Talk:Nahum Shahaf

Recent fact tag

per the following diff: [1]

The information is cited in the given source but perhaps the phrasing is the cause for concern? I'm open to suggestions and even some form of omission to resolve this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What, the Hebrew source? I and most other people here can't check that one I'm afraid. And the problem as far as I'm concerned is that if someone was indead a leader in their field, you would expect a lot more coverage of them and their achievements in mainstream or specialist sources. These simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf. The wider problem is that this article is being used as a booster for content in the al-Durrah article. Shahaf is cited there as a major proponent of the hoax/staged theory; readers may then come here to find out more about him, and discover that he is supposedly a well-known and high-profile scientist and general expert on everything, who turned that expert and dispassionate gaze to the al-Durrah issue and has now exposed the truth about that sordid little episode in Palestinian mendacity. It is really not clear that this is the case in the real world. --Nickhh (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Specialist sources: Personally, I don't have access to the air-force unmanned crafts industry files but if you've gone over them and vouch that they indeed have nothing suggesting he was a leader in the industry, then I will accept your testimonial. If your statement was not based on review of the sources, however, then I suggest this argument be either explored or dropped.

al-Durrah issue: Would a translation in the reference satisfy your source related concern or would you prefer we omit this information because it somehow affects the al-Durrah case? I'm not sure there is support for the latter in Wikipedia policies.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Missed the point. Show me, as I've asked, other, secondary sources which establish his notability and authority to discuss the issue at hand. Or his status as a "leader" in any specific field. Simple really. --Nickhh (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been through newspaper databases in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian and found nothing about Shahaf except in reference to the al-Durrah case. That seems to be his only international claim to fame. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Topic of current thread: I opened this subsection because of Nickhh's concerns and fact tagging of the mention that Shahaf is "a leading figure in the Israeli unmanned aircraft development industry" (see the provided diff above). This has very little to do with international claims to fame and was already cited in the Hebrew reference which I proposed to translate to alleviate his concerns. I'm fairly certain that the al-Durrah issue is irrelevant for the "Israeli unmanned aircrafts industry"-related fact tag and I made note of this to Nickhh.

Extra verification: If I understand correctly, Nickhh notes that "[specialist sources] simply don't appear to exist for Shahaf." and requested extra sources for corroboration of the currently cited Hebrew source -- which he is unable to read -- despite my suggestion for translation. In my reply I explained that, I'd be willing to further explore the claim that specialist sources exist/don't exist, but if Nickhh has indeed made a conclusive search in the specialist sources, then I am willing to take his word on it as it would be a waste of time to repeat the search and come up empty as well.

Nickhh, have you made a concerted effort going over specialist/mainstream sources and came up with no mention of his pilotless aircraft design work? I feel obligated to repeat that this is mentioned in the Hebrew source, but I'd be interested in your response non-the-less.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced the tagged statement to Amnonm Lord's JCPA article, which describes Shahaf as a leading figure in IAI's pilotless aircraft project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from lower section to proper chronological location Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, ridicule by Gideon Levy (which is a recent issue due to his controversial journalistic standing) is not exactly official newspaper opinion. He has, in fact, professed in an interview that his opinions are at a minority at Haaretz.

• Source: סיכום המפגש עם העיתונאי גדעון לוי, מתאריך 26.2.2002
  • Translation: - Is it correct that you are left alone at Haaretz with these opinions of yours?
    - I'm not alone at Haaretz but I am at a minority, but it is ok. Original:
    - אם נכון שבהארץ נותרת בודד במערכת בדעותיך אלו?
    - אני לא בודד בעיתון הארץ, אם כי אני במיעוט, אבל זה בסדר.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

End moved section.

Well done. One journalist says something in one article sourced to a fanatical nationalist site, and it becomes authoratitive fact in a Wikipedia lead. Mainstream media criticism, specifically referenced as being such, is removed from the body of an article on the basis of BLP concerns. Welcome to Wikipedia and the world of balance. --Nickhh (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source has described the Jerusalem Center as "fanatical"? If you don't understand thew difference between an OpEd and an investigative journalism report, as it pertains to contentious material about living persons, ask, and I will be happy to explain. In any case, please refrain from re-inserting material which an uninvolved admin has determined is a BLP violation into the article. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1) I never said one had described it as such - it's merely how I chose to describe, on a talk page, an organisation which says its aim is to "present [fill in country name here]'s case" and work for that nation's "growth and survival"; 2) I do understand the difference between op-eds and investigative pieces, and never said or implied that I did not; 3) Please stop inventing things I have supposedly said, and then patronising me - it gets more boring each time you do it. See you around. --Nickhh (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1)In thre future, kindly keep your personal opinions out of Talk pages, which are for the improvement of articles, not for soapboxing. 2) You were asking why one item (sourced to an investigative news report) was presented in the article as fact, while another item (sourced to a partisan OpEd) was removed. This suggests you don't really understand the difference between the two. 3) I don't believe I've invented anything - I'm replying to your posted comments. I you are bored - please find something else to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Folks, please remember that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As such, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place discretionary sanctions on the article and/or editors here: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. So please ensure that discussions remain civil, and that article additions are carefully sourced. Thanks, --Elonka 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are no longer an uninvolved admin, Elonka - not after the recent RfC - so please do not assume that you can intervene here. If you think there is a persistent issue, raise it at AN/I - no more unilateral interventions, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS to my comment below -- Elonka has only issued a reminder so far. Let's see if we can get a conversation going before we react to strongly to the reminder. HG | Talk 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, hi. I've been observing her RfC (and even tried my hand, albeit unsuccessfully, at trying to find a middle ground). I do have the impression that a substantial number of users (e.g., via Ramdrake, MastCell) have supported your concerns about Elonka's methodology in interventions and, perhaps to a lesser degree, her responsiveness. However, not that much has been said in the RfC to support your assertion here that she is an "uninvolved admin" here (or elsewhere). In any case, the RfC is somewhat difficult to interpret, since it doesn't seem to be emerging toward consensus and it hasn't been closed. As I think you know, I respect your work in Wikipedia. I'm open to trying to open a conversation w/you and Elonka about the (discretionary) groundrules for this page, if that would be helpful. What do you think? Thanks, HG | Talk 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem uncooperative, but I don't want her involved in this article, period - particularly as a so-called "uninvolved" admin. After an RfC (which I initiated), a recall request (which I didn't initiate or support, but for which she has blamed me) and an RfA request (ditto), I think it's unrealistic to expect her to be objective or neutral about any matters in which I'm involved. She doesn't need to be involved here. If she has concerns, as I've already said, she should find a genuinely uninvolved admin - ideally, someone who hasn't participated in the RfC, recall or RfA - to look at the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO, we realize you don't like Elonka. But you don't get to decide which editors particpate on which pages, and you don't get to decide who is uninvolved. The fact that Elonka has sanctioned you in the past does not get you an exemption here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no prerequisite for Elonka to participate here even if the page is some type of extension of the al-Durrah page; something Nickhh clarified earlier. However, I don't see nothing wrong with the reminder considering some clear incivility infractions as well as the recent edit-warring. I'm not sure on where I stand with the involved/uninvolved issue, but I'm thinking that Elonka should avoid administrative action on this page at this point in time (unless there is something very clear) and that other editors should stop violating the purpose of the encyclopedia. Is this proposition agreed on the people involved and uninvolved? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no prerequisite for Elonka to participate here, but there is equally no problem with such participation, if she so chooses. The fact that one of the editors here does not like her and has decided to try and wikilawyer her off of articles he's involved with is not a factor worthy of serious consideration. I, for one, welcome her involvemt, as she seems to be the only one willing to stand up to said editor's POV-pushing and bullying. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, gentlemen, sit tight and let's hear Elonka's response, when she has a chance. Thanks. HG | Talk

I have quite a bit to say about this... but I will honor HG's request. I think my self-control is admirable. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Chris, you don't get to designate Elonka as an "involved administrator" simply because you start an RFC on her in reaction to her administrative actions regarding you. Wouldn't that be nice, any time an admin blocks someone, the blockee just opens an RFC on the blocker and Presto!, the admin is "involved" and can never take admin action against them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling defines involvement as content disputes on articles in the area of conflict, so I concur with Jayjg about Elonka still being uninvolved, although I don't agree with his other comments. PhilKnight (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the more exasperated parts of my post. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight and Jayjg seem to have said anything necessary. I am still an uninvolved admin in this topic area. Just because an editor starts an RfC on an admin, does not make the admin "involved" and incapable of taking further actions with regard to that editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED. Also, I'd like to be clear that I'm not "claiming" this page in anyway. Indeed, any uninvolved admin is welcome to participate here. If I took an administrative action that another (uninvolved) admin found questionable, I would encourage them to bring their concerns to my talkpage. I would do the same for them. In my experience, the best way to handle these highly contentious topic areas, is to have admins working in tandem. However, it's often difficult to get more than one admin's attention on a single page. So in that respect, I welcome PhilKnight's participation here, and encourage him to stick around. :) --Elonka 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As an administrative note, Nickhh (talk · contribs) has been banned by administrator Coren (talk · contribs) from editing this article for 60 days (see User talk:Nickhh#Nahum Shahaf). Nickhh is still allowed to participate at the talkpage. --Elonka 09:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources

Greetings. In threads above, I've quoted from an Australian newspaper article (10-6-08) and Haaretz (11-7-00) regarding Shahaf with the Rabin and al Dura cases. Here are two other sources that could help provide info for the article. First, a brief follow-up in Haaretz the next day (11-8-00) which concludes in a very critical tone:

Mofaz fielded questions about the investigation into the death of al Dura after Ha'aretz reported yesterday that the IDF had staged re-enactments of the Netzarim shootout. These re-enactments, Ha'aretz reported, were initiated by two civilians, physicist Nahum Shahaf and engineer Yosef Duriel, who contacted Samia and argued that it is implausible that the boy was shot by IDF bullets. Samia appointed Shahaf to head the committee despite the fact that the physicist lacks experience in areas critical to the inquiry. Questioning Mofaz about the committee's report, MK Ophir Pines-Paz (One Israel) said, "One gets the impression that instead of genuinely confronting this incident, the IDF has chosen to stage a fictitious re-enactment and cover up the incident by means of an inquiry with foregone conclusions and the sole purpose of which is to clear the IDF of responsibility for al Dura's death. ("MOFAZ: AL DURA PROBE WAS INITIATED BY SOUTHERN COMMAND" no byline)

Second, there's an 11-11-00 article in The Times (London: " Palestinians shot boy, disputed report says" by Sam Kiley) that deals w/the Haaretz info, including: " A nominally independent investigation by the Israeli Army into the death of Muhammad Dura, the 12-year-old Gazan whose killing was captured by a film crew and broadcast around the world, is expected to conclude this week that he was not killed by Israelis but by Palestinians. The conclusion, which comes as a result of an investigation by Nahum Shahaf, a civilian physicist appointed by Brigadier Yomtov Samia, the Israeli military commander in Gaza, has already been ridiculed as "absurd" and "obscene" by military officials and Israel's most prestigious newspaper, Haaretz."

Also, Ha'aretz again ("Stupidity Marches On" 11-10-00, it sound like editorial but not marked that way in Nexis) states: "It is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation. ...The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation - almost a pirate endeavor - on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying. " Granted, this criticizes the IDF more than Shahaf, who w/Duriel is said to have "had their own preconceived idea" going into their investigation.

Also, Jerusalem Post (March 17, 2008. "STILL NOT AT REST" by Bernard Edinger, Eetta Prince-Gibson): "The investigation by Shahaf and Doriel was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media, since neither are ballistics experts, they did not have access to film footage from any known news agency and, by that time, the actual site of the shooting had been razed so their investigation was based on a reconstruction of the scene."

Surely I do not mean to imply that each source needs to be quoted in our article. But there does seem to be some useful info here about the criticisms of Shahaf's work, which may improve the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, HG. I would be careful here, though: virtually all the sources that are most critical of Shahaf are from very early on (or refer to that time). If you look at the 2008 article you reference, it has this line:

"...now, seven and a half years after Enderlin's veteran cameraman, Palestinian Talal Abu Rahmeh, filmed some of the most recognizable news footage ever recorded, the question of who killed Mohammed a-Dura - or whether he was actually killed - has not been convincingly resolved. In fact, as time passes, the controversy has become more heated and the questions surrounding the event and its aftermath have become even more troubling." (Emphasis added, Extract is here)

What does this tell us? That what seemed farcically absurd in 2000 is less far-fetched in 2008. We shouldn't make it seem as though these criticisms are still being leveled at Shahaf, unless they in fact are. IronDuke 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the time context can be noted. But is there recent (countervailing) praise for his work? I'd be wary of inferring too much: doubts could continue to be raised about al-Dura for various reasons, even as Shahaf's work itself werre still be deemed low quality. Do you know what I mean? HG | Talk 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know. As for countervailing praise, there's quite a bit (in the article already), and it's also quite a bit more recent. In fact, it seems like the majority of the criticism is old, and the praise generally much newer. IronDuke 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, looking it over, what praise are you referring to? The Israel media watch award? Also, I just looked at the al-Durrah article and I don't quite see how Shahaf is vindicated. Instead, it seems to go back and forth about whether accusations can be made public, not about their validity. Is that right? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about vindication... am I reading something wrong? There is the Israel media watch award, but I think more important than that is his being quoted by Fallows in a highly-influential piece, on 60 minutes, and in a book by a reasonably well-known author. AFAIK, none of these people refer to his theories in the negative manner some were cast very early on. They do not say "Shahaf is the greatest physicist who ever lived," but they do seem to rely on him as a worthy source promoting an intriguing hypothosis -- not as a crank in any way. IronDuke 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just assumed that the praise would serve to vindicate him. But I see what you mean, he is treat in a legit manner, and from this our readers can infer a certain kind of praise or at least acceptance of him. That's fair enough. But the negative response to him (and Samia) probably should be added to the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Long as we put it in the context of "initial reactions." IronDuke 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't aware that Haaretz was Israel's most prestigious newspaper(?) On this article they are placed in two surveys at numbers 12 and 14, in both surveys, between TheMarker and Sports5(!).

