Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 4 March 2010

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 25, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted

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. Palestine Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject HOP

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sources Comments

OR and UNDUE highlighting in lead

For the Israelis, the world's willingness to believe they had killed the boy was a modern version of the blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice.<ref>. Note: the blood libel was the claim that it was a Jewish custom to sacrifice a Christian child on the eve of ] (]), and to make ], or unleavened bread, using the child's blood.</ref>

Many people have objected to this statement, which has been removed multiple times. I agree with the objections. The relevant text in the article cited reads as follows:

The director of the Israeli government's press office, Danny Seaman, last month described the events as being "staged".

"Events could not have occurred as they were described by the network's reporter, Charles Enderlin, since they contradict the law of physics," he wrote in a letter.

"This blood libel," Mr Seaman added, "inflamed the Arab world and led to many victims in Israel and across the world."

However, another Israeli government spokesman, Miri Eisen, has said this is Mr Seaman's "professional" view and that the government has no position on the question of the staging of the incident.

How was the opinion of one man transformed into "For the Israelis..."? I find this to be an OR leap, particularly so given that the Israeli government distanced itself from Seaman's position. I also find its highlighting in the lead (and the devotion of so much space to what was passing comment) to be WP:UNDUE highlighting. In short, I also support its removal from there. I suggest if its to be included at all, that it be rephrased, attributed to Seaman (with a note of the Israeli government's not sharing his position) and added to the body of the article. Tiamut 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is any actually for keeping the blood libel statement? NickCT (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people haven't objected, Tiamut. The article was mentioned off-wiki and since then some barely used accounts have turned up to remove it. It is not the opinion of one man. It's a very widely published opinion. I wouldn't have included it in the lead as written otherwise. SlimVirgin 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim - I just don't see how you could argue that this was relevant. This would be like inserting into the Rodney King lede "The police felt like they were being demonized after the Rodney King beating, as they had been demonized in early 19th century America by Irish immigrants". What? Why? Who? Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't be there. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@Slim - After checking the history, I noticed you've single handedly reverted multiple editors who made this same edit. You don't WP:OWN this page. I suggest you yield to the majority. NickCT (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reverting sockpuppets, I think. SlimVirgin 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would ask anyone commenting here to read the article and the sources carefully. A lot of work (a huge amount of work) went into making sure each side's views were represented, both in the lead and elsewhere, as well as carefully sourced and balanced. You're entitled to disagree, of course, but I ask that you disagree after making yourself familiar with it all, because the chances are high that, if you read the article and the sources, you'll see why it's written as it is.

Nick, if that had been a notable view of the police after the King incident, it would indeed belong in the lead. The blood libel allegation is a prominent complaint among the sources. What is meant by it is that the world was too willing to believe that the Israelis, or the Jews, would target a child, in the opinion of sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities. SlimVirgin 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Hold on. Let me examine your claim regarding notability. NickCT (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the source in the lead. Then look at the sources in the Personal and political impact section. And then also take a look at Further reading—the Le Meilleur des mondes debate, for example. The views of the French philosopher, Pierre-André Taguieff, for example, are quite typical of the views of sections of the Jewish community: not all, certainly, but typical of the sections who believe the video was problematic. SlimVirgin 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to the other sources that use the term "blood libel" explicitly? Or is it only Seaman who does that? Tiamut 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read the sources I pointed out above, you'll see it used many times. See one of the Taguieff articles e.g. (this is a translation; original under FR). It's in the Schapira documentary too. Had it only been Seaman, I almost certainly wouldn't have added it to the lead, and if I had, I'd have attributed. SlimVirgin 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the current reference doesn't make it obvious that this is a notable. Infact, the current reference simply says some Israeli politician mentioned it in passing. I tried to test whether this was a "notable" by googling blood libel al-durrah. The top 5 links refering to blood libel are summarized below -

1. Atlantic journal saying some arabs used the incident to try and suggest blood libel was true
2. Partisan Institue of Jewish affairs quoting some academic
3. Blog post, refuting blod libel claim
4. Article accounting claim that the whole event was staged, and was infact blood libel
5. Article questioning whether the event was Israeli Brutality or blood libel

After looking through these, I can find no source suggesting wide spread Israeli sentiment of somekind of blood libel smear against them. The current source cited, and others that make the same claim are usually simply quoting partisan individuals. Do you have any evidence that for Israelis in general "the world's willingness to believe they had killed the boy was a modern version of the blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice"? NickCT (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see it now. One of the other articles cited in the body is also quoting Seaman: ""The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman." . Then there is the Fallows piece which does not characterize it as an Israeli position, but instead says: "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient "blood libel"—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing."

I still think this has no place in the lead and that the conclusion that Seaman's view (and Tagueieff's) represent all Israelis is an OR one. The issue is more complicated than that and should be phrased with more care. Tiamut 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Nick). Then you haven't looked properly. Please read the sources I suggested above. Yes, of course, they are partisan in the sense of expressing a particular view. But it is a view that is widespread within the Israeli and Jewish communities. The lead can't give the Palestinian view without the other view. I notice none of you are questioning the former.

Tiamut, please read the article and the sources carefully. It's not something that takes 20 minutes. If you read them, you'll see that it's a widespread view. SlimVirgin 22:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read multiple sources. I can't find any RS that reflects your claim. If you believe you've got something, please point directly to it. Re "I notice none of you are questioning the former." - That the palestinian community would be outraged by the killing seems self-evident (as perhaps its self evident the black community would be upset by the Rodney King beating). That Israeli's at large would make this blood libel claim does not seem self-evident. Again, please provide references. NickCT (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And Nick, I think you need to say what your other or previous accounts were. SlimVirgin 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also read the sources. None of them say what you say in the lead. I still believe the conclusion is OR and that saying this iew is widespread among Israelis is a gross leap not borne out by the sources cited. As I suggested earlier, the material should be rephrased to reflect what the sources say (and attributed to their interlocutorss) and this material should not be in the lead. Tiamut 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, are there any secondary sources that support the broad statement about "the Israelis"? Everything seems to be a primary source, or else it quotes Seaman. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to Tiamut) What you're basically asking me to do here is to re-read all the sources myself and compile a list on talk of sources who refer to in terms of blood libel. I can do that, of course. But you could do it too. If you're coming back after 20 or 30 minutes to say you've read the sources, then you clearly haven't, unless you're some kind of genius speed-reader. :)

What disappoints me about this is that none of you are questioning the sentence before it: "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them." It's discouraging to see an attempt to remove one point of view, but no mention of the other. It would be nice to move beyond that, given the amount of effort that's been put into this page. SlimVirgin 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim - I addressed the latter point earlier. I think this situation is analogous to the Rodney King beating (i.e. in that it is an innappropriate use of force against a ethnic minority). It's self-evident that the african american community was upset by the beating. Stating that police were upset about all the negative media attention seems a little UNDUE.

Rere-read all the sources myself - You want us to re-read all your sources for you? NickCT (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Nick) No, I would like you to read the sources for yourself, not for me. They're in the article. I've pointed some out on this page. But what you want is for me to lay out a series of easy-to-read diffs so you can click on them, bang bang bang, and see the words "blood libel," so you don't have to do any actual reading, and don't have to read the article. :)

I will do that if I have to. It's just a pity that people can't get past that style of editing. But I won't have time to do it until next week because it will likely take me a few hours. SlimVirgin 22:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence (about the Palestinians) is based on a secondary source ("His name is known to every Arab, his death cited as the ultimate example of Israeli military brutality."). The second sentence isn't. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the primary difference for me too. As yes Slim Virgin, I am a super fast reader. I looked at the articles cited here, and in the article after the term blood libel wherever it was mentioned in the article. I still don't think they support your formulation in the lead. I still think its undue. And I still think it should be rephrased, attributed to its authors and discussed with more nuance somewhere other than the lead. Tiamut 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Which sources did you read? SlimVirgin 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The ones I linked to (Fallows, Waked, BBC, and Taguieff (which you linked to). I also skimmed the ones linked by NickCT. Is there a source I missed? Is there one that says this view is held by Israelis at large? Tiamut 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a view that's held by all Israelis, obviously. Enderlin is an Israeli. But it's a prominent view. You don't have to believe it was staged to see it as a blood libel. The position is that people were far too quick to assume that Israel had targeted the child; the leap to that conclusion is regularly expressed in terms of blood libel. Attributing to its authors would be poor writing. The Palestinians think X, but Seaman, Taguieff, A, B, and C think Y.

Anyway, the time I am spending here is time I could spend compiling sources. I won't be able to post it for a few days, so I hope you'll allow me that space, as this objection is somewhat unexpected. You didn't mention it during the FAC, Tiamut. SlimVirgin 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave up mentioning things during the FAC for a number of reasons and there are still a lot of problems with this article that I haven't even begun to broach, and may never get around to raising. Take all the time you want. But please don't imply that I or others don't have a right to raise issues now that this is a FAC. A lot of changes were bulldozed through during that process. While those who reviewed the article think its some of our best work (and I agree to some extent, particularly regarding the prose) I think its lacking in NPOV and gives UNDUE prominence to certain fringe and minority positions. I've said that before and I will continue to say it whenever I feel its appropriate. I hope that's okay with you. Tiamut 23:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It disturbs me that this issue was raised on Misplaced Pages Review as part of their efforts to bait me, and lo and behold a bunch of accounts and IP addresses, most of them sporadically used, turn up here to remove it. Tiamut, I ask you to take into account that you may see some of these points as UNDUE because you strongly disagree with them, and also because I don't think you've read the article and the sources carefully. Please do me a favour. Print out a copy of the article and read it through. If you do that, I think you'll see that a tremendous amount of work went into offering balance, and not letting any "side" (and there are more than two) get the last word in on any point.

The only editor during the FAC who opposed this was the one with pro-Israel views, who declared that it was pro-Palestinian. Please take that into account too. This article will never please anyone with strong views on either side. It is written for intelligent people in the middle, people who don't pretend to know and who largely don't care, but who may be curious. That's the readership I aimed at. SlimVirgin 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this isn't some kind of conspiracy (and even if there were one, its certainly not one I am aware of or form a part of). I have a problem with the text. So do NickCT and MalikShabazz, from what I can gather from their comments here. Our objections aren't based in our lack NPOV to this conflict or to the subject at hand. They are based on policy.

I'm aware that Wehwalt opposed the FAC nomination and that his opposition resulted in your making massive changes to this article to try to garner his support. I have said previously that those concessions compromised the NPOV of the article, rather than improving it. Part of the reason I avoided taking part in the FAC review was to avoid warring with Wehwalt and to avoid being seen as using the FAC as leverage to effect changes I wanted to see effected.

Please rest assured that I have read the sources in question and I still don't think the material should be phrased as it is, nor placed where it is. I've thoroughly explained my rationale above. I'd appreciate it if you would stop atttributing my objections to POV, careless reading, or a lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

In summary, I'd like to see a reliable secondary source that supports the idea that "Israelis view the allegation of Durrah's killing by Israeli forces to be a blood libel". I believe this is a fringe minority position (and the sources I've read have not convinced me that another conclusion is warranted). Most Israelis I know (and I live here remember) still think Israel probably killed him, and that even if he didn't, the confusion was a function of the fog of war, and not some malicious blood libel tendency among Arabs or French reporters. I realize my personal experience isn't an RS, but neither are primary sources used to make OR conclusions. Tiamut 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not alleging that you're part of anything, Tiamut. But I'm discouraged to see you vehemently oppose NoCal100 in all his forms (rightly so), even to the point of striking out his views on this talk page as I recall, yet post here in support of an equally obvious sock who's agreeing with you. The only thing that will reduce sockpuppetry in I/P articles is if all the regular editors object to socks whenever we see them, regardless of the views they're supporting.

