Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Conditions for editing (partial archive)

I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am placing some restrictions:

No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
Keep edit summaries very neutral and civil.
Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.
If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it.
If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, El on ka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely don't agree with this - it's far too early. Please withdraw the request for the lifting of page protection. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is noted, but I'd like to give it a try. Do you think the above conditions are sufficient? --El on ka 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose to enforce it? You've seen for yourself that people are blatantly soapboxing and promoting their personal views ; if they don't respect our most fundamental policies (NPOV, V etc) what makes you think they will respect your conditions? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I have other cards I can play. :) I start with, "Please, and thank you." Then I upgrade to "nudge", then I up the ante to "reminder", then "caution", etc. Or maybe I can skip steps and go straight to "warning". But most people, when they receive a polite and respectful request to moderate their behavior, are able to do so. At least, that's where I like to start from. :) --El on ka 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that lifting the protection before people are even on the same page is disastrously premature. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the "alter without reverting" rule is absolutely inapposite when dealing with fringe theorists. Elonka, you know this. When point X is fringe, once its in, there's no way of removing it without it being a revert! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If something is added which you think gives undue weight to a point of view, but it is still reliably sourced, one way to deal with it is to change it, as in moving it down to the "controversy" section. Yes, that might make the controversy section a bit long for now, but we can always winnow it shorter later. Remember There is no deadline. We can take some time to circle in towards consensus. --El on ka 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, in addition, moving the disputed wording "down" to the controversy section is indistinguishable from a revert. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus requires people to be on the same page as to how it can be achieved. We aren't there yet. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the nub of the problem. Have we even tried to define the specific areas of disagreement yet? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have. I know that at least on my end, I have articulated clearly what my disagreement is: I object to the undicussed change of a consensus version which had been in the article for more than 2 years, from "became an icon when he was filmed and reported killed" to "became an icon when he was killed". There is substantial dispute over the claim that he was killed, with current reliable sources studiously refraining from making such a bold statement, if not agreeing with the "staged thesis" outright. Wikipedia should not take sides, but return to the neutral wording that has been the consensus version in the article for a long time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been made several times, but unfortunately the several eloquent, policy-based answers and explanations made in response appear to be ignored. I don't think there is anything more to say until those making this argument make a basic good-faith attempt to engage. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil, as Elonka has requested. There's no need for that kind of tone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

~~Kauffner, please try to adopt a more civil tone. I have also left a more detailed note on your talkpage.~~ Refactoring comment as the related post has been removed (thanks!)

Relata, I understand your frustration since it appears that some people "aren't listening", but please remember that this page is scrolling very fast. Even though ChrisO had archived it on June 1, it was already back up to 350K (and some people's browsers have trouble with anything over 32K!). I'm currently archiving threads that are only a few days old, just to try and keep things manageable. Or in other words, except for those of us who keep up on the page "edit by edit", it is very unlikely that other more occasional editors are reading everything. So those of us who are trying to keep up with things in a more detailed fashion, should make allowances for this. If this means that we need to answer the same questions or re-explain the same policies over and over, well, that's what we gotta do. :) --El on ka 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If people can remain civil avoid edit wars this can work. It is the interest of having a better and up-to-date article to lift the protection and letting civil, sourced and NPOV edit take place.--Julia1987 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

Rather than hack around the live article while the most basic questions of editing policy are still up in the air, would it not be a better idea to work on a sandbox version instead? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This will stipple progress -- Julia1987 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO: Why don't you go ahead and change what you think is wrong in the article ? --Julia1987 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple ways of editing an article, just as there are multiple ways of formatting citations. Some basic methods of editing are:

Wide open editing, no restrictions of any kind except asking everyone to stick to policy
Taking disputes to the talkpage, and protecting the article until consensus is achieved
Bold, revert, discuss cycle
Allowing cautious edits to the article within certain restrictions, and allowing editors to flow through, making steadily successive "tweaks" to try and find consensus somewhere in the middle.
Have different editors work on different sandbox versions, and then see about splicing them into the main article (or replacing the main article with a sandbox version)

All of these are valid methods, at different times. This article has been in state #1, and then state #2, possibly #3, and right now I am encouraging everyone to try state #4 (which has elements of #3, except we're not allowing people to revert). Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I would like to at least try it. :) Can we please give it a chance? --El on ka 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

shrug* I don't think it will work here, because that method is particularly unsuited for narrow-focus FRINGE problems, as I explain above. I will turn my attention elsewhere, I believe. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox versions usually work better than messing around on the main article. There's nothing so disastrous it needs to be fixed right now. I'll create a copy of the current article Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sandbox and we can go from there. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Created. Everyone can work on this, or others can create their own sandbox versions if they prefer. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Source check

Can anyone assist with verifying the information cited to the magazine Regards that is currently being used in the article? According to the current citation, Zomersztajn, Nicolas. "Affaire Al-Dura : la pseudo enquête d’une imposture", ("The Al-Dura Affair: the pseudo-inquest of an imposture"), Regards 563, February 17, 2004. In French. Reproduced on the site of Kol Shalom]. Accessed February 5, 2006. this was written by Zomersztajn, who, according to another site I found, is director of the magazine.[1] Yet there's no mention of him anywhere at http://www.regards.fr, and when I look in the site's archives for February, I can find no mention of this article.[2] Also, the date at the URL where this article came from, lists the date (February 17) as though it's a weekly publication,[3] when in actuality the French magazine is a monthly, and dates are listed as the first of the month. Are there two different French news publications named "Regards"? Or how can we verify this particular article? Thanks, El on ka 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a different Regards. It appears to be a magazine produced by members of the Belgian Jewish community.[4] Fortunately they do have their archives up and the Zomersztajn article is there.[5] --JGGardiner (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice find. :) So the next question is, whether this magazine counts as a "reliable source" for the information provided, and/or whether it's even a significant enough publication to rely on for opinions. --El on ka 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say not. Unless the author has some standing as a journalist that I'm not aware of. However, the citation is only used to support that Mofaz said Samia was working alone. Just a quick google news search found several articles which say similar things.[6][7] I would suggest we switch the source and tweak the language to reflect the new one. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the source. Also, I have gone through and tagged a few sources which appeared to be questionable. I would also encourage other editors to tag (such as with {{fact}}, {{verify credibility}} or {{verify source}}) any statements or sources that you feel do not meet the reliable source standards. Then other editors can either improve the sources as requested, or bring up specific challenges here at talk. Any statements/sources that are tagged for a period of time (a week?) without any improvement or justification, we'll just go ahead and delete from the article. --El on ka 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Another potentially useful tag is {{Copyvio link}}. If anyone sees a link to an external source, where they feel that the source may be a copyright violation, please tag it. Then if the source is not replaced, improved (or explained) within a week, the source and any text which relies exclusively upon it, can be removed. Other potentially useful inline templates can be seen at WP:CTT#Inline. --El on ka 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory vs Legitimate Controversy

Coming back after a vacation and have given the situation some considerable thought. I apologize in advance for the size of this section. If people think it is too long, feel free to dump it. The original point of contention, which still seems to be being argued here, regards whether the suggestion that the boy was not killed at all is a fringe theory, and just how much weight on that suggestion is appropriate. Prior to the latest verdict (in which all available information was reviewed in relation to Karsenty's charge that the film was a hoax), this view was not taken seriously by most mainstream sources. Now, checking the latest reporting sources, it seems clear that most have decided that the possiblity of a hoax cannot be discounted based on the evidence. The Second Draft [8] identifies 5 distinct points of view and provides evidence for each.

To the argument that those who believe the "hoax theory" are conspiracy theory freaks, and that too many people would have needed to have been involved in the conspiracy, Richard Landes and Philippe Karsenty respond in the Jerusalem Post. [9]

In other words, it's a bunch of crap, all these theories that say journalist Charles Enderlin, his Palestinian cameraman, al-Dura's father, a hospital in Gaza, a hospital in Amman, the Jordanian ambassador to Israel, the UN, the Palestinian people and/or any number of other anti-Semites conspired to stage the killing of that 11-year-old boy.

Shorn of these auxiliaries, his list comes down to the following "co-conspirators": Talal, his assistants on the scene (the ones yelling "The boy is dead!" before he's even "hit"), the father and son, and the doctors in the hospital. This is hardly a difficult group to assemble; certainly nothing compared to the tens of thousands necessary for a 9-11 conspiracy or the "invention of the Holocaust."

Bystanders at the scene needed only to keep silent. Arab ambassadors, King Abdullah, and other such figures need not even know it was a fake. As for the doctors in the Amman hospital, once this story had "taken," who were they to blow the whistle on so powerful and successful a blow against Israel?

Perhaps a hoax is not as far-fetched as some might think.

So what are some of the facts/questions/doubts that were brought out in the trial and might lead one to conclude that it is not such a loony theory after all?

from Ha'aretz Independent expert: IDF bullets didn't kill Mohammed al-Dura

Schlinger,an independent ballistics expert, Schlinger has served as an adviser on ballistic and forensic evidence in French courts for 20 years.

As part of the evidence presented and considered by the court, he concluded:
"If Jamal [the boy's father] and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position."

Note the qualitative "if" in relation to shootings, by an independent expert.

Further, Piers Akerman claims that the cameraman was responsible for faking other footage:

Doubts arose about the footage shot by a Palestinian cameraman for the network France 2, however, when it was revealed the same person had been responsible for faking other news footage -doubts that were upheld by investigations by both independent and Israeli officials, including the Israeli army.

