Talk:Charles Enderlin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote section[edit]

I've removed the quote section for the following reasons:

1) Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for Wikiquote. If the quotations have any relevance, they should either be moved there or incorporated into the body of the article.

2) All but one of the quotations are unsourced, and the last one is sourced to a blog (and is in any case not a real quote, since it's someone else's uncorroborated assertion of what Enderlin supposedly said). This is an absolute must-not-do for biographies of living people, which requires the removal of contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

3) The quotations are presented without any context, and I'm concerned that (particularly with the last one) they may be (mis)used to advocate a particular POV concerning the article's subject.

-- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the last quote, with two more sources, one of which is the person to whom the statement was made. I have not created a new "Quote" section but added the quote to an existing section. It is now properly sourced. As for your claim that it is taken out of context, the context is given in the sources, which in one case is quoted in the reference section. As for your "concern" that this particular quote "may be (mis)used to advocate a particular POV concerning the article's subject", the fact is that he said what he said, and it is up to the reader to decide whether he meant it. There is no reason to believe he didn't mean exactly what he said. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "properly sourced". It's a hearsay statement from a highly partisan blogger - not a journalist - which you've cherrypicked to support a POV statement about purported "fake footage". As for the other two sources you identified, one was another blog and the other was the personal website of an anti-Enderlin conspiracy theorist. You know as well as I do (or you should do) that such sources don't remotely qualify as reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a known fact that Muhammad al-Durrah was killed. I think that any source that still attempts to contest this automatically disqualifies itself to be a source for anything else than a discussion on itself.
It is exactly the same sort and same level of looniness than people who keep claiming that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than by a plane on 11 September 2001. Rama (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 comparison is apposite, though of course the main difference is that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are truly on the fringe while the al-Durrah conspiracy theorists appear to have been embraced by a substantial portion of the pro-Israel far right, particularly in America. Hence the idiotic hit-and-run edits we get on this article, like this one from an Illinois university network. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In France, there are journalists such as fr:Luc Rosenzweig, far from being of the "pro-Israeli far right" who criticized virulently Enderlin in the al-Durrah affair after visualizing the rushes.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply that all of the conspiracy theorists are on the far right - clearly they're not. But if you have a look at the blogs, websites and media articles where the conspiracy theory is actively supported (as opposed to merely being reported on), it's pretty obvious that the conspiracy theory supporters are overwhelmingly very right-wing, ranging from conventional "Israel is always right" conservatives to the openly Islamophobic far right. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO just uses "conspiracy theorists" to mean editors or sources that don't conform to his POV, so he can justify removing material from articles. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's simply that what we have here is a largely blog-driven political campaign being pursued largely by people with a particular ideological agenda. We have to be very careful about how we report such things, given what Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires and especially considering that this particular individual hasn't been shy about suing people and groups who have libeled him. That means we all - including you - have to take care to properly source what is said in this article, using only material drawn from reliable sources, which explicitly excludes blogs and other questionable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad al-Durrah was killed. Period. Denying it, claiming that the al-Durrah is a "hoax", is plain lunacy and denial of reality. Criticising Enderlin for his treatment of the affair is quite another thing. The two should not be mixed up.
Similarly, "Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed by a Israeli bullet" does not mean "Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed". Indeed, quite often, it means ""Muhammad al-Durrah was killed by a non-Israeli bullet". It is quite different, and we must be wary of the attempts by fringe conspiracy theorists to assimilate reasonable discourse to their constructions.
Note, also that many people who criticise Enderlin for his treatment of the information do so because they claim that Enderlin had no way of knowing from where the bullet came from. This is also different from saying that the bullet was not israeli. It means that the bullet might or might not be have been Israeli, but that saying that it way was unwarranted.
Ceedjee, Luc Rosenzweig is certainly vehemently pro-Israelian. He oppoes the United Nations and collaborates with the Metula News Agency, which is saying enough. Rama (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thread isn't about any of that. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. We are considering sourcing information from Frum's blog. Frum contends that the entire affair is a "hoax" and accuses Enderlin of being antisemitic (Enderlin is an Isreali citizen). I say that these positions eliminate Frum's site from reliable source for anything else than Frum's own views of the world. Rama (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rama,
The reasonning you use to evaluate Luc Rosensweig's opinion is at the same level as the one used by far right pro-Israelis to evaluate Charles Enderlin's credibility...
Luc Rosenzweig was redacteur en chef of Le Monde...
Pro-Israelis who hate Enderlin should read his last book as well as you should read Rosenzweig biography of Ariel Sharon.
6SJ7,
I think the information you want to introduce in the article is (of course) true but it is also true that the sources that refer to it lack reknown, which makes me think that even if true, this is not relevent.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are straying away from the subject, but I really would be interested to see how being a former chief redactor of Le Monde would automatically prove that one does not hold strong opponions in favour of Isreal. Rama (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceedjee (and others), the attribution to Landes' own web site, seconddraft.org, is definitely sufficient. Landes is notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia, and he reported that Enderlin made a statement to him (Landes), and it is on Landes' own web site. The other two sites serve as confirmation. I am putting it back, although I know that one of the usual edit-warriors will revert again. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable sources per WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:V. If you restore that statement, you will violate the BLP policy. Please either find a proper source for it, or leave it out altogether. - ChrisO (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a BLP issue and you know it. You are just trying to keep material you don't like out of the article. Nevertheless, in light of your edit summary that threatens a block, as well as some of your past administrative actions, I will not re-add the material. You have successfully bullied me. Congratulations. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6SJ7, I finf your attitude frankly unhelpful. You have been personally accusing ChrisO [1] and miscaracterasing his point, and your last statement is frankly worrying. You should quite thinking of this as a battlefield. We are not fighting each others, we are all in the same camp striving to build an encyclopedia together. Rama (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, Rosenzweig holds strong opinions in favour of Israel.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the quotes,
I think we could report them but only if Landes (whom I don't know) has enough reknown and if this quote is contextualized and if it is explained in the article why it is/would be relevent concerning Enderlin. Maybe it would be better in the article about al-Durrah affair ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, I agree. I really don't want this to turn into some sort of confrontation, but the difficulty we seem to be having is that 6SJ7 apparently doesn't agree with the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. 6SJ7, perhaps you could explain for us why you consider Landes' personal website and Frum's blog to be reliable sources, when WP:BLP explicitly states "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article"? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here (from me, an uninvolved administrator), as I saw that an editor expressed a concern that ChrisO, another administrator, was "threatening a block". To be clear, ChrisO is participating here as an involved editor. He is an administrator, yes, but he is not allowed to use his administrative tools here. See also WP:UNINVOLVED. Other than that, carry on.  :) --Elonka 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sentence[edit]