Anyway, as I said, I'm willing to compile a list of sources. But it will take me a few days, and while I'm willing to discuss the issue with you, I'm not keen on talking to whichever socks turn up. I hope you can understand and respect that. SlimVirgin 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimV - Your accusations of sock puppetry are infantile. Quit crying just because people dislike what you've written. We've all have written bad statements into ledes before. There is no reason to get upset about it. Simply whining "read my sources" over and over is not going to help. Why not work with us? I think there is some scope here for compromise. Can we for instance mention that "some" people hold the opinion that this is similar to blood libel (thereby removing weight from what is seen as UNDUE WEIGHT)? NickCT (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SV, I'm not aware of socks being involved in this discussion. Even if that were the case, I've clearly outlined my rationale (rooted in policies) as to why this information is inappropriate as phrased. Even so, I haven't reverted to delete it even once and have been, I believe, quite patient, during a discussion in which I've seen a lot of evasion of the issue at hand on your part.

NickCT, "some" is WP:weasel wording. I would not support that formulation, though I am open to exploring other phrasing options rooted in what the sources say. Tiamut 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut - Agree with your WP:WEASEL assessment. Sometimes WEASELing is a good way to work out of disputes of this nature (which is why I suggested it). Do you think you might be able to suggest compromise wording? Until then, I suggest we remove the offending statement while Slim "researches" as the clear majority seems to be for its removal.NickCT (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with SV here (though I emphatically do not agree with everything she says/thinks/does, even on this article). What some Palestinians have viewed this event as menaing is balanced against what some Israelis believe it to be (ZOMG, weasel word!). NickCT, let me ask you directly: is this your only account? I'm not trying to make you feel defensive, but in this sensitive area, I think it's right to insist that people edit with their main account. IronDuke 01:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a small point of correction there, ID. None of you know what I think. :) It's my sincere hope that no one reading this article would be able to work out from the article alone what my personal views are on this issue, insofar as I have any. SlimVirgin 01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Or? Perhaps you underestimate my special powers? They're pretty durn vast, you know. IronDuke 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but then you would know whether I'm underestimating you, wouldn't you? :) SlimVirgin 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Touché. IronDuke 01:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Break

I've been watching this discussion unfold for a bit. What do editors think of removing both sentences from the lead - this sentence about blood libel, as well as the preceding statement regarding Palestinian views on "the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality"? While they balance each other fairly well, they're both a bit overly dramatic, and neither is a great reflection of the sources, in my opinion. Or what about toning down both sentences a bit: "For Arabs, it was as an example of Israeli military brutality against Palestinians; for Israelis, it was an excuse for Arabs to renew accusations of a modern blood libel." I'm not exactly sure on the exact wording, and I'm not sure that a blanket label like "Israelis" correctly reflects the views of most Israelis, but if these sentences are kept, I think toning them down a bit might go a long way. ← George 02:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You said you're not sure on the exact wording, but I'll just say now before people start commenting on the proposal that your suggested wording in effect made it worse, and didn't tone it down. The old sentence said "apparently limitless nature" ie: not trying to say that the boy was killed by the IDF. Your suggestion says "an example of" ie: claiming definitively that the boy was killed by the IDF. Making this claim is of course not something we can do in this article. Just goes to show how careful you have to be with wording. Breein1007 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the "an example of" in the context of views held by Arabs, who, overwhelmingly, do believe that the Israeli military is brutal against Palestinians. Likewise, I put the "an excuse for Arabs" in the context of the views held by Israelis, who, to some degree, do believe that this was a case of blood libel. I never mentioned anything about the boy actually being killed. ← George 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, I think the two sentences as they stand provide a broad brushstroke of both sides, which is all they were intended to do, and both perspectives are dominant in the reliable sources. Some sources for blood libel below. SlimVirgin 03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

George, all we would have to do to limit it is add these few words (new words in bold): "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the world's willingness to believe the IDF had killed the boy was a modern version of the blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice." SlimVirgin 03:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This was the first version of that sentence, but I was asked to change it, though I don't recall why: "For the Israelis and sections of the Jewish community around the world, it amounted to a modern blood libel, an example of the ancient allegation that Jews sacrifice other people's children." SlimVirgin 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the sentence before it also has issues. The sentence cited, and the Fallows piece in general, seems to indicate that Israeli brutality was an Arab view, not uniquely a Palestinian one. I'm also not completely comfortable switching from the source's terminology, "the ultimate example of Israeli military brutality", to "the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality". I'm not sure where the "apparently limitless" phrasing came from, but I think it's quite different than an "ultimate example". I think your rephrasing of the second sentence is probably sufficient, but personally I would change the "an example of" to a dash. ← George 05:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to paraphrase any particular source. It's a summary of the views I've read as broadly representative of the Palestinian position. SlimVirgin 06:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

George, would this do? "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, it amounted to a modern blood libel—the ancient allegation that Jews sacrifice other people's children." SlimVirgin 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry. Still WP:UNDUE. If you really wanted to keep that sentence you really have to tone it down. Something like "A number of Israeli politicians and political writers suggested the controvery amounted to modern blood libel" or "A number of Israeli politicians and political writers suggested the controversy amounted to an antisemetic smear campaign". Spelling out what exactly blood libel is, is simple gratuatus. Also... I picked up on this conversation below! NickCT (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - I think the beginning of your sentence is definitely better than what exists now - it's not perfect, but better. Now that I read it, I actually think the m-dash may sound better as a comma, but that's pretty minor. The big problem with this suggestion is you don't define "it", where "it" is "the world's willingness to believe they had killed the boy" in the current version. But I'm also not totally happy with that wording. I don't believe the Israelis you're describing viewed "the world's willingness to believe they had killed the boy" as blood libel (maybe willing to believe that IDF soldiers killed him could be an acceptance of the blood libel stereotype, but it's not a claim of blood libel in and of itself). I think they specifically viewed Arab reporting and commentary on the shooting, which sometimes cited this as an example that Israelis didn't care about Palestinian children or some such, as the modern blood libel. That distinction isn't clear in either version.

Regarding NickCT's objection to defining the term "blood libel", honestly, it's not a term I had heard used prior to reading Misplaced Pages, so I'm okay with defining it.

And I'm still not completely happy with the preceding sentence and the "limitless nature of Israel's brutality" still either. Please re-read my initial suggestion with the following in mind: what I was specifically trying to say was that (a) some Arabs cited al-Durrah as proof that Israeli's didn't care about Palestinians, and (b) some Israelis felt such claims were really blood libel in disguise. I don't know that I'm really comfortable going beyond those two points in these sentences, based on my reading of sources, but you're more familiar with the sources than I am. ← George 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Selected sources for blood libel

Note: bold added.

1. Anthony Julius, lawyer, Engage. "The blood libel has acquired an anti-Zionist character ... It is now a commonplace for Zionists / Israelis to be characterised as child-murderers. The death of Mohammed al-Dura on 30 September 2000 in circumstances that are still unclear, but which almost certainly were not the consequence of deliberate action by Israeli forces, was represented as disclosing the criminal essence of Zionism. And Zionism in turn was represented as Judaism Unmasked. The Zionist does openly what his co-religionists hitherto did in secret."
2. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, lawyer, Israel Law Center. "This modern-day blood libel resulted in hundreds of Jewish and Arab deaths, and ignited a still-flaming torch of international hatred, only for the saking of raising France 2's ratings."
3. Pierre-Andre Taguieff, philosopher, in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "The old anti-Jewish stereotype of the blood libel reappeared with the al-Dura affair, which is why it is extremely significant."

   Taguieff again in Le Meilleur des Mondes. Google translation: "The legend of "Jewish ritual murder" reactivated by exploiting symbolic the "dead line" of the young al-Dura became a source of inspiration for all cultural forms of contemporary anti-Jewish propaganda, postage stamps and posters bearing the image of al-Dura in interactive television programs." Original: "La légende du « crime rituel juif », réactivée par l’exploitation symbolique de la « mort en direct » du jeune al-Dura, est devenue une source d’inspiration pour toutes les formes culturelles de la propagande antijuive contemporaine, des timbres-poste et des affiches à l’effigie d’al-Dura aux émissions interactives de télévision."

4. Stéphane Juffa, The Wall Street Journal: "What turned these images into a modern blood-libel against Israel was only Mr. Enderlin's voice-over."
5. Amnon Lord, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. "Who killed Muhammad al-Dura? Blood libel—model 2000 ... His death turned into a blood libel accompanying the terror and violence, and it became the altar upon which the good name of the people and the State of Israel was sacrificed during the last two years."
6. James Fallows, The Atlantic. "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient "blood libel"—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing."
7. Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post. "Yet, even as private individuals were dedicating their time and passion to proving that France 2 had purposely broadcast a blood libel against Israel that caused the death and injury of Israelis and Jews throughout the world and marred the honor of the IDF, official Israel remained silent."
8. Rudy Reichstadt, Le Meilleur des Mondes. Google translation: "This image, tragic, a father and son huddled against a wall; image erected in emblem of both the "martyrs" and "sadistic Israeli" image declined on all modes - in textbooks , on t-shirts, postage stamps - plastered along roads in the West Bank and to Mali; image reactualizing the old accusation of anti-Jewish "ritual murder" ... Original: "Cette image, tragique, d’un père et de son fils recroquevillés contre un muret ; cette image érigée en emblème à la fois du « martyre palestinien » et du « sadisme israélien » ; cette image déclinée sur tous les modes – dans les manuels scolaires, sur des tee-shirts, des timbres postes –, placardée le long des routes en Cisjordanie et jusqu’au Mali; cette image réactualisant l’antique accusation antijuive de « crime rituel » ..."
9. Ron Rosenbaum, Those who forget the past, 2004, p. 273. "This second Intifada also marked the emergence of the Al-Jazeera effect, with satellite television beaming brutal images of the conflict, such as the death of twelve-year-old Palestinian Muhammed al-Dura, into millions of homes worldwide. In Europe, Muslim extremists took out their furty on Jews and Jewish institutions. Some in the European Press ... used incendiary imagery that routinely drew comparisons between Israel and the Nazi regime. This crude caricature of Israelis as slaughterers of the innocent soon morphed into the age-old "blood libel," as when ... La Stampa published a cartoon depicting the infant Jesus threatened by Israeli tanks imploring, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again."
10. Baruch Gordon, Israel National News. "The raw footage as presented to the court has increased suspicions that the original France-2 report which blamed Israeli soldiers for shooting the 12-year-old was a staged blood libel."
11. Melanie Philips, Standpoint. "It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries."

    Philips again in The Spectator. "... even now certain representatives of the Israel government are playing a most ambiguous role in defending their country against this modern blood libel."

12. Nidra Poller, New York Sun. "Vindictive anger is aimed straight at Metula News Agency, a prickly French-language Israeli news service operating up in the Metula hills overlooking Lebanon, with an excellent track record and particular tenacity in denouncing the Al Dura blood libel.
13. Richard Landes. "The al-Dura story operated as a new mutation of one of the core motifs of anti-Semitism–blood libel."
14. Ed O'Loughlin, The Age. "According to Danny Seaman, director of Israel's Government Press Office, the France 2 television station "essentially staged" the footage seven years ago this week as a "blood libel" against the Jewish state. Although his remarks have not been formally endorsed by his superiors, Mr Seaman is the most senior official yet to express a view that is increasingly popular among supporters of Israeli policy."

    BBC News, citing Daniel Seaman. ""This blood libel," Mr Seaman added, "inflamed the Arab world and led to many victims in Israel and across the world."

    San Francisco Chronicle, citing Seaman. "In response, Daniel Seaman, director of the Israel Government Press Office, openly accused Enderlin and his cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, of a "modern blood libel" against Israel."

    Ali Waked, YNet News, citing Seaman. "The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman."

    Seaman himself in Ynet News. "Members of the office must be willing to dedicate the required effort, while displaying public courage at times, in order to disprove and thwart the blood libels formulated by the Palestinians ..."

15. Alex Grobman "How the Arabs Manipulate the Media, Israelis and the West" at History News Network writes: "Historian Richard Landes began investigating the case as a blood libel after seeing this incident as “One Jew allegedly kills a gentile child in cold blood, and all Jews everywhere are responsible." He also provides reference to "Amnon Lord, “Who Killed Muhammad Al-Dura? Blood Libel-Model 2000” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No. 482. (July 15, 2002)"

Break2

@SlimV - re your references. It looks like you've collected phrases from a dozen op-ed style pieces, and you're using that to say "This is what Israelis think". Unconvincing.

