages a while ago, and found links to the tiny number of blogs, forums and right-wing US op-eds where it was even mentioned, let alone endorsed. Then, in June, a related French court case gave a slight boost to one of the proponents of the theory, by confirming he had not libelled France 2 with his accusations against them over their footage, since he had the right to criticise. Immediately a whole slew of new SPA and IP editors descended from nowehere on this article, demanding inter alia that it say a French court had definitively ruled the incident was a hoax; that we remove al-Durrah's date of death; that every second sentence here be qualified with "allegedly"; that we remove references to the contemporary reports that covered his death; that even more space be given over to the theory etc etc. These editors of course were not "problematic" or "BLP-violating". Ahem. Other editors, myself included, tried to stem this assault as a blatant breach of everything from ] & ] to ] & ]. Inevitably this led to something of an edit war and we ended up with the restrictions. Most of those editors - on either side of that debate - have long gone. The court decision has now receded into the relatively recent past. The article is now stable (whether it's balanced is a separate, and irrelevant, debate for the purposes of the issue at hand). It should be open for editing in the same way as any other article is rathet then being subject to endless, arbitary, blanket restrictions. If genuine problems come up, they can be dealt with as they arise and using remedies tailored to deal with them. --] (]) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC) :::::I asked you to pull back from making sweeping accusations against good faith editors who do their best to abide by policy that they are "problematic" and "BLP-violating" and need - according to you - to show "remorse". Not only fundamentally inaccurate, but also incredibly self-regarding, and jaw-droppingly ironic given that you then proceed to complain about "gross incivility". Anyway, enough of all this childishness. There is no justification for the restrictions, as I have said, other than ''speculation'' about what ''might'' happen, based now it seems on your personal abilities as some sort of clairvoyant. Just so we do not forget what actually happened here - this article has long lingered here with about 50% of its material consisting of coverage of an obscure conspiracy theory which claims the whole event was staged and that the child is not dead. This theory has no serious purchase in any mainstream reliable source. I read pretty widely in the media and on international affairs and had never heard of this claim until I found the article on Misplaced Pages a while ago, and found links to the tiny number of blogs, forums and right-wing US op-eds where it was even mentioned, let alone endorsed. Then, in June, a related French court case gave a slight boost to one of the proponents of the theory, by confirming he had not libelled France 2 with his accusations against them over their footage, since he had the right to criticise. Immediately a whole slew of new SPA and IP editors descended from nowehere on this article, demanding inter alia that it say a French court had definitively ruled the incident was a hoax; that we remove al-Durrah's date of death; that every second sentence here be qualified with "allegedly"; that we remove references to the contemporary reports that covered his death; that even more space be given over to the theory etc etc. These editors of course were not "problematic" or "BLP-violating". Ahem. Other editors, myself included, tried to stem this assault as a blatant breach of everything from ] & ] to ] & ]. Inevitably this led to something of an edit war and we ended up with the restrictions. Most of those editors - on either side of that debate - have long gone. The court decision has now receded into the relatively recent past. The article is now stable (whether it's balanced is a separate, and irrelevant, debate for the purposes of the issue at hand). It should be open for editing in the same way as any other article is rathet then being subject to endless, arbitary, blanket restrictions. If genuine problems come up, they can be dealt with as they arise and using remedies tailored to deal with them. --] (]) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Dear Nick - I have tried to deal with each of the same issues below, and did so minutes before you posted this. I think it would be preferable if you struck the above (and this note). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
===Arbitary break=== ===Arbitary break===
Before this discussion is dragged into really gross (yet mysteriously unpunished) infringements of CIVIL, let's remember there is an important BLP issue at the core of the article as it's currently written. It concerns a top French journalist who has already been to court once over this affair. The fact that claims of tape-doctoring were found not to be libellous of him (on appeal) doesn't mean we abandon policy and side with his accusers, three non-qualified "conspiracy freaks" (quote from both body and headline of an op-ed in a normally right-wing ). The attack on Enderlin is backed by a highly partisan body (prone to extremist language) which - and this body is heavily implicated in a plot to subvert the work of this project (faux creation of admins). We're in grave danger of siding with abusers and even supporting their campaign. Before this discussion is dragged into really gross (yet mysteriously unpunished) infringements of CIVIL, let's remember there is an important BLP issue at the core of the article as it's currently written. It concerns a top French journalist who has already been to court once over this affair. The fact that claims of tape-doctoring were found not to be libellous of him (on appeal) doesn't mean we abandon policy and side with his accusers, three non-qualified "conspiracy freaks" (quote from both body and headline of an op-ed in a normally right-wing ). The attack on Enderlin is backed by a highly partisan body (prone to extremist language) which - and this body is heavily implicated in a plot to subvert the work of this project (faux creation of admins). We're in grave danger of siding with abusers and even supporting their campaign.