I suggest to remove this :

On November 28, 2006, a case by Enderlin and France 2 against Pierre Lurçat was dismissed on the grounds that they had not proven that Lurçat was the director of the website Ligue de Défense Juive, [1] which had published a text calling for Enderlin and France 2 to be awarded the "Goebbels Disinformation Prize."{{#if:||[citation needed]

per wp:undue.
Pierre Lurçat is not known and the information doens't bring any interesting information.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Le Monde (I think) Lurçat is the head of the French branch of the extreme right-wing Kahanist movement. I've not found any references in the French media concerning this case. I suggest that we remove that bit of text to the talk page (here) until we can source it properly. It may well be correct, but without proper sourcing it's not really usable information. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you.
Unless somebody disagrees I will remove this in the next days.
Ceedjee (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source for this : [2]
This should be wp:rs for the information.
I still wonder nevertheless if it is worth reporting here per wp:undue.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is Guysen News? I can't say I've ever heard of it; it gets a surprisingly small number of Google hits (<500) and there's only a handful of links to it from Wikipedia articles [3]. I think it might be worth asking about this on the WP:RSN. But you're also probably right about the undue weight issue, anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best is to remove the information. Ceedjee (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Describing defamatory claims and who makes them[edit]

We need to be very careful in this article about how we describe the claims against Enderlin. Let's not forget that (1) they have been judged to be defamatory and (2) Enderlin has shown a willingness to take legal action against his critics. Above all, BLP policy requires us to be very conservative about including material. We must avoid any form of words that can be read as endorsement of the claims against Enderlin, like this edit. This isn't simply a matter of NPOV - it's required by BLP policy, which mandates that "the writing style should be neutral" and that critical material must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." There's also a question of original research - we cannot make judgments, as editors, about whether Enderlin is right or wrong.