Come to think of it, I like Georges deletion proprosal. The sentences add little to the article. In fact I'd also be for eliminating the sentence prior to the two in contention (i.e. "The footage has acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag"). "Battle flag" is an ambiguous term. This seems unencyclopedic, and frankly, poor writing. Is anyone against just deleting the majority of this paragraph (beside SlimV who is trying to WP:OWN this article, and will be against any substantive change)?

@IronDuke - Breein kindly setup a page for casting basless assertions about my identity (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickCT). NickCT (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Jewish and/or Israeli pundits that seem to bring up this "blood libel" charge. Are there any Arab sources that actually accused Israelis of "Blood libel"?? I think I read that people were charging Israel with issues over allegations of organ harvesting and an FBI-arrest in NJ of a organ-ring, but the subject incident is a death by crossfire in a battle scene, therefore the "blood libel" charge, nobody is seriously making it, but for some reason Israelis and Jews are writing about it. It doesn't belong here in an encyclopedia article about the incident. If Jewish or Israeli sources want to discuss the issue (no good connection, imho) then let them in their articles etc. but it's not appropriate here. The paragraph still contains this so-called "balance" as it has something about Daniel Pearl's death (?), so before the edit it was 2 out of 3 references for the Jewish side which was unbalanced. I don't support the balance in this case anyway when it's wrong-headed and unencyclopedic. This whole thing seems to stink anyway, it should be about reporting the facts of the incident, not crafting balance or "pundit" analysis , and then give 2 out of 3 in this so-called prior balance to the Jewish side, when it was an Arab that was killed!! Incredible. Some things in Misplaced Pages stick out like a sore thumb when you read them, this one did when I read it, and therefore it was edited out to improve the article's purpose. Perhaps some of the people who constantly edit the article could appreciate a fresh reader's perspective to how it reads?!! Blood libel sticks out like a sore thumb as totally biased and unencylopedic in discussing a crossfire incident. Leave that to "pundits" to ponder for whatever reasons they are trying to link the two. Come on. Geez. Soledad22 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate, I think you're just a tad confused. We aren't dealing with anything "Arab vs Jew" here. Aside from the obvious reason, would you care to explain why you are turning this into a Jewish issue? It's alright... I still love you. Breein1007 (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The incident was a tragedy, crossfire, between Israelis and Arabs, but somehow a charge of Blood libel against Jews is plunked down as per my explanation above. You're right, it's crazy to bring a "Jewish" issue into this crossfire incident that occurred between Israeli and Palestinian troops in heat of a firefight. Let's remove it. Soledad22 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to look for secondary sources that describe Israeli reaction to the incident or their views concerning world opinion of the incident. I'd like to see two sentences in the lede, because I think it's important to describe the way the incident affected both Israelis and Palestinians, but I don't think primary sources are a legitimate way of gauging public opinion. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Malik - It's fine if we want to put in some kind of Palestinian reaction/Israeli reaction pierce in there. But this whole blood libel shinanigans has to go. Please propose a rewrite. NickCT (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote, I'm still looking for sources. I can't write anything before I find sources. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well it seems like the two sentences have caused allot of controversy. I suggest immediately deleting them pending rewrite. I think we've reached consensus that the blood libel stuff isn't appropriate. Is anyone against an immediate deletion of both sentences? NickCT (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. I still find that whole paragraph hugely problematic, but starting with those two sentences sounds fine. Tiamut 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok done. Would anyone object to deleting the "battle flag" sentence. I don't think it really adds anything, and it's sorta ambiguous. NickCT (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the process of deleting content from the article based on a discussion that lasted 11 minutes. Please allow other editors to comment before you start pruning the article.

My view is that the sentence about the battle flag accurately summarizes a paragraph in the article and should stay. I also think the pair of sentences should stay until there is consensus to remove them. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik bulk consensus over the past couple days has been against the blood libel material. Please read before assuming edits are based on limited discussion. Re the battle flag; I'm not saying it is not accurate, I'm saying it's not clear and not necessary. Battle flag is obviously metaphorical, and I don't think it provides the naive reader with any encyclopedic type background into the event. NickCT (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentences should stay for now...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? NickCT (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for "blood libel" and Goldstone. It seems to me that Jewish/Israeli pundits like to talk (amongst themselves) about "Blood Libel" when nobody else is accusing them of it!! It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article for the English-speaking world. It seems to me that perhaps the Jewish/Israeli pundits are using it as a smear tactic against critics? Just because the Goldstone report said something about killing in Gaza, it's as if the Jewish/Israeli pundits are saying "hey you are accusing us of blood libel!" when NOBODY is doing so. Back to subject here, blood libel definitely doesn't belong on this incident, it's a poison-the-well and smear technique, and let's not forget this was a crossfire incident that was on videotape....no secret "Blood Libel"! Soledad22 (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You misread the main argument by the "pundits". The report is accused of saying Israel went on the operation with the desire to kill innocent civilians. If it does say this (I haven't corroborated the critics), it is indeed a libelous statement of the worst kind. I still don't see the connection to this article though outside of one not liking the critics' perspective enough to bother to read it.

Regards, Jaakobou 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the blood libel clearly has no connection to this article. It's an obvious attempt to poison the well. It seems to me that only a couple of editors support keeping the material. Shall we put it a vote? And before you say it, I know votes are evil, but they are really the only way to override stone-walling editors. NickCT (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NickCT,

Where did the "yeah" come from? Regardless of my personal perspective, I'm supporting to repeat what the sources say and they do say that this is seen as a blood libel. We don't do things here by a sheer vote if there's no valid justification and the only reasoning I can see here is the IDONTLIKEIT one. Are you in disagreement that there are numerous sources that describe the event as a modern day blood libel? Jaakobou 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think editors have misread the sources to some extent, which is what I tried to clarify earlier with my suggestion in the first break above. The claims of blood libel aren't so broad as the article currently describes. The current versions says that "the world's willingness to believe had killed the boy" was a blood libel. This isn't what the Israelis discussing blood libel were saying. It's straightforward, really: Arab commentators pointed to al-Durrah and said "See? To Israelis, the lives of Palestinians are meaningless. They even kill innocent Palestinian children in cold blood!". In response, Israeli commentators said "See? The Palestinians are saying we kill children for no reason. This is a modern blood libel!" I still believe this sentence, and the one before it describing "the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality", should be changed to reflect that. ← George 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, could we focus on just the blood libel sentence for now? I'm not entirely sure what you mean, and I'm sorry if I'm being dense. I think it's the ease with which the allegation was accepted generally. One person (the cameraman) said the boy was targeted by the IDF. On the basis of just that one claim, France 2 broadcast it. And on the basis of just that one broadcast, the world repeated it. Therein lies the core of the blood libel reaction, if I can put it that way; the outrage is prompted by what is seen an antisemitism—the world believed this because of antisemitism. That is my understanding of the sources.

Is there a particular source in the section above who represents the point you're making? I'm not saying I think you're wrong; just that that's not what I saw in the sources. SlimVirgin 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really following George either. If you're saying that the blood libel claims are not broad. If that is what you're saying then I do think you are wrong. You're also wrong by suggesting the Israelis are trying to wrongfully smear Arabs (per "In response"). The commentators involved are, for one, not only Israeli and the issue with the case goes beyond resonding to a smear campaign with a counter smear campaign.

With respect, Jaakobou 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice." This makes it clear that it's not all Israelis, and not only Israelis, and it removed the "world's willingness to believe." George, is that closer to what you'd prefer? SlimVirgin 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. My long-winded (edit conflicted) reply is below, but essentially "the world's willingness to believe" being labelled as blood libel was the thing I most objected to. I think that wording confused a very small minority view (that the whole thing was staged) that doesn't belong in the lead, with a much more common view (that some Arabs are racist against Jews). ← George 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sure. I think Fallows summarized it fairly well when he wrote: "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient 'blood libel'—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing." Note that he isn't describing "the world's willingness to believe had killed the boy" as blood libel, just the extremist Arab narrative as such. Fallows also quoted Israeli strategist and military thinker Dan Schueftan: " the ultimate symbol of what the Arabs want to think: the father is trying to protect his son, and the satanic Jews—there is no other word for it—are trying to kill him. These Jews are people who will come to kill our children, because they are not human." Again, Schueftan isn't describing "the world's willingness to believe had killed the boy" as blood libel, he's saying Arabs view Jews as satanic, inhuman baby killers, and they point to al-Durrah as an example of this. Presumably, Schueftan was describing only those Arabs who held the extremist blood libel perspective that Fallows described earlier in this manner, and not all Arabs.

I do think that the blood libel label got warped a bit over time though. Specifically, Seaman and those who believed that the whole thing was staged label the entire event as blood libel. Which makes sense, no? If you believed that the whole thing was staged, then the staging itself would have been pure propaganda to convince the world that Jews kill children. But I think we agree that the entire thing being staged is a very small minority view. I suspect what other editors are really objecting to with regards to UNDUE is that the current wording, "the world's willingness to believe had killed the boy", talks specifically about this very small view. We're muddling these two different perspectives, both of which label something as blood libel—the earlier view that rather extreme Arab commentators (think al-Manar) framed al-Durrah in a anti-Semitic manner, and the later view that the entire event was staged to paint Jews in a bad light. I think the prior is quite a bit more common, and belongs in the lead, while the latter is quite limited, and probably doesn't. ← George 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for that change. It's supported by a secondary source (Fallows), and my own search for secondary sources was frustratingly unproductive. If I may, I would recommend sourcing the statement to Fallows (I would do it myself, but I don't fully understand the footnote system you're using and I don't want to muck it up). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to SlimVirgin for having put a lot of hard work into improving this article (and to others who have no doubt also done so when I wasn't looking), and for collecting an impressive list of quotes about "blood libel". I think that list of quotes can probably be used to support the sufficient notability of the phrase "blood libel" to include it in the lead. I also agree with Malik and Tiamut that a secondary source is required to support whatever particular statement is made in the article. I suppose Fallows can be considered a secondary source; however, what it says seems to me different from what the sentence in the article currently says (current article version, last edited by SlimVirgin, has "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice.") I suggest that the Caroline Glick source can also be considered a secondary source, and that be used as the source here.

Since none of the quoted sources seem to give a definition of "blood libel", I don't think we need to either, and to do so, especially in the lead, not only takes up space but is unnecessarily inflammatory and possibly OR; a wikilink to the blood libel article is enough.

If Fallows is used as a source, "the allegations" should be changed to "the harshest allegations"; if Glick is used, "the allegations" should be changed to "France 2's allegations". However, even if the change is made, Fallows (as quoted above) would still not support the sentence, though Glick would.

Another possible wording, not necessarily better than the current one, might be "France 2's broadcast was denounced in Israel as a "blood libel"" (sourced to Glick; or with deprecated, disparaged, deplored or decried instead of denounced; or by some in Israel). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comment Coppertwig. I think your suggested phrasing using Glick as a source is preferable to what we currently have. Should we stick with Fallows as a source, you are correct to suggest that the definition of "blood libel" should nonetheless be removed. I was going to make the same suggestion myself (and I believe others hae raised that issue as well above). Tiamut 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think the current version is still a corruption of what Fallows says, as he is referring to an extremist Arab position that the al-Dura case proves ancient blood libel allegations. It should therefore not be used to support the current formulation. Tiamut 00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in and say that I strongly agree with CopperTwig's statement - " I don't think we need to either, and to do so, especially in the lead, not only takes up space but is unnecessarily inflammatory and possibly". This in my mind has been the problem the entire time. I'm going to find any resolution that doesn't follow this suggestion unsatisfactory. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I remain thoroughly unconvinced and I do not believe that my points were addressed or read. To propagandize over "blood libel" or "Daniel Pearl beheaded by Al Qaeda", or quote "James Fallows" in the lead, is really quite poor editing for what is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. I remain totally unconvinced here, sorry. Please try and think that we are editing an encyclopedia and NOT A BLOG. Soledad22 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

PS SLim's text: "For sections of ..... the allegations ......., ..... centuries-old...... an association........." I don't care what Misplaced Pages subject we are discussing, go ahean and put anything in the blanks above for any subject, it's horribly written and full of qualifiers, etc. If you need that many qualifiers, it's not encyclopedic. It tries to make a connection where there is none whatsoever, only in the minds of a small few Israeli and Jewish pundits.

