Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 13 June 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject HOP

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Administrator intervention requested

The behaviour of several of the editors on this talk page and article leads me to believe that they are repeatedly and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Specifically, using it for advocacy or propaganda and refusing to comply with the neutral point of view requirement to fairly represent the weight of authority for each viewpoint and not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators. This is a clear violation of the principles set out in a previous Arbitration Committee ruling. I've therefore requested input from uninvolved administrators at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I'm tasked by ArbCom with investigating ethnic and cultural edit wars (see WP:WORKGROUP), I'd like to see if I can help here as an uninvolved administrator. First though, I'd like to check that I'm acceptable as a neutral party? I have definitely worked on articles related to medieval history of the area, as well as articles about more current subjects such as the Hajj (see my userpage for a full list of articles I have created or expanded, from Fustat to Franco-Mongol alliance). So I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical complexities involved, without being biased towards one side or the other in terms of Israel-Palestinian disputes. I've also had success with moderating other disputes. In terms of this particular page on Muhammad al-Durrah, I'm willing to do my best to be neutral and fair. Would this be acceptable? --Elonka 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance would certainly be appreciated. I'm just wondering - are you involved in mediation at all? I've been in touch with the mediation cabal about having a formal mediation for this article, but have been advised that an informal mediation would be a better place to start. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never been a member of WP:MEDCOM or MEDCAB, no. I have been involved as a participant in both types of mediations. And I have informally mediated multiple disputes, most notably some Hungarian-Slovakian thorny issues, where a large number of articles were in a state of pretty much constant edit-warring, with new admin board threads being started every few days (there's a list you can peruse) but I helped stabilize things. I would like to make it clear however, that though part of what I would do would be to act as a mediator, I would also be acting as an administrator. My goal would be to use a combination of mediation, education, and (if necessary) enforcement to help restore stability to the article, and get it back to a state of "healthy editing". For things I might do, you could look at a fairly new page (created as a project of the Working group on ethnic and edit wars): Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. Bottom line: It might be good to go both routes, to have me (and any other uninvolved admins) helping out as an admin, and to also continue seeking assistance from MEDCOM or MEDCAB. --Elonka 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept you as a mediator, Elonka. SlimVirgin 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm going to try to get some mediation organised. I'll post a link below to the mediation page, when that gets created. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly participate. Julia1987 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News covers the controversy before the ruling

Greg Palkot of Fox News covers the controversy and about the content and veracity of the French Report, and the doubts raised. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the discussions

Just as a general reminder to everyone, please:

• Stick to discussing the article, not the editors
• As an exercise, try to avoid using the words "you" or "your" in your posts. Referring to everything in the third-person can have an excellent calming effect.
• Try to keep every opinion, source-based. Instead of saying, "I think that the article should say," try "According to this source, the article should say".

Just my $0.02, Elonka 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. You posted earlier about how we should only rely on source-based material, which is correct, of course, but the current dispute is happening despite the use of sources, so any thoughts from you would be much appreciated.

At the heart of the dispute among the sources is whether the shooting was a set up, or whether it was real in some sense, but not in the way France 2 (the original reporting team) described. In other words, was the boy really killed in the way they described, or was he killed at all?

For a long time, the article lead took no side. It said, for example (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was reported to have been killed by gunfire on September 30, 2000 near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Recently, ChrisO changed this to the current version (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was killed in an exchange of gunfire ..."

I feel we should definitely not take such a clear stance in the lead, given the doubts about what happened that day. It is definitely true that he was reported to have been killed, but I feel it would be wrong of us to affirm anything further. SlimVirgin 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources - or vanishingly few - that report otherwise. Given that, there is no question that a lead that "does not take a side" does, indeed, take a side. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the recent judgment? It makes clear that there is a legitimate story to be told here, and that the cameraman was not a "perfectly credible" witness. If it's a legitimate story for a court, then it's most certainly a legitimate one for Misplaced Pages. SlimVirgin 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A primary source, which we are not competent to parse. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you're using the word "parse." It is a legitimate primary source, of course, because it's a court case that has been written about by secondary reliable sources. Have you read the judgment? SlimVirgin 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "parse" is frequently used in casual conversation to refer to the act of deconstructing long, complex arguments for the purpose of analysis, particularly original analysis.

We can use the primary source to substantiate what has been written about extensively in multiple reliable sources. First we need the multiple reliable sources. Then we need to find the part of the primary source which those secondary sources unquestionably describe or discuss, and quote only that, as substantiation or illustration. Given all that, I think it singularly unproductive to focus on primary sources in this case, when we have no secondary sources that discuss the overall impact of this individual judgment, which provides only a tiny fraction of the encyclopaedic interest of this incident. I hope that's clear enough. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From which policy are you taking such an idiosyncratic view of how primary sources may be used? And can you answer my first question, please: have you read the judgment? ChrisO left a link to it above if you haven't. SlimVirgin 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A standard interpretation of WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE in these cases, the latter which it seems clear has not yet been read by some people on this page. Please see above for extensive arguments as to why it would be singularly unproductive to focus on primary sources that we are not competent to deconstruct and analyse. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just another nudge, again, let's please avoid the words "you" and "your", to try and de-escalate things a tad. As for the wording here, I'm sure that we can come up with a source-based way of describing the events, that still stays within WP:UNDUE. Is there a specific sentence that seems to be at the center of the conflict? Let's try word-smithing a bit. --Elonka 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do strike out any of my comments that uses the word. The particular dispute seems to center around the use of the word 'reportedly'. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read the sources before commenting further, please. It's difficult enough to know how to write this article even having read them. Without having read them, it is impossible. SlimVirgin 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, are there any sources that use the word "reportedly"? If not, we should stick to how the current reliable sources are describing it (random example) and then follow their lead. --Elonka 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the current issue is whether we say in the lead the boy was reported to have been killed, or that he was killed. SlimVirgin 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No sources, Elonka, which describe the case overall, have been presented that use the word "reportedly" in the manner in which it is suggested we use it in the lead. We would require a significant number of such sources, as this case was widely covered. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's article, The Star, says this: "...The shocking footage – which ended with an apparently dead Palestinian youngster sprawled across the lap of his father, who also seemed to have been shot – was viewed over and over by a TV audience that spanned the globe." Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not necessarily the word "reportedly." It is whether we say the boy was killed, or was reported to have been killed. The latter is true according to all reliable sources. The former is not agreed by all reliable sources to be true.