Revision as of 08:54, 11 September 2008

Skip to table of contents
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 iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Template:WikiProject HOP
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Archiving icon
Archives

Additional subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Conditions for editing

I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am placing some restrictions:

  • No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
  • Keep comments and edit summaries very neutral and civil.
  • Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
  • If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.
  • If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it.
  • If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
  • If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
  • Do not remove reliable sources
  • If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
  • Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, Elonka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page.

Uninvolved admins

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Inactive:

Other frequent editors on this page

Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article.

Inactive:


Admin log

Discussion

Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.

Related discussion

ChrisO has filed a Request for Comment concerning my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute, especially this one. Anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, is welcome to do so: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Link

I've noticed this publication by the now infamous Nahum Shahaf and figured some of the people on this page might be interested in tracking this information down.

Cheers, Jaakobou 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(personal comment:) I see this report as supporting the Three Bullets and a Dead Child documentary more than anything else. Jaakobou 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

fascinating for sure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's junk. Three obvious points: WTF is "MiddleEast.org" and why is it considered remotely credible? (The domain doesn't resolve and the kooky tag line and bad spelling don't inspire confidence.) Second, this is something we already know - it was reported at the time that al-Durrah was still alive when he was loaded into the ambulance (see under Muhammad al-Durrah#Injuries and treatment). Third, the spin put on it by Shahaf ("not a word about a dead boy, only injered" ) is quite dishonest: the report doesn't say anywhere that al-Durrah didn't subsequently die from his critical injuries. In fact, some of the very first press reports from the scene - by agencies other than France 2, I might add - said the same thing, that he was critically injured; it was only a bit later than the information was released that al-Durrah had died by the time he reached the hospital. This is just Shahaf cherry-picking and misrepresenting an early report to support his conspiracy theory, -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Question: First off, I tend to agree with ChrisO here; but I am interested if Talal had made any statement regarding his shouting "the boy is dead" when the boy was not dead. Jaakobou 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of - perhaps that was just his impression of the situation at that moment? As far as we know, he didn't have any interaction with the boy immediately after the shooting, so he would presumably not have known that al-Durrah was still (barely) alive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the above was ChrisO(?) My comment is: It was not as if he was the only one. You can hear some kind of chanting altogether of "the boy is dead" almost as if someone had given a signal to start it. And wasn't the chanting in English, come to think of it? Does that make sense under the circumstances? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get that information from, particularly the bit about "in English"? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Question 2: I just noticed that the driver who was shot dead is giving a statement. How is this possible? could there have been an error? Jaakobou 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's confusing isn't it? The man shot dead was first named by Reuters as Bassam al-Bilbeisi in a report of 30 September 2000 (incidentally, this was one of the very first reports of the shooting, before France 2 reported). He was the driver of the first ambulance to reach the al-Durrahs. A volunteer aboard the second ambulance, named Bassam al-Bilbays, was interviewed by Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian on 3 October 2000. The names are strikingly similar. I don't think we can draw any firm conclusions from it; perhaps Goldenberg got the name wrong, using the name of the dead ambulance driver for the live volunteer. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought too, that perhaps Goldenberg got the name wrong. But if so, doesn't it make one wonder what else she got wrong? And who tells us who died and who didn't? I notice that the article uses the Daily Mirror to make the claim that the boy was dead upon arrival at the hospital. Yet the Daily Mirror is known as a tabloid. Should we be using their information for such claims in such a disputed article? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Who knows what she got wrong (or right, for that matter)? We're hardly in a position to fact-check every statement made by the media. All we can do is present what's being said. As for the Daily Mirror, the format of the newspaper isn't a determining factor. (Even The Times is now a tabloid.) WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published sources with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Mirror meets all four criteria; it has a generally good reputation, certainly more so than some other British tabloids. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think TB is reffering to the format of the Daily Mirror, but rather to "tabloid" as in "a newspaper that tends to emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called "junk food news"". I don't know much about the DM, but tabloids (in the meaning above, regardless of the format), are generally not very reliable. Perhaps this needs to be discussed at WP:RSNCanadian Monkey (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest Bassam al-Bilbays to be a reporter's error. Open for suggestions on how to handle the issue of Goldenberg's (fairly) clear error. Jaakobou 10:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't mention the apparent error in the article itself, even as a footnote, as that would be based purely on our own views - a clear case of original research. The simplest and most wiki-friendly way of dealing with this would be just to delete the volunteer's given name from our article: "When the ambulance arrived, according to one of the volunteers, ..." That way we wouldn't perpetuate the apparent error and wouldn't get into the tricky waters of trying to correct it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be "corrected"...it shows the very real confusion surrounding the issue; it may jar to leave it in -- but it is there, and there is no real reason to take it out except to pretend to some consensus over what happened that we really don't have. I think it should stay. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I put up two questions at the RSN in relation to this article. One regarding the Jordan Times and the other regarding the Daily Mirror. Please feel free to weigh in there or here as well.