Also, do I understand that "James Fallows" in the best unbaised source for this? That's very "bloggish". Come on, trust me, to a fresh set of eyes "blood libel" reads like propaganda. Slim, it appears that maybe you have spent a great deal of time on this particular article, you might want to consider a fresh perspective. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 3

Thanks for the input, everyone. I've added several sources, so the sentence is now supported by Fallows in The Atlantic; Julius, an academic and lawyer who has written scholarly work on blood libels and antisemitism; Lauter in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency; Glick in the Jerusalem Post; and the Israeli govt spokesman being quoted by the BBC (the Patience reference); see the list of sources above for what's what. The sources each approach the point from a different perspective, but they support the general point in the article that, "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice.'

Coppertwig, we have to explain what a blood libel is, because it's a term readers may not be familiar with. If you can think of a more succinct way to do it, I'm open to suggestions. My preference was ...."a modern blood libel, the ancient allegation that Jews are willing to sacrifice other people's children," but someone else preferred the current version. SlimVirgin 06:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: your sources are all Israeli/Jewish, almost all the photos on the article (along the right side) are Israelis or Jews. It reads like propaganda (the whole article). Do you support that position? Can you try and be unbiased? Maybe a better title for this poorly written article ought to be "Bickering over the Muhammad al-Durrah killing", because that's the way it reads. Hardly any info here on this article than bickering. Sorry, but I totally disagree with you and there is definitely no consensus to connecting this to "Blood Libel". Me thinks you might have a problem with WP:OWN here. I wish you could work to build consensus, and I see you reverted again a minor contribution to fixing this article. That's not working with people. SlimV: I think linking directly to Misplaced Pages's Blood Libel page is a good explanation, rather than your opinion about it. One who links to Blood_libel_against_Jews can see how INAPPROPRIATE it is for this crossfire tragedy and that Israeli/Jewish-side pundits are using it as a cheap smear. Can't you see this? Soledad22 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: "Blood libels against Jews are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Doesn't belong on the subject article at all. It should be removed.Soledad22 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim - It wasn't just Copper asking for the definition to be removed. It was a majority of editors who weighed in on the subject. Now I suggest you reword it to account for the concerns, or I will tag as POV.

Slim - Surely you recoginize the two sentences in question are going to be inflammatory. Do you REALLY think that the sentences add enough value to article to make up for all the painful debate they will cause? I see very little value in having them there. I'm a little distrubed that you would press so hard to keep them. Are you trying to make a point? NickCT (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The "blood libel" charge is brought up by many reliable sources. It is entirely appropriate to include it, as it is an important facet of the incident. Attempts to remove it are a violation of WP:NPOV. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that many RS quote pundits who bring this point up. What I question is the relevance to the subject at hand. We could take a whole bunch of "incident" articles and fill them with comments about the reactions of various groups to the incidents, and the charges and counter charges over the incident. This type of thing usually only ends up inflaming people. Best simply to stick to the facts.

Unfortunately, this type of language is akin to all the vague aspertions to antisemitism that get brought up with any type of anti-Israeli critisism. Charges of antisemitism of this nature are despicable when they occur in real life, and even more despicable when editors try to write them into WP.

As this material has been pointed out as being contentious several times, and Slim, who apparently WP:OWNs this article, does not wish to address it, I'm tagging the sentences. Do not remove the tag until we come to some consensus on this matter. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, Misplaced Pages isn't about your opinion about what constitutes anti-Semitism and what doesn't. It's what reliable sources say. Keep your opinion out of this because it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot - I agree entirely with "isn't about your opinion about what constitutes anti-Semitism". But simply saying there is RS to back something up, doesn't justify its inclusion in an article. I take this as being self-evident, but if you like I can point you towards some guideline pages on the matter. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At least four editors here feel that defining a "blood libel" is WP:UNDUE and unnecessary in the lead. We do hae wikilinks for a reason after all. Per WP:CONSENSUS, the objections of these four editors which are policy based and/or style based should be taken into account. The sentence should either remain tagged until the issue is resolved or the sentence fragment in question should simply be removed. While I still have concerns regarding a kind of synthesis in the sentence as its phrased at present, addressing this particular concern would go a long way to demonstrating that there is room for good faith collaboration here. Tiamut 14:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Tiamut. I'm willing to be proved wrong here, but so far it seems like a group of editors are being a little heavy handed in perserving the current wording. Let's discuss this. Let's seek consensus! Let's make WP a better place! NickCT (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim and Modern seem to be choosing to edit war this rather than discuss. I hate whining to admins about this kind of thing, but perhaps its time? Comments?NickCT (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your whining complaint - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is getting old...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Modernist - Your refusal to argue on the points and simply control the article through majority & editting warring is wholely against the spirit of consensus. Now cease this jeuvinile behavior and say something worthwhile please. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with NickCT. "blood libel which according to WIKIPEDIA is: "accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays..." is just ridiculous in the lead. I read this article in passing, and to a new reader it stinks to high heaven, because rather than being an article about the incident itself, the victims, the tragedy, this Wikipeida article reads (not like an encyclopedia article about the subject topic) but rather a bickering about the blame, cover-up, a source of propaganda, finger-pointing, etc. this is best left to blogs. To put the bickering "journalists'" names ahead of the subject participants, the child that was actually killed, is the worst of the worst. I'm going to edit this again, and people better have a good reason to revert it, because there is no reason the journalists should be more important in this article than the subject itself!!! Soledad22 (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

blood libel Break 4

I fail to see any reason this well-sourced material should be removed. WP:LEAD requires notable controversies related to the subject to be in the lead; this is clearly the case, and is well-sourced. It would violate NPOV to remove it. This is a featured article, remarkably well balanced, and we should reject efforts to unbalance it. THF (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the amount and level of reliable sources and the nature of the incident and the bitter aftermath it is included correctly...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you both review the discussion above, people are not asking that the material be removed per se, only that it better reflect what secondary sources have to say. There is also a question of whether or not it is necessary to define blood libel in the lead. Four editors think it is not necessary, while one does (the others opinions onn that particular issue are not clear). So please, review the discussion carefully before making comments that do not address what is actually being discussed. Thank you. Tiamut 16:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

With due respect I am saying the brief description of blood libel is properly included and necessary and as far as I can tell the inclusion does reasonably and adequately paraphrase and reflect the secondary sources...Modernist (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@THF - Look, I'm not going to argue about whether the material is well sourced. Is it REALLY notable though? I mean, if I find several well-sourced charges levelled against the Isreali army by Arab commentors, does that ought be included? NickCT (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is notable enough that one could hypothetically create a Blood libel and the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article and it would be better sourced than tens of thousands of existing Misplaced Pages articles. If anything, the fact of the blood libel should be more prominent, but I won't militate for a change given that the article has featured-article status. You are certainly welcome to add sources to the existing "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them" sentence that is also in the lead (and before the blood libel sentence)--and unlike the sentence about brutality, the "blood libel" fact has the advantage of being true. THF (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Your arguement seems to be that all lines of debate/contention surrounding an issue/incident/article should be included in that article's lede provided they can be well sourced. Is that an accurate reflection of your views? Do you not see the danger in that? NickCT (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my views above, and they don't need rephrasing: they are a straightforward application of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Your version of my views is inaccurate. THF (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow THF. You like to lay down the law huh? Well ok then. It seems there is no room for debate here. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

People section: the subject victims of the shooting are placed AFTER the journalists?

I reordered the people section to put the subject: Muhammad al-Durrah at the top. SlimVirgin reverted this simple improvement without discussion. The subject victims should be listed ahead of the "journalists. Unless this article is retitled to "Post-shooting Analysis of the Muhammad al-Durrah killing", there is NO REASON that the victims shouldn't be placed above the bios of journalists. Again, to a first time reader looking for facts, why is Charles Enderlin placed above the topic subject and his father?? It flows horribly, poorly organized.Soledad22 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This does seem a little awkward. In his revert Slim said having Al-durrah's bio at the bottom of the "people" section "improved flow". That seems dubious. I think this is more of Slim trying to WP:OWN this article. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another comment; Is "People" really an appropriate title for this section. "Participants", "Primary Participants", "Involved Individuals" maybe? "People" seems a little nebulus. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article being owned?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are a couple sentences in this lede that multiple editors have called contentious and have asked to be excluded or reworked. Several editors have chosen to maintain the sentences without serious consideration for objections. Moreover, I attempted to identify these sentences as contentious through tags, and these same editors removed the tags through what I see as edit warring. Is this page being OWNed? If so, anyone into dispute resolution have suggestions? NickCT (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• The sentences are well-sourced and an appropriate application of WP:LEAD, which requires notable controversies to be discussed in the lead; there is zero basis for their removal, and zero basis to claim that they are contentious. Given that the article has been judged by the community to have featured-article status, the burden of editors challenging the stable version of the article is much higher, especially when their proposed edits would make a neutral article less neutral. The RFC is misformed and a violation of WP:NPA. THF (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"zero basis to claim that they are contentious" Respectfully, isn't this a fairly wild assertion as the sentences in question have led to so much debate on this very talk page? NickCT (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is existing consensus that the sentence is appropriate, and WP:IDHT seems to apply to the objections, which are not policy-based. THF (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly we disargee about "existing consensus". And clearly we disagree about about whether our objections are policy based. You'll note from reading the talk page above that WP:MOS,WP:POINT,WP:NPOV & WP:NOTABILITY have all been called into questions regarding the sentence(s). Anyway, let's let other editors weigh in. I for one will respect majority opinion. I feel though that the current set of editors controlling this page (the one I think you're calling "consensus") lacks NPOV.NickCT (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• In response to the original RfC question: As somebody who has written a Featured Article, I can tell you that yes, editors have a sense of ownership over an article they spent hundreds of hours writing and sourcing. In addition, Featured Articles generally are changed conservatively, after much deliberation; this process may reinforce a perception that the article's main editor "owns" the article.

To break the deadlock in the preceding section, I recommend that the issues be laid out in the simplest terms and addressed one by one. For example, do you agree or disagree with SlimVirgin's view that the lede should summarize both Palestinian and Israeli views of the incident? Why or why not? Do you think the sentences in question accurately summarize Muhammad al-Durrah incident#Personal and political impact? How might they be changed to better summarize that section? etc. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik - I can understand the sense of ownership. I would call it odd if there weren't a sense of ownership. But SlimVirgin has taken it so far that he reverting even minor changes (see Sole's attempt to reorder the "People" section) and basicly ignoring calls from multiple editors to make small changes to certain sections. I would be more understanding with the "sense of ownership" if it was a major revision we were working towards.

I think your suggestion for breaking the deadlock is more or less correct. I'm going to work on creating somekind of post that I will clear with you before I put it up.

More immediately; at the moment it appears to me that we have a "significant minority" of editors objecting to the language (see comments from NickCT,Tiamut,Soledad,Coppertwig). Doesn't this justify the debated material being tagged as at least "under discussion" if not "NPOV"? NickCT (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First, SlimVirgin is a woman. Second, I think a more focused discussion of the perceived problems with the lede (or the rest of the article) will help us ascertain whether there is a consensus and what it is. Finally, my personal view is that Featured Articles shouldn't have tags such as {{fact}} or {{POV}}. I'm just not sure what the benefit is of having a POV tag on the article. Does it indicate a problem with one sentence or the whole article? I think POV tags sometimes are added for the benefit of editors, not readers. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding Slim. My apologies if I caused offence. What about POV-Statement tags? At the moment I and others think the sentences do a diservice to readers by misinforming/misleading them. Tagging might mitigate that. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention all Following Malik's comment, I've created a post to try and measure consensus among editors. This post can be seen here. The post summarizes arguments for and against the sentences in question and asks editors to weigh in. Malik suggested in the interest of fairness that I ask whether any editors take issue with the way I have summarized the two arguements. I will do my best to incorporate any comments. I plan to post in approx ~6 hours from now. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick apology. I messed that initial link up. I put Sandbox#Rfc_-_Blood_Libel_.2F_Israel.27s_Brutality instead of the intended User:NickCT/Sandbox#Rfc_-_Blood_Libel_.2F_Israel.27s_Brutality NickCT (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

Regarding the following two sentences in the lede

"For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice."