We also need to avoid weasel phrases. If we state that somebody holds a particular view, we need to say who holds that view. Unfortunately some recent edits have been unacceptably weasely. " It has also been suggested..." - by who? "Enderlin's reporting of the incident has been criticized..." - by who? As WP:WEASEL says, weasel words "give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? By the following for starters:
  • Phillipe Karsenty
  • Nidra Poller
  • Richard Landes
  • Charles Gouz
  • Pierre Lurcat
  • Stephane Juffa
  • Gerard Huber
  • Nahum Shahaf
  • Esther Shapira
  • James Fallows
  • Luc Rosenzweig [4]
  • Denis Jeambar
  • Daniel Leconte
  • Ronald Blum
  • Serge Farnel
  • Dr. David Yehuda
  • CAMERA [5]
  • Daniel Seaman
  • Melanie Phillips [6] and many more.

There are pages and pages of "criticism" in relation to this case! There is zero question that there is/was criticism. Criticism is not the same as "defamatory remarks." Specific and attributed criticism can come further on in the article. In the lede it is only necessary to mention that it exists. Even if critics claim that the statements were false, this is not necessarily defamatory, since the article mentions that he was not there, thus it may have been simply a mistake, that he relied on others' false testimony for example. To claim that someone has erred is not defamatory, simply criticism. "Some commentators" is meaningless. Criticism exists. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-starter if ever was -- Tundrabuggy said it well, so I'll only add that you yourself, Chris, have been placing dreaded weasel words "was criticised by some", and in the passive voice, yet! I know you hate some of the theories that suggest al-Durrah wasn't killed by Israelis, but they are real, and they are notable, whether they end up being true or not. IronDuke 05:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that they're real, just as Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories are real - the issue is how we describe them and what weight we should give them. Above all, we shouldn't turn this article into either (a) an attack article, which it was for some time; or (b) a rehash of the al-Durrah article. We should certainly note the controversy but not in terms that endorse the allegations against Enderlin or that overstate the support which those allegations have received. Kudos to Tundrabuggy for this amendment, which is a better form of wording than I was able to come up with. Thanks for approaching it constructively rather than just blindly reverting. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that analogy is quite apt. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but I believe that if you compare the initial finding "the boy was targeted," against the competing ideas that he was instead 1) Accidentally shot by Israelis, 2) Accidentally shot by Palestinians, 3) Deliberately shot by Palestinians, 4) Not shot at all, you'll find those subscribing to the intitial description (he was targeted) in a distinct minority as compared to those who believe one of the other scenarios. I emphatically agree with you that this should not be a rehash of the al-Dura article, but neither can it be written to suggest (as it was when I got to it) that "Israeli soldiers had targeted and killed a Palestinian boy." I'm sure the person who wrote that didn't mean for it to be as flagrantly POV as it was, but that was the effect. IronDuke 14:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me just to note in this 3 against 1 tussle, that whoever is writing ' A number of commentators have asserted that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was allegedly inaccurate' is culpable of weaseling bad English into the text.
A number of commentators either
(a) 'allege that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was inaccurate or false'
or
(b)they 'assert that Enderlin's reporting of the incident was inaccurate.'
A moment's thought should make editors realize you can't have people 'asserting that something was 'allegedly' whatever without violating style, logic and WP:SYNTH, since no single self-respecting WP:RS would ever employ both words ('assert' and 'allege') in this way to challenge Enderlin. Unless there is a source that 'asserts' that charges Enderlin's reporting was inaccurate are nothing more than allegations'. Quite possible, but it would support, in that case, ChrisO's edits, not those of the three editors, Iron Duke, Tundrabuggy and the other chap challenging him.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saw that. That was from Chris, here. I assumed it was just an oversight, made in haste, and would eventually get smoothed out in the discussion. But thanks for pointing it out :). IronDuke 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrating the principle on Arbcom. I saw it was from Chris, was surprised that a classicist would make this error, and privately thought it was from exhaustion, which is an excuse, but I was irritable and let loose. Perhaps my harshness was from exhaustion yesterday night. I see the Enderlin, and al-Durrah thing basically as he does, of course, and am indebted to his work on both articles.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What way is it that you see the Enderlin and al-Durrah things? You've got me curious. IronDuke 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever answered my query many months ago. What happened to all of the high-tech, on site monitoring, radio communication registrations, filming records that are customary in field operations by the IDF? If this was all put up, as, and in this I concur with Chris, a minority but high profile opinion insists, why hasn't the IDF, as in a very small number of cases, released all relevant visual and verbal records registered by their communication networks at the time. It is an argument ex silentio, allied to my perception that there is strong evidence that in the few incidents that draw the international limelight, the innuendo is constant that it couldn't have occurred, and that Palestinians are unreliable sources, the, to use a grotesque word, Pallywood syndrome. But this is not quite appropriate to the page, and my apologies.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... you think the fact that the Israelis haven't released any at-the-scene evidence that would exculpate them tends to incriminate them? (And sorry if I, too, am taking us too far afield.) IronDuke 15:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, To my knowledge, the IDF released no evidence of the kind I listed, and I wonder why, given that so many contest the evidence by a fellow Israeli, Enderlin, who reported on the incident from the other side. Mais, monsieur, si vous voulez me soumettre à une interrogatoire, je dois mettre l'affaire entre les mains de mon avocat, . .:-(Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tu est vachement drôle... (even if you didn't really answer the question ;) IronDuke 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOu let me off lightly. I was expecting to cop something along the lines of drôlement fâcheux!!, which in the other sense, may apply to my suggestion below.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to achieve consensus on changing the initial wording back to "Enderlin's reporting of the incident has been criticized..." without the unnecessary qualification: "by some". Simply stating that criticism exists does not imply everyone, nor is it defamatory, as I said, and we can include the fact of the petition supporting him signed by numerous French reporters as evidence further down in the article where we elaborate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay by me. IronDuke 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good solution ! Ceedjee (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify[edit]