RSN: Jordan Times

RSN: Daily Mirror Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to sign the above and your RSN post. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
must be preoccupied...forgot to sign. Thanks for the reminder. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue with regard to the Daily Mirror was elucidating, though consensus was not reached. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous - you were told by multiple uninvolved editors that the Mirror was perfectly fine as a source but you chose to ignore the feedback you received. As Tyrenius said, "You came here for independent feedback. You got it. It wasn't what you wanted, so you're ignoring it, insisting on your own rhetorical and highly selective condemnation of the Mirror. The plain fact is that nothing you have said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable." -- ChrisO (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My answer to you Chris is to urge people to read the noticeboard themselves RSN: Daily Mirror and decide if Tyrenius' statement is an accurate reflection of all that was written there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah was "pronounced dead"

The reason I question the reliability of the Daily Mirror was because of this sentence in the article:

  • An ambulance took the boy and his father to the nearby Shifa hospital in Gaza, where Muhammad was pronounced dead on arrival.

where the DM is the single source we have for that. I am more than ever convinced that the DM is not a RS and certainly not for something that goes to the heart of this article such as the pronouncement of his death. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So that's what all this tedious nonsense was about? For the record the relevant sentence from the story is: "Jamal and Mohammed were rushed to the nearby Shifa Hospital in Gaza, where the boy was pronounced dead on arrival." It's not the only source that says he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The New York Times of October 2, 2000 ("A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence"), says the same thing: "Muhammad was buried soon after he was pronounced dead at the hospital last night", and the Daily Telegraph of October 01, 2001 ("Anniversary vigil for boy killed on camera") refers to "the doctor who pronounced him dead". I don't know why you regard this as in any way controversial. It's a doctor's job to pronounce someone dead. That has no bearing on where or when a person actually died - the doctor simply confirms the fact of the death. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My two cents on this are that it might be good to add another one/two from the existing source(s). Would help quiet concerns both by currently involved editors and future editors of wikipedia as well.
Cheers, Jaakobou 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I agree with ChrisO about the "pronouncing someone dead" issue. Jaakobou 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding another citation but really, if that's all Tundrabuggy was looking for, what was the point of putting everyone at the RSN through such a tedious and ill-informed discussion? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there no end to your incivility, Chris? 6SJ7 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly incivil to wish that Tundrabuggy had taken the simple route of asking for corroborating sources rather than trying to disqualify the third largest-selling newspaper in the UK on the basis of a very poor understanding of the difference between UK redtops and US supermarket tabloids. For everyone's sake, could you please take the simple route in future? I'm happy to provide citations, but I don't enjoy wasting time with pointless arguments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That's almost funny Chris. The last time I asked for corroborating sources you made much noise about how it was unnecessary and I was wrong-headed and dull for asking, lol. I am glad that you say you are willing to add a collaborating source this time, though. You are a fine one, however, to talk about taking the simple route and wasting people's time with pointless argument. The simple route would have been to quietly sit out your ban with grace and dignity rather than attempt to launch a thousand ships to attack the moderator. As we here in The States say, "That dog don't hunt." Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please folks, let's stick to discussing the article, not the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Restrictions followup