<snip moved to Levy>

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Jaakobou, I don't believe I cited the Levy opinion piece, so maybe your comment should go in that thread, above? Also, Haretz is a reliable source and used extensively. You could try objecting to its WP use at the RS noticeboard, though I don't think it'd be worth your time. Thank you for your and your comment on the JPost. W/respect back at ya, HG | Talk 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra input from Haaretz: I made a quick look into one of the articles, written by Adi Schwartz (i.e. not Levy), and it makes note of the removed investigator but neglects to mention he was not a leading figure in the investigation and was removed because he couldn't perform the needed tasks. Regardless, "Meir Danino, who holds a doctorate in physics and is the chief scientist at Elisra Systems" is noted in the article to agree with Shahaf's proposition regarding the al-Durrah incident. <snip moved to Levy>

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, J, it's just that Nexis requires a subscription and I don't have other links (but I do mention if byline is given). There are various comments about Shahaf's work in that Schwartz article you cite, thanks, and I'd think that they may be germane to this article, as you suggest. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<snip, moved to Levy above> As for IronDuke's comments above, the only thing that has really changed in the last few years is that the conspiracy theory has gained wider exposure due to its supporters' campaigning. That doesn't mean to say it has any more credibility than it had before. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement "the only thing that has really changed in the last few years is that the conspiracy theory has gained wider exposure due to its supporters' campaigning. That doesn't mean to say it has any more credibility than it had before." is simply not true. First of all, the major change in the last few years is that the original claims by France 2 ("The Israelis shot Al-Durrah deliberatley") have been almost universally rejected, and the mainstream opinion these days is that it is physically impossible for an Israeli bullet shot from the Israeli position to have hit the boy, and that he was likely shot by Palestinians (this is the conclusion of both Shapira and Fallows). As far as the "staged theory", it has certainly gained more exposure due to its supporters' campaigning, but also due to France 2's decision to try and shut up its critics through the use of defamation lawsuits - a tactic which has backfired. More importantly, though, the theory most certainly has more credibility today than it had before. For one thing, it has many more supporters. And whereas it was originally rejected by official Israeli government organs, we now have the head of Israel's Government Press Office, statinmg the event was "essentially staged". And we have the recent French court ruling, which says that Karsenty (another proponent of the "staged" theory) has put together a credible case, which can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the above is bollocks. Bear in mind that I've done the legwork on this using Lexis-Nexis to review literally thousands of articles in multiple languages. The original claims were very widely reported. I'm not aware of any newspaper or broadcaster publishing a retraction and saying "we got it wrong". Certainly no newspaper that I've found has done any sort of re+investigation in its news pages. A limited number of op-ed columnists in a limited number of mostly decidedly right-wing newspapers (Canada Post, Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal etc) have written strongly-worded opinion pieces arguing for the conspiracy theory - but as you should know, we are not allowed to use opinion pieces as statements of fact (see WP:RS#News organizations). The vast majority of publications that ran the original story have not even mentioned the conspiracy theory. Those that have have mostly reported neutrally on it in the context of the France 2 lawsuits. Very few have actually endorsed the conspiracy theory in their news (as opposed to opinion or editorial) pages.

You're right that the France 2 lawsuits have backfired - that's the problem with suing for libel, you just end up giving free publicity to your opponents. However, controversy does not equate credibility. Intelligent design and global warming denial did not become more credible when more people started promoting them, any more than 9/11 conspiracy theories did - I daresay more people support the latter now than a few years ago, but that makes no difference to the credibility of an idea. The bottom line is that this is a political campaign by people with a particular political objective. There seems to be no "mainstream view" as such. All we can say is that out of all of the media sources that have ever commented on the case, the vast majority reported the original version, a smaller number reported the conspiracy theory and the lawsuits, and a very small number have endorsed the conspiracy theory, but even then almost entirely in op-eds, not in news reporting.

As for the French court judgment, you're just repeating the spin put on it by Karsenty's chums: as the French media made clear at the time, the court was merely required to rule on whether Karsenty's claims met the requirements of the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881, not whether his claims had any truth. The Israeli press officer's comments were also disowned by the Israeli government, which said that he had made them in a personal, not professional capacity. The official Israeli government view appears to be "no comment". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this, at length, at the Al-Dura article. You are repeating your assertions which have been refuted many times over. I don't intend to repeat that exchange over here - I will just mentions a few main points: The French court, while not required to rule on the veracity of Kersanty's claims, did state clearly and unequivocaly that he put together a coherent body of evidence which can't be dismissed - which is exactly calling it credible. The conclusion that Al-Dura was likely shot by Palestinians was reported by Shapira's well-researched ARD documentary - not in an Oped. Fallows' simialr conclusion was also not an OpEd. And multiple recent news sources, not OpEds, that called the story a hoax or a likely hoax, were presented in the Al-Dura article. None of this is directly relevant to this article, which is a BLP - and I am going to warn you that repeated violations of WP:BLP wll lead to you being blocked. If you can't edit neutrally on this topic, please don't edit here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering your own dismal record in this matter, I would have thought a BLP warning would be far more appropriate for you. But in any case, you're committing original research again, just as you did in the al-Durrah article. The French court did not at any point comment on the credibility of Karsenty's claims. As International Libel and Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists states, a defendant can be acquitted "if the court is satisfied that the defendant has carried out at least a basic verification of the source of the information on which the defamatory statement is based." That is precisely what the court did in this case + hence the relevance of the "coherent body of evidence". The French press, which one would imagine knows the terms of the law under which it operates, has made it clear what the judgment meant in practice. Karsenty and his chums have a more self+serving view, naturally.

The status of Shapira's documentary and Fallows' piece is a bit fuzzy, admittedly; they both fall in the cracks between original reporting (which they do) and presentation of the author's personal impressions (which they also do). Fallows' piece is probably more categorizable as an opinion piece, given that its publisher, The Atlantic Monthly, is primarily an outlet for commentary. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My 'dismal record'? What on Earth are you on about? Have you decided to add violations of WP:NPA to your already lenghtly list of wikipedia policy violations? I strongly urge you to strike that out. You may spin all you want , but the French verdict speaks for itself - it says Karsenty's evidence can't be dismissed. If you don't see how that speaks to its credibilty, too bad. There is nothing "fuzzy" about a television documentary by ARD, nor about a piece of investigative journalism in the Atlantic Monthly -they are both news reports in reliable sources, which completely debunk the shoddy piece of "journalism" that France 2 produced and dissimenated, and which was severly criticized by the French court verdict, as well. As I said - this is not the place to rehash the debate from the Al-Dura article. This article is about a living person, and editors who can't edit in accordance with WP:BLP should not be editing here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored here w/ok from ChrisO and Jaakobou. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@Canadian Monkey - BLP means we don't make a big song and dance about one story a journalist did 8 years ago and try to make out he's a liar - particularly not in league with those (such as CAMERA) who have told us they're trying to get him sacked over it. Enderlin's public profile is 100s to 1 that he's reliable and honest.

Nor does BLP mean we treat with kid gloves an unqualified publicist who has raised himself from total obscurity with what RSs have described as an obsession. This man's public profile is 1 to 100s that he's <BLP violation removed> (and probably FRINGE to the nth degree). He would remain that way even if he were (impossibly) proved right in this case. The denial that has taken over his life is unsavoury - or worse. PR^talk 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not "one story a journalist did 8 years ago" - it was a major media event, which caused very notable reactions and resulted in a major ocntroversy, which has lasted more than 8 years. Enderlin is not even mentioned in this article, so I don't know what you're on about. BLP applies to every article and evry page on WP - including talk pages. accordingly, I have struck out your BLP violation, and hope you will not repeat it. BLP requires that contentious information be impeccably sourced - and that is what I am striving for in this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel Media Watch award

Resolved

Hi. I'm having trouble confirms the praise/info on this award. The link to the website didn't disclose the info nor did my google search. If it's a notable award, why isn't it covered better? How good is the IMW and does it need some qualifier? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of links can be found through here and here.

• ICE News
• NFC news
• Omedia
• Haaretz

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Those work really well for me. Why don't you pick a couple of the them as footnotes? Perhaps people will complain about the language, but it's better than a non-working English link. Thanks very much, Jaakobou. HG | Talk 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. No-one doubts he won said award. But where is the notability (yes, I am still complaining)? Secondary sources please, in English, in significant sources, for the benefit of English Wikipedia? This is pretty basic stuff according to WP rules. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't recall the policy about English vs foreign language sources. Can you pls give me a link? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, English language sources are not strictly required. But they would help, no, for most users? And translations should be available? And that doesn't avoid the requirement on sources to be notable does it? --Nickhh (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but is there really an issue with the notability of Haaretz and Omedia? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Sure, the sources have to be notable but, as Jaakobou points out, they are sufficient. Unfortunately, so far we don't have an English version or translation. However, reading the policy, I personally don't think we need to translate the text -- because there's really no need to challenge the info. Editors may doubt that it's worth including, but the fact itself is hardly worth disputing. (If need be, somebody like Jaakobou can translate a key sentence and somebody like me can check it.) Thanks, HG | Talk 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz is fine in principle of course (although on this specific point I have no idea what the cited article says), Omedia I've never heard of. Not that this necessarily means anything of course, but I do know quite a lot about world media sources generally. WP:RSN is a better place to ask that question surely? Still not sure we have genuine notability as to the fundamental point --Nickhh (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. What is "the fundamental point" that makes you believe this text should not be cited? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar question as Jaakobou. Nickhh, it is extremely common to include awards in bios. So the notability or relevance of awards, within bios, is well established. WP "notability" applies mainly to articles; for a specific fact (e.g., the award), a single reliable source is usually sufficient. Other uninvolved parties can chime in here, but the Haaretz cite should be adequate to place this award in the article. So, is there some other policy or other aspect involved here? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never doubted that he got this award, and that it is possibly worth a mention. But as you acknowledge we have to accept that some awards (eg a Nobel Prize) carry more value and are more notable than others. In any event I've only raised questions about this issue because it seems some editors are keen to stuff this article with praise even from fairly marginal political groups, but exclude any specific criticism that has been voiced in the mainstream media. It was the contrast as much as anything that I was trying to flag up. Anyway, I'm gone (nearly) --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you don't mind my saying, please do not question one edit in order to make a point about the overall balance. Just question the balance directly. Take care. HG | Talk 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HG, you started this thread and asked for sources to confirm/establish notability. I never questioned the edit per se or the inclusion of the award in the article, here or elsewhere. When I've discussed the broader issue about balance elsewhere on the talk page - as I have - I have in fact noted that the award itself was probably "worth mentioning". Cheers, --Nickhh (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a misunderstood your previous comment, or your 1st (But where is the notability (yes, I am still complaining)?) and I apologize for prolonging this. No hard feelings, be well, HG | Talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this issue seems to be resolved and the award has at least one reliable sources. If English sources are found, please add. The thread can be archived. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG - there is a serious problem at a number of articles with premature archiving of material that is a) quite recent and b) of long-term significance to editing of this article (and many others).

For instance, if the project has abandoned VERIFIABILITY (as would appear from this discussion), then everyone here needs to know about it (and it would be nice to see a full explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration).

If you're puzzled about my statement, I should tell you there is a real danger that the organisation referenced here is vanishingly FRINGE and it's commendation has no place in this article. "Media Watch" groups of this kind are notorious for one-dimensional output indistinguishable from propaganda, and even attempts to subvert the project with faux admins. Even the (normally right-wing) JPost has called Shahaf a "conspiracy theorist", and his helpers Landers and Karsenty "conspiracy freaks", both in the body and headline of an op-ed. It seems hardly possible that a reputable media organisation has a radically different opinion of Shahaf. There is a real danger of serious distortion if we carry on down this path.

One of my former mentors was forced to break the, until-then, fully public nature of her interaction with me in an e-mail warning that a translation I'd been told to get for myself (suggestion - use an uninvolved, randomly chosen, Hebrew speaking editor here), was liable to cause severe offense if I did so. If I'm obligated to have one or more Hebrew-speaking mentors as well in order to continue being an editor, a statement to that effect would be appreciated. PR^talk 10:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PR, I have warned you before about this, and struck out your previous BLP violation. Since you have now repeated the violation, here and on other pages, falsely citing the Jerusalem Post in your support, you leave me no choice but to report your behaviour. May I ask who is your current mentor, per the restictions placed on your editing by the community?

For future reference, the JP article you cite refers to Shahaf in the folowing place, and only there, in these words: "Referring to Nahum Shahaf, one of Yom Tov Samia's investigators and the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania, Fallows continues: "Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day." Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, that is the writer quoting the Fallows article. In his own words, the writer describes Shahaf as "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania". Just for future reference. --Nickhh (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's right up there in the section I've quoted, do read a little more carefully next time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people know about this accusation you're making against me, and the fact that you didn't tell me you were making such a complaint.

And that you carelessly told people that Nickhh had been sanctioned for the same offense (begging the question of why you didn't tell me this when I first called Shahaf a conspiracy theorist).

You insisted I take advice before responding to you, which explains the slight tardiness of my full response. But I'd be happy to let sleeping dogs lie and, without prejudice, replace "conspiracy theorist" with "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania". Would that make you feel better? PR^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? I responded to a comment you made here, a few hours after you made it. Do you expect a personal message on your Talk page to let you know I've repsonded to your post? When your participate in dioscussion on a Talk page, your are expected to take an active interest in what people say in response. Of course "Lots of people know about this accusation you're making against me" - it was made publicly, on an open Talk page (unlike your desire to conduct things not in the open, through E-mail or secret off-wiki mailing lists. ANd contrary to what youclaim here, I did warn you about this BLP vioaltion the firs time - its right here on this talk page. I ask you again, who is your current mentor, required by the editing restrictions placed on you? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the Jpost quote - CM you're the one who seems to have cut & pasted the section without reading it, since you've been going around complaining that people have been saying the piece refers to Shahaf as a "conspiracy theorist", alleging that this is some sort of misquote, when in fact of course it's a rather polite interpretation of what the writer is actually saying. I just wanted to be sure you and everyone else is clear about what Karsenty was saying himself, and the far more measured words that he was quoting from Fallows. --Nickhh (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Folks, please remember that per Wikipedia's policy about the biographies of living people, controversial claims about living people should stay off of talkpages, as well as articles. Now, having said that, there's some leeway here, because a certain amount of legitimate fair discussion is allowed, where it may be necessary to refer to the actual claims on the talkpage of an article, even if they come from sources of dubious, unconfirmed, or controversial reliability. This is because sometimes it's near-impossible to talk about "should we include this in the article" unless "this" can be clearly referred to. So, I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template to this page for now, to keep it off the search engines. Please do continue with discussions, and then after they're completed, we may go ahead and courtesy-blank the section. In the meantime, I ask everyone to please be very very mindful of BLP concerns, and keep any potentially controversial terms to a minimum. Thanks, --Elonka 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled here - what's controversial about calling Shahaf a "conspiracy theorist"? An Op-ed in an Israeli newspaper calls him "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" - one might easily suppose that the RS source was actually being more damning than my abreviation of their charge. PR^talk 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is a negative term. In order to use it in a biography of a living person, per Wikipedia's policy on these biographies, we would want multiple reliable sources which used such language. A simple opinion piece in one Israeli newspaper is not sufficient. --Elonka 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The text which was battled over most recently did not state outright that he was a conspiracy theorist. It made the accurate assessment that he had been described as such in the media. While I agree that it is usually used in a perjorative sense, at the same time strictly it simply means that the individual believes that some sort of truth is being hidden by concerted action behind the scenes, which is precisely what Shahaf is claiming. Even when used as a negative term, it is not suggesting that the person pushing the theory is a fraud or a liar (which would raise real BLP concerns) but simply that they are mistaken or wrong, and have come to a conclusion based on speculation. In any event, here are several sources, most of which have been raised before. There aren't a huge amount, but that's to be honest because most of the mainstream media has pretty much ignored the theory and Shahaf altogether -