The cameraman was established to have faked other news footage...

Inconsistencies at the hospital & in relation to the funeral.

From James Fallows

"What is known about the rest of the day is fragmentary and additionally confusing. A report from a nearby hospital says that a dead boy was admitted on September 30, with two gun wounds to the left side of his torso. But according to the photocopy I saw, the report also says that the boy was admitted at 1:00 P.M.; the tape shows that Mohammed was shot later in the afternoon. The doctor's report also notes, without further explanation, that the dead boy had a cut down his belly about eight inches long. A boy's body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like Mohammed's in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route. A BBC TV report on the funeral began, "A Palestinian boy has been martyred." Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday. "

Questions others have asked [10] after viewing the raw footage.

Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot?
Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead?
Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if "directing" a dramatic scene?
Why does the funeral appear--based on the length of shadows--to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting?
Why is there no blood on the father's shirt just after they are shot?
Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?
Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, "The boy is dead" before he had been hit?

A few more questions that occur to me and others --

Why did the father not jerk convulsively each one of the seven times he was shot?
Why was there no blood on the wall behind either of them? Wouldn't the shots have splattered the wall?
Why was the boy not thrown back by the force of the bullet that hit him in the stomach?
Why weren't the bullets provided to investigators?
Where is the boy buried?
Why weren't clearer pictures taken at the hospital and at death to prove simply the facts of the matter?
Why didn't Talal Abu-Rahma follow-up with photos at the hospital?
Why were no forensics done?
Why were we not initially told that much of the rest of the footage had been staged?
Why didn't France 2 show the last 10 seconds of the footage?

All of the questions and concerns are sufficient to raise the issue to a new level of serious controversy especially when validated by the latest appeal. If France 2 does indeed take this to the Supreme Court, it will be to address the issue of "was it done?" not "who done it?" So I think the hoax angle should be given a fair amount of weight. We do not have to try the case here, or put in every bit of evidence to try to prove its veracity, but we should treat it with respect, as opposed to treating it like loony fringe. I think if we can agree to do that, we should be able to move on with the article and do credit to all legitimate 'sides.' Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, TB.

I can think of some answers that address your issues. For example, someone shouting "the boy is dead," before he was shot could be someone saying "he's going to end up getting killed if this doesn't stop." The confusion over the funeral time could simply be that someone has misinterpreted the shadows (I've seen lots of conspiracy theories hang on the issue of "this photo was apparently taken at time X, but if you look at the shadows, you see that ..."). The issue of where blood splatters and how much people bleed is a very complex one, and there have been serious miscarriages of justice committed on the basis of a forensic expert's opinion that turned out to be completely wrong.

Having said that, there are a few questions that I can think of no answer to. For example, why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? There was the France 2 cameraman, and (writing from memory) two other cameramen from news agencies. Yet of the three, watching a child being killed, not one of them thought to film the frantic efforts to save him, hurrying him into an ambulance, or the ambulance being prevented from helping him. That makes no sense to me, and I've not read France 2's explanation of it. Another question is why no one carried out any forensic tests, or collected the bullets from the boy's body or the wall, and why the cameraman laughed when asked about this.

Maybe there are answers to these questions published somewhere. That a lot of the news coverage is in France makes it easier than usual to miss things. But as things stand, I would say these questions alone raise a serious issue, and given that reliable sources are trying to address that issue, there is no reason for us to minimize it in this article. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that things may have happened the way France 2 said, in which case there is a grieving family that we need to show respect for. That calls for a lot of careful writing. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No slim. Any one who heard the shouts in Arabic knows it was very decisive : " the boy is dead". Arabic is a very compact language and if they wanted to say something else it would be almost as short (much shorter than English)--Julia1987 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are unanswered questions. But why do you think they belong in the article? I think that is the largest part of the dispute here. What happens if there is a legitimate question or problem but nobody much writes about it? Is the inclusion sustained by the weight of the matter or simply by the media that has written about it?

I'm not asking to dispute what you say. But I think that is what the real issue here is. I think that most of the other editors believe not that the issue is unimportant per se but that without a large mass of media attention it isn't worthy of inclusion in our article. I think that those editors believe that it doesn't matter if the problems are serious or even true but that we have no mandate to include them until they have been reported everywhere from the Moose Jaw Times to the New York Times and most of the way in between. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lord, and people above think they're not backing a conspiracy theory? Banging out a load of questions which you claim there is no answer for, and which therefore supposedly undermine the standard mainstream versions, is the classic stuff of which such theories are made. Go and visit any 9/11 "truth" site. There is still no positive evidence of a hoax whatsoever in the public domain beyond speculation and vague assertion of the possibility. The latter is not enough. I ought not to dignify this with a detailed response, but isn't it possible for example that there is no post-shooting footage because Abu-Rahma ran out of film or batteries? Because the other cameramen had left the scene? As for the boy "moving", has anyone here actually seen what happens to the human body when it's been shot and the person is dying? Anyway I don't know of course if these are the actual answers to those questions or not, but they are as plausible an explanation as any conspiracy theory about a faked death and subsequent cover-up. Also I believe France 2 did show detailed blow-ups which more clearly depict the blood at the scene. And please, Abu-Rahma "laughed" when asked a question? I mean that really clinches it. --Nickhh (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ps: my view is that the controversy around the hoax theory and the Karsenty case needs to be covered, but with due weight and in proportion to the limited coverage it's had. It can't take up 50% of the lead as it does currently. The separate argument about who actually shot him and whether the France 2 report was correct in blaming the IDF also needs to be covered of course. As it is.

Question: is "Dear lord" and "Go and visit any 9/11 "truth" site" considered the proper way to respond to the concerns of other editors?
p.s Best I'm aware, Rahme said they (France 2) are holding the bullets from the incident and then said "We have some secrets, we can't reveal everything... anything" while smiling. I'll leave the interpretations to reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that there are a significant number of RS [ see Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah/sources ] that have recently added their voices to this argument. As for the lack of positive evidence of a hoax, we have as much as we have positive evidence of a (particular) death. I would ask Nickhh to demonstrate positive evidence of Muhammad's death. And SV: What about the hospital claiming the dead boy came in at 1:00pm when he was not shot til three -- and another report that said he had 2 bullet holes on his left side and the report (with photo, torso only) of a boy with a large gash in his stomach? Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting debate on "was the video or hoax or not", but I still have to remind people that this talkpage is not the proper venue for this debate. One of the most common misconceptions that we deal with on Wikipedia, is the perception that Wikipedia is here to present The Truth. But this is not correct. What we are here for, is to summarize information that has already been written elsewhere, in the proper proportion to the views that are being written about. So this talkpage should be for discussions like, "I think we're giving too much article space to View A" or "I think that we can find a better source than #27" or "The third paragraph is sourced to #5, but I don't think it's accurately reflecting what is in the source," or "We seem to be covering Significant Published Views B and C okay, but the article isn't covering A and D at all." To put it another way: If 90% of published sources are saying "View A", and 10% are saying "View B", then even if we, as editors, feel that View A is flatout wrong, our responsibility is still to ensure that the Wikipedia article is 90% about View A, and 10% about View B. We are just humble servants of what other reporters and academics are saying. If and as the published sources change their opinions, then the Wikipedia article can change to match. Our job is to reflect the current consensus of modern thinking, that's it. We are not here to debunk theories, we are not here to provide leading news coverage. We are here to summarize what has already been published. For other types of reporting, Wikipedia probably isn't the project for it. To catch stuff "as it's happening", there is Wikinews, or for presenting opinions, folks are encouraged to set up their own blogs and personal websites. But for this article, here on Wikipedia, we are just a summary service. --El on ka 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for the clarification. I see what you are saying here. By that token, the current consensus as reflected here Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah/sources seems to be a new emergent consensus that is taking its cue from the latest trial. It is not clear how many articles are holding with the original verdict and claiming that the Karsenty view is a conspiracy theory. I only know of this one by Larry Derfner: [11] Wouldn't the onus now be on the other side to present articles demonstrate that the weight is still & currently on their side? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Try to focus things in an even more practical direction. In other words, instead of asking people to provide other sources, instead frame your question in relation to the article: What would you like to see changed? Is there a sentence, paragraph, or section in the article which you feel is inappropriate or unbalanced? Which one, and how would you like to see it improved? --El on ka 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, around and around this goes. In response to "I would ask Nickhh to demonstrate positive evidence of Muhammad's death" I will say that the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself, and that is all that is really needed at this time. The bone of contention by some here is that that footage was staged. At present, no reliable source elevates this from a fringe conspiracy theory to the mainstream. It just simply isn't there. There are certainly sources that mention or address the notion that some believe it to be a hoax, but that addressing is done in much the same way that an article on the 1969 lunar landing may make mention the idea that some believe it was faked. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the statement "the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself" is supported by current reliable sources. Reading through current souces, notably the Esther Schapira interview, the current mainstream position of reliable sources is "The video does not show the boy being killed - he is clearly alive at the end of the available footage". Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the France 2 footage. You also have the testimony of the boy's father who was right there. There's the fact that a funeral was held. There's the fact that the IDF's original investigation, which was done within days of the incident and is the ONLY investigation that was ever done at the scene (as the concrete barrier and wall were soon after destroyed), came to the conclusion not only that the boy died (!) but that the IDF was "probably" responsible. Sanguinalis (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A statement was made that ""the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself" . That statement is false - even France 2 today admits that the footage itself does not show the boy dying. There are certainly other elements to the theory he was killed - including, as you write, that a funeral was held (stating the obvious - this does not prove that the boy in the film was the boy buried), that his father testified, etc... Just as there are multiple elements to the theory that the vent was staged. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Until legitimate evidence from reliable sources can be produced, the prevailing story here is quite clear. Everything that has followed from this event i.e. funerals and investigations and such, have treated this case as if the boy were dead. So again, barring evidence to the contrary, suggestions that the death was a hoax do not belong in the article. Certainly we can mention that there are those out there who think it to be a hoax, but that is, at most, a footnote to this story. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, there are nearly 30 reliable sources listed in the subpage that discuss the possibility that this was staged. The standard on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability, and it is verifiable that many reliable sources treat the "staged" theory as possible, so it belongs in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And once again, to characterize that motley list of blogs and OpEds as "reliable sources" is highly disingenuous. We have been over this numerous times before; opinion pieces and unreliable sources are not to be give equal weight in an article. Period. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The list consists of high quality, reliable sources. It includes some OpEds, published in mainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem post, and many, many, news articles, from sources that range from the newspapers of record of Norway and Israel, through Swiss and German public TV and Radio - some which explicitly declare "the video is probably a hoax". Repeatedly referring to this list as "that motley list of blogs and OpEds" leads one to suspect that those making such a claim have not actually looked at the list, let alone read it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If I'm not mistaken, the French courthouse said that film does not prove that the Talal/Enderlin version was correct. It would be best not to misrepresent the sources on the talk page.
(offtopic) Moon-landing/9-11/Flat-Earth/etc. soapbox comparisons are really getting out of hand IMHO.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with equal respect, the comparisons are more than apt in this case as noted above. The French courthouse was not in a position to, and did not issue any such ruling, on the truth or merit of the tape. Only that the very act of calling the tape's authenticity into question did not rise to a commission of libel. The idea that this is a hoax is a fringe theory, and we have clear guidelines here as to how to treat fringe theories in an article. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprising, I agree with Jaakobou here. If it is true that 1) he was shot by Palestinians and not by Israelis or 2) that he was not killed... either way it is a blood libel against Israel. How many killings have taken place in his name, or in retaliation for killings in his name? Enough evidence has come up to demonstrate that this is no longer a 'fringe Theory' and after a while the insistence that we accept this becomes just plain insulting. NOthing is gained by this approach except to tie this article up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I know that this is a hot topic, but let's please try to (1) keep discussions at a very civil level, and (2) keep discussions focused on the article. I am seeing disagreement here, but I am still not seeing how this relates to actual changes to the article. What text changes are desired? Either state a change here, or just go ahead and make a direct edit to the article, thanks. --El on ka 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No reliable evidence has come up to suggest anything of the sort, and the "hoax" idea is still completely in the realm of the fringe. As to specific article changes, pretty much the entire 4th paragraph of the lead should be gutted. It goes into far too much detail of the most recent court case in general, gives far too much minutiae and quotes of who said what to who, where and why, and, obviously, devotes far too much space to the hoax theory. That is what the body of the article is for, but even there, a passing mention at best. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A well documented controversy arose as a result of the court case, and removing this paragraph, or "gutting" it would not provide a balanced view of the situation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Related thread