We are coming up on the 90-day mark since #Conditions for editing were placed on this article, per WP:ARBPIA. Many of the editors who were involved with the article at that time have moved on, and overall things seem much more stable now. So I would ask those editors who are still actively involved here: Do you think that the conditions are still needed? Or would you like to see them lifted or changed? --Elonka 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the article is seemingly stable because only one person has really made any edits here in the last month. Most other editors haven't simply "moved on", they've been driven off the article due to either your banning them, or due to their frustration at how the editing restrictions have given a particular viewpoint - which you have favoured, and whose supporters you have mentored and allied yourself with - licence to walk all over it. Hadn't you noticed? --Nickhh (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are currently no active bans on this article. The last one expired on August 28, which means that all editors are allowed to edit, in accordance with the current #Conditions for editing. --Elonka 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is more that you have laid a minefield for editors and it's completely unclear what will trigger your arbitrary conditions - no wonder people are deterred from editing (except Tundrabuggy of course, as you seem to have given him immunity to do whatever he wants). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think if you scan the history of Tundrabuggy's talkpage, you'll see that I've been supervising his edits closely, and have issued him plenty of cautions. As for "laying a minefield," well, different admins impose sanctions in different ways, and I can understand that some editors might be nervous that if they so much as tweak the grammar of a sentence, that an admin is going to swoop in and impose a ban without warning. It's a valid concern with some admins, but I don't think anyone needs to worry about me doing such a thing, because I always always give nudges and warnings first. If I'm gearing up to ban someone, I do my best to make this very clear to someone beforehand: I post to their talkpage, I give them diffs of specific concern, I explain what behavior needs to change, and I try to explain what consequences (such as a ban) may occur if the behavior doesn't change. My personal philosophy, is that even disruptive editors have the capacity to change, if they receive clear communication about what they're doing wrong. However, not all admins agree with that philosophy, and I have indeed seen cases where admins have issued bans or blocks without warning. I disagree strongly with this approach, and feel that it's a violation of WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings. To be clear: no one who is acting in good faith needs to worry that I will insta-ban them. I promise that I will always do my best to first give a clear "warning shot across the bow", except for extremely obvious, blatant, and urgent situations. For example, I may act more quickly when dealing with anons, or obvious sockpuppet/throwaway accounts. But for established editors, don't worry, if I'm inching towards the ban-hammer, you'll know about it ahead of time.  :) --Elonka 19:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that having a set of rules for editing one article that are different from the rules for every other Misplaced Pages article for more than a very brief period of time goes against the grain of Misplaced Pages. There's no emergency now—the conditions should be lifted altogether. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with both Nickhh and Sanguinalis. There's still many personal commentaries (rather than towards content) and still an ongoing ignoring the purpose of the encyclopedia. Editors which disrespect a well cited POV they reject while promoting the narrative POV they support while looking to escalate the conflict is improper and this atmosphere can easily turn to shit if uncontrolled/unsupervised. I believe it's too soon to remove the restrictions and/or supervision. Jaakobou 07:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article (and, perhaps even more, its TalkPage) urgently need administrative action against those who have disrupted it. Only when that happens can the processes of the project operate and start producing a reasonable article again. If this page had not been archived (ANI is currently trimmed to 389K, AN is 333K, RSN is 206K - this page is 1/10th the size) people could see what was going on. People may agree or disagree with my addition last month "Shahaf has eccentric obsession" says Haaretz", but the concept discussed and the subsequent commentary is highly relevant to further editing of the article. The premature archiving has had a secondary (perhaps minor) effect in that it tends to conceal (even from me until this moment) the fact that my words and intent were modified, apparently to undermine the professional integrity of another journalist. This highly partisan and damaging conduct is going on all over the project - while Shahaf is having his reputation assiduously protected. See how "conspiracy theorist" (referring to Shahaf) was removed as a BLP - even though the Jerusalem Post (hardly pro-Palestinian!) speaks of "engaged two confirmed conspiracy freaks, neither of them a ballistics expert" and "Karsenty, Richard Landes and the rest of the conspiracy theorists" and (in the headline) "conspiracy freaks". It's as if readers of this article must be protected even from Israeli opinion, let alone what the rest of the world believes. The opinion of both Israelis and the world is generally good towards the journalist and generally poor towards the "ballistics investigator" in this story. There is no chance of balanced articles while this is going on - serious editors need to be encouraged to participate, and the very opposite is happening. Serious editors would be largely ignoring Shahaf and the entire Enderlin