Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Passing the torch

Just as a note, if a MedCab mediator would like to take over management of this article, I would have no trouble with handing over the torch and taking a step back. Or I could stay with it, either is fine. Just let me know how I can best be of assistance to the mediation process. :) --Elonka 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can't do it, you can always go for it. Wizardman 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so here's how it'll work: Wizardman is now chief mediator of this dispute. I'll still help out as an uninvolved administrator, primarily in terms of managing the Conditions for editing that are on the article, and imposing/lifting any editing restrictions involved. Or in other words:

• Wizardman (talk · contribs) is the point person for content issues, towards finding a compromise version of the article.
• Elonka (talk · contribs) is the point person for user conduct issues, specifically as relating to the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions.

Other uninvolved administrators are also welcome to participate, and of course all admins (including myself and Wizardman) will stay in communication with each other, to try and address any areas where things overlap. --Elonka 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Alright, here's what I would like done. Let's try to keep discussion here on this talk page. What I'd like each party member to do is give me an outline of where they stand on this issue, and what they would like to see happen in the Statements section below. Since there's twenty of you, keep them brief :) Then we can start on compromising and the like. Wizardman 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statements

• I believe the intro needs a rewrite as it is clearly on the side of France 2 and Arab organizations. Plus the source used to verify is over 8 years old. The intro should be adjusted according to current findings, which as far as I know are near the "maybe" he was killed spectrum. The current intro gives the false impression that al-Durrah was murdered in all likelihood, and there is not a single chance he might still be alive. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the intro - and the body of the article - needs a rewrite as much has happened in the intervening years, in particular the recent high court France ruling.fr en While I can accept the possibility that the boy was killed, the bulk of the available evidence (or non-evidence, as there is no hard evidence either way) points to the probability of it being a hoax. In either case, it seems that the Israelis did not do it and the article should unambiguously reflect that. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm kind of talked out on this one. To put it simply - there is doubt about the accuracy of the original report by France 2 that blamed the IDF for killing him. Mainstream reliable sources now seem to acknowledge that he could have been killed by Palestinian gunfire, although there is no definitive answer or proof one way or the other. The article should and does reflect this, without taking "sides" either way. There is a further position though, promoted mainly in marginal online pro-Israeli sources and the occasional op-ed, that the whole incident may have been a hoax or deliberately staged by Palestinians. This possibility is occasionally mentioned - usually without endorsement - in the mainstream media news reporting, primarily because of the court case. However it is a fringe view, based entirely on fairly vague, speculative questions about the original footage which are as likely to have other explanations, not on any positive evidence (eg someone involved in the hoax and subsequent cover-up coming forward). The latest court ruling itself has been misrepresented as giving backing to the hoax theory, when it did not and when no reliable mainstream source has interpreted it that way. Yes this aspect of the controversy also needs to be covered, but with even more focus on the issue of due weight, and with regard to BLP issues in respect of Charles Enderlin. The article, and especially the lead, should not certainly not lock into a minority view and suggest there is anything "supposed" or "alleged" about the fact of Muhammad Al Durrah's death. --Nickhh (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• My concern, simply, is with undue weight being given to conspiracy/fringe theories in this article. A select group of users is fundamentally misapplying and synthesizing a recent court ruling on the matter into giving more weight to the conspiracy theory, as well as trying to "source" the fringe POV to inherently reliable sources such as blogs, trivial local newspaper outlets, and the OpEd columns of major newspapers. At best, a casual mention of the conspiracy theories can be made, much as such issues are addressed in Apollo 11 in popular culture#Folklore and 9/11#Conspiracy theories. And I must say, that any suggestion here that evidence points to the "probability of it being a hoax" is an absolutely, unequivocable falsehood. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Note: I will be gone for a few weeks, with no intent or desire to be within a mile of a net connection. So unless this is still ongoing in mid-July, my participation will be pretty much limited to this statement Tarc (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The key difficulty we're having with this article is a clash between two different approaches to editing. The subject of the article is the focus of an aggressive off-wiki campaign by a number of right-wing and pro-Israeli nationalist bloggers and activists, with support from a few op-ed columnists in ideologically sympathetic media outlets. A number of editors support the views put forward by this campaign and argue that the article should present what the campaigners regard as "the truth". Other editors are agnostic about the facts of the case and argue that the article should present the various POVs fairly, without undue weight being given to minority POVs, as required by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. An additional complication is that the campaigners seek to impeach the personal reputation of the living persons involved in this affair, which has been reflected in personal attacks on those persons on Wikipedia (see e.g. [1]) We therefore need to address the following points, inter alia:

• How to represent the minority POV without giving it undue weight, given the insistence by some editors that the minority POV is "the truth";
• How to deal with BLP concerns, given the repeated attacks on living people's reputations;
• Which sources are compatible with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, given that blogs and op-ed columns are routinely being cited on the talk page (and in the comments above mine).

-- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• No reliable source have reported that Muhammad al-Durrah is any more alive now then when he was killed. // Liftarn (talk)
• All I want is for the intro to reflect current findings. The current reflects when the incident broke out in 2000. It's the year 2008 for those who are unaware, and thus the article should contain new (reliable of course) information. To say nothing new or relevant has come up since the year 2000 would be a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are multiple, mainstream news sources who discuss the hoax theory, either supporting it, or taking the evidence for it very seriously. There are other mainstream sources who severely criticize the France 2 report as misleading to the point of dishonesty, though they fall short of calling it a hoax. There are no mainstream sources that I'm aware of who adhere to the view that the France 2 report was more or less accurate (not counting the flurry of reporting shortly after the incident itself). The story is what a Boston Herald editorial has called a "sordid 8-year-old affair," [2] and an increasing number of individuals and groups in France are asking the French president to set up an independent inquiry. Our article must reflect the lack of clarity accurately, without implying that the hoax hypothesis is a tiny-minority or fringe POV, or a conspiracy theory. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The above statement is extremely misleading. There are no mainstream news sources on al-Durrah that take the line, or give any space to the conspiracy theory, that the shooting was a hoax. There are some op-eds claiming it, mostly from those closely associated with this conspiracy theory, and there are some news reports on a trial relating to it. Per WP:FRINGE, both those are irrelevant. I'm afraid that there's no compromise possible here unless our approach to fringe theories is changed, and no degree of articles focusing on the trial will change that. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• We know there is a campaign to get dismissed two individuals in this case - see here - ... Levin says CAMERA has taken some cautious steps ... "We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2. ..."
  • Furthermore, we know this campaign comes from an organisation that has recently attempted to subvert the encyclopedia, with one well-known editor being keen to cheat outright, and other editors apparently unable to recognize the danger to the integrity of the project.
  • Under these circumstances, the sudden arrival of two new (but not naive) editors at this article makes it appear that Wikipedia is being hi-jacked by outside persons engaged in a vendetta. Potential mischief by "new" editors with "unblemished" reputations is exceptionally dangerous - even a legitimate SPA like me could be tempted to sock-puppet in such a perfectly legal (non-abusive) fashion - so what if I was once wrongly blocked for a 3RR which was then lifted? Nobody need even know!
  • Hence, I would suggest that parts of this story cannot be reported in a "regular" article.
  • I propose we cover the event without reference to the libel case, but that we highlight the article with something like "Ongoing legal action involving France 2 and Karsenty will only be covered once it is completed".
  • Such an injunction on us does not restrict us discussing and reporting other claims that Palestinians shot the child, or that the father faked his injury. We can even quote Duriel telling 60 Minutes that he believed there was collaboration between the journalists and the killers, since there is no law-suit over that claim from that source.
  • The alternative is an open invitation to subvert regular editing process and turn Wikipedia into a platform for campaigning and wiki-lawyering, guaranteed to pointlessly waste vast amounts of effort by good-faith editors.
  • The disadvantages to this line of action are pretty trivial. We're not covering up the fact there is a controversy - in fact, we're high-lighting it. Readers won't think less of us for challenging them to work out some parts of an ongoing story for themselves. PR^talk 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about statements

(Tundrabuggy response to Nickhh) the article does take sides, as it stands, by insisting that the only possibilities to be given weight are that he was shot and killed, either by Israelis or Palestinians. As pointed out to the court by independent ballistics experts,[3]there is as much or more evidence that the killing was staged, as there was that the Israelis or anyone else killed him. Maintaining the lead of this article based on the 2000 Enderlin account is to misrepresent the state of affairs today. If we want to put in a timeline, that's fine, but the lead should reflect the contemporary state of affairs. The language of the lead, as all journalists know, is critical.Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Since the mediator is currently absent, I have created this "discussion" section to keep replies separate from the statements. I still encourage all parties to include their own statement. You are also welcome to amend your statement, until the mediator's return, and then I'll pass the torch back to Wizardman.  :) --Elonka 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

For some sources discussing or reporting the view that the France 2 footage was misleading, or even a hoax, please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources

More accurately: these are op-eds arguing for the view, not news sources, or news reports on a trial peripherally related to the claim being used for political propaganda. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I need to do this, but the "source war" has started, so here are a couple of sources - dated after the libel case originally started - that continue to ridicule the "hoax" theory as being the preserve of "eccentrics" or "conspiracy theorists" etc. They are op-eds too, but in a sense though that's the point of course - mainstream news reporting isn't touching the hoax theory, at least in terms of giving it any credence. The lack of such reporting says more than the number of op-eds that are flung back and forth here. Anyway I haven't set up a separate page as there's only four so far. Happy to have someone add more and move them to a standalone page.

• David Langsam in the Australian Rationalist
• Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post
• Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post (follow up column)
• Gideon Levy in Haaretz.