ChrisO (talk · contribs), who I recently banned from this talkpage for one week for violating the #Conditions for editing, has decided to file an appeal with the Arbitration Committee. If anyone watching this page would like to offer their own statement on the matter, you are welcome to do so, at the Request for appeal. --El on ka 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Another edit to the lead

I have tried to merge my previous lead with the changes made by ChrisO and others. In particular, I removed references to the father's injuries, simply saying that both appeared to have been shot. The Channel 10 report from Israel [12] that Julia posted seems legitimate as a reliable source — although she posted a link to another website that was hosting it [13] — and shows an interview with a doctor who says these injuries were sustained years before the shooting. It would make the lead too long and complicated to include that, so I felt it best to pass over it.

I have also reinstated the time issue -- that 59 seconds were broadcast out of 27 minutes, and that three minutes were distributed to other news organizations. One of the major issues is which parts of the tape were shown to whom and when, and why it ends where it does, so I do think we need to introduce it briefly in the lead.

I also restored why commentators have questioned the footage, namely that it doesn't show the shooting, doesn't show the death, and there is no forensic evidence. Otherwise we are just saying people have questioned it, but without explaining why.

Finally, I added that the two senior French journalists who questioned the report in Le Figaro had been given access to France 2's raw footage before they wrote their story. Otherwise it's not clear why we are singling them out for a mention in the lead. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with all this focus on the lead section of the article, especially because there are now several sources in the lead, which appear only in the lead, and not anywhere else in the article. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article, and is not supposed to be making new points. Unless a source/statement is already covered elsewhere in the article, it should probably not be in the lead. --El on ka 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When I last looked, all these points were expanded on in the body of the text, as they are key issues, but I'll check to make sure they're still there. The reason people focus on getting the lead right is that it's often the only part of an article readers look at, and it's meant to stand alone as a summary. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look and can't see anything in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the body. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me upgrade from "I am uncomfortable" to "I am unhappy, and getting steadily unhappier" (a bad trend, eh?). Over the last week and a half, I have been seeing editors here at this article, battle over the wording of the lead, while almost completely ignoring the rest of the article. This is not good editing practice. Instead, we should get the article into a proper state, and then worry about whether or not the lead is a "concise summary" of what is in the article. I have already banned one editor from working on the lead, and would rather not have to extend this ban to other editors, but please be aware that this option is still on the table. To be specific: The current lead has 11 listed sources, 7 of which are not used anywhere else in the article. This can be easily seen by looking at the "Notes" section,[14] and looking for the little "abcd" notes, to see which references are "single use". There is also clearly information in the lead that is not in the rest of the article, for example the quote "coherent mass of evidence" is used only in the lead, and nowhere else. The petition also appears only in the lead, and nowhere else in the article. There are other bits too, but I don't want to have to list each piece of content, because that's not my job. What I am saying here, is that though the lead is supposed to be written in such a way that it can stand on its own, that does not mean that the lead should be written as a separate article from the rest of what's there. I would like all editors to be very careful that any further changes to the lead, should only reflect what is already in the article. Otherwise, don't add it to the lead. And anything that is in the lead, that is not covered elsewhere in the article, should be moved out of the lead. --El on ka 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The body of the article does not have to repeat sources that are in the lead. The lead also does not have to limit itself to material that is in the body. WP:LEAD says that "the lead must not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article," and that any "significant" material that appears in the lead should be expanded on in the body.

So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the lead that is alluded to in a mysterious or "teasing" way; that, indeed, was the point of my edit, because some of the issues raised were not explained (e.g. why people were questioning the France 2 report). And the only significant point in the lead that's not in the body is the petition of French journalists in support of Enderlin; it's important to mention that in the lead in the interests of NPOV, because we name two senior French journalists who have criticized him, so we have to make clear that others support him. It can easily be added to the body, though I don't see it as a hugely significant point in terms of the body.

The reason I've been working on the lead is that I've already worked on the body a considerable amount, and it's time to find a lead that reflects the key issues. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SV, your edit also removed - and therefore effectively reverted - all this information about context and what was reported to have happened, leading the reader to perhaps conclude that this one (made-up) event was the spark that started a conflict that had hitherto not existed:

His father was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.[2] The incident occurred during a period of widespread violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which many people were killed.[3]

There is also now a huge amount of detail in the lead about the amazing fact that TV stations edit footage for news bulletins, as well as of the ins and outs of the controversy, which now takes up maybe 60% of the whole introduction. This material is far more suited to being in the main body of the article, leaving the lead to then, as suggested, summarise that concisely. This article just gets worse and worse--Nickhh (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, if you disagree with some text in the article, I encourage you to change it. You are not allowed to do a blanket revert, but you are welcome to edit, improve, change, move, adjust, tag, add sources, rework, expand, condense, and everything else. :) --El on ka 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I can't face this article anymore - as I say, it's got worse. People with a very strong POV and an apparent belief that they are getting close to "the truth" are running all over it now. Plus the problem with a no-revert rule is that it makes it so much harder to trim or cut anything back, so that the entire article - but especially the lead - just gets more and more bloated and messy. It might eventually get back to a better balance POV-wise, but only at the expense of getting even more clogged up, with material that points the other way. One of the key points of good editing (in the widest sense of the word) is of course about how you remove material and keep information clear and concise. --Nickhh (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps there is a miscommunication on the meaning of "revert"? When the conditions say "No revert", that does not mean "no delete". Any editor is welcome to delete information from this article. If you think a paragraph is too long, condense it down, that's fine. Where it would be a revert, would be a case if editor A added a sourced statement, and then that same day, editor B comes along and deletes that same statement, without making any further changes. That's a "revert", or pretty much what would happen if someone clicked on "undo" or "rollback" and that would be a violation of the #Conditions for editing. But if someone wants to go in, in good faith, and say, "This section of 4 paragraphs is too long, and needs to be condensed down to one paragraph", then that's fine, go right ahead and delete entire paragraphs if you feel it would make for a stronger article. The only thing I would recommend being cautious about, is to avoid deleting reliable sources themselves. But you can definitely reduce the information that has been included from those sources. You can also move any information around to different sections, and tag any sources which are potentially unreliable. Any such tagged sources, that no one has improved or explained within a week, can also be deleted entirely from the article. --El on ka 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this in the lead:

Enderlin's report was initially accepted by the Israeli army, which issued an apology after conducting an internal investigation, saying "the shots had apparently been fired by its soldiers".[5] A later semi-official army investigation suggested al-Durrah had probably been hit by Palestinian bullets,[6]

The Israeli army did not say anything about Enderlin's report. Instead it made its own statement, and we should use the words of that statement, rather than summarizing it as "accepting Enderlin's report." Also I don't care for the investigation "suggesting" something. I think we should use their actual words as closely as possible. I suggest the following wording as more accurate:

On Oct 3, 2000 IDF official Giora Eiland said that an (initial) internal investigation showed that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers" ^[1] and issued an apology ^[2]. A later report on Nov 27 "'casts serious doubt' on the assumption that Israeli soldiers were the source".^[3], a conclusion...