thing (which is not and never will be settled anyway) - and write this story on the basis of the important parts (including but not limited to the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of Daniel Pearl), most of which we're currently not covering. PR 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PalestineRemembered that the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of David Daniel Pearl should be better formulated on the article. As for his assertion regarding "immediate administrative action", I'm actually thinking it has been a bit harsh at times -- though probably within the bounds of reason. Jaakobou 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would just comment to PR that the Jerusalem Post article that you cite is an opinion piece by one of a small handful of authors who believe that Shahaf, Karsenty and Landes are conspiracy theorists, and not an editorial by the JP as is implied the way the it is written. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the special editing conditions were helpful in reducing the edit warring on this page, and would recommend they stay in place for an additional 90 days. Contrary to what Nickhh claims, there have been several editors, in addition to TB, who have been active on this page in the last month (Liftarn, Jayvdb,Rich Farmbrough, and a number of IP editors) - and there's nothing to stop other interested parties from editing if they so choose. It is true that such editing will have to be done carefully, given the restirictions - but that is a good thing, not a bad one. If you discuss any potentially controversial edits on the talk page before making them - the "minefield" that ChrisO refers to disappears. The editing I've seen on other articles by the editors who were problematic on this page before the restrictions were put into place does not inspire confidence that they will not go right back into their old ways, if the restrictions were lifted. (I am thinking specifically of the BLP violations that got Nickhh banned from the Nahum Shahaf article, and the continued incivility by ChrisO on WP:RSN and on this Talk page) Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions of any sort are only intended to be used as short term measures to deal with specific problems. The fundamental principle of WP is that anyone can edit it, and that must be the default position. Page protection for example is nearly always lifted once any edit war dies down, it should be no different here. Only one editor (to repeat) has really made any edits here in the last month (around 80 edits, with only around 10 coming from anyone else, most of those being minor formatting or minor vandalism/vandalism reversion). It is simply not acceptable to keep editing restrictions in place for another 90 days (which would become a total of half a year) based on the individual decision of one admin, backed up by editors whose world-view has benefited from those actions. And for the record, I was not banned from the Shahaf page for "BLP violations". It was a no-warning ban supposedly for edit warring, although oddly those who I - by definition - must have been edit warring with escaped unscathed. And please lay off the pompous accusations that I or anyone else who happens to disagree with your viewpoint and edits accordingly is a "problematic" editor, who might "go right back into their old ways". There's been some less than perfect behaviour by several people here at times. No-one is in any position to claim the moral high ground. --Nickhh (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Nickhh: No offense Nickhh, but I was thinking it to be reasonable that incivility, "exasperation" (congrats on the award btw) and ignoring the ongoing discussion while edit warring may have had something to do with a sanction being imposed on you alone and not on anyone else. Besides that tough, I do have to agree with you that there hasn't been much more than that incident (best I'm aware of) and certainly Misplaced Pages needs to remain open for everyone to contribute as the encyclopedia flourishes from IPs as well as from established editors. However, recent interaction between ChrisO and Tundrabuggy on top disrespect to well cited content makes me agree with both PalestineRemembered and Canadian Monkey that the page should still remain under close, pro-active observation (not sure about 90-days though) -- such as Elonka reminding editors of WP:NPA -- to keep from editors lapsing back to disruption, misconduct, and edit warring. I don't believe the page situation -- where editors are sanctioned for edit-warring and are reminded when breaking policy -- necessarily bars people from editing as it only makes sure that people discuss the viewpoints and work for consensus building rather than enforce their perspective into the page without discussion, a prolonged issue with this heated blood-libel/conspiracy-theory subject matter.
With respect, Jaakobou 23:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I would like to see some oversight. Unfortunately ChrisO has made my opinion appear self-serving with his accusations of favoritism. But, there it is, it's my opinion -- but I will happily respect any decision made. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I abandoned attempting to edit this article last year in the face of tendacious OWNERSHIP and highly POV editing. The reference to the Ramallah Lynching and Daniel Pearl were damaged and removed. When I replaced this important link it was re-titled "Trivia" and the link was damaged - leading to a good-faith complete removal with summary "rm section; trivia sections are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA and source is questionable anyway (opinion piece from obscure online news source?)", when the "obscure online news service" is central to the article and something we're using 9 times elsewhere! Something very similar was happening at the linked articles, with the threat of hammer-blow blockings for reverting such vandalism (or even calling it vandalism).