Perhaps more importantly, even the pro-hoax theorists and campaigners have been complaining that, as mentioned above, the mainstream media aren't touching the hoax theory

• UPJF
• Melanie Phillips
• CAMERA
• Honest Reporting

--Nickhh (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just note on the pro-Israeli sources above. The first two were written prior to the Appeals Court verdict, in 2007; the last on the day of the verdict and the CAMERA source one week later. Perhaps Honest Reporting link asks the right question: " Is the same media that did so much to propagate the al-Dura libel without verifying the facts now too embarrassed to admit that they may have erred?" --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that Larry Derfner doesn't accept the possibility of the incident being staged because he believes the Palestinians killed the boy? Either way, he doesn't accept the original France 2 version, ie that the Israelis shot him. As for Gideon Levy, it doesn't matter to him one way or the other. In fact he says: "But the question of who killed al-Dura is not important. And maybe he is even alive, as some eccentrics claim." There are more and more "eccentrics" around, these days. To the David Langsam articles, Langsam says of Nahum Shahaf and Yosef Duriel: "Despite their lack of qualifications, their report is relied on as proof of the conspiracy theory." In checking out their qualifications, besides that of being a physicist and an engineer respectively, it seems Shahaf has patents on a see-through wall which forms a barrier against penetration of projectiles, and a system for moving object detection. [4]. If Langsam can call that "lack of qualifications," he can call the whole thing a "conspiracy theory" with equal justification. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No you do not. I however obviously need to remind you that every time I have posted a comment about this issue, I have acknowledged there is serious debate in mainstream coverage about the accuracy of elements of the France 2 report, and about who was responsible for shooting him. However the idea that the whole event was staged, or a hoax, is quite a step beyond that, and that's what I want to make sure does not get undue weight in the article. --Nickhh (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who argues that the sources aren't reliable, or aren't relevant, hasn't read them. We have multiple mainstream sources who are casting doubt on the France 2 report — from the minimalist theory (that France 2 had no reason to blame the Israelis, and even had no reason to claim that the boy had died, though he may very well have done so) to the maximalist version (that the entire thing was staged). Anyone who doubts this, please spend some time reading what the sources say and checking how mainstream the publications and the writers are. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read them. SV, please address the points already made, rather than restating your position unchanged, please, if we are to progress. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that you've made any points. You simply keep saying that only op-eds and fringe sources are reporting the hoax theory, when even a cursory glance at the source list shows that you are wrong. You also seem not to realize that journalists write opinion pieces all the time about old news, rather than straightforward news accounts, because there is so much background to explain. They are still perfectly good sources, particularly if the writer is a well-known, mainstream one, as many are in this case. We also have a recent overview from the Columbia Journalism Review explaining that the hoax theory used to belong to the conspiracy-theory sector, but no longer does. My suggestion is that a serious journalist who has investigated this probably knows more about the issue than anyone on this page. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SV, I have a dozen times said that no coverage of the entire Al-Durrah case in a mainstream source gives any weightage to the fringe theory, only those reporting on the conspiracy theorists or their trial does. Regardless of the op-eds or trial reports you keep on citing as sources, I have not seen a response to that point. I am also well-aware of newspaper policies on what is considered appropriate for an op-ed piece as opposed to straight news. I am surprised to discover that you do not, or wish to ignore it. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that there's a major difference between original reportage and op-ed coverage. Op-eds, by definition, are expressions of a single individual's opinion on a topic. They're sectioned off from the news coverage for a reason; most media outlets are strict about keeping the opinion and reporting separate. Thus (for instance) a news report by an on-the-scene correspondent has a higher news value as a statement of observed fact than an op-ed column by an armchair analyst, which is merely a statement of personal opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

No new relevant information has appeared. There have been further development of conspiracy theorists, but that is something very different from facts. Yes, a French court came to the conclusion it is not slander to promote the conspiracy theory, but that doesn't change anything. // Liftarn (talk)

Er, no. You are mischaracterising the court's decision. The court decided that, after looking at the 'evidence' provided by Karsenty, and listening to the witnesses, reading the reports and watching the rushes, that Karsenty's 'evidence' had weight and THUS his characterisation of the France 2 report could not be considered libelous. Read the report for yourself [5] and notice all the "Considérant(s)...." in the verdict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Liftarn - I've been watching this from the sidelines. I'd suggest not using the term "conspiracy theorists" if you're at all interested in a constructive conversation, as that term has a lot of negative connotations and is sure to anger or annoy good-faith editors who don't hold your point of view. Couldn't you use a more neutral term like "minority POV" or something similar, instead? Kelly ^hi! 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn - go to talk page. Tundra, 67, many many others have demonstrated that the new findings are far from conspiracy theories. I'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself.Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When they are only supported by unreliable sources, then they really aren't very far at all. This is the essence of WP:FRINGE. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when are they unreliable? Because you disagree with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, because they fail WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, I agree that the hoax "theory" (hypothesis, really) is a conspiracy theory in the strict dictionary-definition sense of the term - it certainly ticks all the boxes. However, I've noticed that people who believe in such things tend not to like being called conspiracy theorists, so it's probably best to avoid the aggravation that the term causes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it incumbent upon those who claim that all of our new sources are unreliable; to demonstrate specifically which ones are unreliable, and what is unreliable about them. They can find thelist here: Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources, specifically. How about this [6] from the Jerusalem Post in regard to the 2006 decision that went against Karsenty?

In October 2006 a French court decided in favor of France 2 and Enderlin, and against Karsenty.

The court acknowledged that Karsenty had submitted significant evidence indicating that the event had been staged. Still, in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the judges said Karsenty's accusations lacked credibility because, they claimed incorrectly, he had based his accusations on a single source.

