Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1,400:

*'''Delete.''' Yes it is sourced to the Israeli government press office and Engage et al., but regard inclusion of the "blood libel" accusation as [[well-poisoning]] which seriously degrades the article's neutral presentation of information. Consider: MECA (the Middle East Children's Alliance) is planning a mental health care center for traumatized children in Gaza; Save the Children notes that 70 percent of Gazan nine-month-olds are anemic; on the one-year anniversary of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, candlelight vigils were held in Palestine and internationally in memory of the hundreds of Palestinian children killed. Would we also want "blood libel" accusations in Wiki articles related to these events? Maybe some editors would, and I think most of us who have been here awhile know that with patience, dedication and a selection bias, editors can find positions and sources for about any edit they want to advance (a government/group/academic makes a claim, media reports it, and voilà). This is my concern here. Have sources been presented for the "blood libel" accusation? Yes. Does the "blood libel" accusation improve the article? No. It does the article more harm than good. Respectfully, [[User:RomaC|RomaC]] ([[User talk:RomaC|talk]]) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

*'''Delete.''' Totally inappropriate. Keep Islamophobia, philo-semitism, and anti-semitism on the sidelines. Let's keep things neutral, and this "blood libel" reference is not neutral, it's a totally one-sided item talked about by Israeli/Jewish pundits only pushing a controversial term that advocates for the Israeli/Jewish POV. Not worthy of being in the lead. [[User:Soledad22|Soledad22]] ([[User talk:Soledad22|talk]]) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)