The later comment that the second army investigation is "semi-official" is not supported by the source given, and implies that it is somehow not really "official". In fact I believe it is now the official Israeli position that the IDF did not kill the boy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Verdict quotes - this article is not about "free speech"

CJ quote from the verdict – I can not find it, however there are important quotes in the verdict about facts of the al Dura issue. The right for free speech is not at all part of this article as this article is about the facts surrounding al-Dura death, the report about his "death" and the effect his death have had on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Given that, indeed, the testimony by Luc ROSENZWEIG, former chief editor of MONDE, established that after having met, in May 2004, some colleagues who shared with him their doubts about Charles ENDERLIN’s commentary, and having thereafter himself shared these doubts with Denis JEAMBAR and Daniel LECONTE, on October 22, 2004, he viewed with them FRANCE 2’s rushes and was surprised that, of the 27 minutes of Talal ABU RAHMA’s rushes, more than 23 minutes of the scenes on film had nothing to do with the images broadcast by the station, including those of little Mohamed’s death, and consisted of young Palestinians faking war scenes. The witness concluded his testimony at the hearing in the lower court by stating his conviction that “the theory that the scene [of the child’s death] was faked was more probable than the version presented by FRANCE 2,” while admitting that, as a journalist, journalistic “criteria did not allow him to go further than that.”

Given that this testimony is confirmed by the opinions, essentially corroborative, of Daniel LECOMTE and Denis JEAMBAR, put forth in an editorial in the Figaro of January 25, 2005 (exhibit No. 16), and an interview broadcast February 1, 2005, by RCJ television (exhibit No. 4);

Given that, in these, the two journalists unambiguously stated they had told Arlette CHABOT their “serious doubts”, but that they were ready to “disregard the accusations by ROSENSWEIG about the child’s death having been staged if viewing the whole set of rushes filmed by Talal ABOU RAMA confirmed what Charles ENDERLIN claimed on at least two occasions – including once to Telerama: “I edited out the child’s agony. It was unbearable … It would not have added anything”; and – after having seen the rushes – that “this famous ‘agony’ that ENDERLIN claims to have edited out of the film does not exist”;

Given that they also noted that, “in the minutes preceding the shooting, the Palestinians seem to have organized a stage […] ‘play’ war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary wounds” and that viewing the entire set of rushes shows that at the moment Charles ENDERLIN declares the child dead […] nothing allows him to suggest that he really is dead and even less so that he was killed by Israeli soldiers. According to them, FRANCE 2’s journalists assured them at the time they viewed the rushes, that “their experts had even determined […] that the child had been hit by shrapnel (?) or by bullets that ricocheted off the pavement, bullets that, in any case, were not aimed at the child nor his father”;

Given it is true that, while noting that their colleague should admit that he “extrapolated based on the rushes and the version of the events provided by his cameraman,” and that comments on Israeli barbarity “had nothing to do” with the images that went around the world....

--Julia1987 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia - I would disagree with the strong statement 'this article is not about "free speech" - but I agree that the court findings were not just about "free speech". The court made a judgment that Karsenty was within his free speech rights (hence, no defamation). But it also ruled on the evidence- stating, explicitly, that the Talal Abu Rahma testimony was not credible, and that the evidence presented by Karsenty's experts (the ballistic expert, the doctors who treated Al Dura in 1994, etc..) can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a very poor boy and how he was used for propaganda purposes – possibly because his father was part of the plan. This is not an article about free speech nor is it about Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 --Julia1987 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the verdict from a professional source can be found here: [15] The French version is here: [16]Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While the court appears to say that they are not trying the veracity of the "hoax" theory (I think that's what they means when they say "Considering that, therefore, the truth exception raised by the defendant must be rejected" [17]

"But considering that, as the first judges noted, in order for the exculpatory effect of article 35 of the law of 29 July 1881 to apply, the proof of the truth of the defamatory statements must be perfect, complete and must correlate to the defamatory accusations in their materiality and their breadth;"

They lost the first round because they could not prove it was a hoax, ie perfect and complete...

"Given that by claiming the evidence he submitted established a “suspect production, widely criticized at the time the statements at issue were broadcast,” the defendant cannot claim to have proven the act of having deliberately broadcast a “false report,” since the former is less severe than the defamatory accusation at issue;"

"and that it is appropriate, in this context, to evaluate the validity of the defendant’s investigation, based, not on the grounds of the defamatory statement’s demonstrable veracity, but on the value and the variety of sources used, as well as the relevance of their content;"

"it is apparent that examining, on appeal, the 18 minutes of Talal ABU RAMAH’s rushes produced by FRANCE 2 does not permit dismissing the opinion of the professionals who were heard by the court during the proceedings or who participated in the debates, and the statements procured by the cameraman (counter-evidence exhibit nos. 5 to 10), on the other hand, cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance;"

"Charles ENDERLIN admitted that the film, which was seen around the world and sparked unprecedented violence in the entire region, perhaps did not correspond to his commentary, which is also the opinion submitted by Daniel DAYAN, director of research at CNRS and an expert on the media, in his testimony (exhibit No. 5);"

They found the following witnesses believable:

"Given that they [Expert Witnesses] also noted that, “in the minutes preceding the shooting, the Palestinians seem to have organized a stage […] ‘play’ war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary wounds” and that viewing the entire set of rushes shows that at the moment Charles ENDERLIN declares the child dead […] nothing allows him to suggest that he really is dead and even less so that he was killed by Israeli soldiers."

That in itself is shocking, is it not?

Considering the state of the elements of the investigation, which form a factual base sufficient to allow that the statements at issue, often close to a judgment call, could have been made by the author of the article and the press release at issue to discuss subjects of such general interest as the danger of power – in this case, the power of the press – in the absence of counterbalance, and the right of the public to serious information; it can be found that Philippe KARSENTY exercised his right of free criticism in good faith

Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact Check

Muhammad_al-Durrah#The_shooting_incident

The article says: "The incident was recorded by Talal Abu Rahma, a veteran freelance Palestinian cameraman who lives in the Gaza Strip and had worked for France 2 for many years. Working alone, Abu Rahma captured 27 minutes of the incident on tape. He also reported that the Israelis had fired at the boy and his father for a total of 45 minutes.[17]"

In point of fact, the "incident" we are referring to is the Al-Durrah incident, and he clearly did not tape 27 minutes of that. Although he claimed to have done so. He originally claimed that Israeli soldiers deliberately shot at the boy and his father 45 minutes, of which of which he filmed 27.Of the rushes provided to the court by France 2 (18 minutes) there was only about 1 minute of actual al-dura footage.

I would say this part needs to be re-worked. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire section on the incident must be reworked. Most importantly, it's not clear which information comes from which source. For instance, who said that the cab driver was unwilling to carry them any further? Was it part of Jamal's statement or not? Regarding those 27 minutes, that material should probably go to the "background" section. We must also add there that two other reporters, from Reuters and AP, were present at the Neztarim on that day. Beit Or 22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point. We should know from whence the information comes. I can't edit the article at this time. I was just looking at some of the more egregious things that stand out. Will you also look at this note [18] and tell me what you think?Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Please leave this at the top of the talk page. There is a list being compiled of reliable sources who question the France 2 version of events, including (but not limited to) sources who report that the incident is being viewed as a hoax. Please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name change

Several editors have noted (a couple of weeks ago) that this article is not really a biography of Muhammad al-durrah, and that we don't create article for people who are only notable for being killed. I'd like to suggest we rename the article to al-Durrah incident. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No way. Quite apart from the fact that "incident" is a pretty weak word (or are we back to saying he's not actually dead?) and also suggests yet another attempt to shift the emphasis of this article onto the post-death controversy, you're just wrong - see Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, Leon Klinghoffer. None of them would have been notable unless they had not, unfortunately, been killed. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Incident" may work as a preliminary solution. This article is not a biography, though the title claims otherwise. It will not become a biography even if the entire controversy is removed. Beit Or 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh has a point. There is Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg, Koby Mandell, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Tali Hatuel and others. Pearl would arguably have been in for his personal achievements. The others, not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Important new article by ex-Israeli official

Regarding Israel's position vis a vis France 2. Some corrections need to be made in the article in relation to this article in the JP. For starters, the idea that the second investigation was "semi-official" is mistaken. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This in the lead is just plain wrong:

Enderlin's report was initially accepted by the Israeli army, which issued an apology after conducting an internal investigation, saying the shots had apparently been fired by its soldiers.[5] A later semi-official army investigation suggested al-Durrah had probably been hit by Palestinian bullets.[6]

From the JP article cited above. The writer is director of the Government Press Office:

This situation was disingenuously presented by France 2 to further suggest that Israel agreed with the premise of its report. Before that, it repeatedly pointed to Israel's original acceptance of responsibility for the incident as an indicator of the report's accuracy. All along, France 2 failed to reveal that Israel's primary position was based solely on the France 2 edited report, its officials not having been given the opportunity to verify the facts independently before responding. That the State of Israel has not revoked the press credentials of France 2 correspondents has also been criticized. Yet journalists reporting for Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and even Iranian media carry official credentials from Israel. This testifies to the tolerance and character of Israel's democracy. It does not suggest agreement with the content of their reports, or appraisal of their professional abilities.

THOSE WHO concentrate on these aspects overlook the fact that Israel has, at the same time, maintained a more active position challenging the France 2 report. Immediately after the story swept through the international media on September 30, 2000, OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia initiated a non-military investigation into the events reported by France 2. By virtue of his rank, this was an official investigation. He assembled a team of experts, which included both ballistic and forensic officials. Led by physicist Nahum Shahaf, they were the first to thoroughly examine the events and analyze the footage presented by France 2.

Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a news article. It is an opinion piece, and clearly labeled as such on the Jerusalem Post website. It is significant, but should be presented only as Mr. Seaman's opinion, not as fact. Sanguinalis (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Seaman is not just anybody. He was in a position to make a statement. I think someone said that qualifies as "expert testimony" by definition. Notice how he speaks of his involvement in the excerpt below, italicized by me:

Daniel Seaman is the director of the Israel Government Press Office (GPO), which is a department of the Office of the Israel Prime Minister. Seaman is one of the foremost experts on the foreign press coverage of the Arab - Israel conflict, as a result of having headed the Information and Foreign Press Departments of the GPO during the 1990's. [...]Seaman was appointed as head of the GPO in December 2000 and is responsible for working with thousands of foreign media who cover news events in Israel. Daniel Seaman had worked for the GPO for several years and was the first civil servant promoted to Directorship of the GPO after a period of 30 years. ^[4]

he wrote in the article above article:

"The analysis and findings were presented to the prime minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and then to myself in early 2001. After reviewing dozens of hours of materials, and only after all our questions had been addressed to our satisfaction, was our initial skepticism transformed into confidence that there was no basis for the accusations leveled against Israel in the France 2 story. Armed with that knowledge, both Gissin and I, as official representatives of the State of Israel, challenged the integrity of the France 2 report in several media interviews.

Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

rephrasing intro

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada.[1]

i believe this seems to be on the side of France 2 and those who hold the belief that al-Durrah was killed. Yes, it's a very legitimate argument, and there is proof (those recent information conflicts) but there is also legitimacy from the other, opposite spectrum. First, I think we should change the date of death. (1988-???) seems more balanced, or no date at all. no body has been found, no evidence truly points to his death (reports come from France 2 and Palestinian organizations). This gives the false impression that al-Durrah was in fact killed in all likelihood.

i think we should change the intro to this:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-???) or none - not included in the article, Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎) was a Palestinian boy who was allegedly killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada.[1] [and perhaps another sentence giving a brief mention about the recent evidence that conflicts.]

so?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Elvis Aaron Presley (January 8th, 1935 - ???) was an American singer who allegedly died on the toilet ..". Give it up, this page has been through this 100 times. --Nickhh (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else?Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And let's be REAL here. the source that is used in the intro is from the year 2000!! Come'on wikipedia, this is getting ridiculous. I went ahead and did the right thing anyways.

thanks for all the love and support!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments: first, Nickh is quite right; we have numerous sources stating that al-Durrah is dead. I can't think of a single source - certainly no reliable sources - that claim he is still alive. Given that, it would be completely inappropriate to leave out the death date. Second, "allegedly" is a standard word to avoid: such words "explicitly mak[e] it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications." There's an overwhelming consensus that al-Durrah is definitely dead - the dispute in mainstream sources is over who killed him, not over whether he was killed in the first place. As has been said many times before on this talk page, the view that he's not dead is at best a minority view, more realistically a fringe view. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are committing a serious logical fallacy here. I haven't seen anywhere here arguing the "fringe view" that al-Durrah is alive, or a fictitious character. But in the last couple of years, mainstream media and journalists have raised serious questions about the authenticity of the tape. If it turns out that the footage is staged, then there are further questions about the role of the boy we now know as Muhammad al-Durrah. It all hinges on the authenticity of the footage, about which there are serious and non-fringe doubts. If there are credible doubts about the authenticity of the footage, then there must by logical necessity be doubts about whether al-Durrah was killed that day, or even who he was. --Leifern (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no logical fallacy in anything Chris said, let alone a serious one. There is however something very odd about the claim that you "haven't seen anywhere [sic] here arguing the fringe view" - haven't you noticed people inserting words to say that he was "supposedly" or "allegedly" killed, or claiming that the footage is a "hoax" of some sort? This whole section of the talk page was started by another editor who wants to remove the year of death from the introduction. In your own comment you say there are "doubts about whether [he] was killed..". I don't know how you missed all those. --Nickhh (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What I haven't seen is someone asserting that al-Durrah is a fictitious person or that the footage is definitely fake. It is not a fringe view to take into account legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the footage. And yes, ChrisO and you are constructing a strawman argument by inferring from this doubt about A (the authenticity of the footage) that someone is asserting B (that al-Durrah wasn't killed or didn't exist).--Leifern (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - you say it's a strawman argument, invented by myself and ChrisO, to infer that those expressing doubts about the accuracy of the footage are suggesting that he might not have been killed. But I don't have to infer anything since this is exactly what you asserted - "If there are credible doubts about the authenticity of the footage, then there must by logical necessity be doubts about whether al-Durrah was killed that day, or even who he was". Do two different people use your account?

I would add of course that there are doubts about aspects of the footage and what it actually shows, as is all recorded in the article. But it depends what that doubt precisely attaches to. It's a big leap from saying the footage might not prove who shot him, to saying that it's all a staged hoax (and, logically from that, that the hoax has been kept up for the last eight years by a conspiracy involving his friends, his family, the King of Jordan, the doctors in hospitals where the boy and his father were taken and/or treated etc). But it's a leap that some seem willing to make, and then seem willing to deny making. --Nickhh (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am the same person, but thanks for your concern about my mental health. Let's parse the issue here. One point (A) is what the available footage shows, and whether it proves that the shooting came from the Israeli position. There are doubts about this. (B) The other point is whether the footage is of a real event or of a staged event. There are doubts about this. This whole thread centers around the question whether we can accept as a matter of fact that al-Durrah was killed. The strawman argument is that some of us argue that he wasn't killed, or that we accept the assertion that the footage was staged. What I've said all along on this issue is that we're dealing with two very serious matters here: either a boy was tragically killed in a conflict that has cost way too many lives; or else a hoax was staged that had tragic consequences in a conflict that has cost way too many lives. In my mind, it would not just violate NPOV but also be irresponsible if we leaped to one conclusion or another. We're to present the controversy, not resolve it. And it's a real controversy, not just objections raised by a "fringe." --Leifern (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that "there are doubts" isn't a particularly meaningful statement. There are doubts about whether Elvis really died, whether the World Trade Center was really destroyed by hijacked aircraft, whether evolution exists or whether the world is run by reptilian aliens in disguise. The meaningful questions are who holds those doubts, whether they are particularly notable and in what proportion they should be represented as compared to the mainstream view. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're constructing a strawman argument and making absurd comparisons. We have documented several leading publications that have reported these doubts as newsworthy, and without characterizing them as fringe or loony along the lines of what you're comparing them to. I could parse everything you write as well, but it wouldn't help the discussion. --Leifern (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikifan's wording is used by Wall ST Journal Europe 5/27/08, and I might add that the alledged part alone does not necessarily refer to the boy's death, but to the question of the IDF's guilt in it. This is certainly in serious question. I will withhold on the idea of no death date but I support Wikifan's wording as written.

It's hard to exaggerate the significance of Mohammed al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli bullets on Sept. 30, 2000. The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada. [19]

Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who refuses to recognize the recent investigation against France 2 and the legitimate criticisms of the original reporters seriously need to consider leaving this discussion. Everybody has a right to have an opinion, but what you guys are doing is BEYOND spin.

thanks you Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What "recent investigation"? If you are referring to the (ongoing) French court case, that - as explained endlessly above - did not come to any conclusion about whether the original report was accurate or correct, or whether the whole incident was a hoax as alleged by Karsenty. Please go and read it if you haven't already. As to your claims that there is a refusal to recognise criticism of the original report, this is just wrong - have you not noticed how much material there is on the controversy in the article, both on the debate around who shot him as well as the alleged "hoax" controversy? And can you point me to where any editor here has demanded it all be removed, or tried to remove it?

The point around the word allegedly is that its use strongly suggests there is serious, credible doubt about whether he was killed at all, as opposed to simply questions about the overall accuracy of the original report. Using "reportedly" was deemed an acceptable compromise a while back, because although many of us argued it was unnecessary it was also factually accurate (in that the shooting, like any other, was of course "reported" at the time), and when it referred specifically to the claim of being shot by the IDF, allowed - accurately - for the possibility that he was shot by someone else. You have unilaterally overturned that implicit compromise, fraudulently claimed there was consensus for that (when in fact of the editors who commented, two were against the change, one was in favour and one did not explicitly commit either way) and edit-warred to protect your change. The fact that the word is used in a Wall Street Journal comment piece does not justify using it here, even if you cite that editorial. Since when did Wikipedia follow the editorial lead of the WSJ, or indeed any other individual paper? We have to look across all the sources, and find a fair and neutral wording. And I would love to leave this page, but do not want to see this article turned into a shop window for every wild theory being floated in the blogosphere. --Nickhh (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggetion to first paragraph by Jaakobou:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎) is a controversial icon of the Second Intifada. In September 2000, the Palestinian boy was reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip.

Thoughts/Comments? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm broadly happy (as mentioned above) with the compromise "reported killed by .. the IDF" or some sort of variation on that, as it acknowledges what was originally reported, which is important for all sorts of reasons, even if it turns out to be wrong. That's of course what the intro said before Wikifan's intervention. I'm not sure about describing the boy himself as a "controversial icon". That point is briefly covered in the photo caption to the right anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify on your words: Are you saying that the incident, not the boy is the controversial icon of the second intifada? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well strictly, as I understand it, the word "icon" refers to an image rather than the subject of the image per se, whether an incident or an individual. Although that's really its original meaning, and I guess these days it's expanded to mean more than that. --Nickhh (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Initial vs. Later reporting

We struggled mightily to reach consensus on the "reported to have been killed" phrasing of the intro, and now weeks later we have attempts to slip in the plainly weaselish "alleged" ? This is clearly an issue that the ArbCom Enforcement folk need to look into. So the source may be 8 years old, but since nothing in a reliable source has been found to contradict it in those 8 years, then that is what we can and should go with. This is the heart of the matter here; do new unreliable sources trump old reliable sources? IMO, our policies here clearly say "no". Tarc (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know regarding the 'alleged' issue, but the 8 year old reports were clearly bogus to some extent and cannot be used as reliable source for anything other than "in 2000 it was reported that...". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They were not "clearly bogus", although there is a debate about whether the reporting was totally accurate or fair. But of course, the point is that whatever fault has been or may yet be found with the way France 2 originally covered the story, the wording "was reported .." will remain accurate for this article in perpetuity, precisely because IDF culpability for the killing is, er, exactly what France 2 reported at the time. --Nickhh (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

Advocacy: I have no idea on what IDF culpability you're talking about but it would be best to stop spreading original research.

Reliable sources: Sources which are newer than 8 years ago have clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent and we will not write things down as though the initial reports must be more accurate than these later ones, which were based on actual investiagions rather than the testimony of two suspect individuals (per 'Three bullets and a dead child' and also 'Dr. Yehuda').

Historical perspective on immediate reporting: There's plenty of historical events where initial reports were innaccurate to varying degrees and this is one of them; or at least that is what reliable sources say so we cannot write it otherwise as if the initial reports from 8 years ago are accurate - They were not.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think you understood what I was saying.

"Advocacy": Neither I nor the article say the IDF was to blame, we both say France 2 reported that the IDF was to blame. This is uncontroversially true, and since it is what a lot of people spend a lot of time complaining about, you'd think they might be happy that it was flagged up that way

"Reliable sources": Newer sources have not "clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent", but different sources have queried different elements of the original report and offered alternative explanations, which is a different point. The jury is still out on exactly what happened (and may never reach a conclusion). WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well I believe, so I'd be careful of describing Enderlin or Abu Rahma as "suspect individuals"

"Historical perspective ..": See two previous answers.

With respect, --Nickhh (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is a very important one. The reason the story had the impact that it did was because of the original reporting - but one aspect that seems to have been missed in this article is how the Arab media, Al Jazeera et al, reported it. Bear in mind that Charles Enderlin's report had quite a limited circulation, since (obviously) it was only aired on France 2, or Antenne 2 as it was at the time. The footage, on the other hand, was shown worldwide. I gather from what I've read that the Arab media took a far more condemnatory line than Enderlin, reporting that the IDF had murdered al-Durrah (not merely that he was killed in crossfire). So when we say that he was "reported to have been killed by the IDF" that's not only completely accurate, since that is exactly what was reported at the time, but it's also an essential part of the story. The fact that it was presented as an Israeli action, or even an Israeli war crime in the case of the Arab media reporting, is a big part of the reason why the incident became so politically significant.

Of course, if you replace "reported" with the weaselly "alleged" then you lose all of this nuance. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NickH, and everyone else: the source is EIGHT YEARS OLD. There is plenty of current, reliable sources that talk about the challenges and likelihood of the al-Durrah incident being faked. :::::I cannot emphasize this enough. Using dated information to verify such a crucial and significant portion of the article is not something wikipedia should be promoting. Get it? I know many of you have political allegiances that are unfortunately molded into the articles occasionally, but this is COMMON SENSE. What else can I do? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the source is being used for. It's being used to corroborate the fact - which you've not disputed - that the IDF was blamed for the shooting of al-Durrah. The intro doesn't say "the IDF shot al-Durrah". It says (in effect) "the IDF was reported to have shot al-Durrah". Do you dispute that that's what the reports at the time said? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It has been established that the likelihood of IDF killing al-Durrah is no less than the likelihood that Hezbollah/militant fighters killed al-Durrah in the cross fire, or he might not have been killed at all. "Reported" gives a false sense of legitimacy and fact when it is unclear what actually happened. We're are running in circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That the source is dated does not mean that it is outdated. There is a critical difference there. Thus far, a grand total of zero reliable sources have been provided to substantiate this claim of "the al-Durrah incident is being faked", or that the "dated" source is no longer reliable. The only thing that is "unclear" at this point in time is who is responsible for the boy's death. That the death itself is a matter of contention reats purely in the realm of fantastical speculation, and not in areliable, legitimate basis of reality.

And really, how many times will one user be allowed to freely cast aspersions on other user's "political allegiances", imagined or otherwise, before something is done about it? Enough is enough already. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, Wikifan. We're not talking about "likelihoods" here (and where did "Hezbollah" come from? Are you mixing up Gaza and Beirut?). This is a very simple historical question: did the reports at the time say that the IDF killed al-Durrah? Not "were those reports correct" but "did they say that"? Yes or no?

All we are doing here is reporting the fact - which nobody has ever disputed, as far as I know - that the initial reports blamed the IDF. We're not endorsing that view, we're simply reporting neutrally the historical fact that that was what was stated at the time. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that report has is eight years old. New reports say differently. Unless this article is about the year 2000, but from I understand al-Durrah case is an on-going discussion and thus it should be updated accordingly. I believe we should include the updates regarding the initial report, which say that it is unclear whether IDF did in fact kill al-Durrag, or if he was killed at all. As I've said many times, the current intro gives the false impression that al-Durrah was killed in all likelihood, and doesn't take into account current findings. This is the problem, and it MUST be fixed.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to the problem - the chronology is that 8 years ago, the IDF was reported as having shot him. Subsequently other accounts questioned that, with some doubting whether he was killed at all (let's leave aside any arguments about the validity of those alternatives for now, and discussion about how much weight exactly they need here). A lot of criticism - from certain quarters - has been directed at France 2 for its original report. Now doesn't the article more or less follow this narrative, as surely it should? If that's not too many questions for Wikifan. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See previous response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the 4th paragraph of the introduction (which currently takes up about 50% of the total lead). Then come back and tell us that the lead doesn't "include the updates". --Nickhh (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. But the intro topic needs to be updated. Why you ask? Because it's WRONG.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting argument. In what way is it "WRONG"? Which "updates" exactly are missing? And once you've explained that, then read - or at least scan - the whole article and do a rough estimate of what proportion of it is devoted to the "controversy" and to criticism of France 2. I think you'll find it's about 50% again. I can't actually believe that your answers above are the basis on which you've edit warred and prompted gigabytes of talk page debate. --Nickhh (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ps: can you please format and align your comments and signature here properly as well?

Wikifan, we're not here to determine "the truth". Let me quote you something Elonka said in a previous discussion:

One of the most common misconceptions that we deal with on Wikipedia, is the perception that Wikipedia is here to present The Truth. But this is not correct. What we are here for, is to summarize information that has already been written elsewhere, in the proper proportion to the views that are being written about. So this talkpage should be for discussions like, "I think we're giving too much article space to View A" or "I think that we can find a better source than #27" or "The third paragraph is sourced to #5, but I don't think it's accurately reflecting what is in the source," or "We seem to be covering Significant Published Views B and C okay, but the article isn't covering A and D at all." To put it another way: If 90% of published sources are saying "View A", and 10% are saying "View B", then even if we, as editors, feel that View A is flatout wrong, our responsibility is still to ensure that the Wikipedia article is 90% about View A, and 10% about View B. We are just humble servants of what other reporters and academics are saying. If and as the published sources change their opinions, then the Wikipedia article can change to match. Our job is to reflect the current consensus of modern thinking, that's it. We are not here to debunk theories, we are not here to provide leading news coverage. We are here to summarize what has already been published. For other types of reporting, Wikipedia probably isn't the project for it. To catch stuff "as it's happening", there is Wikinews, or for presenting opinions, folks are encouraged to set up their own blogs and personal websites. But for this article, here on Wikipedia, we are just a summary service.

That pretty much says it all, I think. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with truth. It has everything to do with CURRENT FINDINGS. The consensus is no longer IDF killed al-Durrah. The consensus is that it is unclear who killed al-Durrah.

Period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why this article does not state anywhere in it that the IDF did kill al Durrah. Again, what is the problem here? This is getting very trying. --Nickhh (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada.[1] This needs to be changed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know what the words "reported to have been ..." mean? Are you claiming that France 2 in fact reported something different? Have you deliberately been ignoring all the points and questions that others have spent a long time putting to you about this? --Nickhh (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated. Al-Durrah was initially reported to have been killed by the IDF. That's an historical fact. It doesn't mean that he was killed by the IDF. All we're doing here is describing what the original reports stated. We're not endorsing what they say, we're just describing the fact that they said it in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh? France 2 originally reported al-Durrah being killed by IDF, but that no longer seems to be the case. The intro should reflect current evidence, not past. Comprende muchachos ?Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And in the totality of "the intro" (you do realise that the lead is not just the single 1st paragraph, yes?), it makes that fact abundantly clear, without resorting to weasel words. The entire notability of this affair revolves around the initial reports of the IDF killing a child and having it caught on camera, and the lead goes on to explain in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs the subsequent events where the IDF's responsibility in the child's death is no longer certain, finishing up with a, IMO, far too weighty/lengthy 4th paragraph regarding the recent court case. The change you are asking for is, frankly, unreasonable and not supported by Wiki policy. Evidence being "current" is irrelevant if it is inherently unreliable. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. It is blatantly obvious the the "initial" report against IDF has come under intense scrutiny, and recent evidence suggests that France 2 was very negligent in its original report. This has nothing to do with truth, just simple current events. This article isn't about the year 2000, it's about the years 2000 and beyond. PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are trying to do too much in one sentence, and as a result the issues are becoming confused. How about this:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada. Initial reports, since called into question, stated that al-Durrah was killed by gunfire from IDF positions.

This would preserve the "initial reports", for whatever they are worth, but does not get them tangled up with the issue of the death itself. Wouldn't this be clearer? 6SJ7 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

better,yes. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not bad. But I would get rid of the "since called into question" bit, since that effectively repeats what the next paragraphs say. Leave it as "Initial reports stated that al-Durrah was killed by gunfire from IDF positions." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, 6SJ. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO further up the page says: "Bear in mind that Charles Enderlin's report had quite a limited circulation, since (obviously) it was only aired on France 2, or Antenne 2 as it was at the time." We should not bear that in mind as it is not accurate. France2 gave it away free. It was seen (and the voiceover translated and heard) all over the world. That's why we have to correct the record now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

France 2 certainly gave away the images but do you have any sources to support your claim that the voiceover was translated? That's not the usual practice. TV stations have their own editorial line and reporters (obviously) compile their own reports. They may have drawn on reporting by France 2, but that doesn't mean that they slavishly repeated what France 2 said. The BBC certainly didn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what other countries wrote about it, but in the US I distinctly remember seeing the original film and the reporters here were given the film and simply reported what Charles Enderlin said. Most news organisations simply ("slavishly") repeat what others have said, rather than manufacturing their own news either through omission or addition. The film was seen around the world which is how it got to be an "icon" in the first place. The accusation against the IDF was so pointed and specific that the IDF themselves actually believed it had to be true, and so "apologized" without first doing a full investigation. Virtually everyone in the world believed that Israel had killed this boy in cold blood, which was exactly what the the photographer said happened. He said he had filmed the boy for 45 minutes, which was also repeated slavishly by the BBC <<TV footage shows that for 45 minutes, Mohammed and his father sought sanctuary in vain behind a small metal barrel as bullets rained around them.>> BBC 10/27/2000 and yet we now know that that is not the case at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"The footage, and the story of the purported IDF killing of al-Dura, was quickly rebroadcast around the world. Within days, al-Dura became a symbol of the Palestinian war against Israel." JP --Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The other news organizations were using France 2 — specifically, the cameraman — as their source, because there was no other source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To NickH argument: "Reliable sources": Newer sources have not "clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent" Oh but yes they have. And we have presented many of them. Ballistics reports, new film released, (acknowledged)contradictions in testimony, reenactments etc. plus more than a few (contemporary) journalists agree. also this: The jury is still out on exactly what happened (and may never reach a conclusion). Not so, the jury came back with a conclusion: it looked at the evidence and voided the previous verdict. Until and unless France 2 appeals it, the verdict and everything it signifies, stands. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about changing consensus? Check this database out: at debriefing.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No responses? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tone down the belligerence and start indenting things properly? Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Belligerence? Didn't see that one coming. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to what? Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources is a laundry list of non-reliable sources which cannot be used in this or any Wikipedia article. It serves no purpose to cite it in this discussion, and should probably just be deleted. A response to "it looked at the evidence and voided the previous verdict" ? We've covered this particular ground countless times; the court verdict did not reflect a decision on the truthiness of the matter, only if the critics were allowed to, y'know, criticize it. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tundrabuggy, but newer sources have not "clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent". They have called elements of it into question, which is not quite as definitive a point. Feel free to hold the view yourself that they've proved France 2 wrong, but don't insert it into this article. Following on from that, you have failed to understand that I was using a fairly cliched metaphor, to discuss the state of knowledge about what actually happened in 2000, when I talked about "the jury still being out" (I'd be very surprised if the libel appeal was heard at any point by a jury). And Tarc of course is right to remind you (again) that the latest verdict did not take sides as to what might have happened. The point is that no-one knows for certain whose bullets killed al Durrah at the junction that day and we probably never will. All we can do is report as it were on the reports - the initial one from France 2 and others at the time that blamed the IDF for killing him and the subsequent doubts that were raised about them, including - briefly - the fringe ones that claim the whole event was staged. And Wikifan, can you state for the record that you do understand that the article as currently written does not endorse the view that he was killed by the IDF?

And as for the proposed alternative opening above from 6SJ7, I don't see the need to separate out the issue of the death itself from the question of who might have been responsible for it when describing the initial reports. All it does is make two sentences out of one, which in part repeat each other. Arguably it gives too much weight to the idea that he isn't even dead. The original France 2 story was very clear in what it said - he was killed, by the IDF. Then that report was of course subjected to questions and criticism (and outright debunking, if of course you wish to take that view). --Nickhh (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Arguably it gives too much weight to the idea that he isn't even dead" --Actually it doesn't . I suggest a re-read: "Initial reports, since called into question, stated that al-Durrah was killed by gunfire from IDF positions." That says that he was killed by IDF, says nothing at all about him not being dead. I feel the other side is being obstructionist. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a re-read of the whole proposed new intro. The first part says "reported killed [how, unspecified]". That is, it reads as casting doubt on whether he was killed at all. The sentence you have then quoted is, yes, more specific about the fact there are doubts about how he was killed. I'm not being obstructionist, it's just I'm not sure the proposed change improves anything, and in fact I think it makes it a little more confusing. --Nickhh (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick, we can't use France 2 as a source, because everyone who has looked at their story carefully has decided their report was not credible. This article is, in effect, about the France 2 report, rather than about the boy as such. The three senior French journalists who viewed the rushes (something that no one on this page has done, so far as we know) said clearly that when Enderlin declared the boy killed by the IDF, he had no reason to believe either that the IDF had shot him or even that he was dead. Therefore, Enderlin's report is at the center of the controversy. It is not a source any longer. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's quite a sweeping judgement. Everyone who's looked at it has decided it's not credible? In its entirety? Come on now. In any event, even if you wish to take that point of view yourself, it still leaves the fact that this is what the original report said at the time. That report was then criticised of course, as you know. Even someone claiming the report was all false or fake or whatever is presumably arguing - as you indeed are - that it was in a way the cause of this whole controversy. And you don't want to cite it or flag up what it said? Oh and by the way the fact that this article is now more about the France 2 report than it is about the killing of the boy is part of the problem of course, in my view at least. Like it is with many similar articles here. But that's a wider debate about I-P articles and WP:UNDUE. --Nickhh (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing the Al-Durrah Incident, then perhaps in a linear context it would be appropriate to describe the events as they happened as a timeline --"initially reported" --but if we are trying to describe the consensus regarding what happened to Mohammed Al-Durrah, then we must start with the current consensus, not that of 8 years ago. Ever since the latest trial, wherein the appeals court looked over the various ballistics reports, raw footage, and listened to testimony, and came to a decision, [20] virtually 100% of the articles written about the case have agreed that it is probably a hoax. Why are you trying to laugh off all the articles that we have collected here as fringy? Isn't it time for you to show some recent articles that demonstrate your position rather than poo-pooing all of ours as unreliable? Where are yours? Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this controversy is being driven by a predominately American right-wing and Israeli nationalist political campaign - it's not just something that's going on by itself, it's actively being promoted and forwarded by ideologues, just like the Obama "secret Muslim" smear or the somewhat comparable case of Dan Rather and the Killian documents. Like Rather, the ideologues behind the campaign seem to be attempting to destroy Enderlin's reputation because they don't like his general approach to reporting (too critical of Israel, presumably). So when you look at what American right-wing and Israeli nationalist media outlets are saying, of course you will see a consensus in favour of their preferred viewpoint. You will likewise find a "consensus" in favour of global warming denial or Obama's secret Muslimness if you focus your attention only on certain quarters. But as I've said before, you can't take the view of one particular ideological segment and claim that it represents the mainstream view. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The current intro is written as a linear narrative. You are repeating your claim about a "current consensus", but I do not see that. Nor have I "laughed off" the sources you and others have brought, I have just pointed out that they are mostly opinion pieces or straight reportage of the court case itself. There is still no hard, positive evidence, in reliable mainstream sources, in favour of an outright hoax. And no, equally there are not many recent articles explicitly backing the France 2 version or denying the hoax theory, but why should there be? Where is the news value in that? And, at the risk of being a little frivolous here, does the fact that there are no newspaper articles that spend a lot of time and effort denying that George W Bush is a lizard mean David Icke is right? --Nickhh (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, interesting discussion, but can I get you to move it over to the mediation page, at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah? I recommend that everyone who hasn't offered a statement yet, please do so. You can probably also start new threads on the talkpage, to continue this discussion. --El on ka 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Semantics NickHH. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, if you mean by that reading things properly, understanding what simple words actually mean and trying to use them correctly. --Nickhh (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, it is extremely disrespectful to respond to someone's contributions to the discussion with a one-word blow-off. If you have nothing to add of substance, then please, add nothing. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we're speaking bluntly: I'm not going to feed you guys. I've stated my opinion several times and you guys refuse to even respond. You've resorted to fallacies and bandwagoning and I'm not going to respond. France 2 is damaged, it's still unclear who killed al-Durrah or if he was actually killed regardless of how you spin it. I know my comments are rather harsh, but they are no less true. Good day. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are not harsh, just rather silly. I and others have responded to every point you have made, and engaged you in great detail explaining what certain words mean and pointing you to what this article actually says. You keep ignoring that and repeating the same points, while making accusations of "semantics" and "spin". For example, I have repeatedly said that it is not clear who killed him, according to the totality of the sources - yet you choose to throw that point at me as if I am yet to acknowledge it. Who's feeding who? --Nickhh (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah whatever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your vocabulary must be improving, that was a two word blow off. --Nickhh (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, exactly what point of yours do you feel has not been responded to? Tarc (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought his point was obvious, that the article doesn't state "the truth" as proven fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask everyone please to stop commenting on each other, and Nick, would you please stop being so sarcastic? When we stick to discussing the content issues, I feel we're actually making some progress. 6SJ7's suggestion for an introductory sentence is good, and the discussion about how to handle, and whether to prioritize, eight-year-old stories, as opposed to more recent ones casting doubt on them, is potentially very fruitful, and not only for this article. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic, but I'm not going to let your singling me out stand. I have spent far more time than is healthy for me here painstakingly discussing content, as well as sources and policy issues. In response I get cheap accusations of playing with "semantics" and of trolling from people who don't seem to have got as far as reading either what I or others have said, or even the article itself. The nature of the above exchange is pretty clear to anyone who can see it.