The JP is generally conceded to be reliable, no? And that was in 2006 before anyone had even seen the rushes, as France 2 had been eager enough to send out the edited version free to all takers but was highly resistant to letting anyone see the unedited film, even the Israeli government! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the issues we need to work out: how much value do we put on sources that paraphrase things like court rulings, versus sources that quote from such rulings? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JP can't be any less reliable than France 2. After all, in this particular incident France 2 is being challenged for integrity. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The same source also says "Karsenty's accusations lacked credibility" and "no Israeli authority /../ has ever accorded the slightest credit to [Karsenty's] allegations". // Liftarn (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? France 2 is the source being challenged, not JP. This article is using a dated report that is being accused of fabrication. This is something we cannot ignore. Smearing it as a hoax or conspiracy is unfair and ridiculous. We are bordering intellectual dishonesty, and as far as I know wikipedia does not support that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that some people have proposed... ahem... alternative theories is not realy relavant. Elvis is still dead. // Liftarn (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

this mediation is going nowhere. clearly opinions and blatantly poisoned sources trump logic. yeah, i tried being cordial. cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The central point is that the kid is obviously still alive, moving around, and without blood on him when he last appears in the unedited version of the France 2 video, i.e. after the section where France 2 claims he was shot and killed. I haven't seen anyone argue that this isn't true. But if you point out, you're "fringe" and a "conspiracy theorist." The arguments I see offered by the pro-France 2 side are just endless variations on this sort of sneering and name calling. Kauffner (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of fantasy interpretation (ie `the kid is still obviously alive`) that is and should still remain on the periphery of the subject matter. Goodness, this is like reading the testimonies of the people who say they can look at the WTC implosions and conclude `yup, that thar is a demolition not an explosion`. 70.242.121.61 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

that is ridiculous. equating the legitimate accusations against france 2 (which have been HEAVILY sourced) to silly conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 is unfair and downright insulting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as far-fetched as you think. I've just been watching a BBC documentary about the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, specifically concerning the collapse of 7 WTC, and I was struck by the similarities between the "truthers" on the programme and the hoax "theorists" in the al-Durrah case. We have the same sort of cherry-picking of evidence, picking out statements, video clips and photos that support the "truther" case while ignoring or ridiculing any counter-evidence; the same pattern of dubious extrapolations from limited evidence; the same sort of speculation based on, apparently, nothing more than the belief that the party involved (the government in this case) is a habitual liar and can't be trusted; the same implicit or explicit claim that hundreds or thousands of people must have been involved in the conspiracy, though strangely without any leaks or confessions from anyone in the past seven years; the same sort of frenzied speculation on the Internet on websites and blogs that act as self-reinforcing echo chambers for like-minded "theorists"; the same hounding of individual journalists and experts whom the "truthers" believe are part of the conspiracy, including denunciations and death threats against such individuals. In other words, the same panoply of pathological thinking, faulty logic, hopeless credulity and belief-based speculation.

The programme made it very clear that the "truthers" are seeing only what they want to see and that they're not rational or impartial inquirers. They have a basic preconceived belief - essentially that the Bush administration is evil - and they're interpreting everything they see through the lens of that belief. Of course, the major difference between the "truthers" and the al-Durrah hoax "theorists" is that a segment of the American conservative commentariat has latched onto the al-Durrah hoax "theory" for reasons of political convenience. I suspect that says rather more about the values of American conservatism than the merits of the al-Durrah hoax "theory". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris0, there are plenty of sites that debunk the myth of 9/11 being an inside job. I'm one of the many here that believe credibility is essential on controversial topics in wikipedia. Appealing to silly conspiracy theories is not very productive nor is it enlightening. Second, there is PLENTY of evidence indicating al-Durrah's status (dead or alive) as unknown. No body has been found and the tape released was cut from an estimated 20 minutes to 30 seconds for reasons not said. If in fact al-Durrah was killed, it is still not clear who killed him. Recent ballistic reports (which have been sourced by Tundra, 6S, me and others in the talk page) attribute the fighting to neither side. This is what we know: France 2 has had a blatant bias against Israel from the get-go. Investigations with the al-Durrah case is still going on. From all this we can say there is no definite answer as to what actually happened, and thus the article should reflect that. Currently, the introduction is being verified by an 8 year old source which is under intense scrutiny and analysis. For an informative, neutral, no-political-allegiance website like wikipedia, we must take great care in ensuring balance and fairness. al-Durrah has yet to meet these standards. Do you agree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because again you're displaying some of the pathological thinking I described above. Cherry-picking of evidence: a body was "found" - the boy was taken to hospital, certified dead and then buried publicly in a filmed funeral at a Gaza cemetery, so plenty of people saw (and recorded) the body. Dubious extrapolations: news organisations do not normally redistribute the full rushes of a particular set of footage but offer the key scenes as a "package", without a commentary, to which a voiceover can be added by whichever agency picks it up. That's standard practice. Prior belief of wrongdoing: your claim that "France 2 has had a blatant bias against Israel from the get-go", which is little more than a standard partisan complaint put forward whenever someone broadcasts something that's ideologically inconvenient. Speculation in echo-chamber conspiracy theory websites: there are no "ongoing investigations" other than the ongoing frenzy of speculation by the hoax "theorists". At least the 9/11 conspiracy theorists can look forward to the publication of the official report into the collapse of 7 WTC; the al-Durrah conspiracy theorists are trying to rewrite a closed case. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I really resent your attribution to Wikifan as demonstrating "pathological thinking"...and think it should be struck! --Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a psychological term. To quote Julian I. Taber, a clinical psychologist, "The term pathological thinking means wrong, incorrect, and irrational thinking. More than this, it implies distortion, exaggeration, and perceptions, all based on unrecognized needs and feelings." Conspiracy theorising is a prime example of this. You might also find it interesting to have a look at "Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History", a recent book by Damian Thompson which goes into a lot of detail about the psychology of conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