1) Ed O'Loughlin in Australia's The Age, citing Charles Enderlin as referring to the "conspiracy theory" surrounding the al-Durrah shooting, and also linking Shahaf specifically to allegations that Shimon Peres was behind a "conspiracy" to murder Yitzhak Rabin, here

2) Larry Derfner writing in the Jerusalem Post, describing Shahaf as above as "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania", in an article headlined by the paper "al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks", here

3) Larry Derfner again, using the phrase "conspiracy theory" numerous times, and specifically saying Shahaf "pioneered the field of al-Dura conspiracy theory after cutting his teeth on the Rabin assassination", here

4) Gideon Levy in Haaretz, talking about Shahaf's "eccentric obsession" with the case, here

5) David Langsam discussing the "conspiracy theories" and stating that Shahaf's report is used as supposed proof of them in the Rationalist, here. Possibly a slightly marginal source

6) James Fallows in The Atlantic Monthly avoids using the phrase itself, but does rather pointedly bring up the classic definition when he says "The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions", here

Even sources broadly supportive of Shahaf and others acknowledge the accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists", if only to deny them, eg Richard Landes, here. Again, I can't see the problem with saying that he has been "described as a conspiracy theorist" or "is noted for supporting what has been described as a conspiracy theory". --Nickhh (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The latter formulation ("is noted for supporting what has been described as a conspiracy theory") is supported by numerous sources, and I am ok with it. It is different from applying a pejorative label to the person, which is a BLP violation not supported by the sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait: what? Am I missing something? PR is being accused of a BLP violation, apparently because PR said something on this talk page which is already said in one of our articles? The Muhammad al-Durrah article says of Shahaf "...while other reporters dismissed them as ...". There's a reference, but with no online version. By the way, in the link given by Nickhh ("eg Richard Landes here"), I don't find the word "theorist" anywhere in the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than this. If there's another BLP violation on another page, that's no excuse for repeating it here, especially after this very statement has been removed from this article by an uninvolved admin who called it a BLP violation. As you have volunteered to perform potentially contentious edits on the Muhammad al-Durrah Talk page, please remove that BLP violation (which you have not been able to verify) from that article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a BLP violation on one page doesn't excuse a BLP violation on another page. Thanks for pointing out the deletion per BLP from this article, which I hadn't been aware of. I don't know whether the bit in the other article is a BLP violation or not. Sources don't have to be available online; although I haven't verified it, I don't know that it isn't verifiable. I suggest that you propose a specific edit on the talk page of the article in question and see if a rough consensus can be achieved. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, sources don't have to be available online in order to be comapliant with WP:V. I wasn't suggetsing otherwise. My suggestion for a specific edit is along the lines of what has been proposed here by Nickhh: "Other reporters have dismissed the investigation's conclusions as a 'conspiracy theory'. " Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to use "theory" than "theorist", partly because I'm under the impression that that's what many of the sources do, and partly because it's less personal and refrains from implying that the person does stuff like this about other topics too. However, if it were to be put in quotation marks like that, then someone would have to check the source to see if it uses those exact words (or use a different source instead; I'm not sure how that would work with the editing conditions, but if we get consensus then we can ask). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

I see that some of the editors opposing characterizing Shahaf as such have since been censured, limited or blocked. As there has recently been increased activity on the Muhammad al-Durrah article, and Shahaf's investigation is a fulcrum for much of the editing, it is time to reassess this article. Sources should be cited inline to comply with WP:BLP of course. For starters, I suggest adding information on Shahaf's conspiracy theory on the death of Yitzak Rabin. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that sources that only criticize him and neglect to actually review what he is saying count as 'adding info'. Anyways, if the critique is notable (usually several people discussing the same issue) - we can merge their critique into a small 1-4 lines (size pending on content's encyclopedic value for a bio).

p.s. I'm fairly unsure about the "fulcrum for much of the editing" statement. Shahaf was oneballistics expert while another French individual validated the same conclusions. His other suggestions, best I'm aware, were also picked up by more than one external person. If the only reason to add input on conspiracy theories Shahaf suggested could exist and should be questioned is to harm his credence for the al-durrah article (and I'm not saying this is the intention), then that could lead to a bad style for constructing the material and a BLP vio indeed. We should keep in mind that this is still a bio and issues need to be listed based on real notability and not a POV boost to a side issue of a notable case (al-durrah).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Shahaf has indeed been a "fulcrum"; he campaigned on the al-Durrah for a long time, appears to have been a key source for Richard Landes' tendentious "Pallywood" claims and was subsequently involved with the equally tendentious German "documentaries" on the al-Durrah case. And it's also undeniable that he is a conspiracy theorist, since he was previously involved in promoting claims that Shimon Peres was behind the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I'm going to have to disagree. I haven't seen a mainstream perspective that Shahaf is at the center of anything. Also, the "documentaries" are reliable sources and it is a shame that you continue to ascribe illegitimacy to reliable sources.

With regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's being suggested here, but I urge everyone to be mindful of BLP issues, even on talk. As for his views on the Rabin assassination, they don't appear to be notable enough to be included in the Rabin article; I'm not sure that they should be included here, but I'm open to suggestions on talk (that do not involve trying to portray someone who has been taken seriously by major, respectable news orgs as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist). IronDuke 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thank Jaakabou to not change other editors' comments. And Jaakabou, the "ballistics expert" claim is sourced to a (dead link) interview in which Shahaf describes himself as a ballistics expert. IronDuke I never said he was "wild-eyed" I thank you to not misrepresent other editors' comments. What's being suggested here for starters is that barring a RS, "ballistics expert" be removed, and illustrative information on Shahaf's involvement in the conspiracy theories surrounding Rabin's shooting be added. [2] Further, if Shahof's al-Durah theories (Nahum Shahaf, who pioneered the field of al-Dura conspiracy theory after cutting his teeth on the Rabin assassination, explains the blood stain as a "red cloth" that was concealed in the boy’s shirt and fell out on cue, giving the appearance on camera of blood J-Post) are being described by RS as "conspiracy theories" that we reflect that here with inline citations. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said you used the exact term “wild-eyed.” I understand the posturing inherent in your formulation seems impressive while it’s being written, but I can assure it isn’t nearly as impressive read. As for his being a ballistics expert, we indicate in the text that he calls himself this, which is completely appropriate; that the link is dead does not mean the information should be removed. And I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the idea that there was some element or elements of fraud involved in the al-Durrah incident is not a fringe theory, merely a minority view; therefore, people who subscribe to that view, or at least entertain it, should not be given derogatory labels. Still not seeing a lot of notability for the Rabin stuff, but happy to entertain actual suggestions with good sources behind them. IronDuke 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the new article link from Derfner, RomaC. I wasn't aware that he's not supporting the original report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The new Derfner was a response to the Karsenty and Landes rebuttals. In any case I edited for balance regarding the points above. By the way Wiki has a conspiracy theorists category and most of those on it are alive. However, I have not added/labeled Shahaf as such ("conspiracy theorist"), but rather have included relevant information that mainstream media RS have characterized some of his positions as "conspiracy theories". This is because I don't want to fight editors here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven’t seen a reply to my points above, so I won’t repeat them. I’ll just say I’m not seeing anything adequate in terms of addressing the Rabin issue and, even if it were found, it does not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, belong in the lead, where it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Theer were a few other pointed and/or pointless POV additions which I have removed. If you'd like to make the case for them before making them, seeing as the article has been stable for an unusually long time, I'd be happy to read it. IronDuke 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahaf is better known for conspiracy theories than for physics, much of this article's information on his background and his work in physics is in fact sourced to news reports on his conspiracy theories. Shahaf's Rabin assassination campaign is relevant to his being a controversial independent investigator, and the Rabin campaign is well-sourced and linked to the Al-Durrah investigation (four sources use the term "conspiracy theory"). Plus can't cherry-pick which of Shahaf's investigations/campaigns we present here. But will move this Rabin bit, out of the lead, down and to less than a sentence, again, looking to avoid a fight. See below re his ballistics expertise. RomaC (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction. This scientist is an acclaimed inventor and the al-durrah investigation is a notable, yet side issue. The Rabin related remarks didn't even get quality coverage so we don't even know what the issue is about (and one of the people involved was a Shabak operative). I'm keeping an open mind since I do think that wikipedia should try and include notable viewpoints but keep in mind that this is a living person with a life outside a few al-durrah related articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would be great (just make sure you present it neutrally, of course!). As to your points: I continue to ask how relevant the Rabin stuff is – mention is made of it, but it doesn’t seem like there’s anything approaching the interest in that topic as there is in MaD. “Cherry-picking?” Well, kinda, if by cherry-picking we mean focusing on what NS is best known for, then sure. And the way you crammed the Rabin mention in there? <<Brief pause while I wince.>> “After advancing conspiracy theories on the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Shahaf approached IDF Southern Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia and proposed….” Was it directly after, perchance? He, say, finished up his work on Rabin, had a light continental breakfast, then picked up the Sat phone and got Samia on the line? I've actually hunted for Rabin stuff myself for his article, and found only passing mentions. Either NS isn't pressing that case very hard, or almost nobody is that interested (with the possible exception of people who dislike him and/or his ideas).

You wrote: “Since Shahaf has made controversial claims related to ballistics, do we serve the reader by saying he's a specialist in ballistics because he says so…?” Since you ask, I stopped beating my wife last August. And, more saliently, we do not say he is a ballistics expert. At all. We quote him. Is that proper, to quote a subject about themselves in their own article? We’ve done it, by my estimation, hundreds of thousand of times on WP, so can I go out on a limb and say we can do it here? I understand how that could depress someone holding a P maximalist view of the MaD incident, but we needn’t take that into account. And you’re deleting of the well-sourced text at the end, that’s been in the article for a long time, and that does a really good job of summarizing NS’ thoughts about the one issue that had made him worthy of an article here, well, that’s just ghastly, isn’t it? I’m going to assume, as I put it back in, that you were editing hastily and didn’t realize what you were doing. IronDuke 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's RfC it would seem best, ok? RomaC (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not editing hastily, I removed Nahaf's philosophical musings at the end of the article "I believe that one day there will be good things in common between us and the Palestinians.…But the case of Mohammed al-Dura brings the big flames between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. It brings a big wall of hate. They can say this is the proof, the ultimate proof, that Israeli soldiers are boy-murderers. And that hatred breaks any chance of having something good in the future." because he is not notable as a political or social commentator, and Wikipedia is not his soapbox. You are correct, Ironduke, in saying that Shahaf's controversial theories are "the one issue that had made him worthy of an article here." His work in physics does not seem notable, suggest we drop the info that he once received a creativity certificate etc. and his company or masters' degree -- unless we have reliable sources that says these matter because he is a notable physicist. Much of the article reads like a PR piece for the guy. RomaC (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RS or self-description

We have two reliable sources saying Shahaf "had no forensics or balistics expertise". We have no sources saying he is "a physicist specialized in ballistics". Yet the second phrase appears in the article (attributed to Shahaf himself). I removed it and put in the sourced information, but this was summarily reverted. I hope that rather than edit-war, editors will find a source for content they want to put in the article, and discuss here why they don't want the sourced information in the article.

A Fellow at the Israel Ministry of Science and recipient of the Ministry's creativity prize in 1997, Shahaf describes his work as "a scientist, a physicist specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images."

This is the phrase I object to. Since Shahaf has made controversial claims related to ballistics, do we serve the reader by saying he's a specialist in ballistics because he says so (supposedly, it's a dead link), or do we use the reliable sources that clearly say he's not an expert in ballistics.

There may not be much traffic on this Talk page, so will see if this can be fixed, don't want to war on this so otherwise will suggest a RfC to get some uninvolved eyes on the question. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not the best of sources, but its fine since it is attributed and we don't have special reason to believe he's lying. Would be an easier review if you list down these knowledgable sources. In general though, we tend to believe subjects when they explain what they focused on in their field of expertiese.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@Roma I would also add, again and with feeling, can you stop making controversial edits to a heretofore stable article and get consensus first? Thanks. IronDuke 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it then, Ironduke and Jaakoubu both, that you both prefer "a physicist specialized in ballistics" be in the article? Do you have any source to support this? RomaC (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, our best source into his area of expertise whithin his field of study is Shahaf. Not the best source but valid non-the less as we don't have reason to believe he'd go about publishing ballistics analysis or without some knoweldge in the field. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? Reliable sources say that Shahaf has no ballistics expertise:

• The Jerusalem Post, excerpting an article originally written in the Jerusalem Report in March 2008: The investigation by Shahaf and Doriel was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media, since neither are ballistics experts, they did not have access to film footage from any known news agency and, by that time, the actual site of the shooting had been razed so their investigation was based on a reconstruction of the scene.
• The Jerusalem Post (op-ed): Yom Tov Samia, the IDF general in charge of Gaza at the start of the intifada, engaged two confirmed conspiracy freaks, neither of them a ballistics expert, to investigate the shooting.
• Haaretz: Did ballistics experts take part in the tests? Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics - however, he says, "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."