As for your comments about primary sources, I am very familiar with WP:NOR and the primary-source issue because I helped to write it. It says (and it is policy):

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

We are therefore able to use the court's decision, so long as we simply quote it and do not analyse. SlimVirgin 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had occasion before to point out that writing a policy does not necessarily imply the ability to flawlessly and invariably implement it. (This will come as no surprise to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of political science.) NOR actually says "...the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Which is why "we need to find the part of the primary source which those secondary sources unquestionably describe or discuss". I think it is possible that that wording in the policy is my own. WP:FRINGE, into which I had significant input, IIRC, is also worth reading as relevant, as I believe I might have mentioned once or twice.

I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed. Replace the words "boy is dead" with "man landed on the moon" and it might help. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a significant part of the problem is the lack of agreement on what the verdict actually signifies. The conspiracy theorists naturally claim that it vindicated them. Let's note first of all that the vast majority of the media didn't even think it was newsworthy (Karsenty's supporters have been complaining about this, apparently it's all part of the vast liberal media conspiracy against them). Of the media that did cover the verdict, most of the pieces that took the conspiracy theorists' side were op-eds. None of the reporting in the (admittedly few) French media stories about the case states that the court supported the conspiracy theory. The French reporting is particularly significant, as only the French stories quote from the actual text of the verdict (as far as I know). So in total, only a very small proportion of the world media has backed the conspiracy theorists' claims about the verdict. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to SV's comment immediately above, the problem is of course that people are attempting to analyse the verdict. The French verdict is an incredibly densely written document, very difficult to read in English let alone French, based on legal principles that don't have a direct equivalent in the English-speaking countries. All we can and should do is report what reliable secondary sources have said about the meaning of the verdict. Since said sources evidently disagree, we cannot state or imply that the verdict ruled that the France 2 report was a hoax. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never suggested we do that, but simply that we use the text to quote from, and most importantly that we change the lead sentence back to the stable "was reported to have been killed." We can use any of the secondary sources to evaluate the ruling e.g. (Wall Street Journal Europe): "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate." (see below for link) SlimVirgin 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Illustrative of the problem. "Legitimate", of course, could mean "legitimate commentary", or "legitimate concern". The former concept, a well-understood one, hardly bears up your preferred evaluation of the ruling. We are not capable of interpreting the ruling beyond that single word, we are not capable of understanding the legal basis underlying what the court considers "legitimate", and we certainly cannot look at the primary source for answers. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with quoting from the text is that you are relying on your own personal judgment about which bits are significant. That's not only OR, it's deeply flawed, since we don't personally know which bits are significant (I don't see any experts on French libel law on this talk page). Where reliable sources have quoted from the verdict, we can highlight that, since we are then relying on our sources' judgement rather than our own. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy allows us to quote notable primary sources, so long as we stick to quotes. And the quote I used above was from a secondary source. Look, Chris, you can't keep this stuff hidden. It is out there. It has been discussed by reliable sources. A French court has ruled that to repeat these concerns is not libel because they are legitimate issues to raise (whether true or not), which none of us is in a position to judge. We would do well to remember that. None of us was there. All we can and should do is report what the secondary sources and the courts have said. SlimVirgin 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many fringe viewpoints are not libellous, so that interpretation of the court's judgment is irrelevant.

The policy indicates that we locate the portion of the primary source that can be quoted, once that portion has had its applicability attested to by a reliable secondary source. That is not the case here, it seems. In addition, that attestation should be done in a manner that can be judged without specialist knowledge. It has already been mentioned, I believe, that that is, in this case, beyond our capabilities. I believe we can dispense with worrying about the judgment's transcript now. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "keep this stuff hidden" (and please respect Elonka's request to depersonalise this). The undisputed fact is that none of us are experts in French law and the nuances of a complex judgment in a foreign jurisdiction, written in a specialised format and using specialised non-English vocabulary, are exactly the kind of thing that requires what WP:NOR terms "specialist knowledge". We can certainly express our own view of the verdict on talk pages, but ultimately we're simply not competent to determine which bits of it are significant. Relata's example of the ambiguous use of "legitimate" illustrates the point perfectly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one original source for the story of Mohammed al-Dura and it is France 2's version and its cameraman. By stating that the boy was killed in the lead, one is accepting a story that the appeals court has implied is "doubtful." The Appeals Court did not merely make a ruling that Karsenty had free speech rights -- why, would it have even required any evidence at all in that case? Evidence of the original incident would have been immaterial. No, the court looked at all the evidence, included all the film evidence, interviewed witnesses, read reports...then issued a judgment overturning the lower court's decision and saying that it was the evidence that influenced their decision that to claim that the footage was staged, or that France 2 had perpetrated a hoax on the French people was not a libelous position. They did not say it was staged, but they did say there was plenty of evidence to lead intelligent people to make such a determination ....ie that those who believe it to be so are not conspiracy-theory nut-cases, as have been described on this page.Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources that report that the narrative you have constructed is the case. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the point that it is only op-ed's which claim that al-Durrah was not killed. That would be a matter of course unless there were further new irrefutable evidence, such as an autopsy. The sources that claim that al-Durrah was in fact killed, were merely parroting the news as they got it from France 2, the original source. They could not be faulted for reporting what seemed at the time to be factual. Now that the court has suggested in its verdict that France 2's evidence is sketchy, flawed, possibly manipulated and not incontrovertible, (a position that many have held for some time)--one can see that to claim he was killed is every bit as much of a 'conspiracy theory' as the claim that he was not. If the original news story is false, then all the other sources parroting it are false as well. And to repeat, there is no way that we can ever say with absolute certainty that he is either dead or not without DNA evidence. The chances we will ever get that are infinitely remote. The best we can say is "reportedly killed." Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources retract news coverage they believe to be false, or print or broadcast a correction. The remainder of your statement requires us to second-guess the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which we do not do. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is untrue. I'm going to repeat myself YET AGAIN and point out that there was reporting by many news outlets of the events after the shooting - the funeral, the hospital treatment of the father in Gaza and Amman, the public statements by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli officials and so on and so forth. The claim that the only source for the death of al-Durrah was France 2 is patently untrue. The Israeli government and army have never endorsed the conspiracy theory that he is not dead. Even the Israeli army's later suggestion that the boy was killed by Palestinian gunfire was based on the basic premise that he was killed in the first place. Personally I find this one of the weirdest aspects of the conspiracy theory saga - that the conspiracy theorists are making arguments in favour of Israel that Israel is not making in favour of itself. (They've complained about this, too.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources from SlimVirgin

I'm going to compile a list of sources here that discuss the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax. If anyone wants to add their comments about each source, please do that in a separate section so that this section can be used simply to compile a list. SlimVirgin 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• French TV loses Gaza footage case, BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
• Oakland, Ross. Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.
• Warren, David. All the Lies that are Fit to Print, Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24, 2008: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.
• Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.
• Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged, Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23, 2008.
• Benkin, Richard L. Al Dura Death a Fake!, The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4, 2008.
• A milestone victory, The Spectator, UK], May 21, 2008.
• Rohan, Brian. French court cancels libel in Intifada video case, Reuters, May 21, 2008. Says the court rejected claims that the "hoax" evidence was "neither complete nor serious."
• Carvajal, Doreen. The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame, International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005, reporting earlier doubts about the tape.
• Gelernter, David. "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12, 2005.
• Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.
• Juffa, Stephane. The Mythical Martyr, Wall Street Journal Europe, November 16, 2004 (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Al-Durra Case Revisited, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, in the "review and outlook" section. Reports that "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate."
• Poller, Nidra. A Hoax?, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, opinion piece.
• Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3 2003.
• Myth & Muhammad al-Dura, Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2008, reports that the video didn't show the killing, no bullets were recovered, and there was no blood where you'd expect to see it. Compares it to the myth of the Battle of Jenin.
• Ghitis, Frida. The dramatic killing that wasn't, Miami Herald, May 31, 2008.
• Ruling over 'fake' intifada footage, The Connexion, May 26, 2008.
• Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.

Adding a few more sources - Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Norway's newpaper of record, on May 27th: Headline asks: "Was this video a bluff?", and the subheading answers affirmatively: "the film was probably a bluff. "
• Title Thesen Temperamente, Affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD - article states "a French journalist commented: "Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured". ... But was it really so?", and later says "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood". Not the usage of "allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded"

• German public Radio: "Philippe Karsenty has now managed, inter alia, to get the entire video material from the alleged murder to be shown as part of the legal the process ". Later in the article, interviewee Esther Shapiro, producer of "Three Bullets and a Child" is quoted as saying that before we can determine if these pictures are real, we need to see a corpse, which has not yet been produced, and later saying "one thing we can say with certainty, is that at the end of the video, the boy is still alive"

• Another Ha'aretz article - this one headlined "Government Press Office: Al-Dura's death was staged by Gaza cameraman" - giving the official position of Israel's press office.

ChrisO's opinion about SlimVirgin's sources

(copied from above) I'm going to compile a list of sources here that discuss the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax. If anyone wants to add their comments about each source, please do that in a separate section so that this section can be used simply to compile a list. SlimVirgin 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're pulling a bit of a fast one here, frankly, by conflating several different POVs. As I've said before on this page, there are three mainstream POVs. The first is that the Israelis killed al-Durrah. The second is that the Palestinians may have killed him. The third is that nobody really knows. Note that all three mainstream POVs accept that he is dead. Views 2 and 3 necessarily accept either that France 2 got it wrong or that it isn't clear. The conspiracy theory that the whole thing was a hoax and al-Durrah isn't dead is a separate POV altogether. There are a large number of sources suggesting that France 2 got it wrong and the Palestinians killed al-Durrah. There are a relatively small number of sources reporting on the conspiracy theory, and a very small number indeed that actually endorse that view.

Let's go through these sources (again, since we've already done this) and note (again, but it strangely seems to have gone missing) which are op-eds and which is original reporting:

• BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.

News report. "Studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past" is pure OR on your part; you can't make that kind of inference. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. All you have to do is read the article and it is obvious that the writer is leaving open the issue of whether the person is dead. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC

"All you have to do is read" typically prefaces an exhortation to do a bit of original research. This is the case here as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.

News report. States explicitly "Note that the court did not say the images actually were a hoax, just that it is now acceptable to characterize them that way."

• Ross, Oakland. Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.

Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that the rule now? Opinion articles can't be sources? I know a few articles that are about to disappear if that's the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion articles by proponents of a fringe theory cannot be used to judge the fringiness of the theory. This is also well-understood practice in such areas. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• News.com.au, Australia, May 29: Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4: calls the death a "fake."

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Spectator, UK, May 21: Calls it a "killing" in inverted commas.

Blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterisation "supported", which does not appear in the text. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed this out. Why am I having to repeat everything I say on this talk page over and over again? It's Groundhog Day here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris refers to his comment of 22:50, 8 June 2008. Frequently having to repeat oneself is not uncommon when dealing with such theories. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About the theorists. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12 2005.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).

Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3 2003.

Op-ed by one of the conspiracy theorists who, I believe, was also one of the defendants in a separate libel case brought by France 2. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.

Personal website of one of the leading conspiracy theorists. "Does raise the serious question of why it was removed" is your personal opinion and OR. Please don't bring OR into this discussion, it's not helpful.

• Norway's newpaper of record, on May 27th: Headline asks: "Was this video a bluff?", and the subheading answers affirmatively: "the film was probably a bluff. "

While the article itself attributes those views to Karsenty, with no endorsement whatsoever. See, I'm repeating myself again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in the headline, nor in th esubheading, which are not attributed to K, and are the paper's own view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Directly contradicted by the image caption, which attributes it to mediekritikere. Note also that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, dispenses with quotation marks. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh indeed, please look up "contradiction". This is the paper's view, per the headline and sub, as well as K's view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, if it was the paper's view, why would the paper attribute it? As I said, please note that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian papers, does not use quote marks, so claiming that it is the paper's view when the body and the image caption attribute it (except when quoting K, without quote marks) is indeed a trifle strong. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

umm, it didn't attribute it, not in the headline, and not in the subheading. Take your OR speculation elswhere, please Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that it was the papers view and not a quote. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re a little confused as to who has to prove things. This statement is not attributed, and does not appear in quotes. Thus, it is self-evidently not a quote. If you want to claim that despite the fact that it is not attributed to anyone and does not appear in quotes it is a quote – the onus is on you to provide some extraordinary support for such an extraordinary claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have. Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, does not use quotes. Thus the premise "does not appear in quotes" is empty. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue. Norwegian newspapers may not use quotation marks in headlines, but when the headline is a quote it is always preceded by a "-." The article simply references the issue without deciding whether it is a hoax or not, merely reporting that there are serious questions about its authenticity. This is not an argument between whether the boy was killed or not; it's an argument whether we for purposes of this article can definitely take the position that he was. --Leifern (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I've checked up on this since. It is the case that in the body, quotes are on a different line, and indented with a "-". This is not the case in headlines or captions.

(Reset indent)Again, this is untrue. Here are some examples of headlines from today's Aftenposten:

- De blinde markedskreftene fortsetter å styre utbyggerne med kommunen på slep

- Ikke behov for gresk brannfly

«Jeg føler frykten, men gjør det allikevel!»

- Det er ikke greit når man prakker produkter på folk

- Mediene har litt av ansvaret

--Leifern (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And nobody is yet to bring an article about the incident, rather than the conspiracy theory, that gives the conspiracy theory any leeway of the sort that various news-lovers here want. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By this logic, every single Aftenposten headline must be assumed to be a quote, which is ridiculous. The claim that an unquoted, unattributed headline is in fact a quote is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence, and "they never use quotes" is not enough. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Every Aftenposten headline is, in fact, ambiguous - this one less so, because elsewhere the claim is always attributed. I rather believe that "they never use quote marks" is pretty extraordinary, and more than enough to demonstrate that we cannot make assumptions that they have the same practices we are familiar with. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, Relata. If you take a random read through Aftenposten, it doesn't seem to use quote marks anywhere. This is another example of English-speakers using English conventions to interpret sources in foreign languages - a recipe for trouble if you don't know what the foreign languages' own conventions are. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I am a native Norwegian speaker and have proven that Relata misrepresented - either deliberately or through neglect - Norwegian practices for quotes. As for your random reading of Aftenposten, it must have been limited to about two lines, as - of course - there are lots of quotes in the paper. In this article, an interview with Bill Richardson, every quote is prefaced with a dash, but there are also quotes, such as this one: «ny realisme» --Leifern (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Title Thesen Temperamente, Affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD - article states "a French journalist commented: "Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured". ... But was it really so?", and later says "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood". Not the usage of "allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded"

Fascinating. The second excerpt is taken out of context: the context places it between a direct quote of K's, and a sentence ending "will Karsenty wissen." The evidence piles up. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all out of context. there's K's quote, then there's the broadcaster's summary of the situation, which concurs with K. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this one because it doesn't belong with the rest:

• Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.

Shapiro's documentary, as I understand it (I haven't watched it) asserts that al-Durrah was killed by the Palestinians. It pre-dates the Karsenty-Landes conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists. (Not that the latter is going awfully well.) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that collecting usable sources is an excellent idea. I'd especially like to focus on very reliable sources, especially since we seem to have many to choose from. If there are sources of questionable reliability, we can probably just pull them off the list for now. If there is dispute about whether a particular source is or isn't reliable, I recommend pulling those into a separate list, and then we can ask for opinions from the reliable source noticeboard. --Elonka 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another highly informative article for our French readers -- --from Guysen News : La Cour d’appel de Paris a relaxé Philippe Karsenty dans l’affaire al-Dura Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the point that it is only op-ed's which claim that al-Durrah was not killed. That would be a matter of course unless there were further new irrefutable evidence, such as an autopsy. The sources that claim that al-Durrah was in fact killed, were merely parroting the news as they got it from France 2, the original source. They could not be faulted for reporting what seemed at the time to be factual. Now that the court has suggested in its verdict that France 2's evidence is sketchy, flawed, possibly manipulated and not incontrovertible, (a position that many have held for some time)--one can see that to claim he was killed is every bit as much of a 'conspiracy theory' as the claim that he was not. If the original news story is false, then all the other sources parroting it are false as well. And to repeat, there is no way that we can ever say with absolute certainty that he is either dead or not without DNA evidence. The chances we will ever get that are infinitely remote. The best we can say is "reportedly killed."Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources retract news coverage they believe to be false, or print or broadcast a correction. The remainder of your statement requires us to second-guess the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which we do not do. Please feel free to remove this duplicated response when the duplicated post to which it responds is removed. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If we removed all the duplicated responses and duplicated posts this talk page would be a fraction of its current length... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources or not, there is no further hard evidence one way or the other. There are no new witnesses. No reliable source for bullets. No hard evidence. Everything is now op-ed, wherever it comes from. The only "news" now is the latest verdict, and what people are saying now that more evidence has been evaluated by unbiased judges. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks above on retractions, corrections and other methods by which reliable sources maintain their reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording of lead

I would like to see some suggestions from participants here, as to how you think the lead should be worded, if you don't like what's there right now. Could you please suggest an actual sentence or two, which you think is the best neutral summary of current reliable sources? Thanks, Elonka 04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the following, which , I may add, has been the consensus version in the article's lead for over 2 years: (first para only, I 'm ok with 2nd para as-is)

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire on September 30, 2000. The incident was filmed by a local Palestinian cameraman working for the French television station France 2, during an outbreak of widespread violence on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Images from the footage of the al-Durrah shooting became an iconic symbol of the Palestinian cause in much of the Arab world.

Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The "reported to have been killed" phraseology is worrying - the original controversy concerned who killed him, the "Al-Durrah not dead" theory remains fringe.

You've included (in fact, duplicated) the bit about "iconic symbol of the Intifada/Palestinian cause" ... however, that's actually the most important thing about this incident. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later - as we're informed at an article we seem to think so useful we're already citing it 7 times. An Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol". That's what we should be aiming to document. PR 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CanadianMonkey, thank you very much for suggesting wording (I've italicized it to make it stand out a bit, I hope you don't mind). To everyone else: Do you agree with this change? If not, could you please suggest different wording, or say that you support the existing wording in the article? I think that there are some very interesting discussions going on, on this talkpage, but that sometimes folks are veering a bit too much into abstract discussions of the veracity of the theories. If possible, I'd like to bring people back to discussing the actual Misplaced Pages article, in terms of, "what wording would you recommend"? In other words, instead of abstract discussion, can we focus things into a more practical "end result" direction? Thanks, Elonka 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is not accurate

The diagram used in this article is not accurate – for a reason: --Julia1987 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, please don't waste our time with blog posts - we cannot use them as sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, if we can find out which map was presented as evidence to the court we should be able to include either both maps or neither. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

copyright issues

There are issues with using a copy of an image which maybe copyrighted --Julia1987 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too, actually. What is the diagram based on? If it's been produced from a copyrighted work it would have to be counted as a derivative work, which raises some copyright problems. -- ChrisO (talk)

Misunderstanding the point

The issue is not "blog source" or not "blog source".

The issue is: Again, as throughout this article, Misplaced Pages is using the Abu Rahma version as facts. It is not a fact, it is a POV. In this case it is a clearly false - all that one has to do is look at a published source (the aerial or satellite photo) and see that in his diagram Abu Rahma "moved" the IDF position (so that it has a "better" firing angle (to fit his story…).

We can not use the Abu-Rhama diagram as the only diagram in this article. Actually since it is so bluntly false (as the photo indicate) we should not use it at all.

We need to see this example in the right context: Everything coming from Abu Rahma is tainted based on his agenda and false story – we can only present this as his POV – not as facts--Julia1987 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)….

Fringe Theory ?

Are there current sources describing the Shapiro/Shahaf/Karsenty view as "Fringe" ? if the answer is "no": Tarc is violating WP:SYNT here: . We need to move beyond this violation and focus on how to improve the article and make it based on sources and wikipedia policy. Continuing to yell "Fringe Theory" will not change the facts that this story is hotly disputed and has (like anything else in I/P issues) two clear opposing POVs. The only issue before us is how to present both in NPOV manner --Julia1987 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation both my position and the nature of a fringe theory itself within the Misplaced Pages. What makes it "fringe" is not being necessarily being called such, but rather it is the lack of reliable sources that talk about it at all. Refer to the following found at WP:FRINGE;

In this particular case, no secondary reliable sources have been produced that discusses the idea that the boy's death was a staged event. Blogs, OpEds, and minuscule, regional newspapers do not meet the criteria. This is quite similar to what can be found in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories, as there are reams and reams of "evidence" and websites that discuss alternate theories about the tragedy, but none rise about the rabble into the realm of respectable, reliable sources. As it is there, so it is here; discussion of this event as if it was a hoax does not occur within legitimate circles. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is , in a word, nonsense. While not all reliable sources have endorsed the staging theory, a great many of them have discussed it, and an OpEd certainly meets the criteria for 'discussion in a reliable source". Have a look above - newspapers form Aftenposten through the IHT to Ha'aretz have discussed it, as have multiple German broadcasters. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Each and every one of those discusses the theorists. I refer any further claims that that that is a sign of the theory's non-fringiness to the passage I have written above, twice, about the nature of coverage of conspiracy theories. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply would ignore any trolling about "Fringe Theory" - the best thing against trolls is to ignore them (at least until they show some reliable sources that supports their strange view) don't feed trolls --Julia1987 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without saying whether or not the theory is true, it does seem from a search at Google News, that it is getting coverage in many significant sources. --Elonka 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, fringe theories are often covered extensively in the context of the theories themselves. What makes them fringe is the degree to which reliable sources think they are true. Consider how many google hits in reliable sources there are for Kennedy assassination theories. But no bio of JFK is likely to alter its wording to take them into account. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some important points lurking here.

First, the conspiracy theory has primarily been covered in the context of the Karsenty libel trial. It received negligible media coverage until France 2 sued Karsenty, which attracted the interest of the media. In other words, the conspiracy theory has derived its newsworthiness primarily from the trial. No doubt if Neil Armstrong sued one of the Moon landing conspiracy theorists, that would raise the profile of such people. It does not in any way imply that their views have become mainstream.

Second, the coverage of the conspiracy theory invariably attributes it to just three named individuals: Karsenty, Landes and a fellow named Juffa (who was also sued by France 2 in a separate case). As fringe theories go, this is one that seems to have a remarkably small number of proponents.

Third, please don't forget that the media do not have any equivalent of our NPOV policy. They are guided by what they think is newsworthy, not by any concerns of undue weight on fringe views. As Relata says, a viewpoint can be held by a small minority but still receive extensive coverage if its proponents happen to be doing something newsworthy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how many proponents the hoax theory has but it must be more than three -- look at all of the op-eds you noted above. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the mainstream media did not give a lot of weight to the "staged" theory before the latest trial. What happened in an analogous way is that the appeals court judges looked at the evidence for this theory and decided that it was not so far-fetched to believe that we may have landed on the moon after all. 'Reliable' news sources are demonstrating respect for the opinion of the judges in this case. Reliable sources are considering the verdict a 'vindication' of those who have believed it was staged from the beginning. The authority and reliability of France 2 has been completely compromised by the French courts, on the grounds that the (now) available evidence is compelling. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "fringe" theory, and some Misplaced Pages editor insisting it is, doesn't make it so. This is hardly the first time such films have been doctored or staged. The Palestinians have a long history of providing the media with this kind of footage. See this link for another episode: . "Fringe theory" claims are disingenous at best.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I please ask folks to not use words such as "troll", "nonsense", and "ridiculous"? These kinds of terms often do little except to escalate a dispute. I am not seeing trolling here, I am seeing legitimate good-faith concerns, by established editors. I would like if everyone could work harder to assume good faith. I don't think anyone here is trying to damage the article. --Elonka 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd join that appeal, and also request that we stay on-point, and particularly that generalised negative remarks are not made about entities such as "the Palestinians". Not only are such remarks possibly offensive and certainly irrelevant, but they are capable of derailing discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And on top of that they are blatant original research. Could I please ask people to stop trying to promote their personal views? Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish that we could get away from trying to use wiki policy as a stick to silence discussion. This is a talk page and we are trying to get to some consensus here by sharing our thoughts and understandings on this page. If something is mistaken, in your opinion, please simply tell us what is wrong and how it is wrong without trying to slam us with its being against this or that wiki policy. We are all supposed to be trying to achieve something here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has received a great deal of media coverage. To claim it is fringe theory is just obtuse. News articles don't endorse controversial theories, so it is unreasonable to judge the issue by that standard. Does the Israeli media count? They could be considered the specialists on this type of issue. Kauffner (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

People who continue to argue that the Shapiro/Sahaf/Karsenty version is "fringe" while accepting the Abu-Rahma/Enderlin version as "truth" should not be editing this article. Such editors are too close to the subject emotionally. Only those who can detach themselves and present both views as opposing, equal validity POVs should be involved in this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid negative characterizations of the emotional well-being and/or motivations of editors you happen to be in disagreement with, or making judgments on who should and should not be editing; that is seriously out of bounds. Moving on...it isn't the truth that we're working on here, it is the reporting of what reliable sources out there report in regards to this event. And as such, no reliable sources have been produced that would elevate the "this is a hoax" opinion to anything above a fringe theory. Numerous people venting in blogs and opinion pieces, sure, but that utterly fails what the project policy requires here. Again, we go back to other examples of faked moon landings, dynamite in the World Trade Center, or FDR's prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor; there is nothing that elevates these alternative theories to the level of established and verifiable reality. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists, or on deducing information about the importance of a theory from data about the occasional article discussing the dottiness of the theorist. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable articles would now never insist that the boy is dead (or not dead) without an autopsy and conclusive evidence (such as DNA). They are now under the impression that they may have been duped by France 2 when they reported he was dead. The court trial has put the original evidence in doubt, not affirmed that it was false. The response of the media is, understandably --"fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me." In other words, they are reporting the verdict without affirming a position. The verdict and the commentary following it, demonstrate that intelligent reliable trusted people (French high court judges, reporters, commentators) deem the idea of the boy's death having been staged not as a "conspiracy theory" but as a legitimate question, a controversy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I believe I have asked before, please present a reliable source presenting a retraction, correction, or statement that it was duped if we are to take this narrative into consideration. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the court is the correction and is independent of any news reports. And just what conclusion did it come to, considering France 2's claim against Karsenty? They found that when Karsenty said it was a hoax that he had a credible opinion in view of the content of the extended film, and other presented evidence.Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think we should count up how many articles that say Durrah is alive vs. how many say he is dead and base editorial decisions on that? Whether the boy is alive or dead is just a side issue. The main allegation is that this video, which provoked the world against Israel when it was first shown, is quite obviously a hoax when seen unedited. Actors fake their injuries and get up off strechers. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For best results, I'd like to see if we can focus on actual concrete changes to the article. What wording changes, based on sources, would people recommend? --Elonka 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing

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, Elonka 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? --Elonka 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.  :) --Elonka 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. --Elonka 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. Misplaced Pages 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. :) --Elonka 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:

1. Wide open editing, no restrictions of any kind except asking everyone to stick to policy
2. Taking disputes to the talkpage, and protecting the article until consensus is achieved
3. Bold, revert, discuss cycle
4. 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.
5. 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? --Elonka 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)

I took the plunge

I said he was reported killed. That is an undeniable fact. It does not say "reportedly killed" but reported killed. Enderlin and the Palestinian cameraman reported him killed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was betting that the POV reverting would begin at least 2 hours after the page was unprotected, and Tundrabuggy didn't disappoint, clocking in at 1 hour 45 minutes. Perhaps as a show of good faith to the process that is being attempted here, you could revert your own reversion? Tarc (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, let me ask you two simple questions:

1. Is this edit properly sourced ?
2. Is it a "good faith" edit ?--Julia1987 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a good faith edit. It is a) grammatically redundant and b) obviously attempted POV-pushing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Moreschi, Tarc, please reconsider your language here. It is a major statement to accuse another editor of "POV reverting" and "bad-faith editing". Instead, could you please review my restrictions above, and try to see if you could adapt to one of them? Thanks. --Elonka 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. I'm not bending to SPAs, not ones who do classic tendentious editing like this. It's redundant because everyone is reported killed. Christ was reported killed. So was JFK. There's no difference between saying someone is killed and someone is reported killed. Ergo, I conclude this is nothing more than an attempt to reinstate the implication of "reportedly" by the back door. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire" would more accurately reflect the specifics of what was initially reported, as well as being more grammatical. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable edit, go ahead. --Elonka 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sorry, but this strikes at the heart of the "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." caveat of WP:AGF. It is extremely poor form for someone to pick up the revert war right where it left off following a page unprotection. I have voluntarily adhered to the restrictions proposed precisely by NOT diving in and reverting this myself, and all I ask at the moment is for Tundrabuggy to reverse himself. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Tarc, Tundrabuggy hasn't resumed the revert war precisely where it left off - he's not reverted to the weaselly "reportedly killed" formulation that undoubtedly violates NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if reverting to a smaller weasel rather than a larger one is must better, but it may be kinda moot at this point as I just noticed that we will be without his participation for 3 months. Not taking joy in or gloating over it or anything, just brining it to the attention of participants here. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also now worried about the current leded. "Reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire" is technically correct ("initially reported" would be better if we're going with this wording), but makes it look as though he's been consistently reported to have been killed by the Israelis, which is simply wrong (no one knows who did fire the fatal shots). "Was killed" is better and more in accordance with sources. Then come the conspiracy theories. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically what I see as needing to happen here is a structure along an outline of "boy was killed" --> "IDF initially thought responsible" --> "responsibility currently unclear". Also, the nature of the "icon" status in the lead seems repetitive, as it is noted in both the beginning and the end of the 1st paragraph. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the lede is supposed to summarise the article, though, and given the fact that the conspiracy theories take up so much space in the article, it is right that they be mentioned in the lede. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps the the amount of space that they take up in the article needs to be cut down... --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that also. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "iconic" references? Yea, I certainly think this aspect should stay, just pointing out that the current phrasing is a little redundant. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of grammar: "reported to have been killed by the IDF" is ambiguous: we don't know whether the IDF did the reporting or the killing. And, as pointed out above, "initially reported" is necessary here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the french article, actually just to see the title, for the section below. And that article's intro line was close to what I think may be a reasonable compromise. Maybe we could have something like "MaD was a Palestinian boy whose death is the subject of a media controversy." Or something like that. And then we could detail the France 2 story, the doubts about the shooters and then the hoax theorists. That way we don't have to say "reportedly" but readers will understand there is a controversy that is detailed below. Just an idea --JGGardiner (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The title

AFAIK it is not usual practice to write ostensible "biographies" of children who are notable only for having snuffed it. This would be better off at Muhammad al-Durrah shooting incident or Death of Muhammad al-Durrah, just like Murder of James Bulger or Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. Moving it to Shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah has my support. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah affair, perhaps? In the same vein as the Elián González affair. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I'd support that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps "incident" instead of "affair"? Kelly 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Affair" is a long-established word to avoid because of its vagueness and possible weaseliness - it doesn't adequately describe the subject of the article. Something more specific is needed. Shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah is more specific and relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Shooting" does not adequately reflects the subject of the article, which is a report that claimed the shooting had occurred and reactions to that report. Beit Or 08:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, the subject of the article was the shooting and the reactions to it. If you're reading it the way you are, then we do need to trim the controversy sections. Thanks for pointing it out. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support 'Muhammad al-Durrah shooting incident ' - best title to describe the article IMHO.

p.s. nice suggestion Moreschi. Jaakobou 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We should leave the title as is. See Kitty Genovese for an example of an article whose subject is notable only for having been killed. I believe others can be found. Sanguinalis (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ok with leaving the title as is also, but the suggestion had some merit. Jaakobou 12:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• My preference would be "Muhammad al-Durrah affair," because it's not about one incident. It's about the gun battle, who was hit by whose bullets, the cameraman, the correspondent's voiceover, the editing of the footage, France 2's long-term reluctance to show anyone everything that was filmed, and the subsequent court cases. SlimVirgin 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Only tangentially, it appears, though you are right that this article stresses all that rather than analysis of the shooting's iconic significance unduly. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure other examples can be found, but IMO it's not good practice. A biography is a biography. This article is not a biography, since no details of his life seem to be known (or, at any rate, no one cares). All the content is currently about the shooting. The title should really reflect that. But this is not such a major point, and is not of absolutely pressing urgency. A change of title will not make the article either more or less neutral. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

An NPOV suggestion for lead

"The al-Durrah affair is matter of great controversy. Initial reports which were based on video photos by Palestinian camera man Tala Abu Rahma (who was at the Scene) and Chales enderlin (who was at the time of the incident in the Jerusalem studio) reported that the boy was killed from Israeli gun fire. Later investigation by several media critic and in depth investigation by journalist and others suggested that the boy could not have been shot from the Israeli position. Some reports even suggested that the whole video clip is a hoax, France-2 has sued for libel – claiming that it can prove the report is correct – and lost." --Julia1987 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's your idea of NPOV, we have a problem. That suggested lead is simply not correct on a variety of counts (France 2 won the initial case, are appealing against the overturn of that case, and anyway you're confusing "is something libellous" with "is something true"). Nor is it at all neutral. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, for something like 95% of the world, there is no controversy at all... Could you seriously imagine starting the articles Apollo program, Evolution or Homeopathy with the same sentence? Or sticking to assassinations, perhaps John F. Kennedy assassination, Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin or Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination, for which there are also conspiracy theories?

You're making the controversy the main story whereas the story itself is what's important to most people. Or can you demonstrate (i.e. do you have a sources saying) that the whole story is only notable because of the theories surrounding it?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 11:54

Not so fast: The suggested lead includes a very accurate description of the legal situation: France – 2 lost the case. The fact that a lower court previously ruled in it's favor is totally meaningless now since the appeal court ruled in the other direction. So other than in the details of the legal history of the case – we should not waste time on lower court ruling (i.e. lower court should be removed from lead). Now for France-2 'declaration" that it will appeal to France's highest court: Sorry but the barrier for entry for a PR is writing an e-mail. (it used to be a fax . The fact that France 2 issue a PR about their future plan for this case is the same as Karsenty issuing a statement about the case – do you see Karsenty statement anywhere in the lead ? I don't. Bottom line: We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to report on the most up-to-date facts. Not old facts, not plans of one side. If there are other comments I would like to hear.

As for the continued examples of "conspiracy theories" - this has been discussed before and has no implication for this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, the court verdict is a freedom of speech issue and has nothing to do with Muhammad al-Durrah or his death and is thus not relevant enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Again, this article is primarily about Muhammad al-Durrah and his death, and the conspiracies surrounding it are only secondary. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 14:54

Pedrito: Is this your WP:OR ? Everything I wrote is simply facts not any WP:SYNT conclusion that is my editorial on the facts so please let's focus on the facts here.--Julia1987 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, do you have a reliable source making the link between the court ruling and an explicit endorsement of Karsenty's view? If not, then it is WP:SYNTH. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 15:34

Misplaced Pages, like the court, should not be endorsing any view. Do you have any source saying the court decided that France-2 version is true? Of course not so stop inserting this question. We have two views and we need to present each of them. The court did not endorsed one version or the other but we do know that if the France-2 version would be true Karsenty would loose. We are now in a state of flux: Both versions should be presented.--Julia1987 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, thanks very much for suggesting a lead for the article. :) For more tips on writing a good lead paragraph on Misplaced Pages, you may also wish to review WP:LEAD. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that some editors here seem to be attacking you, rather than actively suggesting improvements to your text (some editors on this page need to re-review the WP:BITE guideline). What I think that some are trying to say though, is that the lead section is supposed to be a simple summary of what's already in the article, and should avoid too much detail. In my own experience on other articles where there is a lot of controversy, we have often found that it can be best to focus editing efforts on the body of the article first, and then after that part is stabilized, then to worry about the lead later. Or in other words, if there's a debate about court decisions or whatnot, that should probably be handled in some other section of the article first, rather than being focused in a debate about what should or shouldn't be in the lead. Then once the rest of the article is sorted out, and is in compliance with other Misplaced Pages policies (especially WP:UNDUE), then the wording of the lead will be easier to deal with. --Elonka 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The court case is now only a small part of the issue. What the court did was gave credence to the Karsenty view. There has always been two versions on this affair: The Abu-Rahma/Enderlin version propagated by France-2 (for free!) around the world and the Shapiro/Shahaf/Karsenty investigation. This division between versions suggests how we can structure the article and the lead. The order does not matter (since we will never reach a decision when the article still has doubtful POV as facts – example: the diagram)--Julia1987 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember folks, try to avoid "you" and "your". Stick to discussing the article. Thanks, Elonka 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"What the court did was gave credence to the Karsenty view" is a factually incorrect statement. There may be more than one version of the events, but the continued suggestion that all the versions are on the same footing is simply counter-productive to moving forward here. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Trac. (can I use You with the word Thank you:-)

We now have the clear cut disagreement framed: The way I see it there are two versions of the event and both should be described as NPOV require us to "describe the controversy" In your view the two versions should not be equally presented.

Do you have sources that support your view ? As for my source: See all the sources in Slim list and the verdict itself which clearly allowed the Karsenty/Shapiro/Shahaf version of events to be presented.--Julia1987 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not admissible evidence, as SV's "sources" are only supposed to be discussing one view, as they are about the conspiracy theorists. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What ? I do not understand.

Am I going to debate with you the quality of other editor sources: No ! --Julia1987 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The existing lead is much better than this one. The Israeli army investigation is currently the most authoritative version of what happened. That should be treated as the baseline. The libel suit is just the aspect of the case that happens to be in the news now. Kauffner (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Experts have reviewed the case better than the Israeli army. Some of them testified (e.g. the ballistics expert)--Julia1987 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It simply is not true that there are only "two versions" of the narrative. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what has already been said many times before. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are essentially two versions -- one, the France 2 version, and two, that there are serious doubts about the France 2 version. The latter then splits off into a number of theories. But the basic dichotomy rests on the accuracy of the France 2 footage, the voiceover, and its later defense of itself. SlimVirgin 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there are two widely reported mainstream versions - that he was killed by Israeli gunfire, or that he was killed by Palestinian gunfire - and the much less prominent version that the whole thing was faked. Saying "there are two versions" ellides the key fact that there are two mainstream versions and a much less significant small-minority version of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO: Slim have explained it in plain, simple and accurate words. This is NPOV as it gets and we should proceed. Please: can we all speak to the point instead of using this intimidating tone and dismissing your fellow editors. Usually people who use such tone do it when they know they are wrong but I trust that those who know they are right can present us with sources that confirm their arguments.--Julia1987 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

6SJ7 (talk · contribs) has just resumed the edit war with a reversion to the "reported kill" wording that was our resident SPAs were forcing into the lead just before the article was protected . He's done this despite never having edited the article before, never participating in this talk page or mediation, or indeed any of the other discussions of this article (AN/I, FTN, BLPN etc ). He followed this edit immediately with a completely unprovoked personal attack against me on a completely unrelated discussion page . He appears to have tracked my contributions list, where my now-reverted edit to this article was followed five edits later by the edit which he followed up with his personal attack against me. It's extremely improbable that he should randomly find this article, revert my most recent contribution and then immediately afterwards attack me on a completely unrelated page.