er, no. What you are really doing is trying to pass yourself off as an expert in psychology and "diagnosing" others whom you disagree with as 'pathological'[7] (ie 'sick'). Take it somewhere else. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, "pathological" is probably a bit over the top; I withdraw that. But the essential point stands - like other conspiracy theories, the hoax "theory" is based more on bad logic, irrational thinking and personal belief, rather than a rational analysis of the facts. Conspiracy theories are an irrational - and to an extent, anti-rational - way of explaining an event. Occam's Razor is a far better tool of inquiry. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, applying Occam's Razor, what is your explanation for the last scene of the footage showing the boy lying across his father's legs (leaving out that he was still moving)? I can't think of a single reason a news cameraman would stop filming at that point, and wouldn't even try to capture the boy's death, or attempts by onlookers to help him and his father, or efforts by ambulance men to reach them. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of plenty: he ran out of film, his camera's battery ran out, it was too dangerous to film continuously while the gun battle was still ongoing, he had to leave the area. The point is that there are multiple possibilities. We don't know the specific reason so there's no point speculating on it. But Occam's Razor suggests that one of the aforementioned simple explanations is more probable than a complex explanation involving the cameraman in a vast eight-year conspiracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have some questions. Why did it take France 2 years to come up with the footage, even after repeated requests from the Israeli government, and only under court order? Why were we told originally that there was 27 minutes of footage but under court order we find there is less than a minute on Al-Dura?[8] [9] I believe that to this day they have not provided all the footage shot that day.[10] Why was the last 10 seconds cut out of the (original) film when many viewers believe it shows the boy "peeking" at the camera? [11] If France 2 thought it was death throes why did it take them years to at least allow Israeli government to see it? There were other cameramen there including some filming Rahman filming Mohammed. Why did they not capture any film of this? --Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to get into discussing the minutiae of a conspiracy theory. That's not what we're here for and we're not in the business of trying to establish "the truth" -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I was simply refuting your assertion above that the ' hoax "theory" is based more on bad logic, irrational thinking and personal belief, rather than a rational analysis of the facts ' by means of a rational analysis of the facts. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for completing ignoring my points and resorting to name calling. i think this mediation is pretty much over. nothing is going to change since nobody is prepared to recognize the blatant flaws with this article. al-durrah will just be another tragic, POV, and unbalanced article sanctioned by wikipedia. cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, which parts of the article specifically do you feel are still POV; or are there any significant omissions? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

im satisfied with the following intro: Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.[1] Subsequent investigations have suggested that he might have been killed by a Palestinian bullet, and a number of people believe that the entire incident was staged. if this is changed or twisted to a more pro-Palestinian/arab agenda be prepared for another visit from wikifan12345...mwahahahahahahaha! :D im too exhausted to go through the later portions of the article, as its size is overwhelming. however, i will say this: in my opinion, the article is not balanced. though compared to many other hot articles, like israeli apartheid analogy, al-durrah does very well in TRYING to maintain a neutral point of view, even though it fails miserably in every possible aspect. it's just that the failure is less than most controversial articles, but im not sure how much of an accomplishment that is. cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can pretty much live with the first section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I may have spoken too soon. That second sentence, much as it has been worked over.... isn't entirely accurate. I think the second sentence might more accurately read: "Subsequent investigations have determined that he was more likely killed by Palestinian gunfire, or that the entire incident was staged." That is the most straightforward and less euphemistic reading of the situation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because "determined" wrongly implies that the matter is settled, which it clearly isn't (except maybe in your own mind). -- ChrisO (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor can the lead say it is "more likely" that he was killed by Palestinians, or not killed at all. There is nothing that allows us to make this judgement, other than your personal views. As to the lead more generally, I am broadly OK with the first part of it, in that it covers pretty accurately the narrative of what was reported and what has been claimed since. It has been a struggle to make sure it does not start using the words "allegedly" and "supposedly" and hopefully it will stay that way. However in my view the later paragraphs of the lead are carrying way too much detail on the counter-allegations. They should be covered much more succinctly and then expanded on as appropriate in the main body of the article.

I would add that this debate is being mis-characterised as a battle of some sort between opposing POVs - I have no real personal view on or investment in this issue, despite the accusations of this article being "twisted" to a "pro-Arab agenda". I don't actually know of course exactly what happened that day, and nor does any other editor. I just want to make sure that this issue is covered - as per WP policy - according to what mainstream, reliable sources say about the known facts of the case. These pretty clearly suggest that he was shot and killed during violent clashes, although there is some doubt as to who was responsible. As I've said before, if people want to show that this whole event was staged or a hoax, they're going to have to bring some reliable reporting of facts that expose this (eg at least one person coming forward from the hundreds who must have been involved to say they helped set it up), not merely raise speculative questions themselves or source similar questions to blogs and op-eds. --Nickhh (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I'm going to be on wikibreak (for the most part) from the 6th to the 13th. As a result, while I will probably be able to be online and make occasional edits, I won't be able to mediate the case and help you guys out. I've finally brought myself up to date with what's been going on, but until I get back try to hold of on edits and the like (though you can try and make compromises amongst yourselves, I encourage that). Sorry I haven't done more as a mediator thus far, this is a compliated situation and I'm making sure I understand all aspects of it. Wizardman 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What can we agree on?

I was re-reading through the discussions of late when a thought came to mind. Yes, there's a lot of controversy as to what happened and the like, but what can we as a group agree on in the article? It may be easier to find a conclusion if we ask this. Wizardman 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be worth pausing this mediation for a few more days? I'm in the process of systematically expanding and rewriting the article, based on a dump of news articles from Factiva and Lexis-Nexis. It already looks significantly different to how it was a few days ago, and it'll look more different still in a few days' time. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully this rewrite will make mediation go more smoothly. Wizardman 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, to be honest. I'm approaching this article as a sceptical rationalist researching the affair using reliable mainstream sources. Others may have a different approach to editing and sourcing. That is likely to come out during the course of this mediation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

chris o's involvement - conflict of interest?

does chris o deep and emotionally-invested involvement in the recent al-durrah mediation case a conflict of interest? on chris o's userpage, it is said he "strives to maintain a neutral position", yet his participation in the discussion is far from neutral. are administrators allowed to partake in these kinds of activities? in other words, is chris o's position pose a problem for this mediation case? im not an expert on wiki rules, but i thought id just bring it up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, yes, no. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "are administrators allowed to partake in these kinds of activities?", the answer is yes. In these circumstances, the admin is expected not use any of the administrative functions, such as protect, block, or delete. Have a look at WP:ADMIN.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

so as long as chris o doesnt utilize admin privileges in al-durrah, it's ok? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much right. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

cool. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Need some content mediation on a point

Regarding the qualifications or lack thereof of Nahum Shahaf, the fellow who headed the Israeli investigation into the al-Dura incident. I started a new section on that on the talk page which pretty much lays the debate out. In the main article I keep editing out the fact that Shahaf is unqualified, and ChrisO keeps editing it back in. I would appreciate if you would take a look at it? Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a very obvious example of attempted whitewashing on Tundrabuggy's part. Briefly, a newspaper article criticises Nahum Shahaf's investigation and states that he has no forensic or ballistic qualifications. Tundrabuggy doesn't like the source because the author has been criticised by some pro-Israel advocates. As far as anyone has been able to determine, Shahaf has never claimed to have professional qualifications in those areas but claims that he's a self-taught expert. On this basis, Tundrabuggy claims that the source's statement is wrong and therefore can't be allowed in the article. In short, Tundrabuggy is attempting to take out a sourced statement because he believes, on the basis of his personal views, that the author got it wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out how many different basic editing policies this violates (hint: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR for starters). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Total mis-statements of the facts by ChrisO. It is a fact that O'Loughlin has been criticised mainly by Jewish groups (not "pro-Israel advocates" as ChrisO asserts.)[12][13], because careful analysis of his work has led many to believe he is biased. But I am challenging him here simply on the facts. O'Loughlin (and ChrisO under his authority) unqualifiedly claims that Shahaf had "no qualifications in ballistics or forensics." [14] The self-taught line is this one "as a physicist I read scientific material, both theoretical and experimental, and try to consult with several experts in this area, and so I have basically finished all the stages necessary in learning this topic." [15] Common sense would seem to dictate that he is claiming that he is qualified. Self-taught people can be experts, and bunglers can be certified. Finally, for ChrisO to say that Shahaf has never claimed to have professional qualifications in these areas is simply not so. In this 2002 interview, he was asked

• "Nahum Shahaf, you were selected to head the Israeli commission established to investigate the circumstances of the A-Dura affair. A you a career military man?"

• Shahaf: "Not at all. I’m a scientist, a physicist specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images. I was appointed on this basis." [16]

My argument is that to call someone unqualified is an exceptional claim which requires high-quality reliable sources. I don't believe that unsupported allegations comprise a high-quality source. Regarding NPOV, and OR I believe ChrisO is guilty of what he charges by attempting to push the POV (basically supported by a single controversial reporter) that the principals of the IDF inquiry were inexperienced and unqualified in his attempt to minimize the conclusions of this report. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC) It also impugns on the competence of the IDF and and the Israeli government in suggesting that they would chose to use "unqualified and inexperienced" investigators for such a case. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The fact that it might impugn the competence of the IDF or the Israeli government is neither here nor there. Note as well that neither body actually officially commissioned Shahaf originally to conduct his investigations

2) None of the quotes you provide - which come from Shahaf himself anyway (see WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB) - specifically assert any formal qualifications, experience etc. They merely make vague claims about being a "physicist" or a "scientist" (both of which cover a wide range of sub-disciplines of course) and then of being a "specialist". That is, even his own claims do not contradict O'Laughlin's assertions.