A debate has occurred surrounding whether these sentences are appropriate.

A quick summary of the arguments for & against the sentences

Against

• Mention of Blood Libel and/or anti-Semitism in effect "poisons the well" and is irrelevant to the topic
• The way the sentence(s) is/are phrased violates WP:UNDUE
• The sentence(s) is/are essentially inflammatory and add little context to the article

For

• The material is well sourced and based on WP:RS
• The material is WP:NOTABLE and is inline with WP:LEAD
• WP:CONSENSUS has been reached on keeping the sentences
• Removing the sentence(s) would violate WP:NPOV

If we could get some editors to take a look at it with fresh eyes, we'd be happy for the input.

To get some sense on whether consensus is developing, if editors could phrase their responses in the following format

• No Issue/Maintain Current Wording - Reasoning...
• Revise (one or both sentences) - Reasoning...
• Delete (one or both sentences) - Reasoning...
• Comment - Comment...

Many thanks in advance for your carefully considered comments. NickCT (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maintain Current Wording. The sentences are well-sourced and an appropriate application of WP:LEAD, which requires notable controversies to be discussed in the lead; there is zero basis for their removal, and no legitimate basis to claim that they are contentious. (The claim that "blood libel" is irrelevant is belied by the neutral journalism that has noted the connection between the false accusation against Israel and the history of the blood libel.) Given that the article has been judged by the community to have featured-article status, the burden of editors challenging the stable version of the article is much higher, especially when their proposed edits would make a neutral article less neutral. If anything, the antisemitism behind the falsified video and resulting accusations is not given enough weight in the lead, though I would defer to the consensus that the existing version is featured rather than seek a change. Separately, I express concern that this is now the third time the challenging editor is seeking to overturn consensus, and worry that we'll see a fourth time and a fifth time until the editor gets the result he prefers simply by outlasting any other discussion (NickCT has made 28 edits to this talk page in the last 24 hours). WP:IDHT should be invoked after this time around. THF (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm generally okay with the current wording. I don't think it's perfect, or as good as it could be, but it's generally okay. I will say that I'm rather on the fence with regards to defining the term blood libel, as I understand both sides of the argument - it's not a common term, but defining it may give that opinion added, unnecessary weight. But I think both options are fine. I'm slightly more concerned with the "apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality" statement in the first sentence, but again, it's probably fine. No version of this article will ever appease every concern of every editor, and the article likely has bigger issues than these two sentences, but I'm pretty much fine with either version - the current, or the revisions that have been suggested. ← George 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey George, thanks for the comment. Would I be correct in saying that you see how these sentences could create concern among editors? Let me ask you then, do they add enough value to the article to be worth the controversy. Why not delete both? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how the current version could concern some editors, but like I said, no version of an article on this topic will ever not concern someone. And material isn't added or removed from articles based on whether or not it creates controversy among editors, which would be a terrible benchmark for inclusion of material. Frankly, I don't care if a statement in the article is controversial among editors, as long as it's neutrally written, well sourced, and properly weighted; inline with Misplaced Pages policies. As I said above, I'm okay with the two sentences being deleted, and I'm okay with them being retained. I don't draw any great distinction between those two options, and editor squabbling doesn't change my policy-oriented perspective on the subject. ← George 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine. Don't say I didn't try to change your mind! =) But I wonder, if there is wording in an article that creates allot of discord between groups of editors but adds little to the article, you think it's worth keeping? Remember that "neutrally written, well sourced, and properly weighted" are always going to be POV. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many things that editors haven't liked - sometimes justifiably, sometimes not - so in general it doesn't sway my opinion on keeping material much one way or the other. I think these two sentences were quite a bit worse before SV's latest change, because I felt they didn't properly reflect the reliable sources. I think after her change the second sentence now accurately reflects the reliable sources it cites (I've expressed my concerns with the first sentence, but don't care to push the issue during a firestorm). One could say that the placement, level of depth, or juxtaposition of these two statements gives undue weight to one view or the other, and that's what I'm on the fence about. But it's a more nuanced question, better solved with a scalpel than a hatchet. ← George 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (preferably both, definitely blood libel). I just can't understand how saying "Palestinians thought Israeli's were really mean", and "Israelis thought the world was anti-Semitic for believing the video" adds any context to the article. The former seems sorta self evident and pointless (akin to saying "black people were upset over the Rodney King beating"), the latter seems to make the article a mouthpiece for pundits in an attempt to "poison the well". These sentences are simply unencyclopedic. Would you find this in Britannica? As to THC's claim about WP:LEAD requiring all notable controversies be discussed in the lead; if we were really going to follow that guideline with this particular article, the lead would stretch into eternity. Expressing POVs such as these with such a controversial subject can't be wise. Let's delete and stick to the facts! NickCT (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@THF - I must object to your characterization "that this is now the third time the challenging editor is seeking to overturn consensus". I think reading the talk page above will reveal that a number of editors have questioned this language for quite a while. Additionally, I'm a little concerned with your "the antisemitism behind the falsified video". That seems to lack NPOV, and also seems to be a little FRINGE.

Regardless, thanks for the comment. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep both sentences in some form, though I'm open to suggestions for rewording—but blood libel does have to be explained if mentioned, because it's an unusual term. The lead must summarize the contents of the article, per WP:LEAD and for featured-article status. The first three paragraphs of the lead are about what happened. The last paragraph is about the response to what happened, and it broadly reflects the final section of the article, which is also a "meta" section. That this was a blood libel is a dominant view, and not only among people who think the footage was fraudulent. We're not required to share that view, or even to understand it, but we are required to reflect it.

  I think what is going on here is very unfortunate. A huge amount of work went into this article—work carried out in good faith—and it was recently given FA status by entirely uninvolved editors, all of them experienced reviewers, in its current form. The only reviewer to oppose did so, ironically, because he felt it was too pro-Palestinian. And now two sporadically used accounts with strong anti-Israel views feel it is too pro-Israeli, and have reverted 20 times between them in 12 days against multiple experienced editors in an effort to destabilize it. This is a very disruptive thing to do with an FA, where changes made really do have to be clear improvements. An article about a contentious I/P issue is never going to please everyone. All we can hope to do is more or less satisfy reasonable people in the middle. SlimVirgin 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "two sporadically used accounts with strong anti-Israel views feel it is too pro-Israeli, and have reverted 20 times between them in 12 days against multiple experienced editors in an effort to destabilize it. " - Needless to say, I think this is a gross mischaracterization and fails to assume good-faith. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me to assume good faith of an account that has made just 214 edits to articles in two years, among them British National Party; The Jew of Malta; Template:Neo-fascism; Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), (and that's just a selection), and who then arrives here objecting to the mention of blood libel in the lead, and adding for good measure that there are too many photographs of Israelis and Jews in the article. AGF doesn't mean I have to lobotomize myself. You're also asking me to assume good faith of you (163 edits to articles in nearly three years) that you haven't noticed any of this. SlimVirgin 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I've found a lot of your comments throughout this discussion (above as well) to be frankly unhelpful and off-topic. Instead of trying to tarnish the image of people objecting to the current wording used in the article, claiming they are socks (they were not), calling them anti-Israel (not clear that's true and frnakly irrelevant), or implying now, that they are anti-Semites, why don't you focus on the article content discussion? I've raised a number of issues I feel have been sidelined by you, via your invocations to the article's FAC status (so what, doesn't mean its perfect and can never ever be changed again), or by your not so subtle insinuations that my problem with the text derives from my failure to be NPOV. Please stop evading the issues. Tiamut 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I really do not think you are in the right position to blame SlimVirgin for "tarnishing the image of people". SlimVirgin, I understand and share the concerns you stated about some editors. To say that the contributions of Soledad22 are disgusting means to say nothing, yet any accusation in socking is hurting way too much as I have learned from my own experience, and IMO it might be better to miss on one, two socks than to accuse an innocent user. Otherwise I am voting to keep by SlimVirgin. It is a blood libel.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please discuss the article content, not me. The fact that you personally think the killing of Palestinian boy and its attribution to Israel is blood libel is not an argument for keeping the text at it is. Tiamut 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, would it be too much to ask for that you would discuss the article and not SlimVirgin?
It is not what I personally think about the incident, it is what is proven beyond the reasonable doubts: Israel has nothing to do with the killing of this Palestinian boy. I hope you are not going to deprive me the right to vote? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I can't deprive you of your right to "vote". But please note, there are no "votes" at Misplaced Pages and there is no such thing as "the majority rules". We convene discussions to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed. There's always give and take involved in that process.

The idea that "Israel has nothing to do with the killing of this Palestinian boy," is a bald overstatement not borne out by the facts in the article. Even if one were to accept the position that Israeli bullets didn't kill al-Durrah, the presence of the Netzarim settlement, and the soldiers that were there to defend it had a lot to do with why he died. In any case, its clear that your support for keeping the text has less to do with whether it is in line with Wiki policy or style guidelines and more to do with the fact that you believe Israel didn't kill the boy and that the claim it did was therefore a blood libel. Good for you, but that's not an argument to keep the text as it is. Tiamut 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I believe I have the right to state my opinion by voting only without providing any explanation at all. If there was no Second Intifada, there would not have been Israeli soldiers in Netzarim settlement in the first place, and, if in 1948 Arabs accepted UN resolution on partition instead of starting war on Israel, or, if Jordan and Egypt created Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza (they had plenty of time to do it from 1948 to 1967) by now there would have been two states and two peoples living side by side in peace and friendship in Palestine. My heart is going out to Palestinian kids, who are no doubt suffering, but Palestinians are looking in the wrong direction to find the guilty ones. In other words as Golda Meir said "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you even wanted to remove from the lead recently that the news manager of France 2 had reversed the network's position, and had acknowledged that no one could say who fired the shots. Had the Palestinians been accused of this death by one freelance Israeli cameraman, and had a France 2 boss two years later acknowledged the accusation might not have been correct, you'd have screamed blue murder (rightly so) had anyone suggesting removing that from the lead.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it. It's clear that there's an attempt to destabilize the article after an off-wiki post about it. It's the first such attempt since it got FA status, but it won't be the last. It's just disappointing, that's all. I was hoping we could show it was possible to produce an I/P FA without the usual hysteria. It's also disappointing that you're pretending not to notice the issues with the Soledad account just because he supports your position. I'm sorry to say that to you, I really am, but I find this somewhat discouraging, especially as you've been the target of this kind of thing yourself. SlimVirgin 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim - I was asking you to assume good faith on my part, and you pointed to edits that questioned Soledad's POV. Could you just verify that you aren't making accusations of anti-Semitism against me personally (because less forgiving editors might construe your comments that way)? And furthermore, your assertion that someone elses' views aren't important because thier accounts are "sporadicly used" is wrong. While I acknowledge you've put allot of work into this article (much of it good work!), your sense of entitlement over editing the article is also wrong (see WP:OWN). NickCT (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SV, you just did it again. You are implying that my POV is preventing me from seeing the rightness of your position. I immediately retracted my rewrite to remove Chabot's position once you pointed out how significant it was (I simply though it a restatement of other info already there without considering that as head of France 2 it was important to keep). A mistaken suggestion I quickly retracted is no proof of POV and I resent you bringing it up as it if were.