A sloppy reversion putting back information cited to "Pajamas Media" ("sending the MSM down the river") convinced me that attempting to edit this article was impossible until administrators protected careful editors and took action against the disruptive. PR 12:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The core problem with Misplaced Pages, in a nutshell...except that the nutshell itself is "who's to say which are careful editors and which are disruptive?" :-\ Tomer 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, at a minimum, one would expect careful editors to follow our core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR - and one would likewise expect careful administrators to enforce those policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully concur with the "minefield" observation made above. Personally, I was on vacation for the first half of July, and upon returning had little stomach for diving once again into the cesspool that has surrounded this article. Hopefully the damage done by over-covering conspiracy theories is not irreparable. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, if it sets your mind at ease, no ArbCom restrictions could be imposed on you, unless you were warned first. You would have to get a full formal template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} notification on your talkpage. My own style is to try even gentler cautions before using the template, such as nudges and reminders to someone's talkpage. Then if and only if those are ignored, would I eventually proceed to the formal template and possible further sanctions. So even with the conditions, my recommendation to you (and everyone else), is to proceed with normal editing. As long as you stick with the #Conditions for editing, you have nothing to worry about, and if you did run afoul of one of them, I would gently let you know if it was becoming a problem, long before you'd have to worry about a ban. I would make sure that you would have plenty of opportunity to adjust your editing accordingly, so as to avoid any possibility of sanctions. --Elonka 17:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the restrictions have had a positive effect on the article. Normally one might say the restrictions have "done their job" and are no longer required. However, some of the responses to Elonka's question lead to the conclusion that if the restrictions were lifted now, all of the positive effects would be wiped out and the article would go right back to the constant-edit-warring state it was in previously. I don't really see a good way to "normalize" this article under the current circumstances. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could be as sanguine about the quality of this article. Anyone reading it would never guess that even sections of Israeli opinion are saying "... even if there is some doubt ... there should be a tempest, a great and mighty one, but one focused on an entirely different issue: Why is the IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace". It's as if a Holocaust Denier were writing an article pointing at the (proven) frauds of The Painted Bird and Fragments in order to conceal the real history of atrocities. What's happened here is actually worse than that, since fraud over al-Durrah is never going to be proved by three "conspiracy freaks" (another Israeli newspaper) and the blogosphere.
Meanwhile, the restrictions have had the effect of driving off virtually every editor except one. With the greatest respect, this editor, who apparently arrived at the project solely in order to edit this article, is so unfamiliar with the processes of the project that he tries to exclude the third biggest newspaper in the UK from RS-status. And rejects the results on the ReliableSsourcesNoticeboard. Until quite recently WP:DE (disruptive editing) was good reason to be blocked.
I've repeatedly offered to "write for the enemy". I've also repeatedly suggested that others offer to do the same - I think everyone knows what good material needs to go in (before or after the bad material is taken out). PR 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, not this nonsense again about "exclude the third biggest newspaper in the UK from RS-status". The #1 paper in the the UK is "News of The World" - an unreliable sensationalist rag if ever there was one. Are you suggesting that the NOTW is a reliable source? If not, enough with this nonsensical conflation of "largest selling" with "reliable". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(and incidently, since I've seen this bandied about in more than one place recently, The Daily Mirror is #5/#6 in the UK, not #3. Check it out http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5) Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, still no actual justification from anyone - least of all Elonka - as to why extraordinary restrictions which were imposed by unilateral fiat and which run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based should remain in place. All we have is accusations that some editors (myself included I believe) need to be reined in for some reason, some speculation that bad things "might" happen if they are removed etc. Quite apart from the general point that they're pretty weak arguments anyway, being based on assertion and guesswork, in fact of course it's quite clear from comments here and elsewhere that the editors who broadly might be said to be unhappy with the leeway given to the WP:UNDUE input of minority viewpoints as a result of the restrictions, don't really at the moment have much wish to be actively involved here one way or another (and of course even if they did, this should be welcomed of course, not seen as a reason to continue the restrictions as if "one group of editors bad, other group good", which seems dangerously close to what some people are saying). For me at least, it's simply about the principle of how WP works and the role administrators have (which should merely be as editors with extra tools, not authority