3) Other journalists and commentators have also queried his credibility, either explicitly or implicitly (Gideon Levy 1, Larry Derfner 2).

4) Saying someone is not qualified to do something is hardly an exceptional claim.

And finally, the fact that he is not that widely commented on, either to affirm or deny his expertise or qualifications, could of course suggest that he's not quite the notable figure you are holding him out to be? --Nickhh (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Without this report "officially" commissioned or not by Maj Gen Yom Tov Samia, Commander of the Southern Section, and announced to the world 2 months later, there would have been no follow-up on this story. Official or not is really a distinction without a difference at this point. When Israel decided to put forth the results, it clearly sanctioned it. Would they have put the results out from unqualified principals?
• 2) The issue of "formal" qualifications is a new argument recently thrown in and is a good example of raising the bar in order to push a POV. O'Loughlin doesn't say he has no formal qualifications, he says he has none. It also begs the question of what constitutes a qualification, formal or otherwise.
• 3) Your examples are opinion pieces, and really say nothing about Shahaf's qualifications. They give us zero new information.
• 4) Saying someone is not qualified is not an exceptional claim? Try making that claim about your doctor or your pilot or your lawyer and see what happens! --Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Nick is correct to say that the views of pro-Israel advocates aren't relevant to determining whether the journalist, Ed O'Loughlin, is a reliable source. He's a professional journalist writing in a major mainstream newspaper - that's all that counts as far as WP:V is concerned. Remember, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." We do not blacklist sources on the basis of what a few partisans think of them.

2) The meaning of "qualifications" is clear. My Chambers defines a qualification as "a certificate gained, exam passed, etc indicating a level of competence". To the best of my knowledge, Shahaf has never claimed to have any such certification or professional accreditation. Nothing he has been quoted as saying contradicts O'Loughlin's statement that he has no such qualifications. There is a critically important difference between someone saying that he's qualified (which might be on the basis of personal experience) and someone saying that he has qualifications (which have to be bestowed by someone else). Tundrabuggy is elliding the two, presenting "qualified" as equivalent to "having qualifications". O'Loughlin doesn't say that Shahaf is not qualified - he says he doesn't have qualifications, which has quite a different meaning.

3) The examples Nick cites may be opinion pieces, but they indicate that it's not just O'Loughlin who's raising doubts about Shahaf's qualifications. This clearly constitutes a significant viewpoint, and NPOV requires that we present "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's not optional or negotiable.

4) Of course it's not an exceptional claim to say that someone doesn't hold particular qualifications. Let me illustrate this through a thought experiment. It would be an exceptional claim to say that Shahaf has been to the moon, because going to the moon is a highly unusual activity. You would need some pretty damn good sourcing to support that claim. By the same token it would not be an exceptional claim to say that he has not been to the moon, because not going to the moon is the normal state of affairs and would be assumed as a matter of course. (Of course, we wouldn't say anything about visiting the moon because it's not relevant to the article, since Shahaf does not, as far as I know, own any space rockets.) Now consider the claims that Shahaf has or doesn't have forensic or ballistic qualifications. This would not be exceptional either way. There is a sizeable number of people (tens of thousands, probably) who do hold forensic or ballistic qualifications. Saying that "X has forensic or ballistic qualifications" would be to assert an uncommon but not exceptional state of affairs. However, the vast majority of people do not hold such qualifications. Only a tiny fraction of the 6.5 billion people in the world hold such qualifications. That means the normal situation is for people to not have such qualifications. Stating that any particular person does not have those qualifications is thus an entirely mundane and commonplace statement in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. More importantly, it's not us who have stated that conclusion, it's our reliable source. We are simply reflecting what our source says, not adding to or subtracting from that on the basis of our personal opinions. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1)I am not attempting to "blacklist" any author who is a WP:RS (by the way, is he still working for The Age or was he let go? Anyway, all I am asking for is verifiability not truth. Verify that Shahaf "does not have any qualifications" - don't let us just parrot one reporter who has a reputation for biased reporting in this very area. He is the sole reporter who makes such a claim.
• 2)"No qualifications" is "unqualified" -- however you parse the language. He did not say he was "uncertified" or "never took a course in ballistics" -- "doesn't have a relevant degree" "flunked the forensics course" etc... he doesn't say anything except "no qualifications." It means what it says and is clearly meant to prejudice the results of the inquiry on the basis of something other than the inquiry itself. It is unnecessary and probably untrue. The whole business of tying to paint these people as as unqualified kooks, even if you can find reporters that agree with you (hint, hint WP:OR), does nothing to produce an article with a neutral point of view.
• 3.) A handful of opinion pieces casting aspersions on someone's character or qualifications hardly counts "a significant viewpoint." In fact this article brings in all sorts of extraneous material that is presumably "significant" -- such as the views or beliefs of these two men about other things. Some scientists believe in God and other scientists think they are silly for such a ridiculous belief. But this has zip to do with the science they are engaged in. It is extraneous 'information' that does nothing to build a concise, verifiable article with a NPOV.
• 4.) I'm not even going to consider the last argument. I'll leave visiting the moon to you. It isn't my area of expertise.
• Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1) He's still working for The Age [17]. As I've said before, we don't need to verify the sources of our sources - policy specifically discourages us from attempting to do so. Nor do we exclude reporters just because a few partisans have criticised them. That's the antithesis of what WP:V permits and requires.
• 2) "No qualifications" means what it says. If you want to assert otherwise you must find a source. Your view that it's "probably untrue" is wholly irrelevant, as it's your personal belief.
• 3) It's completely relevant info. If Shahaf is presenting himself as an expert, reliably sourced criticism of his claimed expertise is obviously relevant. Otherwise we will mislead the reader into thinking that his supposed expertise is undisputed, which clearly it isn't. Likewise, since he's a key promoter of a conspiracy theory, it's obviously relevant to note that he has a record of promoting other conspiracy theories. Since this is reliably attested by several sources - including Shahaf himself - in the context of the al-Durrah case, it's important information that needs to be mentioned.
• 4) You could have fooled me... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• 4) No doubt... Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over the this and the note above tomorrow. I know I've been slacking on that, just cant seem to catch a time to set aside for this. Wizardman 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, let's please keep these conversations civil. The "goats" comments, especially in reference to a living person about whom we have a biography, would seem to be a violation of WP:BLP. I would recommend refactoring. --Elonka 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry I haven't been able to deal with it up to now; having been away for the weekend, I've only just checked my talk page. I've refactored accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's part of what I've seen. For point #4, to call someone unqualified in what they do, due to the issue of BLPs and the like, I would be inclined to think a high-quality reliable source would be strongly enccouraged. For #1, it's true that we go by verifiability, not truth, which both sides seem to agree on yet there are still problems. I'll review the rest tomorrow, I'm trying to get mediation, well, started (i know i've been overreaching, trying to do too many hings on here) Wizardman 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, what then determines what constitutes a high-quality reliable source? Would it be one who is not considered biased by one side or the other? I understand your point on #1 --re the difference between verifiability and truth. My question is, in a contentious area like I/P conflict, what happens when you get competing reliable sources? One could end up writing a story full of contradictions. "The scientist was both qualified [1] and not qualified [2]." Another question re verifiability and truth: what happens when you can verify through reliable sources something that is factually not true? For example, initial reports of this incident in the BBC claimed that there were 45 minutes of film, yet later it was clear/accepted that there was only 18 minutes of film. Hypothetically I can use a RS to verify that there was 45 minutes of film -- except that wasn't true, not factual. Is accurate/factual the same as "truth" and how would you deal with the example of the 45 minutes, assuming someone wanted to insist on it as a verifiable fact? This problem is particular to a situation like this one in which all the facts are not clear in the beginning, but unfold over time; in this case years, or perhaps may never be clear. It's one of the aspects that makes this article so challenging. Appreciate your help (and time) with these difficult issues. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Once again, Tundrabuggy, you are elliding the difference between self-claimed expertise and qualifications. We do not actually know what qualifications Shahaf holds, as our sources are silent on that subject. We do know that Shahaf claims competence in certain areas on the basis of self-taught knowledge. What he does not say, and what no source you've ever cited says, is that he has qualifications in a particular area. The bottom line is that we have a source in a news report - not an opinion piece - by a professional journalist in a major, well-established newspaper, subject to all the usual editorial controls, fact checking, legal clearances etc, that says Shahaf has no qualifications in two areas. You have provided no source whatsoever that claims the opposite. Not even Shahaf himself has made this claim. There is no competing source. As I've said from the start of this discussion, you need to cite something that says "Nahum Shahaf has qualifications in x, y and z", otherwise it's original research on your part to make this claim. Also, yet again, we are not in the business of verifying what you consider to be "the truth". We are not "truthers" (or at least are not supposed to act like them).

One other point is that partisan whining about the reporter is completely irrelevant. When assessing what is a reliable source, we consider the publication, not the individual author (except in the case of opinion pieces, which the report in question is not). The relevant guidelines are at WP:RS#News organizations.

Wizardman, you may also wish to see this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look there. I do have a question though, will the RFC you're building on Elonka affect the mediation side of things? If it probably will maybe I should place this on hold for a little while. Wizardman 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Word gets around, doesn't it? Unfortunately I think the mediation will have to be abandoned. Elonka's actions are driving away editors - at least two of those who have made statements in this mediation have since said that they can't continue to edit the article because of the way Elonka is (mis)managing it. The results of any mediation are meaningless if nobody wants to edit the article. Thank you for your assistance, Wizardman, but I think this mediation is effectively over. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a link to this discussion when you first started it. Particularly when it appears that I am featured in the discussion. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify the editors of the al-Durrah article, here. Sorry if you didn't see it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No mediation will ever work if when as soon as the terms are applied to oneself, one rejects it and goes shopping for a new forum in hopes for a new diagnosis. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)