Why would we privilege Shahaf's self-description in one article over what RS say (and he himself concedes in another article)? Tiamut^talk 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion would be better than blanket reversions of sourced content. Please discuss here why this article should be a platform for Shahaf to a) describe his work (per some editors' opinion, as there is no source); and b) expound upon his personal opinions. Also,ready to look to a RfC on why unsourced info should be here instead of info linked to reliable sources. Do not want a fight but will not accept blatant violations of policy, let's just fix this please. RomaC (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. You were bold, then reverted, now we discuss. And, respectfuly, it seems you very much wish to fight. Which is fine, but can you revert yourself in the meantime while you gather support for your position, assuming that exists? Thanks. IronDuke 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing that that you are supporting unsourced content, and reverting sourced content -- can you explain please why this is so? As we disagree on basics, would support opening a RfC for uninvolved editors, as above, ok? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was a bad one. I apologize if there was a bit of good in there that I reverted out. When you explain why you are making each of your new edits, I will be particularly interested to hear why you removed the quote at the end. IronDuke 19:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The long quote was about Palestinian and Israeli relations and peace/conflict etc. Shahaf has no expertise in this area the quote is gratuitous. Still waiting for a source that says Shahaf was a ballistics expert (and I have looked and not found one). The article ref list has several sources that say he is not a ballistics expert, why do we put unsourced content over sourced content? Response please. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not liking the direction being taken here. Shahaf does have expertise in this area which is the reason he was taken by the army to investigate it. Also, an external ballistics expert validated the same conclusions Shahaf has made. If sources conflict, we can discuss it here in a calm manner and possibly open it up for community review - it won't help you to again and again repeat yourself. Also, I don't like the way you inserted the Rabin issue. It feels unconnected and the sourcing is weak at best. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are to present Shahaf's theories on events, we present what RS say, and they include references to his Rabin conspiracy theory. Also can you provide a source that says Shahaf was an expert in ballistics "that's why he was taken by the army" seems your unsubstantiated opinion back it up we have sources that say he was not an expert these are already linked in the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to see the "poorly sourced content" referred to by Jaakobou in his revert of RomaC's edits here, but I'm not finding it. Shahaf is well known for his conspiracy theories about the Rabin assasination in Israel (I'm quite sure you are aware of that Jaakobou, being an Israeli), and the material that this information is cited is certainly reliable. Its also relevant to this article since this article also discusses his theories on the Durrah case and mention of his involvement in that case by reliable sources invariably recalls his Rabin theories. Think that this material should be restored. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly was that theory again? Who was supposed to have killed Rabin? IronDuke 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not being a conspiracy buff myself, I wouldn't know. What I do know is that mutliple reliable sources say that he put forward conspircy theories about Rabin's death. Heck, even the Muhammed al-Durrah incident article notes this about him. Don't see why it can't be noted here. Tiamut^talk 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait... so it's vital we include the conspiracy theory about Rabin, even though we don't know what it is? Really? IronDuke 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Its vital we include what reliable sources have to say about shahaf. They say he is well known in Israel for putting forward conspiracy theories about the Rabin assassination. They dont's discuss the content of those theories - ergo, neither should we. Its very simple. Don't know why you're having difficulty understanding it. Tiamut^talk 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I do understand. You wish to have noted a theory which is not notable, and which you do not even know the details of. It's very easy to understand, actually. IronDuke 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You don't understand. That's okay. I see why RomaC wants to open a RfC. She should. Reasonable people will understand te point I was trying to make. Tiamut^talk 21:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Drat you! Your razor-sharp mastery of argumentation has left me at a non-plus. Advantage: Tiamut. IronDuke 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not get my money's worth. Tiamut^talk 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But at least you got the e-mail. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will also ask again, and even bold for emphasis: Can we please leave the article in the stable state it's been in for almost a year until consensus forms? This is a BLP. I know some people are eager to remove positives and insert negatives, but caution must be excercised. Roma's been threatening an RfC for some time now. Let's see what neutral people have to say. IronDuke 21:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are you yelling at? I haven't touched the article yet. Please calm down. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't yelling. That's why I used the word "emphasis." I never raise my voice here, no point in it. My note was a general one, not directed at you in particular. Relax yourself. IronDuke 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am relaxed, eating ice cream actually. Sorry, I have the zoom on in my screen settings and the bold font looks simply obscene when its like that. Would appreciate it though if you would explain in the section above a bit about why we should ignore RS's who say Shahaf has no ballistics expertise. Thanks, Tiamut^talk 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ice cream: how lovely. And explains the frosty tone, as well ;). When people issue bogus suggestions to "please calm down," I generally assume they are themselves worked up. Perhaps that was not the case here. And I'm happy to have a mention of what NS thinks of his own abilities, plus a possible mention of the Army's opinion of those abilities, if possible, as well as Haaretz casting aspersions. Works for me. IronDuke 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, this witty reparte could continue all night, but I have a Super Mario Bros 3 game to attend to. So there is a discussion section above where the RS' that might be of use in representing this issue are quoted in full. Perhaps you could comment there and suggest ways to phrase the information you seek to retain alongside those? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IronD you said "I know some people are eager to remove positives and insert negatives". Can you please explain your idea about positives and negatives, I don't understand. For example do you regard Shahaf's al-Durrah campaign as a "positive" and his Rabin assassination campaign a "negative"? Why? He presents info on both on his website. We can't edit according to your personal assessment of positive and negative. We're not here to do a hatchet job or to write puff pieces -- in a Wiki article, what's "positive" is providing relevant and properly-sourced information for the reader. Can you please focus on content not contributor, and discuss the suggestions that have been made to help improve the article? Thanks RomaC (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well one example of skewing the article negative would be removing Shahaf's self-description of his expertise, removing a graf in which he discusses his feelings about the MaD case (which is the only reason we even have a wiki bio on him). The Rabin stuff is just odd: it merits passing mentions in a few newspapers. I don't see why it merits that here. As for the "content not contributor" mantra, I think you've been something of a poster child on this issue for insults, invective, and disruptive harassing behavior. What to do? Well, one thing could be, every time you feel you want to expend some energy writing that same sentence on Wikipedia, write it instead on a Post-It and pin it to your monitor. I think it will do the most good there. Cheers. IronDuke 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care to read this entire discussion. I've tried to create a better written, more neutral version of the text that editors seem to be edit warring over:

"Shahaf is best known for his role in a controversial IDF investigation into the shooting of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Durrah, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The investigation concluded that the boy was most likely not hit by Israeli gunfire, and Shahaf voiced his belief that the incident was probably staged by the Palestinians.

...and...

"Shahaf approached IDF Southern Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia and proposed an investigation of the al-Durrah shooting. Samia agreed, and on October 23, 2000, Shahaf helped to arrange a re-enactment of the shooting on an IDF shooting range, in front of a CBS 60 Minutes camera crew."

Thoughts? I just hope that editors read it and consider the changes before reverting as a knee-jerk reaction. ← George ^talk 18:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Best known" is incorrect and original research. The second issue seems ok, though I've expanded on it a bit to give the direct connection between Shahaf and the reaserch via IDF. The inserted sources pose the same BLP issue raised before and should not be inserted again without proper reasoning and writing fitting for a bio of a living person. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's incorrect or original research, though I have no doubt that you'd require an RfC on the matter, and I don't particularly feel like filing one at the moment. I think there were multiple improvements to the introduction, besides the wording "best known". To be honest, I have no idea who wrote that current sentence, but the English is pretty poor. Why didn't you just replace the word "best" with "also" if that was your only issue with the change to the introduction?

I'm also unclear how reliable sources could ever pose a BLP issue, as BLP issues can only arise based on how articles are written from said sources, but I also don't know that including the sources is necessary or important. ← George ^talk 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the only issue you had with my changes to the introduction was the term "best known", I've changed this to "also known", and reimplemented the other improvements. I really hate leaving poorly written English sentence lying around. ← George ^talk 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I also don't like it that you shilf the controversy to the investigation rather than the shooting incident and that you changed his conclusions from "could not have been hit by Israeli bullets" to "most likely not hit by Israeli gunfire". The prior is his conclusion and it would be best, considering you don't appear to know the material, that you'd suggest changes on the talkpage first. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The investigation was significantly more controversial than the shooting itself. Responsibility for the shooting was also controversial, but that's not what this sentence is discussing, or at least it that wasn't conveyed by the confusing English. Regarding the investigation's conclusions, General Samia said that the investigation cast doubt that Israel had shot the boy, not that it was impossible. ← George ^talk 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaak don't blank sources. IronD STOP with personal commentary and look at the content if you can. Shahaf is "best known" for his conspiracy theories, much of the information about his work in physics or his creativity prize is taken from articles about his conspiracy theories. Unlikely a masters' degree physicist would even have his own Wiki article, this was argued by IronD above. And yes Shahaf is known for his controversial investigation not for an investigation of a controversial shooting. Shahaf is the subject here. Also, Shahaf's investigation report was never published by the Israeli government. This might affect how we can cite it? RomaC (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but the incident is far more controversial than the investigation. The investigation is actually not very controversial outside the scope of a few people making bogus criticism, for which they are currently being sued. As there is no detail into what was so controversial about the investigation's methodology and that, external expers reached similar conclusions - there's really nothing to justify the change of phrasing.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Shahaf. His investigation was controversial. He's known for his controversial investigation. He was not involved in the shooting. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the investigations' only claim to controversiality is that one of the people involved was fired by Shahaf after coming out with investigation material to the media while the investigation was ongoing. Oh yeah, and a few people attacked Shahaf on a personal level and he's suing them... but this was printed only once and no one cares about it. There's really no comparison to the controversiality of the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Secondly, I can't make sense out of your arguemtn about him not being involved in the shooting. Have you reviewed my comment above? Are there more relevant, sources/fact based arguments why al-Durrah is not controversial but the investigation is? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree and disagree with Jaak. I'm okay with "best known" re MaD (though trying to stretch it to "conspiracy theories" is just silly). The idea that the IDF investigation is more controversial than the shooting (or lack thereof) itself is sort of stunning. It very obviously isn't. I have changed the article to reflect this. That said, I think we're making progress. IronDuke 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote the JPost, "The investigation... was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media." It was also condemned by members of the Knesset and IDF commanders. Shahaf's ballistics expertise, or lack thereof, was only one aspect of the investigation that was controversial. So too were the comments made by Duriel, his subsequent dismissal, Samia's destruction of the scene, and the fact that Shahaf and Duriel were civilians. Shahaf's ballistics expertise and the controversial nature of the "widely ridiculed" investigation are two separate, though related, issues. Aspects of the shooting were controversial (most notably, responsibility), but it's just not accurate to say the shooting itself was controversial (calling a shooting controversial implies that the shooting was done intentionally, not accidentally). This is in contract to the investigation, where the entire investigation (from how it formed, to who was included, to how it was conducted, to its final conclusion) was controversial. (Regarding Jaakobou's second point, I also have no clue what RomaC meant by him not being involved in the shooting though.) ← George ^talk 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you could say a shooting was controversial, in that the justification for it would be questioned, as happened here. You could say further there was controversy over whether the Israelis shot him, and still further whether it occurred at all. The "incident" is what is and remains controversial. Far, far more than Shahaf's investigation. Agreed? As to ridicule being heaped on the investigation, how many sources did so? Actual reportage? And how long ago? IronDuke 02:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean this with the utmost respect ID, but are you a native English speaker? It really feels like people are missing nuances in the words that they're choosing, which make these sentences say things that make no sense. Let me give you an example - the John F. Kennedy assassination. Who shot JFK is a matter of dispute. Who shot him is controversial. However, it's simply not proper English to describe the JFK shooting itself as controversial. A controversial shooting is when someone shoots someone else, and there is a dispute if they should have, not if they did. I just can't understand why editors aren't understanding very basic English grammar.

The only controversy I'm aware of in the al-Durrah case is who was responsible. Responsibility for the shooting is very controversial. The shooting itself is not (and it just doesn't make sense in English to call it controversial). How many sources ridiculed the investigation? About as many as lauded it I would guess. There aren't many of either, however, as the quality of the investigation seems to have been glossed over over time. ← George ^talk 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When an editor starts trolling as a way to influence an article, I generally take that as a form of surrender. I would accept that surrender if it meant something, but I have a feeling it won't. "The only controversy I'm aware of in the al-Durrah case is who was responsible." Right. Level with me: did you write that with a straight face, or were you hunched over your keyboard giggling and snorting? Since idea that this is the only controversy is so obviously, mind-rendingly untrue, I could of course imitate you and start exuding faux concern over your inability to understand basic logic, or remember something you'd read five minutes after you'd read it. But would it help the article if I did? Oh, and Roma, I missed your "suggestion," above. Again: the best way for you to curb unacceptable behavior onwiki is to start with yourself. Nuts and bolts: don't insult me, then turn around and offer me advice about how to post here. Among other things, it is utterly transparent. IronDuke 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest striking your comments about being "hunched over... giggling and snorting" and accusations of my "inability to understand basic logic", because I view both as a highly uncivil insults. I'm simply trying to understand why we disagree on what I view to be poorly written English in your preferred version of this sentence. And I'm still not aware of what about the al-Durrah incident is controversial, aside from responsibility. If you're aware of other things, it would be more helpful if you could identify them instead of insulting me. I'm open to thinking over the wording, but as it stands, and if that's the only controversial aspect of the incident, the current wording of this sentence is quite poorly written, so I have a hard time supporting it. ← George ^talk 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As to your suggestions of striking out, I reluctantly agree. Do feel free to go back through your own comments on this page and strike out anything insulting. There's not a whole lot, but enough. As for me, I wasn't saying you didn't understand basic logic, I was saying I had the option to insinuate something as silly and insulting as you did but, unlike you wouldn't take it. I guess you didn't... comprehend... that. And you really think me picturing you giggling is a "highly uncivil insult?" At a certain point, massive overstatement like that makes it difficult to communicate. Your question is so easily answered by even a cursory knowledge of MaD (which you most certainly have) that I am reluctant to answer it... can you really not guess why? IronDuke 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, and I grow tired of games. If you know of other things about the incident that were controversial, besides responsibility, then list them. If I've said anything insulting, feel free to let me know. Giggling is not an insult. Saying someone is "hunched over... snorting" is. Your witty sarcasm, while mildly amusing, certainly doesn't help communication. Kindly address the issue at hand. ← George ^talk 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you said anything insulting? Honestly? Me not know. Me speak English not good. Me think man take piss out of I, but not know. Clearer? (And happy to provide amusement, even if it is only mild.) Okay, to your (actually and finally) respectful, if strange, request: there are some people who think MaD was not shot at all, and may still be alive. There is controversy, therefore, apart from who may have shot him, as some allege he was never shot. Oh, and one other thing. I think I'm right when I say other Palestinian children were unambiguously shot that day. Those shootings were not controversial. Ought they to have been? Quite possibly. But they weren't. We do not have mounds of articles on those children. But for this child, for good or ill, a controversy (a controversy massively more impactful than a study could ever be) has erupted and endured. IronDuke 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see how I could have asked your level of familiarity with the English language any more respectfully than how I prefaced the question: "I mean this with the utmost respect ID..." If you were insulted, my apologies. I'm still not sure how we can disagree on what I view as pretty poor grammar. I'd ask if maybe this is a case where British and American English disagree, but I wouldn't want you to misinterpret it as an insult about your teeth. ;) I'll see if I can come up with some compromise version of the wording which alleviates both our concerns. ← George ^talk 00:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, your disingenuous preface is what specifically makes that trolling. I know it can seem like a nifty little Kevlar vest against accusations of incivility, but most people around here can see right through it, if I may mix my metaphors a bit. But enough about us! I look forward to your new wording. IronDuke 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, more incivility, accusing me of trolling and being disingenuous? We certainly have different takes on what WP:AGF says I guess. Regardless, since I don't think we (or other editors here) will be able to agree on which was more controversial, the shooting or the investigation, and I think we mostly agree that both are controversial to some degree, I've just removed mention of either being controversial. Let me know what you think. ← George ^talk 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't accusing you, I was pointing out a thing you were doing that, if you'll pardon the expression, any neutral observer with a more than basic grasp of the English language could clearly see. And that thing you were doing was wrong. My pointing out that it was wrong is not wrong. I really think you do yourself no favors to belabor this particular point, but of course, I cannot stop you. Taking out controversial works for me, well done. IronDuke 02:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC re: Nahum Shahaf and ballistics

Looking for uninvolved editors' opinions on the respective merit of these sentences re: Nahum Shahaf and ballistics.