As to the rest of what you said, I'm simply not going to respond. I never read the post off-wiki and my concerns were what they were before they were raised here. I'm pretty ssure George didn't either, nor is Steve is part of this "conspiracy". We see a problem with the text. Its not a big deal unless you make it one. And you are, by kicking up drama instead of dealing with the article content discussions. Tiamut 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The conversation above, while interesting has got slightly off-base. I plan collapse it at some point unless there is objection. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't collapse it, please. In fact, I'd appreciate it if we could just leave people's posts as they posted them. SlimVirgin 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. No collapse. Re "just leave people's posts as they posted them"; I've been trying to organize with the permission of the actual poster themselves. If you object I will cease, but it seems as though you are being intentionly obstructive. NickCT (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or revise both sentences. They are both somewhat hyperbolic and slightly misrepresent the sources they cite, as well as broadly generalizing the views of Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis/Jews. While I think deleting them would be better, if they are kept, the definition of blood libel should be discarded (we do have wikilinks for a reason). The phrasing for the Palestinian part should follow closely that of the secondary sources cited, and the phrasing for the Israeli/Jewish part (which is synthesized summary of views expressed in a number of articles by Israelis and Jews) should reflect that these are views of the commentators cited. A possible revision for example, might combine the two positions together as follows: Cited by Arabs as the ultimate example of Israel's military brutality, a number of Israeli/Jewish commentators said attributing blame to Israel for the boy's death constituted a modern blood libel. Tiamut 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. there are some cases where it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to reflect two sides of an issue, a conflict or a debate. this fits none of those. this is simply reflecting a hyped picture of emotion on both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, and Maintain current wording. I think the context and the nature of the complexity of the terrible conflict described by the article is enhanced by both the mention of blood libel, it's description and the multiple sources (which IMO are adequately characterized), and which underscore its notability...I am commenting here - now - but this whole thing is a sham and I think this rfc is a disgrace and insulting to our intelligence, this is the last time I will comment, on these sour grapes refusal to accept consensus and other peoples feelings and opinions...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? When there is a dispute, people are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution. One way to do that is open an RfC. How is characterizing the views of multiple editors who disagree with you "sour grapes" helpful here? I could parrot your last sentence right back at you, but would that be helpful? I've offered a suggested revision with an explanation as to why I believe its an improrvement, if the sentences are indeed to be retained. You are free to disagree of course, but at least try to be respectful. Tiamut 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I am voting to keep by SlimVirgin. It is a blood libel. I would have rewritten it like this:"For the Palestinians,whom their propaganda machine made to believe that the boy was really killed by Israeli soldiers, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice."--Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Maintain current wording. Per Modernist. In addition, this is the language used in the featured article status which means it was quite acceptable and reasonable as deemed by Misplaced Pages administrators. There could be slight tweaks, but overall, it should clearly what represent what is already written. Another possible revision: "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, suggesting that Jews derive pleasure in killing gentiles." I'm not convinced that we need to restate what the historical blood libel is, moreso how it is being used in the current context. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes it is sourced to the Israeli government press office and Engage et al., but regard inclusion of the "blood libel" accusation as well-poisoning which seriously degrades the article's neutral presentation of information. Consider: MECA (the Middle East Children's Alliance) is planning a mental health care center for traumatized children in Gaza; Save the Children notes that 70 percent of Gazan nine-month-olds are anemic; on the one-year anniversary of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, candlelight vigils were held in Palestine and internationally in memory of the hundreds of Palestinian children killed. Would we also want "blood libel" accusations in Wiki articles related to these events? Maybe some editors would, and I think most of us who have been here awhile know that with patience, dedication and a selection bias, editors can find positions and sources for about any edit they want to advance (a government/group/academic makes a claim, media reports it, and voilà). This is my concern here. Have sources been presented for the "blood libel" accusation? Yes. Does the "blood libel" accusation improve the article? No. It does the article more harm than good. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally inappropriate. Keep Islamophobia, philo-semitism, and anti-semitism on the sidelines. Let's keep things neutral, and this "blood libel" reference is not neutral, it's a totally one-sided item talked about by Israeli/Jewish pundits only pushing a controversial term that advocates for the Israeli/Jewish POV. There are no Arabs/Muslims saying this killing was a "Blood Libel". The analogy is concocted by Israeli/Jewish pundits!! Not worthy of being in the lead. Soledad22 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

James Fallows is neither Jewish nor Israeli, and is frequently criticized by the pro-Israeli commentariat for his writings on the Middle East conflict. The fact that Fallows is cited for both propositions in the paragraph while you're claiming that it is one-sided suggests you haven't read the sources, and have a different motivation other than the improvement of the article. THF (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you of your earlier "the antisemitism behind the falsified video" statement? Is the pot calling the kettle black? NickCT (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There was antisemitism behind the falsified video and the efforts of several to repeat the claims of the falsified video. This is well-documented, and hardly a fringe view. But I recognize that the standard for Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth, so the false claims of the antisemites get mentioned in the article also, per NPOV. Fortunately, intelligent readers can tell the difference, which is no doubt why some wish to scrub the truth from the article. THF (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For those invoking Fallows, he does not say that the allegation was a blood libel, rather he writes: "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient "blood libel"—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing." That's vastly different than the phrasing used in the article right now and is in fact a different point altogether. Tiamut 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd prefer we note that for Arabs it "proves the ancient blood libel"? You're actually correct source-wise but I figure that such a phrasing would be objected to by both sides of the discussion. Current phrasing is superior in that respect as both sides get fair presentation of their contention. Jaakobou 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, that's what you are saying. My vote and rationale is clearly outlined above. I'm merely pointing out that for people saying that Fallows is a source supporting the current version, he's clearly not, since he is saying something else entirely. Tiamut 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you wanted us to properly write what Fallows is saying, that Arabs view it as proof of the blood libel. I don't really support that style but I also don't support censorship of mainstream pro-Israeli opinions. Jaakobou 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

James Fallows opinion DOES NOT belong in the lead. It belongs later-on in the bickering sections where the Islamophobes, philo-semites and anti-semites have crafted an article that never ends, goes back and forth, which is not about Muhammad al-Durrah and the shooting itself but all the bickering over who gets exculpated and blamed. Disgusting.Soledad22 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF explicitly says we're supposed to report facts about opinions. This topic is mostly about controversy, so that's what we're reporting on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and maintain current wording—it's a small sentence describing facts attributed to multiple reliable sources. There's nothing problematic about it, and I don't see how it "poisons the well". It's simply a case of calling a spade a spade. —Ynhockey 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I have no problem with sources supporting "facts" but here we are talking about opinions/interpretations ascribing underlying motivations. We have a firefight, a dead child, and a resulting controversy. Including a "blood libel" accusation in the lead poisons the well because it adds the loaded antisemitism card. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as is - both perspectives deserve merit per the concept behind this encyclopedic project (i.e. writing down of notable perspectives). THF, btw, is right in noting that Fallows is not an Israeli. Schapira isn't either. Jaakobou 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaakabou this is not about "including both perspectives" because these perspectives are not analogous, and that's why the text is out-of-sync and inappropriate. The Palestinian perspective is on the footage itself; but the Israeli perspective is on the Palestinian reaction. It's a false comparison. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You've actually found the reason why someone who doesn't undesrtand NPOV might prefer to keep a partial version that doesn't allow the Israeli perspective to be stated. The video was made by a Palestinian cameraman later charged with doctoring his material. To neglect the (highly notable) issue of the alleged doctoring and the relevant concerns and conclusions of the 'not anti-Israel' mainstream is not the right way of building a neutral article. Jaakobou 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The report is sourced to a French national TV broadcast journalist, who is Israeli, not a Palestinian cameraman (or a Japanese video camera). But it should be noted that many of those arguing the fraud/conspiracy/hoax position have pointed at the cameraman.

Anyway, this "both perspectives" idea remains a construction. Do you believe "perspective" means, more or less, "the position (mental) from which a thing is viewed"? We can start toward adding "perspective" after we agree on the "thing". What is the "thing", do you think? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC,

The source of the report is one Palestinian cameraman at the scene. The French-Israeli reporter was not at the scene and, like many other journalists with a hole in their critical-thinking chips, took the word of a partizan without question. This is a main issue in the conclusions of the 'not anti-Israel' mainstream and the very issue that cannot be censored from a quality article.

p.s. last I checked there is a wide-range agreement that at least some of the reports by the Palestinian cameraman were staged. This is why this incident started to attract so much scrutiny and ended up reaching its current status (with France 2 appealing Karsenty's victory in the libel lawsuit).

p.p.s. apologies but I'm not really following what you want of me with the "thing" you're talking about. I'm trying to make sure articles are written with the mainstream views represented fairly.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The "mainstream view" is not that this is "blood libel." That is a position being represented here almost verbatim from The 2nd Draft and The Augean Stables websites. There have been a far greater number of websites positing MI5 responsibility for Princess Diana's death. These websites are compelling, and people who hear what they want to believe are likely to pump their fists and tap their keyboards in support. But the fact remains that while mainstream media will report on conspiracy theories be they related to Princess Diana, 9/11 or J.F. Kennedy, these theories are not in themselves "mainstream views". I hope you can see the distinction.

Also, the "thing" I refer to is the object of this "perspective" -- is it the shooting or the reaction? It can't be one for the Palestinians and another for the Israelis. And also, this "Israeli vs Palestinian sides" framing is also problematic, as some of hoax/conspiracy theorists are not Israeli, and some of their "bad guys" are Israeli. If we seek a "perspective" on reaction, then two sides could be "hoax" and "mainstream". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

• Keep - these sentences are well sourced and notable enough to stay in the lead, as they depict the extreme emotional reactions in both sides towards this sad incident and its consequences. Noon (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Revise: Don't just say "the allegations": that lacks encyclopedic precision: which allegations? Especially in the context of the way the current article is written, this could be interpreted to mean the allegation that Israelis caused the death; but the majority of the sources don't seem to me to focus on this, but to mean whether it was intentional (or at least uncaring). I suggest The way the incident was portrayed in the media was denounced by some segments of Israeli society as "blood libel" – the centuries-old notion that Jews want to kill children. I find that this phrase "the way the incident was portrayed by the media" leans just a little more towards the intentionality aspect, thereby representing the preponderance of the sources better.

I apologize for my earlier remark, done in haste, about the definition of "blood libel": I see now that two of the quoted sources (Fallows and Philips) do give definitions of "blood libel". So it's OK for us to define it, sticking closely to these definitions by sources using it in this context. Remove the wikilink to the blood libel article, at least from the lead: the definition given at the top of it is irrelevant to this article (as pointed out above by others) and linking to it here is inflammatory and unencyclopedic. Remove the word "antisemitic" unless a source is found for it, describing "blood libel" in the context of the subject of this article: either it's obvious and therefore takes up unnecessary space, or it's OR. (Julius does say "anti-Zionist", but does not claim that centuries-old blood libel is anti-Zionist, rather that it has "taken on" an anti-Zionist character.) Fallows' "ancient" can be used to justify the wording "centuries-old". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi CT, how about "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old notion that Jews are willing to kill other people's children"? SlimVirgin 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep wikify to Blood libel#Modern world (and improve that section). It is properly sourced, and it is perception of many that this is what this story/incident is all about. Obviously it is the perception only of one side, but they have a right to have that perception included in this article which has basically only two sides. Stellarkid (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  No, don't wikilink to that section: it's about eating babies and stuff: irrelevant and inflammatory to link to. If that section is changed to be about something relevant, then maybe. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has nothing to do with Blood libel and linking to such a controversial topic in the lede is incredibly inflammatory and gratuitously unnecessary. Factsontheground (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reword (outside view) - The problem wording is "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities" - the "blood libel" link is used by some parties but it's not clear if it is representative in any way. Both "sides" are poorly represented. Try this:

"For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them and the indifference of Western countries to the deaths of Arab innocents. For the Israeli and Jewish communities, it showed the extent of the propaganda war in which their opponents were willing to fake or stage deaths of their own children; in some cases comparisons were drawn with ancient antisemitic accusations of blood libel (ritual child killing). "