figures, and even less so authority figures who in effect take sides on content issues to the detriment of key WP policies). I'm not chomping at the bit to engage in another futile effort to edit any semblance of balance to this article as soon as 0RR is set back to 3RR. --Nickhh (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Justifications have been presented. You just don't like them. The justifications are, again, that this page had been the site of continous edit-warring, BLP violations and gross incivility. The restrictions, which BTW, do not run counter to the fundamental principles on which WP is based, solved that problem. If you and other problematic editors were in any way remorseful, recognized your past mistakes and promised not to repeat them - there might be room for trying to see how it works w/o the restrictions. But everything I've seen so far indicates that as soon as those restrictions were lifted, you'd be back to your edit-warring, BLP-violating ways. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to pull back from making sweeping accusations against good faith editors who do their best to abide by policy that they are "problematic" and "BLP-violating" and need - according to you - to show "remorse". Not only fundamentally inaccurate, but also incredibly self-regarding, and jaw-droppingly ironic given that you then proceed to complain about "gross incivility". Anyway, enough of all this childishness. There is no justification for the restrictions, as I have said, other than speculation about what might happen, based now it seems on your personal abilities as some sort of clairvoyant. Just so we do not forget what actually happened here - this article has long lingered here with about 50% of its material consisting of coverage of an obscure conspiracy theory which claims the whole event was staged and that the child is not dead. This theory has no serious purchase in any mainstream reliable source. I read pretty widely in the media and on international affairs and had never heard of this claim until I found the article on Misplaced Pages a while ago, and found links to the tiny number of blogs, forums and right-wing US op-eds where it was even mentioned, let alone endorsed. Then, in June, a related French court case gave a slight boost to one of the proponents of the theory, by confirming he had not libelled France 2 with his accusations against them over their footage, since he had the right to criticise. Immediately a whole slew of new SPA and IP editors descended from nowehere on this article, demanding inter alia that it say a French court had definitively ruled the incident was a hoax; that we remove al-Durrah's date of death; that every second sentence here be qualified with "allegedly"; that we remove references to the contemporary reports that covered his death; that even more space be given over to the theory etc etc. These editors of course were not "problematic" or "BLP-violating". Ahem. Other editors, myself included, tried to stem this assault as a blatant breach of everything from WP:NPOV & WP:RECENT to WP:UNDUE & WP:RS. Inevitably this led to something of an edit war and we ended up with the restrictions. Most of those editors - on either side of that debate - have long gone. The court decision has now receded into the relatively recent past. The article is now stable (whether it's balanced is a separate, and irrelevant, debate for the purposes of the issue at hand). It should be open for editing in the same way as any other article is rathet then being subject to endless, arbitary, blanket restrictions. If genuine problems come up, they can be dealt with as they arise and using remedies tailored to deal with them. --Nickhh (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick - I have tried to deal with each of the same issues below, and did so minutes before you posted this. I think it would be preferable if you struck the above (and this note). PR 08:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Before this discussion is dragged into really gross (yet mysteriously unpunished) infringements of CIVIL, let's remember there is an important BLP issue at the core of the article as it's currently written. It concerns a top French journalist who has already been to court once over this affair. The fact that claims of tape-doctoring were found not to be libellous of him (on appeal) doesn't mean we abandon policy and side with his accusers, three non-qualified "conspiracy freaks" (quote from both body and headline of an op-ed in a normally right-wing Israeli newspaper). The attack on Enderlin is backed by a highly partisan body (prone to extremist language) which wants him sacked - and this body is heavily implicated in a plot to subvert the work of this project (faux creation of admins). We're in grave danger of siding with abusers and even supporting their campaign.

With the factual issues never going to be settled, the original version "is the most reasonable one" (a different Israeli newspaper, perhaps swayed by the killing of a nearby ambulance-man and the bull-dozing of the evidence). Yet we have an article that almost completely ignores the iconic significance and historical importance of this event in favour of "controversy" - that's what the edit-warring has produced as editors like myself long ago abandoned trying to do useful work on it. (Perhaps it's too much to ask to include material that might use the word murder - and I don't mean well-poisoning quotes from OBL, ref #132, either).

The ReliableSources "dispute" is thoroughly settled as people can see at the very drawn-out discussion on the RSN - we will continue to use what appears in major newspapers as our source material. Commentary Magazine is free to claim that "no sound of gunfire nor any other evidence of combat activity near the al-Durrahs" - but that's no excuse for us using it as reference #105. We need administrative action to protect RS, another core policy of the project which is being trampled. PR 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories: