From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| 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 you can do:
- Article requests: Ofer Dekel, Edna Arbel, Avigdor Stematsky (painter)
- Cleanup: One state solution
- Copyedit: Palestinian views of the peace process, Cinema of Israel
- Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Allon Plan, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv, Ovda International Airport, El Al Flight 426, 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting spree, Standard of Living in Israel, Sephardic Haredim
- NPOV: Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Six-Day War, Gaza War, 1948 Palestinian exodus
- Stubs: Israel stubs
- Update: Carmel City
- Wikify: Agricultural Research In Israel
- Other:
Translate from Hebrew: Rami Kleinstein, Menahem Gnessin, Ohel theater, Levin Kipnis
Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Israeli wine, Uri Davis, Aaron Valero, Mordechai Weingarten
Add geographic coordinates: to articles in Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data
Add images: to articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel
Help expand: Middle East economic integration
(Partially) consolidate: Beit Guvrin National Park, Beit Guvrin, Israel, Bayt Jibrin, Eleutheropolis, Maresha. There is also a disambiguation page (Beit Guvrin)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Because this is a featured article about a complex and sensitive issue, before making a substantive change to it -one that might reasonably attract an objection-please consider doing the following:
- Post the proposed edit on this talk page as you would like to make it, and say where in the article you're proposing to place it.
- Post details of the source (name, title, publication, date, page number if appropriate), and if it's offline, type up here what it says. Consider posting what the source says even if it's online.
- Explain why you feel the edit would improve the article.
- Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another.
- Open each of your suggestions in a new section.
- If a change you make is reverted, please do not restore it unless there is a clear consensus in support of it.
Please keep your proposals and any responses succinct. Many thanks.
Take away "Featured Article"
This article, from the first sentence, reads like propaganda. It should never have been granted "Featured Article" status. Mohammed al-Durrah was just one of at least 16 Palestinians killed in the first two days of an attack by Israel on civilians under their occupation. Nobody suggests the child was rioting, so "on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" is a deliberate distortion of his situation, including material that is completely irrelevant. No Israeli citizens in Israel were killed until November (B'tselem suggests 4 killed themselves in a booby-trapped car?) so the first retaliatory murder of murder may not have been until February of the following year. By which time over 300 Palestinians had been killed. Mohammed al-Durrah deserves a much fairer article, written by neutral outsiders not by anybody involved. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific proposal for a change, or is this just a rant? NickCT (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Take out the POV phrases "widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" in which MaD had no part. Then take out "caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces" for which there is no evidence offered. Take out "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility within three days" which is meaningless and looks like propaganda. No person neutral in regard to parties in this incident could possibly have ended up writing a version which reads so badly. Take away the "Featured article" status, which is undeserved. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
More press distortions
I notice that some English-language sources are claiming that a French court has recently ruled that the al Durrah case was "a hoax". However, this is just more of the distortion and flat-out lying that has characterised English-language reporting of Karsenty's litigation. AFP, which is where this story came from, is reporting nothing of the sort, as a look at its coverage demonstrates. I've created a separate section for this litigation - it's separate from the still-ongoing France 2 case - sourced to the French-language reporting. We need to be careful, as with the France 2 litigation, to follow the most reliable sources on this - the French media - rather than the ludicrously distorted accounts that have been propagated by English-language sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ummmm... Ok. Do you have a suggestion for some kind of change or are you soapboxing? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have provided a link: [1] -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at your recent edit, and largely agree with it. Rereading this article, I don't understand why there is so much content about the "Philippe Karsenty litigation". This could probably be summarized and forked (if it even passes notability), especially considering the fact that this article is too long.
- Additionally, I'm a little concerned by tidbits like "The court heard that the boy put his hand to his forehad and moved his leg, after the cameraman had said he was dead, and that there was no blood on the boy's shirt". This sorta misrepresents the source and facts and really ought to be removed. NickCT (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're right - go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