1) "Shahaf describes himself as "a scientist, a physicist specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images."

sources:

• Metula News Agency interview, in which Shahaf says "I’m a scientist, a physicist specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images."

2)"The involvement of Shahaf, who had no forensic or ballistic qualifications, was described by Israeli newspaper Haaretz as 'dubious.'"

sources:

• Haaretz: From "Dubious Probe of the al Dura Case Backfires": Did ballistics experts take part in the tests? Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics - however, he says, "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."
• The Jerusalem Post, excerpting an article originally written in the Jerusalem Report in March 2008: The investigation by Shahaf and Doriel was widely ridiculed in the Israeli media, since neither are ballistics experts.
• The Jerusalem Post (op-ed): the IDF general in charge of Gaza at the start of the intifada, engaged (Shahaf and Doriel), neither of them a ballistics expert, to investigate the shooting.

Currently 1) is in the article, it was removed and 2) was inserted but reverted. Shahaf is a physicist who has made controversial claims related to ballistics. Two editors have suggested that readers are best served with the reliable sources above which say Shahaf is not an expert in ballistics. Two other editors have opposed, arguing that our best source on Shahaf's expertise is Shahaf himself sourced to the interview above, and that the article has been stable as it is. Discussion has failed to resolve the issue. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: concerns were raised that cherry-picking points from 'criticism artcles', leading to phrasings like "== Work on the Al-Durrah incident== After advancing conspiracy theories on the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Shahaf approached IDF ... and proposed an investigation of the al-Durrah shooting." creates a BLP-vio atmophere. The al-Durrah incident occured in September 2000 and Shahaf managef to get an official award in 1997 from Israel's science ministry. His work is focused around military issues and military systems - not conspiracies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I found relevant work credits listed here by Shahaf. Haaretz, btw, is not free of errors - moreso in a criticism piece that focuses on what makes their argument for them and ignoring what ruins it. Also, being an authority on ballistics is not a credential to be in charge of an investigation. That is why he notes to have been accompanied by a number of experts in the subject in his investigation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I found his VC here, and also found an article about him suing Haaretz for libel in the amount of 400 million due their presentation of him being intentionally fallaceous and it resulting in finantial damages toward one of his scientific projects (relating defense from projectile fire in armoured vehicles). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support (2) Believe Shahaf's controversial theories on Rabin's assassination and al-Durrah's shooting make it even more important that his degree of ballistics expertise is properly-sourced. One option we have major newspapers in Israel, other option we have Shahaf himself -- which choice complies with policy? RomaC (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So the sources above made no impression? you should really click the links and get over the Rabin issue while you don't even know what the details are. It is a WP:BLP-vio. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahaf's involvement with Rabin conspiracy theories is not an "issue" it is relevant and reliably-sourced background that gives some context to the article subject's subsequent theories, investigations and campaigns. There is plenty of info on what Shahaf believed re: Rabin, but details are not within the scope of this article. Links to a man's self-descriptions and CV are not so helpful, litigiousness is not unusual in controversial people, see: Chamish vs. whoever. Anyway what are your reasons for opposing the RS info? RomaC (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources (or mirrors) that aren't from Shahaf's own website or published in Hebrew? I'm honestly having a bit of trouble following the discussion. And by the way, what is a VC? ← George ^talk 07:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, nevermind, I think you just typo'd CV. Same questions though, do you have any similar things that aren't in Hebrew or self published? ← George ^talk 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

His links include original documentation. Goodness, the guy worked on unmanned aircraft targetting systems and lectures in front of the US forensic society - and is doing a PhD on a scholarship. Maybe you two should just look into it instead of continuing to puruse this on a biography. Any chance you'd be interested in making note of some of his accomplishments or are you only interested in making him appear like a crackpot? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you think Shahaf's Rabin assassination theories "make him appear like a crackpot"? Anyway this RfC isn't about Rabin or unmaned aircraft or protecting people from rays from cell phone transmissions towers, it's about about ballistics. I'm interested in using RS. Do you have any policy-based arguments for opposing the RS info? RomaC (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(a) Not quite. Follow my comment marked 15:45, 7 March 2010. (b) reliable sources were provided (in the CV). (c) Yes. WP:BLP is an actual concen here - No offense, but I'm feeling like you're ignoring this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In your comment you suggest sourcing Shahaf's online résumé, if you mean any of Shahaf's résumé statements re: ballistics, then again this returns us to this RfC question of whether info from Shahaf himself or info in reliable sources would be more policy-compliant for article content about Shahaf's ballistics expertise or lack thereof. You also discount "cherry-picking points from 'criticism artcles'", can you point me to any wiki policy that says if an article in a mainstream media is critical, we can't use it as a source? Finally, your opinion that "being an authority on ballistics is not a credential to be in charge of an investigation", if there are reliable sources that say that fine otherwise it's your opinion. There are reliable sources that question Shahaf's investigation re: ballistics expertise. I hope we can be policy-compliant and reflect this verifiable and well-sourced information in the article. Inline citation is fine re: your BLP concerns. Also I think it should be just a sentence noting this criticism/controversy. On your other concerns, please discuss below this RfC is specific. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest compromise

3)"The involvement of Shahaf, self-styled specialist in ballistics and the technology of filming images, but with no forensic or ballistic qualifications, was described by Israeli newspaper Haaretz as 'dubious.'"

We cannot decide here who is right we can only say what sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cute stuff. Not sure 'self-styled' works for a biography of an accomplished scientist though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It correctly implies that he has no formally recognised qualifications in ballistics but regards himself as an expert in the subject. Maybe, '...physicist and self-styled expert...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I'm sorry another editor dismissed your suggestion as "cute stuff", but thanks for coming back to participate as an uninvolved and neutral editor. Your comment, again, cuts through the confusion and hits the nail on the head -- reliable sources say he has no expertise, none present any recognized qualifications; but Shahaf himself says he specializes in ballistics. Believe the article should make it clear that reliable sources say he isn't a recognized/qualified/certified/whatever ballistics expert, and that this caused some controversy. I don't think this is so very complicated. By the way, the main discussion, covering a number of similar issues, is proceeding at the bottom of the page your level-headed input there would be much appreciated. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More self-descriptions added

In the midst of this discussion, and with a vague edit summary Jaakobou Talk has inserted more of Shahaf's self-description, (I am) "a former researcher for the Israeli military intelligence" this time, sourced to a résumé Shahaf has posted on his blog. Seriously stop trying to make Wiki a platform for Shahaf and putting his controversial self-descriptions ahead of reliable sources. RomaC (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some issues with the article

Thought I'd lay out some of the problems I see with the article. Hope editors wan work on these.

1) Identity. There has been opposition to identifying Shahaf as "best known" for his theories and campaigns, and an assertion that he be identified as a physicist first and foremost. Can we have some support for Shahaf's notability as a physicist, now the few sources that talk about his work in physics are articles primarily about his theories and campaigns. Shahaf's website is mostly about his theories and campaigns. If we identify him as a physicist, why does the article feature his treatise on Israeli-Palestinian relations?

"I believe that one day there will be good things in common between us and the Palestinians.…But the case of Mohammed al-Dura brings the big flames between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. It brings a big wall of hate. They can say this is the proof, the ultimate proof, that Israeli soldiers are boy-murderers. And that hatred breaks any chance of having something good in the future" (Nahum Shahaf)

Support a consistency through the article. if it's about Shahaf's theories and campaigns, reflect this in his primary identification. If he's identified as a physicist or inventor, have him discuss his see-thru walls or other such projects.

2) Descriptive terms There has been opposition to including the term "conspiracy theories". Numerous sources use this term. We don't have to apply the label "conspiracy theorist" if there are BLP concerns. But note that Wiki has a category called "Conspiracy theorists" and most of the people in it are alive.

Support balancing a Shahaf-supportive statement with information that some refer to his investigations as "conspiracy theories" (with inline citations).

3) Rabin There has been opposition to making any mention of Shahaf's theories and campaigns surrounding the Rabin assassination. These are well-sourced, and provide context for his al-Durrah work.

Support brief (a few words) mention of the Rabin campaign.

4) Ballistics expertise. Problem identified in the RfC above.

I hope editors can work dispassionately to improve this article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... 1) Maybe you should look into his CV page. 2) I've no objection to a note that X,Y,Z criticized him in year 2004 before anyone knew the deal with the al-durrah tapes. We should note that in 2007-8(?), France 2 was forced to present their "raw" video and, as a result - Karsenti was acquitted and W,E,R, wrote that they believe the case was indeed staged. We don't mention only the sources that speak ill of the investigation when there are others, like James Fallows or Esther Schapira who mention it in good review. 3) Rabin - again - other than op-eds mentioning that he had some theories about Rabin - what do we really know about this. You're begging the question that this is well sourced when, in fact, it is not. 4) A review of his CV works this out. I've no objection to the mentions of JPOST and Haaretz, but why didn't you include that he's sued Haaretz as a response? 5) Shahaf's perspective towards his findings in the al-Durrah case are notable for his own biography... I thought you're trying to say that this is the only think memorable in his life... so why do you look to censor his perspective? Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts from my end:

1. I don't see how anyone could argue that he isn't best known for his work on the al-Durrah case. Being best known for something doesn't mean it was the most important thing in your life, or the only thing you've done that's important, it's just what most people who have heard of you would have heard about you for. Most people on the planet Earth who have heard the name Shahaf only did so because of his investigation into the al-Durrah case. That makes that investigation what he is best known for.
2. We should mention all reliable sources that criticize or commend him. We can put them in some sort of chronological order, but we should be careful not to frame the opinions express in reliable sources with our own biases.
3. I just ran a quick search, and found at least a few reliable sources that mention Shahaf's investigation into the Rabin assassination. We should mention it, but, just as in #2, we should not be framing it for the reader. In the same way that writing "X,Y,Z criticized him in year 2004 before anyone knew the deal with the al-durrah tapes" poisons the well, so too can referencing the Rabin investigation improperly.
4. See my comments there regarding self published sources in Hebrew.
5. Maybe something small but important is being lost in translation here. Saying that someone is "best known" for something doesn't mean that it "is the only [thing] memorable in [their] life". It only means that that is the thing that most people know them for. ← George ^talk

I'm considering compromise with you on point (1) but I'm not fully convinced - give me a couple days to mull it over. (2) Make a list and a concrete suggestion and we'll discuss its merits for a bio of a living person - note that he is in the process of suing Haaretz for 400 million. (3) It can be phrased in a neutral way - in year x y and z criticized him personally, in year 2008 came out a movie which ratifies his original claims and he is currently suing z. (4) You need to give it a second look - your initial assesment is off. (5) Note that most people don't know him at all and that other aspects of his life were also published - including a prestigeous award for science and a more recent, criticism of journalism award (a serious award by an official organization). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your reply, (1) I'm glad you're considering it. (2) I don't have a list, nor am I making any specific suggestion, but if a reliable source (and it must be reliable) criticizes or commends him, then that criticism or commending has a place somewhere in the article. (3) Yes, there can be a neutral wording, though we can't make a judgement call as to whether or not a movie "ratifies his original claims". If reliable sources say it did, then we can attribute the statement to them. I'm fully in support of including any information on his lawsuit. (4) Sorry, but no matter how many times I look at a Hebrew source I'm not going to understand what it says. As for his CV, I suggest we take up the issue at RSN. Sometimes self published sources are acceptable, and sometimes not, but either way we likely have to be quite careful to attribute anything that Shahaf says about himself as coming from himself, and not as fact. (5) Again, being "best known" just means that it's what most people, among those on Earth who do know about you, know about you for. Most people that have heard of Shahaf haven't heard about his award or his UAV research - things which have a place in the article, but aren't things he's best known for. ← George ^talk 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That you can't read it is a shame, but its got links to scanned documents and news articles etc. Also, we have no reason to suspect he's lying about himself and we can be sure he's unhappy with Haaretz enough to sue them so they raelly don't count as a valid source here. Also, that award he recieved is no petty award. Its a major scientific honor - money and all. Anyways... I'm still thinking the issue over regarding the 'best known' thing. I'm warming up to the idea - but I'm not there yet. Maybe if you have source based citations, it would be good. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"we can be sure he's unhappy with Haaretz enough to sue them so they raelly don't count as a valid source here" now we are getting a bit ridiculous. RomaC (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

I figure I should explain why I'm "getting a bit ridiculous". Well, if someone sues a source for libel, their testimonies about him cannot be used as fact. I hope we can get ridiculous again sometime soon :)

Best wishes, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Source please for lawsuits filed where and when, I remind you Shahaf's blog is not a source. Wiki policy, please, where does it say if a subject is "unhappy" with a source that source doesn't count as valid? Also, JPost, did he sue them as well? RomaC (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a source already. Look for it under "400 million" :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly sued three years ago, any follow-up? RomaC (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing yet. Israeli courts are quite slow sometimes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this your opinion or do you have a source that says the case is still in progress after three years? If no confirmation, no coverage, no updates and no sources, then the alleged lawsuit, if it ever existed, does not seem notable. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:1EVENT?

I'm just putting this out there as something I've been thinking about; I haven't filed any sort of request yet. My concern is that Shahaf is only notable for one event—namely, the al-Durrah investigation. The only other possibly notable things about him are (a) his investigation into the Rabin assassination in 1995, and (b) the prize he received in 1997. I don't think his role in either of these is notable, leaving me questioning if Shahaf is only notable for the al-Durrah investigation. I can find zero mention of Shahaf in regards to the 1995 assassination or the 1997 prize among reliable sources published prior to the al-Durrah investigation in 2000. If editors can establish for me why they think his role in either event is notable, it would help me make a determination if this is something worth pursuing. Cheers. ← George ^talk 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea. Just for bookkeeping purposes, I wonder how it is that, as you say, "I don't think [Shahaf's] role in [the Rabin assassination] is notable," and yet you also wrote "I just ran a quick search, and found at least a few reliable sources that mention Shahaf's investigation into the Rabin assassination. We should mention it, but, just as in #2, we should not be framing it for the reader." That's quite... odd... isn't it? Or maybe it's exactly what it looks like it is. Anyway, the idea that this article should be deleted was suggested and dispensed with many edits ago, when the article was in considerably poorer shape than it is now. An AfD on it would not only be disruptive, but fail, quite handily, all other things being equal. IronDuke 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it odd at all. As I said, I can't find anything about the Rabin assassination investigation prior to 2000. When someone becomes famous for one event, and articles about that one event mention other events in that person's past, that doesn't make those other events notable if they weren't before the one event. Notability is a guideline for determining whether an article should exist, not what belongs in an article. If Shahaf is notable for more than one thing, and warrants his own article, then we should mention things published about him in reliable sources; if not, he shouldn't have his own article. ← George ^talk 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. That it makes no sense at all doesn't mean I don't love it -- I do. You argue for cramming in minutiae about NS because you think it's notable, but he himself is not. I can't put it any more eloquently than you did yourself. From 1EVENT: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." IronDuke 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you read my reply to say the exact opposite of what I wrote. Here, I'll bold it for you: Notability is a guideline for determining whether an article should exist, not what belongs in an article. I never argued for "cramming in minutiae about NS because... it's notable", and notability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not content belongs in an article. Per WP:N, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."

Regarding your quote from WP:1EVENT, that is what I'm left debating. Is Shahaf's role in al-Durrah greater than that of Muhammad, Jamal, or the camerman, Talal Abu Rahma? None of them have their own articles, and I consider them all to have larger roles in the incident than Shahaf. Do you disagree? ← George ^talk 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A search of the AfD archives doesn't show that this article was ever nominated for deletion. Can you link to the previous discussion? ← George ^talk 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You were arguing for inclusion of what appears to be a minor footnote to this man's life into this article, and yet you feel the article should not exist. I will continue to find that strange, at the very least. And indeed, we are debating that quote from 1EVENT, and have done so before: on this very page. I won't argue you with you any longer on this point. NS vastly exceeds WP threshholds for notabilty. The best result you'll get on an AfD is no consensus. IronDuke 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested including things on him that are mentioned in reliable sources, per Wikipedia policies. I don't "feel the article should not exist", and I haven't filed an AfD, I'm just thinking out loud about the issue, trying to get outside input to help me make a more informed judgement on the issue, to see if it's something I think should be taken to AfD, due to Wikipedia policies. Thanks for that link; I'll try to read through that lengthy discussion when I have a chance. I've also asked SlimVirgin for her input, because she's quite a bit more familiar with the players in the al-Durrah incident than most editors. ← George ^talk 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think there are Hebrew sources on Shahaf and the Rabin assassination theories pre-2000, not sure about how reliable they are. Also, it appears Shahaf does not have an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, although he is mentioned there in the Muhammad Al-Durrah article. RomaC (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this myself. There's not a lot of printed material out there that focuses on him. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through the previous WP:1EVENT discussion, and see the editors strongly arguing in favor of a Shahaf puff piece were Canadian Monkey and Tundrabuggy, both of whom have since been blocked as sockpuppets. If this is a partisan issue it is better that we get uninvolved editors to look at this. Problem is no uninvolved editors seem to give a toss. Anyway I don't know if i think the article should be deleted, but I do think it has to be rewritten without the selective, rose-tinted-glasses view of the subject's life (oh look he filed a patent for a see-thru wall, let's include that; oh, he advanced conspiracy theories on Rabin's assassination, let's not include that); and with an emphasis on secondary sources ("no ballistics expertise", sourced to several mainstream media) and not Shahaf himself ("I'm a ballistics specialist" sourced to Shahaf in a partisan "news service" in Metula). So, yes to the article if it can be neutral. Some could say this guy is a political activist, he has even said he gave up physics to work full time on Al-Durrah, yet this article is portraying him as a neutral, respected scientist. Reflect the controversies, which are better sourced than the accolades. Reflect both. RomaC (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. I did a search earlier on the Factiva news database and did not find a single article on Shahaf that was not about his activities in relation to the al-Durrah case. He appears to have had no public profile, at least as far as Factiva is concerned, prior to the "investigation" that he carried out in 2000. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, his inventions saw far move publicity than a few Rabin related pseudo-critiques. I hear those roses, btw, are making a comeback :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the previous discussion, and noting that at least two of the editors involved were sockpuppets, I've gone ahead and nominated this article for deletion. I've notified the editors involved in this discussion, as well as those involved in the previous discussion. ← George ^talk 09:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources, phrasing, and other issues

Okay, now that the issue of whether or not this article should exist is behind us, time to move on to the article itself. I've started going through it, and to be quite honest, it's a real mess. Let me start with some general comments:

• The sourcing is terrible. Self-published sources should be avoided, and we need some way to verify that things that purport to even be self-published are, in fact, self-published. They should almost all be replaced. Likewise, op-eds and commentary pieces shouldn't be used to support anything except opinions. Many of the links aren't working, and some are in Hebrew. We should try to find better sources in those cases as well.
• Patents. This page listed a couple patents. Let's be clear - these aren't notable. There are millions of patents; indeed, many of my friends and colleagues have patents - some numbering over a hundred. Patents that are substantially reported on and written about, or patents that are important to the subject itself (like when a company gets sued due to patent infringement), or patents that change the world - those might be worth having in an encyclopedia. Every patent ever filed is not. (FYI, there are more than twice as many patents in the U.S. alone as there are pages on Wikipedia.)

Some more specific issues:

• What did Shahaf get his Master's degree in?
• Which type of CT technology did he work on?
• Are the names "Israeli Science Ministry" and "Elcint" correct? Neither has an article on Wikipedia, but the ministry definitely should (and the company as well, if it's sizable). Do they have articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia? We could link to those instead.
• Can anyone find any more information on this Natop corporation? Is he the only employee? Are there a couple, a hundred, a thousand..? Do they have a website, or any sort of presence, any where?
• The background section needs some serious work. I'll try to get to it when I have more time.

Regarding previously mentioned things:

• What are the reliable sources that say he has ballistics expertise, and what are those that say he doesn't?
• What are the reliable sources that discuss his investigation of the Rabin assassination? ← George ^talk 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George, I hope more editors will drop in and look at this article, which has been built and guarded in no small way by sockpuppets. It seems that Shahaf is a fulcrum for the hoax/conspiracy theory campaigns on the death of Al-Durrah, and some editors who support advancing these theories in that article are also here, puffing up Shahaf, perhaps so he appears an authority whose opinions emerge from dispassionate scientific method.

I totally agree on the issue with sources, if nobody but Shahaf is putting certain info forward it probably does not belong in the article. Also, yes, what's this "Science Ministry" and who are the various companies? Also note that Shahaf himself does not have an article on Hebrew Wikipedia, he is only mentioned there in the Al-Durrah article.

As for the ballistics experience, there are several reliable sources presented on this Talk page that say he has no ballistics experience; I see no reliable sources that say he does have this expertise. Shahaf said he "specializes" in ballistics in an interview with a partisan website, and that's been used as a source, which doesn't cut in in my opinion but I got reverted when I removed the claim. Sometimes self-descriptions may be ok, I suppose if for example Shahaf said in an interview he played the harmonica, maybe that could be in the background section. However, the ballistics issue is critical to an understanding of the controversies surrounding Shahaf and too important to source so lazily, especially when there are reliable sources that contradict the self-description.

Similarly, see on this Talk sources that mention Shahaf's involvement with Rabin assassination theories, this puts his involvement with Al-Durrah into some context. It is clear that Shahaf is better known for his investigations and theories than he is for filing patents for see-thru walls or creativity prizes or attempts to get antennas taken down because they emit dangerous rays. So why selectively cover one investigation and ignore another? Problem is this is not a high-traffic article and so it is hard to get uninvolved and neutral editors involved in the editing, there was only one (reasonable) suggestion from the RfC, and Jaakabou flippantly denigrated it. How do you suggest we could proceed?

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

We've been over the so-called reliability of these op-eds and over the issue that this is a biography of a living person. Could you come up with another breakthrough argument for the smear campaign? Would be nice to not see the same old arguments over and over and over again. A real waste of both our times.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we please just drop the constant bickering on these issues for a bit? I've struck out the last two questions above, as they were only meant to be answered after after we resolve some of the other issues I listed. I'd really appreciate if both of you could help me find answers to the questions I listed under "more specific issues" first. We can dedicate separate sections of the talk page to Shahaf's ballistics experience and theories on Rabin's assassination so that this discussion doesn't get muddled. ← George ^talk 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tagging while we sort issues such as sourcing an article largely to the subject's blog. The resident sockpuppets have been banned and this article is now being looked at, and, frankly, it is not up to standards. We are here to use RS to write an article about a controversial political activist/advocate/conspiracy theorist/physicist/; we are not here to provide a vehicle/showcase/platform for Shahaf's personal opinions. Editors can bang this "smear campaign" drum if they like, hopefully instead, they can work dispassionately and with a neutral approach to improve the article. I think in light of the editing problems this article had in the past that it is not unreasonable to ask editors to declare any possible WP:COI as well, for example if they have ever communicated or worked with Shahaf. I have not, thanks. RomaC (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The background section really, really needs some sources. There's all kinds of very specific information in there not sourced to anything. I hate marking all of these sentences up, but the only alternative is to delete several sentences until we find sources. Hopefully someone can find sources for them fairly soon. ← George ^talk 00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, instead of marking up every sentence with tags, and because this is a biography of a living person, I'm going to remove them (hopefully temporarily) until editors can support them with reliable sources. Please help find sources for these statements:

• Shahaf was born in 1946. (Additionally, a place and specific date would be preferred.)
• Shahaf earned his master's degree from Bar-Ilan University in 1977. (Additionally, what kind of master's it was would be great.)
• As an Elcint employee, he helped develop CT technology. (Also would be good to find out which type of CT technology this is.)
• At Tadiran, he headed a unit that formulated strategy in the area of visual intelligence.
• In 1989, he moved to Israel Aircraft Industries to develop helicopter missile technologies.
• In 1991, he set up the Natop Company.
• He is a Fellow at the Israel Ministry of Science.

Thanks. ← George ^talk 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably have more time to address these minor points at the beginning of next month. Don't tag and then remove stuff though. Someone added this content from the CV which is layden with support external citations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me be clear on a few things:

(a) This is the biography of a living person. As such, "We must get the article right." We much "be very firm about the use of high quality references."

(b) Broken links to websites that may (or may not) be Shahaf's resume are not reliable sources. Resumes themselves are not reliable sources, except as self-published sources, citable for what the subject wrote on their resume (e.g., According to John Smith's resume, he did X.) This issue has been brought up on the reliable sources noticeboard before. If you don't believe me, feel free to file a request yourself.

(c) Per WP:BLP, "the burden of evidence... rests with the person who adds or restores material." That would be you. Find reliable source for the information you're putting in this article, and I'll fully endorse it's inclusion. However, we aren't going to leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in the article while waiting for you to find time in your schedule to search for reliable sources. The material isn't going anywhere, it will be on this talk page and in the article's history until you can find time, but it will not be included in the article, in violation of Wikipedia policies, until it can be sourced.

Let me quote Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." (emphasis mine) That is why I removed the information, rather than tagging it. I anxiously await the day when you have time to find sources to support the information I've listed above. In the meantime, I'll be searching for sources myself, and will be happy to discuss any issues here on the talk page, while we continue to try to improve this article. ← George ^talk 08:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources are one issue here, another issue is phrasing and weight. George rewrote the lead to be more policy compliant, much appreciated. After Jaakabou's quick reversions, the lead read:

He is possibly best known for his role in an October 2000 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) investigation into the controversial shooting incident of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Durrah for which he was awarded the 2007 Abramowitz Israeli Prize for Media Criticism.(my itals)

This reads like advocacy, let me say why I believe this to be true. First, by far the most notable thing Shahaf has done is his Al-Durrah investigation. Even the scant information on his other activities is mostly sourced to articles about the Al-Durrah investigation. But Jaakabou had inserted a qualification, "possibly best known". Why do that? Second, Shahaf's investigation was controversial, not the shooting itself. Only a fringe believe that Al-Durrah was not shot. But Jaakabou had qualified not the investigation, but the shooting as "controversal". Third, the reaction to Shahaf's investigation varied widely, conspiracy theorists getting excited and the government refusing to publish it, many commentators/media simply laughing it off, some angered. But Jaakabou had given just one reaction, that of the obscure Israeli Media Watch, which awarded Shahaf their Abramowitz Prize, search for this prize yourself (17 hits!), but be careful, while on the Israel Media Watch website's "Pictures" page my antivirus blocked the JS:agent-ba trojan horse. RomaC (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think an obscure award (17 hits?) from an obscure organisation is notable. I've taken out this section, as it seems too much like promotional content to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give editors more time to find sources for it, but I don't disagree with its removal. ← George ^talk 08:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

G, C, and R,

(a) yes, the al-durrah incident is far more controversial than the investigation, which was criticised a couple times and ratified as accurate a couple times more. (b) האגודה לזכות הציבור לדעת is a very distinguished organization. And this merits as much notability as the criticism of 2-3 op-eds. (c) this is a bio and we're not going to make the sole claim of notability of an award winning scientist to be about a single investigation he'd been in charge of.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, you making 16 reversions in 30min to an article where several editors have identified, discussed and attempted to correct problems, that does not suggest you are acting with a spirit of cooperation/collaboration. Would you be prepared to please self-revert these latest edits first, then discuss with other editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about 16 reverts? I reviewed all the diffs and kept everything that was viable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, you didn't revert 16 edits, you actually reverted 32 edits. RomaC (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew and Wikipedia