FT2  20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, FT. The problem is that it suggests that people who believe it's a blood libel also believe the incident was staged. But those two beliefs are not necessarily connected. You can argue that the allegation—that the IDF killed the boy without there being evidence to support it—was a blood libel, without arguing the incident was a hoax or that the boy didn't die. Also, we need to keep the wording as tight as possible because it's the lead. SlimVirgin 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinians took it to mean X. Jews/Israelis took it to mean Y; in some cases comparisons were drawn with Z". There's no implication that the latter was the most widespread interpretation nor that people who believed Y also believed Z, merely that it was discussed enough ("in some cases comparisons were drawn") to be worth noting. We shouldn't "argue" anything. We report neutrally what significant views existed. The extra 30 words are tight. They cover the missing views in the original: - the Palestinian view that it showed the indifference of the West and the Israeli view that it showed the extent of the propaganda war. From the sources those look like perhaps two of the most significant piints about what it "showed". It's not wasted words. FT2  21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The way you wrote it implied a link between "the incident was a hoax" and "the allegation that the IDF shot him based only on the word of the cameraman is a modern blood libel." We can't do anything to link those ideas because they're not invariably linked by the sources. SlimVirgin 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that "in some cases comparisons were drawn with ancient antisemitic accusations of blood libel" implies a link with between the two. It is the simple and the proper inference to be drawn from the sources. Stellarkid (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Revise: the "blood libel" statement is not very well sourced, at least considering it's in the lead. There is only a passing mention in an article on the "JTA", an opinion piece in Jerusalem Post and a comment by an employee of the Israeli government press office, with the Israeli government distancing itself from the view. Instead of using the slightly (frankly) bizarre "blood libel" term, couldn't we just say " (...) brutality toward them, whereas some Israelis feel the footage is used as a propaganda tool against Israel." --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, "is not very well sourced?" ;;;; Any more?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, not well sourced which this rather colourful collection of yours only underlines. You have an interview in the website of "Global Jewish Affairs", a column by Melanie Phillips, a rant on "CAMERA"'s website, something from HonestReporting and finally something from a blog called "Seraphic Secret". You're only missing a piece from Alan Dershowitz to complete your series but there isn't even the first WP:RS.--Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you wanted me to present Non-Jewish, maybe even Islamic sources to describe what that propaganda meant to Jews. Interesting! No more questions. I am clear on your POV now. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi DC, some of the sources are listed here for convenience. SlimVirgin 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz, I'm afraid you don't see so let me explain: the sources you mention are not WP:RS since they are not published subject to editorial oversight. An article in Jerusalem Post is OK, but an opinion piece there is not. Similarly, texts by known advocates of one side of the divide (such as Melanie Phillips, HonestReporting or CAMERA) cannot be used as sources on third parties, the third parties in this case being "sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities". Now as to the list provided by SV, there are indeed WP:RS present, however I found only two (Arutz Sheva and the New York Sun, neither of which are exactly the brightest starts in the firmament but nonetheless). I don't know about Le Meilleur des Mondes, but there Taguieff doesn't say that "blood libel" would be a position of "Israeli or Jewish communities", but that Palestinians are exploiting the material in propaganda. Arutz Sheva and the NY SUN in fact also don't say that sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities would subscribe to the "blood libel" view, they just use the term in the context of the al-Dura incident. So even in view of SV's list, I don't see why the bizarre term "blood libel" should be in the lead, and I'd still prefer my suggestion. (note- I read SV's sources in a bit of a hurry so I may have missed something) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DC, some of the sources are quite solid, and this is just a selection. I spent months reading the al-Durrah sources and the blood libel issue is extremely prominent (on one side, of course). The list of sources includes people like Anthony Julius, whose work is widely regarded as scholarly, and Pierre-Andre Taguieff, the French philosopher. SlimVirgin 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

I'd just like to register my agreement with Daily here. RS won't be found that links the "libel" idea to "sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities", because it was only forwarded by a select few commentators and journalists. Frankly, the "libel" thing thing is here at the moment, not because it is backed by RS, but because the supports the POV held by the cabal of editors controlling this article. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with noting that some people have argued that the shooting is a hoax or was staged or Muhammad is not dead. But to then premise a "blood libel" upon these conspiracy theories is going too far. Unless there are reliable sources which say Palestinians believe the IDF soldiers marched in and drank Muhammad al-Durrah's blood, then this fantastic accusation remains a construction serving to leverage a strong and emotive bias into the article lead. RomaC (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd statement! Blood libel is not about what Palestinians believe it is about what Jews and Israelis felt, and what resulted for Jewish communities around the world because of that blood-libel hoax. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any Israeli or any other reliable source to confirm the reality of this image File:Humanshieldisrael.jpg, but apperantly nobody sees any problem with that.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reaction Mbz1, I am not against saying that some regard it as a hoax. But isn't it also absurd to link an article on a shooting to "Blood libel against Jews are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays."? Or would you say that a media report covering the Palestinian children killed, for instance, in the Gaza War, would also constitute a "blood libel" because it made Jews and Israelis feel a certain way or affected their communities around the world? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, you should try to understand that "Blood libel" here is not used in its literal sense. Please see here page 168. The author explains that the term "Blood libel" in Hebrew has taken the root to describe any false accusations against Jews shedding blood.Please see here "Giuliana Sgrena's Blood Libel Against the US"You should also remember that the hoax was staged on September 30, 2000 that happened to be Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year).--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's what's meant by "blood libel", when why not say that instead of using this bizarre term? For example as I suggested above: " (...) brutality toward them, whereas some Israelis feel the footage is used as a propaganda tool against Israel." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre? Really? How about that cartoon by Palestinian cartoonist Omaya Joha that was published in the newspaper Al-Raya, Qatar? And here's her hard at work, and all over in blood--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have two suggestions:

1. The thrust of the RfC seems to be that we retain both sentences, perhaps with a rewrite of the blood libel one. We could use Anthony Julius as the source, as he and Taguieff are the mostly scholarly of the blood libel sources (Julius, Anthony. On blood libels, Engage, September 2006). So the section would read:

The footage has acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the allegations amounted to a modern blood libel, the ancient claim that, as Anthony Julius puts it, Jews entertain homicidal intentions towards non-Jews. The scene has been evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah in October 2000, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002. James Fallows writes that no version of the truth will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

2. Or we try something different, including the Julius point but without using the term blood libel, and adding this source: Haas, Peter J. "Moral Visions in Conflict: Israeli and Palestinian Ethics", in Leonard Grob and John K. Roth (eds.) Anguished hope: Holocaust scholars confront the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008m p. 21 ff. This is who Haas is. We don't have an article on him.

Peter J. Haas writes that both the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives express deeper truths. For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, the widespread acceptance of the allegations that the IDF had shot the boy seemed to reflect a belief that, as Anthony Julius puts it, Jews harbour homicidal intentions toward non-Jews, while for the Palestinians, the footage represented what was actually happening to them and their children as a result of Israeli military activity. In that sense, Haas argues, the video perfectly reflects the narrative that both sides understand themselves to be in, and therefore its meaning persists, no matter the facts. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

Thoughts? SlimVirgin 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok SV. My general thoughts are this - Do you think either of these options are encyclopedic? Both these options seem far too analytical to me, and they go way above and beyond the relaying of basic facts that one expects from an encyclopedia. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticizing your writing, and I’m not arguing you’re POV pushing. I’m simply saying that this type of in-depth analysis is more appropriate for a essay/textbook/opinion piece than wikipedia. It seems to beg for the type of argument that initiated this Rfc! Though I acknowledge and accept that the Rfc has demonstrated I’m in a minority (all be it a large one!), I’m still for just deleting the section.

Given that you likely won’t accept deleting, I’ll say that I can live with the second option (as it eliminates the outlandish “blood libel” thing, removes the awkward “battle flag” and heavily qualifies the perspectives). Are you happy now? Can you quit giving me the silent treatment and arbitrating against me?

P.S. If I could also beg we allow the RfC to run another couple days before making changes, I’d be grateful. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC should run at least a week, and then we can ask an uninvolved admin to close it. As for being "encyclopedic," a featured article should contain analysis, which is the reason for the final section of the article, and the final paragraph of the lead.

Nick, I'll quit the silent treatment and the dispute resolution when you quit the reverting and all the arguing. You'll find me a very cooperative editor if you come to me with good points and good sources (on either side). But I literally can't stand the back-and-forth time sink. I've even taken this page off my watchlist because of it, and just check in occasionally to see what I've missed. So, please, offer me fewer posts, more substance, good sources, an understanding of our content policies, and a willingness to see both sides, and you'll find me a pushover. SlimVirgin 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh SV.... I can't imagine you're a push-over for anyone. Do you not think a little WP:OWNing could have been even partly responsible for "the reverting and all the arguing"? Anyway, as I've mentioned before I'm not sure how FAs should differ from normal articles in regards to analysis. Can you cite policy re "a featured article should contain analysis, which is the reason for the final section of the article". And even if this is the case, you are offering analysis in the lede.

But regardless, I stand by what I said earlier. I will grudgingly accept the second rewrite offered. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

I protected the page for one week to stop the edit-warring. The proper place to discuss your disagreements is on this Talk page, not in the article itself. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the 'wrong version' issue but, being brutally honest, you've managed to protect a tag-team of non-contributors against well established editors, one of which was at the core of elevating this article to FA status. The system needs some leeway for newcomers, sure, but to give them allowance to lay down the law is ridiculous and a detriment to the project.

Side note, concerns about the recently removed 'see also' link were not discussed on the talkpage and it this link is inherently relevant (and was on article space through proper consensus building).

Warm regards, Jaakobou 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaak - You confuse "being long established" with having an unquestionable POV. While I grant that editors who have been around for a while deserve some reverence, I think you and Slim assume way too much. NickCT (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything but I was involved in a very long and tedious effort on this article and it has been elevated to FA status after considerable review by editors who are not considered to have "an unquestionable POV". To have editorial-newbies lock a page on the "wrong version" of an FA, regardless if I were involved or not, seems silly beurocracy and is a (no offense intended Malik) momentary lapse in Common Sense. Arguments can occur after the elevation of the article's status but changes to high quality articles should be reviewed by a group of experianced editors. Sure, they should listen to small-contributors that wish to give input or raise concerns but small contributors usually do not understand the intricacies of producing a long-term long standing quality article. My concern is procedural really regardless if I tend to agree or disagree with one perspective or the other.

With respect, Jaakobou 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some serious POV editors that protect and WP:OWN this article in violation with Misplaced Pages policies. I've never had a problem with any article until I came across the likes of this one. All over three issues 1) Blood libel (questioning this is very legit), 2) putting the names the subject(s), the Al-Durrahs, AHEAD of journalists, and 3) removing an unencyclopedic/irrelevant comment about the child going to the beach and smearing him with teenage stone throwers. Personally, I'm disgusted with all the personal attacks and ridiculous WP:OWN over these minor issues. Hey, SlimVirgin: I don't care if this article was once a "FA", Misplaced Pages is open for the public to edit and improve. People are still discussing and revising and writing new books on the history on the Civil War. Do you think you own that too? Soledad22 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully following you. For example, the boy's mother stated herself that Muhammad loved "protest days". Have you seen that interview? Jaakobou 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"do not understand the intricacies of producing a long-term long standing quality article" Hmmmm..... Very dubious Jaak. What we have here is a basic NPOV question. I think almost anyone can cast a worthwhile opinion here. "they should listen to small-contributors that wish to give input or raise concerns " You again seem to under the delusion that there is some type of entitlement for long standing editors. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.... wrong... I promise you that there are a whole bunch of excellent writers who aren't established Wikipedians whom could write circles around the so-called "established editors" controlling this article. You apparently would exclude them if they didn't hold the right POV. NickCT (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear NickCT,

You've suggested removing a "smear" that the boy's mother said about him in an interview. There's nothing here about established editors ignoring basic NPOV that I'm aware of and this doesn't have anything to do with how I see FA articles and beurocracy. New editors shouldn't lock up articles that were already reviewed - regardless of if I agree or disagree with them.

p.s I'd lay off the "dubious" terminology.

With respect, Jaakobou 15:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"You've suggested removing a "smear" that the boy's mother said about him" Not sure what this refers to. And regarding locking up articles, can you point me in the direct of a policy that say FA can't have POV issues that should be tagged?

P.S. I lay off the "dubious" terminology, when you lay off dubious terminology. NickCT (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT,

Have you seen the interview with the boy's mother?