Ontopic, I've mentioned above why I disagree that the proposal is an improvement. And if we look at what has priority in the lead for example, of the 10 sources listed there, 5 are from 2000 while the other 5 are from 2005-08; in terms of words, way more than 50% of what is there is about the more recent issues. That doesn't look to me like evidence of the article prioritising 8 yr old sources - in fact to my eyes it's undue weight the other way. --Nickhh (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What we knew then, know now

And of course we can't ignore the sources from 2000 because they provide the vital context for why this became such a big deal at the time. The fact that we cite eight-year-old sources is because the incident happened eight years ago. We have to report what was said at the time. What we don't do is assert "the truth" as it was perceived eight years ago or as some people (who don't comprise a mainstream consensus by any means) see it now. We don't actually know any more about the incident now than we did then - all we have is an accretion of claims and speculation from off-wiki sources with an ideological axe to grind. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We do know more than we know then. When the footage was first broadcast, no one knew that in the final scene, the boy appeared to be still alive, and that this scene was inexplicably cut. We didn't know that France 2 would be so reluctant to show the rushes to other journalists. We didn't know that the reporter had no reason to say (at the time he said it) that the boy had been shot by the Israelis or even that he was dead. Had these issues been known at the time, the footage might not have been aired by other news organizations, and the people who died because of the anger it caused might still be alive. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know that at all. What we have is a lot of politically-motivated speculation being promoted by right-wing activists and Israeli nationalists in the blogosphere and certain politically opportunist press commentators, who are pushing logical fallacies and cherry-picked evidence. The claims you've just made above illustrate the point - they're pure speculation based on the personal inferences of the conspiracy theorists whose views you're citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris do you honestly think that if the world saw the boy moving after he was reported dead; and knew that the people were yelling "The boy is dead," while he was sitting up just fine; and that if the world knew that Enderlin had not been at the scene at all, and if they had known exactly where the Israeli position and Palestinian positions were; or that they would never see any bullets; etc etc - that they would not have asked questions? It is also worth noting just how you characterize us here who are trying to make our point with evidence -the weight of which was just added to by the French Court of Appeals - as "...politically-motivated ... right-wing activists and Israeli nationalists ... certain politically opportunist press commentators, ... pushing logical fallacies and cherry-picked evidence." Where's the beef? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into speculation about what might have happened. I'm also not charging you personally with being a "politically-motivated right-wing activist and Israeli nationalist". You may or may not be such, but many of the people penning op-eds and writing blogs promoting the conspiracy theory (Landes, Karsenty, Frum etc) certainly are, and we need to recognise that this is being driven by people who want to advance a particular political cause. If you look at how the media coverage of this story has developed, it shows a pretty clear pattern. The conspiracy theory started out in the blogosphere and had negligible coverage until France 2 sued for libel in 2004. That attracted an increasing degree of coverage, and some people - particularly on the American right - seem to have latched onto it as a means of bashing three pet hates, namely the French, the media and the Palestinians. SlimVirgin's new sources mainly consists of a collection of op-ed columns which alternately denounce Enderlin and France 2 and parrot the conspiracy theorists' speculations, engaging in all the usual logical fallacies associated with fringe theories - cherry-picking evidence, posing false dilemmas and so on. We have very little actual new reportage beyond what was said and done in the French court cases and people's reactions to that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's this same point again - the doubts about what happened are based on speculative questions about the original reporting and evidence. This is - I'm sorry for using the word again, but I'm using it in a very general sense - one aspect of what conspiracy theories are about. They question an orthodoxy (no bad thing in itself) but then build up an alternative explanation, based not on hard evidence but on vague questions and allegations about the current explanation. To take the points you raise here: people's bodies can move after they are shot and before they die; later investigations could not in fact accurately say "where" the relative positions were, because the IDF had demolished the site; I'm not an Arabic expert but in English if you say "the boy is dead" that doesn't have to meant literally, it can mean "he's going to end up dead"; there are clearly bullets flying and hitting the wall, and apparently the boy and his father, in the footage, but as we know the scene was cleaned up and bulldozed soon afterwards. Anyway, as before, I don't know whether these are accurate explanations for apparent discrepancies - but they are just as plausible as any hoax theory, and as yet there is no hard evidence in favour of that theory, eg the boy being found or one of the people involved in it coming forward to discuss it. For the time being the article broadly does what it needs to - explains what was reported originally, and then explains the questions that have been raised about that reporting. However we need to make sure that it does this with due weight to each, especially in respect of any claims that he was not killed (in my view it currently gives too much weight to the latter). One thing it can't do is to start saying the death is "supposed" or "alleged". If it ever becomes clear, based on hard evidence, that the whole thing was staged or a hoax and that he was never killed, we can rewrite the article more in the style of this one. But can we wait until that happens? Where's the beef, exactly.

More generally, I would make the point that I agree with Chris where he talks about a campaign (outside Wikipedia that is). On several occasions when the IDF has used military force against questionable targets and caused civilian deaths, there seems to be an unseemly attempt to deflect attention away from the underlying issue by building up a "controversy" about media coverage of that incident. In my view this is happening here - it also happened with the attack on Jenin in 2002 and in respect of several incidents during the Lebanon war in 2006. Suddenly the alleged "blood libel" or "media bias" can become the story instead of the real and undeniable tragedy that underlies it, as Gideon Levy puts pretty well in this piece. In the case of al Durrah some people seem even to be claiming that somehow the Second Intifada might not have happened were it not for the actions of the Palestinians and the media in this one incident.--Nickhh (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mitchell Report does connect the shooting to the spread of the Intifada, in terms of having fueled certain perceptions of Israel. It says: "From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behavior which, in the PLO's view, reflected Israel's contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al Durra in Gaza on September 30, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception." [21] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reinforced, not created. We're not talking about a casus belli, since the conflict was already underway. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Expert witnesses that support the hoax 'theory'....

by "support" of course I do not mean they say it unequivocally, but consider it quite possible. For example this one:

Ballistics expert supports verdict in al-Dura libel case: Gaza child wasn't killed by Israeli gunfire: By Adi Schwartz

In his report, Schlinger wrote, "If Jamal [the boy's father] and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position."

He also wrote, "In view of the general context, and in light of many instances of staged incidents, there is no objective evidence that the child was killed and his father injured. It is very possible, therefore, that it is a case [in which the incident was] staged."

Schlinger confirmed these statements in a telephone conversation with Haaretz.

Schlinger has served as an adviser on ballistic and forensic evidence in French courts for 20 years. haaretz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, there's no reason to continue. Nobody cares about fact or relevant information.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I've noticed that the majority of sources appear to use "Mohammed al-Dura" as the transliteration of the boy's name, rather than "Muhammad al-Durrah". Mohammed al-Dura is currently a redirect; should we move the article there to match the apparent most common transliteration? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration from Arab is a difficult matter.

As far as I know, the most commonly used tranliteration among people who are familiar with Arab is Muhammad; the most common transliteration among people of the street is Muhammed or Mohammed (in French at least).

On wp:fr, there are 2 policies :

the principle of the minimum surprise (we would require the use of Muhammed)
the principle of fitting as much as possible to the highest expertise and culture linked to the topic (which would required the use of Muhammad)

I don't know what is policy on wp:en...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

^ [22]
^ [23]
^ [24]
^ [25]

[1] [22]

[2] [23]

[3] [24]

[4] [25]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]