Its impossible that editors who can't read Hebrew try now to establish the alleged non-notability or value of someone mostly discussed in Hebrew sources. This article is a BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON and I'm, personally, getting fed up with the smear attempts made here by editors interested in a certain view of the al-Durrah article. This type of activity may have been reasonable on the main article but to take it to this article is a clear misconduct. With respect, next time anyone removes the Abramowitz Israeli Prize for Media Criticism award as non-notable, I will take this to an official forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a biography of a living person that's even more reason why it has to be properly sourced and policy-compliant. And by the way, Shahaf does not have a page on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I abstained from !voting on the AFD so you should take this argument for the next nomination - I tend to believe I'll abstain on the next nom as well. The article is mostly policy compliant at this point in time, albeit, there is off-course room for improvement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've made a quick review into one of the "odd" sources and discovered it was added by a banned editor and that I can't view the source with more than a snippet view, which doesn't show the word 'odd'. The source seems legitimate but the usage seems to, possibly, misrepresnt the writer's notes of the story to some extent. I'd be interested in any book/article about the initial response to the al-durrah case for this article in order to sort out the criticism section into something legible/encyclopaedic. Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear before. I view much of the information you've added to be contentious. It must be sourced. I don't care if you find a source in English, in Hebrew, in Chinese, or Swahili—so long as it's reliable. The links you added are not reliable, or completely dead links. If you think that links to the forums, blogs, and personal websites you added are reliable, it's up to you to prove it by taking them to the reliable sources noticeboard. As an aside, I also noticed that most of your Background section was nearly a word for word copy of a document from one of your unreliable blog sources. That is also problematic, as it is a copyright violation. I've outlined the exact sentences which need to be properly sourced in the section above, so I'd really appreciate if you would take the time to find sources for them instead of trying to edit war. ← George ^talk 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What is this supposed to link to, anyways? ← George ^talk 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news, I went through the links you posted above and found his CV in Hebrew. While not a reliable source, it can be cited for some less contentious things. Why you didn't just cite it in the article I have no idea, though some of what was in this article isn't in his CV. We'll still probably have to take up the issue at RSN to try to figure out if this is his CV (I could go create a website and post my own version of a Nahum Shahaf, which is why self-published sources are an issue), but for now I'm going to try to expand the article based on the less contentious, non-overly self-serving material from it. ← George ^talk 20:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gutting and/or tag-spamming the article is not a consolation prize for failing to delete it

I don't think I need to mention any names -- you know who you are. In any case, I do apologize if I've inadvertently taken out anything (such as link repair) that should stay in. There was a lot of damage done, and it's a little bit tricky to undo it. IronDuke 00:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to join in the discussions above, especially if you can find any sources to support any of the information you've added. Until then, you can be pretty much guaranteed that anything contentious will be coming out, until it can be sourced. ← George ^talk 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so everything you took out was unsourced, then? IronDuke 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or poorly sourced. And out of curiosity, why do editors keep moving the language tags to the end of sources? I was trying to move them to the beginning to mimic the main Muhammad al-Durrah article, but editors seem to consistently move them around. Is there some policy saying they should be at the end? ← George ^talk 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the cite news template automatically populates it at the end unless the location parameter is used. I don't know if this contradicts other styles for those that format them by hand.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cptnono, don't suppose you can translate Hebrew? Or does anyone else feel like translating some of these sources..? ← George ^talk 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo! Oh crap, I just came back because I did another test and it was in the middle. Argh templates! No, I poke around the topic but am not even Jewish. Google translate maybe? I'm sure there are a couple people that frequent the topic. If no one pops up I'll send a couple messages to talk pages.Cptnono (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Google translations aren't saying what other editors are saying the sources say, which is why I ask. But one of the things listed in WP:CITEHOW is to have translations in the footnotes. I don't really care who translates it, but someone who speaks Hebrew would probably be preferable... :) ← George ^talk 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, gonna start a new section with an updated list of things that don't have sources. ← George ^talk 01:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And one is a PDF so google won't work anyways. You better be there Thursday! And I am a little biased but agree with throwing out info in a BLP that has no sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, do you know how much season tickets are even up in the nose bleed section?? :( I'm going to have to register super early next year, and grab some tix where I can this season.

And to keep my reply on topic, I agree. ;) I'm okay with leaving some of this in temporarily - stuff that's not overly contentious, self-serving, or biased, either way - but the sourcing here is just so bad, and editors keep adding it without even reading their own sources. Ugh. ← George ^talk 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced information

I'll try to create a more concise list of things that are unsourced or poorly sourced.

• Shahaf's birth year. Again, need a reliable source for it. And knowing the date and location would be even better. Maybe Shahaf doesn't care if we make him ten years older or younger than he is, but he might, and therefore we really need a source for it.
• Shahaf's role at Natop. Editors keep adding that he was the President and founder. He very well may have been, but it needs a source. The source editors continually insert goes nowhere, the main website for that source is a made up of user contributions, and therefore unreliable (even if it wasn't a broken link). More information on the company would also be helpful. His CV doesn't say that he was the President and founder, according to a Google translation. Editors can choose to provide their own translations as well - I'm fine with that, but...
• We need reliable sources that verify what the page that alleges to be his curriculum vitae says. Again, it's hosted on a web page of user contributions, and is therefore unreliable by itself. I added this stuff just to get it formatted in proper English, but if additional sources aren't found it will have to come out.
• People keep adding that he is a Fellow at the Israeli Ministry of Science, but the source cited doesn't say that. I have no problem with it, but find a reliable source that does, and cite it.

This is all really basic stuff people. Cite reliable sources. ← George ^talk 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. megapolis.org, another blog, is also not a reliable source. ← George ^talk 01:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking Fallows too much

Currently we have a blockquote from the Fallows article, as follows:

"It now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world. Whatever happened to him, he was not shot by the Israeli soldiers who were known to be involved in the day's fighting—or so I am convinced, after spending a week in Israel talking with those examining the case."

If this appears it has to be balanced with the rest of Fallows' opinion in the article, i.e.,

"(Shahaf) believes that everything that happened at Netzarim on September 30 was a ruse. The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day."

Also from the Fallows piece, this long, soapboxy Shahaf statement also gets a blockquote here:

"I believe that one day there will be good things in common between us and the Palestinians...But the case of Mohammed al-Dura brings the big flames between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. It brings a big wall of hate. They can say this is the proof, the ultimate proof, that Israeli soldiers are boy-murderers. And that hatred breaks any chance of having something good in the future."

This quote has now taken a full section, believe it does not belong in the article at all. Shahaf is described variously as a physicist or a conspiracy theorist. To even discuss including this, we'd need the premise that Shahaf is a political analyst. Even then, it reads like the voice of a child musing at the sight of dark clouds blowing in. There is nothing concrete or valid here, it is an emotive and political trojan horse. It is not a statement reflecting the work of a physicist or an investigator. RomaC (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The last quote is not Fallows, is it? And the idea that we shouldn't have NS's thoughts on the one subject that really makes him notable is quite strange. Though I agree, having it in its own section is clumsy. Perhaps George could put it back how it was. IronDuke 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly pretty perplexed myself as to where it fits best. I've had it in several different sections, and removed it, and now in its own section. The problem with where it was before is that it was in the supporters section, in the same paragraph as mentions the media criticism award, which made it read like something he said upon receiving the award. But it's not, it's just a quote attributed to him in a book. It talks about al-Durrah, but isn't related to either the criticism of his investigation, nor the supporters of the investigation. We could put it in the beginning of the al-Durrah section, but it sounds forced there too. Maybe it would be better to paraphrase him instead of directly quoting the whole thing. Something like "Shahaf has argued that the al-Durrah incident has been used to fan the flames of hate, and to label Israeli soldiers as child-killers." I don't know, it's a bit hard to paraphase, and the English is a bit crudegrammatically incorrect, but I'm open to ideas. ← George ^talk 02:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "crude?" Your paraphrase of NS? I'd say let's have him speak in his own words. It was fine where I had it, it could be fine placed elsewhere in the body of the article. Having its own section is just strange. IronDuke 02:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't find it odd to have quotes from Shahaf himself included in a section labelled Supporters, that lists people who agree with his position? Including it there makes it look like we're trying to inflate the supporters section with Shahaf's own commentary. ← George ^talk 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. My commentary was on the crudenessgrammatical incorrectness of the quote attributed to Shahaf. I'm worried that including brokengrammatically incorrect English quotes might imply something to readers, making them think that the subject is uneducated (e.g., Roma's evaluation of the quote above). ← George ^talk 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of having a "supporters" section at all. As for English use, I must congratulate you on your own. You are were a masterful job of sneering at the subject, using pejorative terms like "crude" and "broken" to describe his English (which is actually reasonably competent for a non-native speaker). While the contempt is clear, you have had only one foot over the line of BLP violation, giving you the opportunity to pull back with a "Huh? I don't know what you're talking about" defense. Would you mind terribly knocking that off? It would be appreciated. IronDuke 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Iron, do not edit others' talk page comments. I was saying I found the quote <revert disruptive edit> to read more in the tone of childlike musing than like relevant information on either a physicist or an investigator. Take it to an admin if you like, but don't use a flimsy excuse to edit/delete my comments. RomaC (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find BLP concerns flimsy; I can assure you I do not. I don't want to "take it to an admin" though I suppose I would if you forced me to. But why? Why not simply write that you don't believe Shahaf's quote is notable? It's not a silly point to make, and something we can discuss. Please don't put me in the awkward position of being forced to edit your comment. I really, really don't want to. IronDuke 02:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll even go you one better. Why not ask on the BLP board if that characterization is acceptable (without naming names)? IronDuke 03:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke I think you are trying to antagonize people here, I see no other reason for your actions and repeated editing of my comments based on stubborn objections to my questioning the appropriateness of a "I wish we could all live in peace but the others are full of hate" quote attributed to, of all people, a physicist and military investigator. It is a quote that provides no insight into physics, ballistics or forensics or the shooting or the investigation. It is a fanciful muse, why do you revert my telling editors here on Talk that I see it as such? I don't insult Shahaf by saying this any more than I would if I said I thought that his dreamy color panoramic photographs of the Negev desert didn't belong here. This is no BLP vio in my opinion. RomaC (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motives to me. I can guarantee you that Shahaf's English is far superior to my Hebrew, leaving me little room (and no reason) to "sneer" at him. If it assuages your concerns, I find it's often equally problematic to quote non-native English speakers on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Back to the topic at hand, what about moving the content of the supporters section above the Responses section, and renaming the Responses section just Criticism? It's not a pattern I particularly like, but I've seen it used in similar articles. ← George ^talk 03:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I think it's pretty clear I didn't attribute any motive at all to you. I don't really need to, I just need to focus on the specifics of what you do/have done. You were sneering, using pejorative language to describe a BLP. I wish you wouldn't. To brass tacks, no I don't think "Criticism" makes a lot of sense as a section header, upon reflection. There isn't so much info it can't all go under an MaD work header. IronDuke 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Contempt" is a motive for "sneering". I have no contempt for Shahaf, and therefore was not "sneering" at him, and I find your accusations to the contrary to be borderline personal attacks. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would strike out the accusations of contempt and sneering above, so that we might get back to discussion the issue at hand. ← George ^talk 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say "contempt" does not express motive in and of itself, only emotion. How about this: I will strike out my comments, if you rephrase yours. No "crude," no "broken." Deal? IronDuke 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What adjective would you like me to use for a quote I consider to be poorly worded English? Is "poorly worded" acceptable? Beyond placement, I think my concern with including the quote, due to the poor quality of the English, and how that might reflect on the speaker, is valid. ← George ^talk 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Poorly worded" is better, in the sense that it is less insulting, but still very wide of the mark. You could say "grammatically incorrect," perhaps. And it isn't our business to try and praise or protect Shahaf, nor to insult or expose him. IronDuke 01:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced the terms "crude" and "broken" above with "grammatically incorrect". ← George ^talk 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also done. Tell me if I missed anything. IronDuke 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! ← George ^talk 02:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP?

I have been asked on my talk page to comment on whether the talk page comment removed here is a violation of WP:BLP. I can't really tell. On the one hand, it is one editor's strongly critical opinion of the subject's views on the I-P conflict; on the other hand, it appears to be reasonably related to a good faith discussion about whether or not to include these views in the article. I advise both editors to err on the side of caution and leave the comments removed, but also to stop the (IMHO fruitless) discussion above about each other's motives and get back to discussing the article.

Without wanting to become involved in the article's editing myself, may I venture a comment on the merits of the problem (though I am thoroughly unfamiliar with the subject matter)? It might be best to remove this quote altogether as long as it just sits there in the article without context. It is not clear to the reader what purpose (if any) it has in the article and why whe should care about this scientist's political views; moreover, Wikipedia is not a collection of citations (that would be Wikiquote). Also, isn't it a bit presumptuous (and WP:OR?) to take this one quote of his about this boy's death (why this quote? just because it's the only one available?) and label it as "the" views of the subject about the entire conflict? Presumably, as a person living in Israel, he has more and more complex views about the conflict. That quote is a more serious issue, IMHO, than the fruitless back and forth about talk page conduct above. Its inclusion may not violate BLP, but it is sloppy editing.  Sandstein  06:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the quote is an issue, it sort of flys in out of nowhere, and that's why I am presenting my opinions on its tone/content/appropriateness. It is, however, very difficult to present my opinions if one editor removes them. My comments were not inappropriate for a Talk page, and it was wrong to repeatedly remove them. Anyway that's what the AN/I admin says here. Ironduke has been warned to stop, which closes this for me. RomaC (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to get an outside admin to opine. I did that. Yet you went ahead and forum-shopped to get another (not very well-considered) opinion. I haven't been warned to stop, as I already had stopped, pending Sandstein's view, which, though you asked for, you now ignore as convenient. I want to say I'm disappointed, but how can I be surprised? IronDuke 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP vios

By the way, BLP vios are getting out of hand on this page. I'll be snipping anything else I see that insults the subject of this article,without regard to 3RR (as BLP of course trumps it.) Editors who have strong negative emotional feelings about NS are invited not to edit on the article or this talk page. IronDuke 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See Barry Chamish as below. Or this page, Category:Conspiracy Theorists, which lists 157 conspiracy theorists, most of whom are alive. We can't selectively interpret and apply this BLP protection for a controversial public figure in order to block criticism and include only supportive content. This is not a puff piece. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite agree. Well-sourced negative info, presented in balance, is welcome here. Taunting the subject on this talk page is not. IronDuke 02:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Commentators other than Fallows

There are a number of journalists other than James Fallows who have covered Shahaf and Al-Durrah. Believe that should be reflected in the article.