With respect, Jaakobou 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry. No idea what you're refering to. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The first documentary by Esther Schapira has an interview with the mother. I suggest you try obtaining a copy or perhaps finding one online. Jaakobou 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well stated NickCT.Soledad22 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

People, al-Durrahs not in appropriate place in article

I'll try this again, and I'd appreciate discussion over edit wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident#People_section:_the_subject_victims_of_the_shooting_are_placed_AFTER_the_journalists.3F

I reordered the people section to put the subject: Muhammad al-Durrah at the top. SlimVirgin reverted this simple improvement without discussion. The subject victims should be listed ahead of the "journalists. Unless this article is retitled to "Post-shooting Analysis of the Muhammad al-Durrah killing", there is NO REASON that the victims shouldn't be placed above the bios of journalists. Again, to a first time reader looking for facts, why is Charles Enderlin placed above the topic subject and his father?? It flows horribly, poorly organized.Soledad22 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This does seem a little awkward. In his revert Slim said having Al-durrah's bio at the bottom of the "people" section "improved flow". That seems dubious. I think this is more of Slim trying to WP:OWN this article. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another comment; Is "People" really an appropriate title for this section. "Participants", "Primary Participants", "Involved Individuals" maybe? "People" seems a little nebulus. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone who has any objection to this minor edit, please state why. It is distressing that people like Malik Shabazz cannot stop edit warring. Is it possible to block Malik Shabazz from undoing this edit without discssion? Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, Soledad, and I'm disappointed you haven't got a clue after all this time. After your changes have been reverted repeatedly, you need to get consensus to make them. Not the other way around. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, it seems to me that the argument of those who usually have no good argument is that thier opponent is in fact the one who needs to demonstrate consensus to get their version of an article allowed. Anyway, as I said on Sole's talk page, SlimV has successfully mired us frivilous arbitration to smite our attempt to restore NPOV to this page. I suggest we cease any edits untill the AE is over. NickCT (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik: LOL!!! Give us all a break, the edit is minor and not one person has given a justification for edit-warring over something so simple! It's very "telling" about extremely peculiar biases that are found with some editors on this page. Just think 1,000 lines of "Talk" and nobody can address the subject: Why are the journalists placed above the subject(s) of the article? It flows horribly. Maybe I need to review more of the featured articles. PS I googled SlimVirgin and it appears that this editor is very, very controversial on Misplaced Pages, so I guess it explains some of the bizarreness I've seen on this page. Weird.Soledad22 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Muhammad al-Durrah alive or is Muhammad al-Durrah dead?

Which is it? RomaC (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead, obviously. The only reason this is still being discussed is because of the agitation of various right-wing conspiracy theorists and irresponsible journalists who see it as an opportunity for Arab-bashing. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a nitpick here, the dead issue has not been properly established (as was determined by the French court) and "irresponsible journalism" is a common theme among people criticizing the Palestinian-originated report. Esther Schapira, Richard Landes, Philippe Karsenty, Frida Ghitis, Andrea Levin, Luc Rosenzweig, Denis Jeambar, Nidra Poller, and others for example. I'm fairly certain they're not all out to do Arab-bashing (see WP:SOAP) but rather to get to the truth.

p.s. that's not to say that the boy is alive. The issue is more about journalism and how it created a situation where each side believes what they want to believe. This is why the lead should point this issue out.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it -- it's reported Muhammad al-Durrah was pronounced dead on arrival by the hospital. I understand that there are a handful of zealous conspiracy theorists who have been arguing for some years now the shooting was somehow staged, that the child was acting, moving a "red cloth" around to simulate blood, and that a second corpse was switched in at the hospital -- but how on earth has this hoax claim taken over the article, to the point where editors are saying the "dead issue has not been properly established"? And how preposterous is it to even suggest that a French judge has the power to "determine" whether a person in Palestine is really dead?

The style and format of this article are top-level, but the weight and premise are seriously skewed. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists who argue that Elvis is not dead, yet if I tried to remove his date of death from the Wiki article and say "the dead issue has not been properly established" I would be laughed at. This would be funny, if it were not a bit chilling: Wiki editors have resuscitated a dead boy. RomaC (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ther's actually a notable number of respectable journalists who support that the original report was bogus (to varyous degrees). You should really give a deeper look to the sources presepted. Anyways, I don't think anyone has ressurected the boy though. That part is a little on the off-side of the mainstream 'not anti-Israeli' perspective. Jaakobou 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Per WP:CITE, "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article... There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of . Any of these styles is acceptable on Misplaced Pages so long as each article is internally consistent".

The cites in this article don't contain the information they should. They are also somwehat misleading. Styles such as "Fallows 2007" are usually used for academic papers and books. In fact it's a quote by an Israeli press spokesman being quoted by the BBC (which is not made clear) and Fallows is the journalist's name. The reason the source is detailed in a reference is so that a reader can assess the significance of the source from the wiki page.

Cites probably need to be changed to proper {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} format, both to meet citation norms and to better inform the reader.

FT2  21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of author and year is called a Harvard reference. It's quite standard and is common on WP, especially in featured articles. It does not imply the author is an academic. You then include the full citation in the References section at the end, which is done here. Citation templates should not be added to articles that already use a consistent referencing system, per CITE. This page would become uneditable with templates in it, because there are so many references. The text would be unreadable in edit mode, and the page very slow to load.

And Fallows 2007 has nothing to do with the Israeli press spokesman or the BBC. Not sure where that comes from. SlimVirgin 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Crossfire?

Hi,

I realized that according to one of the BBC articles mentioned here, witnesses said that only the Israelis were firing weapons in this incident and not the Palestinians. Should we collate sources and investigate, whether it's appropriate e.g. in the lead to say the al-Durrahs were caught in a "crossfire"? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you tried to add that, and that Mbz1 simply reverted you , with no explanation or discussion here. It quite impossible to make this article NPOV (which despite its being a FA, its not) when people are intent on making it reflect their POV. Good luck and I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I'm not up for getting blocked for edit-warring again, and so for the time being, am staying far away from articles that are POV magnets, like this one.

As RomaC points out above, not adding a death date here is pandering to a conspiracy theory. And it would be funny, if it wasn't so disturbing. A little boy and his death have become a battleground for conspiracy theorists. And the sad thing is, they are winning. Tiamut 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I explained why I removed it in the edit summary: "removed POV that was proven wrong later on" About the boy, let us hope that this particular boy is alive and well.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read your edit summary. Did you read the article cited? It states: "But witnesses say the Palestinian youths were armed only with stones, not guns, and the shooting was all from the Israeli side." No one has ever proven that the Palestinian youths were armed with anything but stones. Please restore DailyCare's edit and add "youths" after "Palestinian". Thanks. Tiamut 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Even if subsequent sources stated that there was shooting from Palestinian policemen, the testimony of witnesses to the event is a significant POV and not one that has been cancelled out by any subsequent analysis. Per WP:NPOV, this viewpoint should be expressed in our article. Tiamut 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

High quality RS's ignored by this article to give undue weight to conspiracy theorists

• Intifada hits the headlines: how the Israeli press misreported the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising (2004) by Danny Dor, see pages 18, 20, 62-64, 69, 90, 106, 119. Sample excerpt:

  The IDF invested a huge effort, destined to fail from the start, to show that it did not spill the blood of the child Mohammad al-Durra. But who is examining the dozens of other deaths? "No one can convince me that we did not kill dozens of children unnecessarily," says the senior officer. There was no malice, most likely. But in may cases there was certainly a breach of guidelines as well as faulty judgement. (p. 69)

• The Middle East and North Africa 2004 (2005), Europa Publications, see page 90, excerpt:

  From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive force and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behaviour which, in the PLO's view, reflected Israel's contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of the killing of 12-year old Muhammad al-Durra in Gaza on September 20, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception.

• Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories by Peter Phillips, page 291, excerpt:

  In the first three-and-a-half months of the current Palestinian uprising against Israel's continuing confiscation of Palestinian land and the suppression of human rights, Israeli forces killed 84 Palestinian children. The largest single cause of their deaths was gunfire to the head. During this period, not one Israeli child was killed. Not one suicide bombing against Israelis occurred. Of these 84 Palestinian children, only one received headline coverage in the Chronicle - Mohammaed al-Durra, the little boy whose murder while he ws cowering with his father was recorded for all the world to see by a French TV crew.

• Media studies: key issues and debates by Eoin Devereux, pages 125-126, sample excerpt:

  The circumstances of this killing were highly contested and became the focus of an extensive propaganda struggle the Israelis issued a statement saying that the boy's death was unintentional. The Palestinians rejected his account and stated that the targeting was deliberate. 'They shot at us until they hit us', he told me, and 'I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.' The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'.

• This Heated Place: Encounters in the Promised Land by Deborah Campbell, pages 139-147. Interviews with Talal Abu Rahma, the surviving members of the Durrah family and Charles Enderlin. Lots of material that can be included here.
• Reproduction, childbearing and motherhood: a cross-cultural perspective by Pranee Liamputtong, page 218. Quick paragraph noting that two years after his death his mother gave birth to a son who she named Mohammad too. Tiamut 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Side note: Discussions over the media/incident before France 2 released the "raw" tapes in 2007 seems futile and irrelevent - much like physicists talking about physics before Newton came up with his 3 basic laws. Talking about an incident without seeing the rushes is like barbershop gossip. Jaakobou 08:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article is not about the France 2 libel suit. Its about what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah. Most the reliable sources written on this subject ere written in the first five years after his death. Your opinion that the court case is the biggest and most important thing is well knon, but this incident is about much more than just that.

More sources and things to add

• With an iron pen: twenty years of Hebrew protest poetry (2009), by Tal Nitzan.
  • (p. 142) It is mentioned that Admiel Kosman, the Israeli poet, penned Poem for Muhammad. (Don't think he thinks its a "blood libel" to talk about his death.)
• An Anthropology of War: Views from the Frontline (2008), by Alisse Waterston
  • (p. 113) "became an icon for Palestinian suffering."
• Clash of identities: explorations in Israeli and Palestinian societies (2008), by Baruch Kimmerling, the Israeli sociologist
  • (p. 329) "the young martyr becomes a symbol of the renewed Palestinian struggle."

• Protection of children during armed political conflict: a multidisciplinary perspective (2006), by Daniel Dor, editors Charles W. Greenbaum, Philip E. Veerman, Naomi Bacon-Shnoor
  • (page 259)

    Ever since October 2000, a whole host of organizations and private citizens, including the IDF, invested an enormous amount of energy in trying to prove that al-Dura was indeed killed by the Palestinians. Some of these attempts actually made headlines, especially in the U.S., Germany and Israel. I have found these attempts not just highly unconvincing, but also totally irrelevant: al-Dura was hardly the only Palestinian child who was killed or injured in this Intifada. The actual numbers are quite alarming. Al-Dura's death came to symbolize this general fact, and no amount of tinkering with shooting angles can make it disappear.

Note that none of these sources (at least three of which are Israeli) and all but one of which are composed after the court case, even bother mentioning it. Its a sideshow, not considered worthy of serious consideration by serious scholarly sources that discuss the little boy. The Karensky crusade should have its own article, since the issue in the court case is libel, and not who killed Muhammad, or what happened to him, no matter how much people want to make interpret it that way. Tiamut 12:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Expect the Israeli government to endorse the conspiracy theories in the next few days

• Israel to announce its opinion on the Al-Dura affair soon, official says. It look like Karentsky and Seaman will finally get their way. This article, which treated the claims of conspiracy theorists with a seriousness that they did not deserve (and were not given in high quality reliable sources), lays a nice groundwork for that announcement. Well done, Slim. Tiamut 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just two questions, if I may please:

1. Are you suggesting that Slim is a part of conspiracy?
2. Please refresh my memory. Aren't you yourself asked me to discuss the article content, not you? Of course you asked me this right after you yourself discussed SV yet another time.

BTW she happened to be right about at least some socks, didn't she :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Which socks were those? NickCT (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

. I know you will say, that they were created after SV was talking about them, but isn't this great to be able to predict the feature:) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Tiamut. I had no idea that this was coming but its about time. Jaakobou 09:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Jaakobou.

@MBz1, I'm not suggesting Slim is part of a conspiracy. Your question does. Tiamut 12:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@ MBZ - That's called self-forfilling prophecy. Calling, treating, and acting against someone like they are a criminal leads to them becoming a criminal. Nothing perdictive here. NickCT (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Carvajal 2005: "But it is the harrowing image of a single terrified 12-year-old boy, shielded in his father's futile embrace, that possesses the iconic power of a battle flag."
2. Fallows 2003: "His name is known to every Arab, his death cited as the ultimate example of Israeli military brutality."
3. Julius 2006.
4. Lauter 2008.
5. Fallows 2003.
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Carvajal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Haas 2008, p. 21 ff.
8. Julius 2006

• 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment