Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 2

message: The article actually needs a complete rewrite. For example, if you look at the section called Incident as reported (or whatever the exact words are), we don't actually talk much about the incident at all. Each section seems to consist of just a chronological mixture of whatever we noticed in the media at the time of editing. It probably needs to be completely restructured. The difficulty with doing this is that certain editors revert almost any changes that are made.
Also, could whoever is changing refs to citation templates, please stop. See WP:CITE: templates shouldn't be added without prior consensus and especially not to refs that are already formatted, as these were. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I saw your request for a rewrite, and attempted to fulfill it. I expected some changes, but a wholesale reversion of my edits is completely unexpected. -- Kendrick7talk 18:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been rewritten and is fine at it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found when first reading the article that it was still highly disorganized and a difficult read. Much of what you have reverted are edits which make perfect sense, for example, placing the father's reaction in the family reaction section, instead of the Arab reaction section. Much of what I did just changed passive voiced sentences to active voiced sentences. What exactly don't you like here? -- Kendrick7talk 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that, purely from a grammatical and stylistic point of view, I thought Kendrick's version was more satisfactory. As an aside, I don't think "it's fine as it is" is a satisfactory answer - what you think of as fine isn't necessarily what others will think of. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." -- ChrisO 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give specific examples of how Kendrick's version was better, in your opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically the changes from passive to active voice. As Writing style says, "Writing style is usually improved by using the active voice over the passive voice in sentence construction. Using the active voice leads to more concise, direct sentences." Most style guides will tell you that using the active voice is a better way of engaging the reader and making the sentence structure clearer and more dynamic. -- ChrisO 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ignore style guides that tell you active voice is always better. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I'll ask again: if you think the other version is better gramatically, please give specific examples. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: See this article's entry on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which I posted yesterday. If there's a dispute over whether the subject is still alive, the article needs to be treated in accordance with WP:BLP principles. I've asked for BLP noticeboard regulars to take a look at the article and provide some feedback. I'm not going to be able to get involved myself due to an imminent vacation, but it could do with some input from neutral outsiders. -- ChrisO 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are neutral editors here, Chris, and please don't imply otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also some extremely un-neutral editors (see Jaakobou's comments above for a case in point) and a dispute that's been ongoing for a while. I simply think that this article could do with some input from people who haven't been involved previously in this article. -- ChrisO 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only repeat that there are neutral editors here already, and your implication that there aren't isn't helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisO, i consider that a personal attack, perhaps some type of response to my reaction to your "occupation" image editing.WP:AV/I related discussions I request you keep your future remarks on a more neutral basis as I don't see the problem/bias with my unhappyness about a blog talking in the name of the dead boy... or is it that you think the Guardian and BBC have not been criticised more than others in their coverage of this conflict? regardless, you should not point fingers (repetatively i might addreply to ChrisO's accusation of assuming bad faith.) like this, it is seriously counter productive. Jaakobou 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: Does anyone know of a good article describing the initial broadcast and what the roles of Abu Rahma and Enderlin were exactly? We call Abu Rahma a cameraman but he says he was a correspondent. Enderlin provided the voiceover, but says somewhere that it was Abu Rahma who said on the tape that the IDF had killed the boy. Abu Rahma says he interviewed the father on camera the next day in hospital, an interview that was broadcast, which normally a cameraman wouldn't do alone. It would be good to clear up the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started trying to tidy this. Not finished yet, so it may look a bit upside-down at the moment. There's too much unnecessary detail about who said what, and who's connected to whom, and a lot of it is unsourced, but I've done as much as I can for today. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The initial broadcast

message: THe diagram image page says it was provided by Rahma in his affidavit to blah blah... Wasn't this the affidavit that he denied giving? In which case we should caveat the diagram.  Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 5  April 2007 (GMT).
:He didn't deny explicitly that he had given the affidavit, but France 2 denied on his behalf that he had made one of the statements within it. It's confusing, but that's all we know at the moment. We should say something in the cutline. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: It would be good to something on the funeral, but I haven't been able to find much about it. Does anyone know of any articles that talk about it? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funeral