Where to incorporate the following:

• Anet Cygielman: "Shahaf phoned Duriel and suggested they investigate whether it was necessarily true that IDF soldiers shot the boy. The two were acquainted - they met when they jointly reviewed Shahaf’s findings on an altogether different matter, the Rabin assassination. Shahaf claims to have in his possession "dramatic photographs which change the picture with respect to Yigal Amir’s involvement in the murder." Shahaf and Duriel discussed ways of disseminating these Rabin assassination materials." [3]

• Larry Derfner: "...it’s ludicrous and morally blind to claim that the Palestinian boy’s killing was a "hoax," a staged event... Nahum Shahaf, who pioneered the field of al-Dura conspiracy theory after cutting his teeth on the Rabin assassination, explains the blood stain as a "red cloth" that was concealed in the boy’s shirt and fell out on cue, giving the appearance on camera of blood. Dear God. People really believe this stuff." [4]

• Gideon Levy: "In an eccentric obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of Yitzhak Rabin." [5]

Shahaf is a controversial public figure. It isn't neutral to have only a "supporters" section and not include reliably-sourced criticism of his work. Reference the Wiki article on, for example, Barry Chamish.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

It makes sense to include some criticism, though full quotes aren't necessary. Also, Shahaf's al-Durrah and Rabin assassination investigations, should be separated out. Oh, and a Start quality article isn't a good example to go on. ← George ^talk 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've been through these comments and you make some good points, which I've responded to by substantially revising the last half of the article. I've separated out the Rabin and al-Durrah conspiracy theories and provided more sourcing for the former, as it wasn't really explained why Shahaf's views on Rabin made him so controversial in the al-Durrah investigation. I've added mention of Doriel's involvement (and dismissal) and cited Levy's criticism of Shahaf's work on the al-Durrah case. The link to the news story about the lawsuit appeared to be broken but I found a working link to a Hebrew article, apparently from a reliable source, so I've added this with some more information about what the lawsuit is about. I've temporarily removed an unsourced assertion about Shahaf's work being supported by others, per WP:BLP's injunction not to include unsourced information, but have no objection to something similar being added if it can be reliably sourced. (Note that it is not good enough to simply cite a source which promotes generic al-Durrah conspiracy theories - the source must specifically support Shahaf's views.) I have also taken out the "Supporters" heading - separating "support" and "criticism" is strongly discouraged by policy, specifically WP:NPOV#Article structure. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comentators and BLP

Initial reception to the investigation was quite harsh and I've no objection to a quote or two besides Haaretz. Later response, including Derfner, tend to accept the base premiss (unless the writer is coming from an anti-Israeli perspective) that the original report was faulty. I didn't want to give later reports the appearance of being more powerful than the initial reports since those are written more by people with an interest in the subject but Fallows, an uninvolved journalist and former advisor to the US president is a good example on how public perception is no longer the same as it were prior to the 2007 court decision. As for Rabin, we've been through this a few times and I'd hate for this non-story to be inserted into the article in a manner that breaches BLP. We can't start writing from criticism articles if we don't even know what his arguments were.
p.s. Side query: is Derfner a "reporter" or an opinionist?
p.p.s. Relevant diffs of concern: [6][7] - I'm not wholly against some of the content in these diffs but it is currently giving overdue notability to side issues in a manner that creates a clear BLP concern. For example, use of Haaretz, which is being sued by Shahaf, for stating "facts" is a big no no.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. anyone interested in adding some info about his see-through walls idea?[8] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

When will you be supplying sources for the issues I've identified multiple times in the discussions above, or are you just going to leave them in, poorly sourced, or unsourced altogether? ← George ^talk 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed that Jaakobou has wiped out all of my edits without even bothering to discuss anything that I wrote above or the issues that RomaC or George have raised. This is simply not acceptable, particularly when Jaakobou's revert has restored contentious unsourced claims in blatant violation of BLP.

These are the points of contention:

1) [ChrisO] Shahaf's year of birth - what is "Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010"?

2) [George] Shahaf's role at Natop. Editors keep adding that he was the President and founder. He very well may have been, but it needs a source. The source editors continually insert goes nowhere, the main website for that source is a made up of user contributions, and therefore unreliable (even if it wasn't a broken link). More information on the company would also be helpful. His CV doesn't say that he was the President and founder, according to a Google translation. Editors can choose to provide their own translations as well - I'm fine with that, but...

3) [George] We need reliable sources that verify what the page that alleges to be his curriculum vitae says. Again, it's hosted on a web page of user contributions, and is therefore unreliable by itself. I added this stuff just to get it formatted in proper English, but if additional sources aren't found it will have to come out.

4) [George] People keep adding that he is a Fellow at the Israeli Ministry of Science, but the source cited doesn't say that. I have no problem with it, but find a reliable source that does, and cite it.

5) [ChrisO] Jaakobou has removed without explanation a short section on Shahaf's work on Rabin conspiracy theories. Why? It's well-sourced and it's key background for why his involvement in the al-Durrah "investigation" was so controversial.

6) [RomaC] Soapboxy Fallows quote. [ChrisO] It's a peacock quote - it says nothing about Shahaf, it's a statement of Fallows' POV. It simply doesn't belong in the article.

7) [ChrisO] Jaakobou asserts that Israel's Media Watch is "a very distinguished organization". Where is the evidence for this? It needs to be demonstrated that the award and the awarding organisation is notable. If Jaakobou can do this, I have no objection to including the award, but otherwise it should not be included.

8) [ChrisO] Jaakobou has removed all criticism of Shahaf. This is simply not compatible with NPOV, which requires all significant POVs to be presented.

9) [ChrisO] There are numerous unsourced claims. This is completely unacceptable as a basic BLP principle.

10) [ChrisO] Haaretz does not somehow become an unreliable source by virtue of Shahaf suing it. None of the Haaretz articles we cite date to after the lawsuit was reportedly filed, and it's not even clear that the lawsuit is still active.

Jaakobou, please deal with these issues. The version of the article that you just reverted to is riddled with basic POV flaws (excluding all criticism) and BLP violations (unsourced claims). That simply isn't acceptable. - ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I posted a question at RSN, asking if a census, as cited, was a reliable source. Editors replied that it "is not a proper citation... Just adding a footnote that says 'Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010' is not substantially different from adding a footnote that says 'I read it somewhere'," and "only published works can be reliable." ← George ^talk 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, regarding #2 & 3, I asked if a curriculum vitae (CV) was reliable over at RSN. Editors replied "Nope", and "no". They brought up an interesting point in the discussion - the website hosting what was is alleged to be Shahaf's CV is made up of user contributions. The about page website's about page] says: "[Nahum Shafhaf] editors and bloggers are an elite group of users (mainly voluntarely) that voluntarely post interesting and relevant articles to share with their communities... Editors can even post their own original articles and photos." We have no way to verify that the CV linked to was made by him, and, for the same reasons Wikipedia is not a reliable source, neither is this. Unfortunately, this means most of the Background section needs to come out. I'm sure editors will accuse me of "gutting" the article, but I'll just repeat that I have no problem with any of this information being included, if it can be properly sourced.

Now, I will say that I think Jaakobou has a right to contest the inclusion of the Rabin material under WP:BLP. I don't object to it myself, and I think it is sufficiently well sourced, but just as I oppose many of his edits due to his failure to fulfill WP:BURDEN with reliable sources, I think he has the right to object to inclusion of the Rabin material. The proper way to include materials on the Rabin assassination conspiracy is to follow dispute resolution. ← George ^talk 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou certainly has a right to contest the inclusion of the Rabin material but he's not bothering to do this; he's simply deleting it without comment. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly he has to explain why it shouldn't be included. I've invited him to engage in discussions on this page repeatedly. ← George ^talk 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a familiar pattern, unfortunately. By the way, I agree with your point about a-dura.com; I likewise agree that if the info can be reliably sourced it should be included, but the source Jaakobou cited clearly isn't reliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well,

1) It means I found and verified his date of birth in a reliable source. 2) There's not that many published sources on him and there's no concern for BLP as its his own website. Is it reliable that he found this company based on his word? Probably yes and there are numerous external links on his CV to validate that he's not making things up. Are you concerned that affiliating him with Natop is unreliable based on his word - if yes. We'll possibly have to write that he claims to have created the group... would you prefer that? 3) That's Shahaf's website - we can't verify everything because no one wrote a biography on him best I'm aware of. In that respect, we do use some self testimonials for notable people trying to assume good faith where there is no special need to feel otherwise. 4) The new source, which ChrisO tried removing says it quite clearly. 5) I'd like to see how the sources describe his findings. What was his theory exactly (Peres?? based on what - why does he think there was a conspiracy exactly?) This is a BLP. 6) It belongs just as much as the one by Haaretz - if not more, as Fallows is not an anti-Zionist publication but an uninvolved one. Why haven't you argued against Haaretz? Its "peakok" (read: smear) terminology 7) Israel's media watch is a serious organization. Its a shame their "about us" English page is empty but I'm sure you can review the Hebrew one here. 8) No I haven't. Don't lie! George and I both agreed that there seems to be a problem with the "odd" quote (originally added by a banned editor). Nothing more. 9) If there's anything of real concern, feel free to raise it for discussion. I did however verify pretty much everything added. 10) Notes by Haaretz were cited as "fact" despite him suing them. This is' indeed a clear no no and I'm surprised that a revert/BLP-vio of this nature has occurred.

p.s. I see ChrisO mention BLP and then reinsert this new story about Rabin while its presentation is completely unacceptable as a basic BLP principle. Even disregarding the BLP issue, there is another policy called WP:BRD, meaning that you should discuss your desired addition here.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1) What reliable source? Read what George says above.

2) What makes you think a-dura.com is his own website? See the "About" page at http://www.a-dura.com/en/about.html . There's no indication that I can see that it belongs to him. Again, read what George says above.

3) As per 2.

4) You added Fallows as a source for this claim. Fallows only says "He was only the tenth person to receive a medal from the Israeli Ministry of Science". What is your source to say that it was a fellowship?

5) You can see how the sources describe his claims if you click on the links provided.

6) Fallows says nothing in this quote about Shahaf - it's purely a statement of Fallows' personal opinion of the al-Durrah case. How is this one relevant?

7) A page on the IMW website is not good evidence for the organisation's notability. Anyone can say what they like about themselves. What's needed is an independent indication of notability.

8) OK, my mistake - I thought that you'd deleted the criticism of Shahaf's report but I see now that you didn't. Apologies.

9) Your entire paragraph beginning "Shahaf's investigation" is wholly unsourced.

10) I repeat, just because Shahaf has sued Haaretz - a lawsuit that might not even be active any more, for all we know - it doesn't mean that Haaretz is suddenly an unreliable source. You seem to be assuming that Shahaf has proved his case and everything Haaretz has ever printed concerning him is a lie. This is not a logical conclusion, to say the least. If you want to exclude Haaretz, go and take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO,

Can you read Hebrew??

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

With the aid of Google's translation engine, but how does that address any of the questions above? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that are in Hebrew, feel free to post them. If you can provide a translation as well, that would be great. ← George ^talk 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO,

How are you in English?? I point you towards the assertion that "There's no indication that I can see that it belongs to him." towards the link you provided.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC) clarify. 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. George, opening an RSN without notifying the people involved in the discussion does not qualify comments made by uninvolved editors as they couldn't receive the relevant perspective of the other side of the dispute. I have access to a reliable source, the Israeli Census, which gives us the exact date of birth of Shahaf. Do you believe that source is unreliable about Israelis or is it that you personally, unlike many Israelis, don't have access to it that worries you?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I notify anyone of an RSN filing; RSN is not for dispute resolution, its for evaluation of sources, which requires no "relevant perspective of the other side of the dispute." Editors judge the sources based on the sources themselves, and what they're being cited for—not based on what we think of the sources. Furthermore, as I told you before, the burden of proof in including these sources is on you, the editor trying to insert the material. You are the one who should have been taking the sources to RSN, but since you didn't, I had to.

Regarding the census, my concern is that it isn't a reliable source because it is not published, and more important, its not verifiable. There are two very simple logical reasons why this is the case:

1. Let's say I add that Shahaf was born in 1950 in Mexico. The inline citation I add to support this is "Mexican census". Go ahead an verify that. You can't.
2. How many Nahum Shahafs are there in the world? Which one did the Israeli census cover? Prove it. Again, you can't.

Since you have access to the census, how about uploading a photocopy of whatever record it is you read his birth date from, so we can all (a) verify that it exists, and (b) try to figure out if there's some way to verify that it is indeed the correct Nahum Shahaf. ← George ^talk 05:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's only two Nahum Shahafs and the other is older than 90. My worry here is that I will post an image of the data and you/ChrisO/other will claim its unreliable still. I'm really not following your approach to this article, btw, focusing on an issue such as date of birth while not showing care about the biographical aspect of this person. Foreign news attest that he is a scientist in the fields of which he elaborates on in his CV and you decide all of a sudden that it is unreliable? Why? What is the reasoning to believe this is (a) contested, and (b) unreliable? In that note - why would you deem Haaretz op-eds as reliable if he's suing the paper for libel? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. why did you write up the lead to the version that promotes the initial report and was rejected on the main article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can't judge whether or not something I can't see is reliable or not. My suggestion would be to make a photocopy, upload it somewhere, and ask if it's reliable to use for his birth date over at RSN. I'll be honest, even with a photocopy, I'm just not sure how we can verify a census, and I'd be much happier with an article—from a book, newspaper, or other reliable source—saying when/where he was born. Let's say you show me a document that is a list of names and birthdays, two names being Nahum Shahaf. Is everyone in Israel in the census data? Does it include people who were born outside of Israel? What about people who were born before Israel even existed? I don't know the answer to any of these things, and, with all due respect, I have no idea if you know the answer to them either.
• In general this article has pretty bad sourcing, and I'm trying to focus on issues that I think have the worst sourcing. I think you're misunderstanding my views with regard to his CV. My concern is that its details are not verifiable. Yes, I know other, reliable sources call him a scientist in UAV research and whatnot, and I've left those in. But other aspects of it can't be verified—his military training, where and when he went to school, what specific jobs he held—and that's a real problem. The website hosting the CV says that anyone can upload information to it. What if I go make my own version of Shahaf's CV that says he was the first person on the moon, and I upload that to some blog or other website. Is that a reliable source? Of course not, and you wouldn't be able to prove that Shahaf didn't upload it himself. That's why the burden of proof is on those who are adding material, not those removing it.
• I'm not sure what Haaretz op-ed you're talking about. I haven't added or reviewed one recently, that I can remember anyways. Can you provide a diff, or a link to the article you're talking about?
• I don't understand the question about the lead. What "initial report" are you talking about, and how does the lead "promote" it? I tried to write a lead that was succinct and neutral, and written with the best reliable sources I could find. ← George ^talk 08:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

G and C,

a) The main article calls it "incident" and we'll describe it as that without giving undue credence to the initial report.

b) Shahaf's website is ok for adding a little more perceise input on stuff mentioned in external sources - such as his work on CTs and UAVs at Tadiran.

c) I'm not accepting the Rabin issue into this article based on "campaign to prove the innocence of Yigal Amir" just because an anti-Israeli, Ed O'loughlin, says so. This is a bio of a living person.

d) Not everything needs to be accecible to everyone. What matters is that its possible to verify the data without too much trouble and that can be done. You seem to be doing this about everything that I added while not caring much for the validity of the other sources for a bio page (see Ed O'loughlin). Is there a special reason to believe the information is wrong???

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)