Will whoever put in the following sentence please clarify its meaning?

"In the same decision, the appeals court declared "worthless" (sans objet) the conclusions reached by Karsenty in his own analysis, thus confirming the analysis of Karsenty's conclusions in the initial verdict."

Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of mine, but it refers to the line in the appeal court judgment that reads: "Déclare sans objet les conclusions d'incident déposées par Philippe KARSENTY". Essentially it's a reiteration of the first court's judgment that Karsenty's conclusions were "devoid of any serious or coherent character". I'll tweak the line to clarify this. I think it's slightly mistranslated, btw - "sans objet" means "pointless", not "worthless". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In the US, we talk about one court "voiding" a previous decision. When a superior court voids a previous decisions, as in this case, it only makes sense that more emphasis is on the final verdict than on the initial one. In this article, there is much verbiage about the initial voided judgment, and little or none on the (current) standing judgment. To my mind this is POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I confirm that "sans objet" means "pointless" rather than "worthless".
I have read several times the judgment here. (French is my mother tongue.)
In the sentence stating that the "conclusions d'incidents de Karsenty sont sans oject" ("the conclusions of incidents of Karsenty are pointless"), "incident" refers to the 27 minutes of rush that Karsenty wanted to be analysed by an expert and for which he gave his "conclusions".
I think that the judgement just underlines that the analysis of Karsenty is pointless, which means that whether true or not, it has nothing to deal with the issue that the tribunal was dealing with, ie, it there was diffamation or not.
I suggest we remove the current sentence from the section of the article.
Ceedjee (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's your mother tongue Ceedjee, so I'm tempted to defer. I'm extremely wary however of making rapid conclusions from technical (well, non-literary, for me) jargon in another language. Looking on, I would have thought, probably stupidly, that the phrase meant something along the lines of 'Karsenty's submissions on points of law are irrelevant'. I write this at the risk of proving to be a pommie twit in the eyes of native francophones. But what the fuck...!Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may. Not easy to understand.
The only reference I see to the incidents is the viewing of 27' of rushes. If it is the arguments to see these that that would have been pointless, I assume that the rushes would not have been seen... But they were. So the tribunal would not have stated anything about this... (???).
Ceedjee (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceedjee, I agree we should remove it. This sentence "In the same decision, the appeals court upheld the previous judgment about the nature of Karsenty's conclusions, declaring that it found them to be "sans objet" (pointless)" seems to refer to this sentence in the previous paragraph: "Karsenty's conclusions were "devoid of any serious or coherent character"... when if my understanding of your analysis is correct, it means "pointless" in the sense that his conclusions were not "to the point" ie relevant to the decision, correct? Thus that sentence is not only confusing, in my opinion, but even misleading, and should be excised. Can I get agreement on this? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
It is not easy to understand what it means exactly : "conclusions d'incidents" has no meaning in French. We would expect "conclusions des incidents". So, I assume, as Nishidani points out, that is refers to technical jargon of lawyers.
Nevertheless, I think that the judgement states that [something that Karsenty claimed] is pointless, ie irrelevant and I think that they refer to the ("conclusions") he wanted to draw from the visulisation of the 27' of rushes ("incident").
Whatever, the sentence is misleading... Ceedjee (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Enderlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Enderlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Enderlin&oldid=1207112823"