message: (copied from SV's talk page)
Why are you using colons before quotes? I suggest using commas in the future. KazakhPol 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A BLP action? Please explain how my post on the talkpage is a BLP action. I dont understand the vague and incoherent threat you posted on my talkpage. KazakhPol 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may explain your actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Last section. KazakhPol 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin is lying. The section I was referring to is here. KazakhPol 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, she didn't make a mistake but "lying?" What do you base that on? Answer on your talk page as I'm issuing a block. El_C 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What is a newspaper? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, "A newspaper is a publication containing news, information and advertising, usually printed on low-cost paper called newsprint. It may be general or special interest, most often published daily or weekly." KazakhPol 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say the BBC News is a newspaper, what do you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC News is a public broadcaster, but I guess its BBC News Online division can be described as an online newspaper... El_C 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because militant is a silly word. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a joke? KazakhPol 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinian militancy seems to have ... I said too much! El_C 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Various queries

message: Longstanding attempts to frame this as a David and Goliath incident are exemplified by this edit.
Recurring problems:
*Repeatedly referring to "Muhammad al Durrah" rather than "Al Durrah" in instances in which no other member of the Al Durrah family is directly referred to,
*Referring to "Palestinians" rather than "Palestinian militants" shooting at the IDF,
*Referring to how Al-Durrah "lived," in the past tense, implying he is without a doubt dead,
*Referring to Israel when the entity in question is the Israeli government,
*This paragraph's phrasing is a good example of bias:
:"Muhammad's mother, Amal, watched the incident on television, worried that her husband and son had not returned home, but without recognizing the two figures she saw sheltering from the gunfire. It was only when she watched the scene in a later broadcast that she realized who it was. Her children said she screamed at the sight, then fainted."
*Using "claim" instead of "said" for statement made by those who question the initial report.
KazakhPol 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about the allegations of staging has yet to be copy edited. A lot of those issues will disappear. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me remind you that those issues were dealt with. You reverted them under the pretext of tidying. KazakhPol 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the section about the alleged staging. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being... KazakhPol 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Longstanding problems

message: Liftarn, you can't keep adding the tag just because you don't like something. According to the tagging policy, you must "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. So please do that here, now. Please be very, very specific. This sentence must go, or this sentence must be added. No handwaving.
#
#
#
#
#
#
SlimVirgin (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: I've moved this section here, because I can't get into the report. The paragraph also doesn't really make sense. (1) So what that AI quoted the cameraman (who has anyway withdrawn what he said)? (2) I find it hard to believe AI said they could tell by the pattern of bullets that the IDF had "targeted" the boy. (3) The last sentence about the map doesn't make sense; I think it almost goes without saying that he was caught in crossfire, so I couldn't see what point the sentence was making. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AI report did indeed say that, so I've restored it and added a proper link. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty

message: i just fond this link but sadly i'm a bit overswamped with other projects at the moment - if anyone feels they can work with it before i get around to it, i'd probably be pleased about it:
http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_122201_images.html
from the link:
His father, Jamal al-Durrah, is dismayed by the way images of their son's death have been commercialized by other Palestinians. [JAMAL AL-DURRAH SPEAKING IN ARABIC]
TRANSLATOR: I had very bad feelings when I saw some toilet paper -- they put the picture of the killing of Mohammed with me on the cover just to sell it. I didn't like it, because this is a symbol and a martyrdom. The next day people took the roll cover and threw it in the garbage.
end Jaakobou 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that, Jaakobou. I added some quotes from it.  SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  instant wealth and other such stories - interview 

message: 1)Reference 24 supposedly backs up a statement that says "A later, informal IDF investigation concluded that al-Durrah had probably been killed by Palestinian fire" when in reality is an account of a nearly opposite thing. 
2)In this link  there is the only photograph of the place that I know and it is shown clearly that the stories about the bullets turning corners are crap and that the "investigations" always put the barrel far away from the place it was. Perhaps were not IDF bullets but it is clear that could have been and that the people saying the opposite are either liying or in a deep mistake.--Igor21 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two points