This is an absolutely clear and unambiguous breach of good faith, an act of spite against my own editing, and an expression of contempt for Elonka's efforts to mediate this discussion. I think it needs to be dealt with firmly. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• ChrisO with your massive reverts to this article you can really call the kettle black. There is really no problem with that edit – factually correct and NPOV.--Julia1987 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, thanks for the report, and I agree that the personal attack on a different page was inappropriate (and I commented there). As for the edit here at the al-Durrah article, can you help me out a bit? I see the edit, where he moved the description of an acronym from one part of a sentence to another, but I'm not seeing how that's a revert? If you can point out diffs that prove it is a revert, I'll take a look. In the meantime, you could also follow my "editing conditions" above, and try to change the edit to something you think is more appropriate? Again, don't revert, but there might be a middle-ground that hasn't been tried yet. --Elonka 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, that the boy was "reported to have been killed" was in the lead for a long time, until you recently changed it, which sparked this edit war. It really should be returned to that, mostly because it's accurate, and partly because it was the stable version.

Also, please don't call people "vandals" or "abusive." We're trying to proceed without all falling out with each other, if at all possible. SlimVirgin 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't just move the acronym. You remember I suggested above rewording it as "reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire", which was later tweaked to "reported to have been killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)". He deleted "to have been killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", reverting the line to "he was reported to have been killed in an exchange of gunfire" - . This is the same weaselly "reported killed" nonsense that we have been dealing with over and over on this article. The reason we had the earlier wording is because that is what was reported at the time and that's why it had such a massive political impact. It was not simply the fact that he was killed - it's the fact that the killing was blamed on the Israelis, whether rightly or wrongly so. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't remember.  :) I know that some of this stuff seems glaringly obvious to those who are intimately familiar with this page, but to the rest of us, it's all a muddle, and I truly can't keep track of who said what to whom and when.  :) So, diffs please? Thanks, Elonka 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Canadian Monkey here , pre-protection, and 6SJ7 here now . Some minor differences in other wording in the paragraph but the "reported killed" wording is identical. That's the point of course - he's blown off all this discussion (not even bothering to participate in it) and simply jumped straight back into the edit war. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, in answer to your first point, it's more accurate simply to say "reported to have been killed." That leaves open whether killed, and if so, by whom. By adding "by the IDF," you box the lead into a corner, which it then has to explicitly back out of in a final paragraph (not yet added) i.e. it would have to express the doubt more explicitly. I feel it would be better not to create that corner in the first place, and just allow the nuance to stand. That way, we're not implying there is certainty, but we're also not clarifying the doubt, which some people would find offensive (and which, indeed, really is offensive if he is dead). SlimVirgin 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What your second diff actually shows is that the pharse you object to ("was reported to have been killed") was already in the article before S67J's edit, which is not, as far as I can tell, a revert. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "That leaves open whether killed..." The thing is, there's nothing substantial or reliable to suggest that this should be "open" at all. The idea that the subject is not really dead is what rubs up against WP:FRINGE here. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, and it misstates the fundamental point of why the affair was so controversial in the first place, namely that the responsibility was attributed to (and initially admitted by) the IDF. There was absolutely no dispute initially that he was dead. On that subject, does anyone know when the first claims that he wasn't dead started to emerge? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the earliest claims of staging were raised by Shahaf, and publicized by Israeli jouranlist Amnon Lord, in July, 2002: Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would be nice to tell someone when you are talking about him behind his back. Anyway, all I was doing was editing the article to try to make it more NPOV. I figured it would be reverted, and I didn't revert it back. What I did do, before I saw this thread and realized all this personal-attacking of me is going on, was to edit the intro again in a completely different way. I am sure that will be reverted again and that ChrisO will once again try to make something out of it. This is why I basically stopped editing for a few months. Why I came back, I'm not sure. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to the lead

It might be more productive to discuss changes to the article rather than making unprovoked personal attacks on other editors. I've made some changes to the lead which I'll explain below:

1) Beit Or has for some reason placed a fact tag next to al-Durrah's birth year. I would have thought this was simple maths - if he was 12 in 2000 he was born in 1988, yes?

2) 6SJ7 has added the line "Subsequent inquiries have cast doubt on all aspects of the initial reports." I would say that was endorsement of a POV - France 2 and its supporters have made it very clear that they're standing by their report. Plus it's unsourced anyway. I've replaced this with a sourced factual statement in the following paragraph that "The issue of who was responsible for the shooting has been the cause of considerable controversy", which I hope we can all agree is true enough.

3) It seems that the Israeli army's self-exculpatory report was itself the subject of controversy, which I hadn't realised before; apparently the Israeli army hierarchy actually disowned the report, calling it a "private initiative". It seems to have been only semi-official at best - the only official, fully endorsed statement on the subject apparently was the initial acceptance of responsibility. This needs to be mentioned in the article.

4) Finally I've added "Some supporters of Israeli policy have argued that the entire incident was staged." This is taken pretty much directly from the linked Australian news story, which describes the conspiracy theory viewpoint as "a view that is increasingly popular among supporters of Israeli policy". The line thus sets up the following paragraph about the France 2 trial(s). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He would have been born in 1988 so long as he wasn't born in October, November or December. In that case he'd have been born in 1987 if he was 12 that day. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I found some evidence that 1988 is correct in this article. Jamal al-Durrah was "one of a team of Palestinian workers who had built house in the suburbs north of Tel Aviv in 1988.... While the work went on ... Jamal's wife was expecting her first ." Muhammad was the first-born son, so that would make the birth year 1988. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the version that I proposed just before SlimVirgin posted her alternative:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Template:Lang-ar), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was reported to have been killed by gunfire from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers during a clash with Palestinian police and gunmen in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000. In footage recorded by a Palestinian cameraman working for the French television station France 2,, al-Durrah and his father were seen sheltering from gunfire during an outbreak of widespread violence on the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The images of the al-Durrah shooting quickly became an iconic symbol of Israeli conduct towards the Palestinians in much of the Arab world.

The issue of who was responsible for the shooting has been the cause of considerable controversy. Initial news reports on the incident blamed Israeli forces for the shooting. The Israeli army stated that the fatal shots had apparently been fired by its soldiers and issued a public apology.. A later semi-official investigation carried out for the Israeli army stated that it was probable that al-Durrah had instead been hit by Palestinian bullets. Some supporters of Israeli policy have argued that the entire incident was staged.

In 2004 France 2 sued commentator Philippe Karsenty for defamation for accusing the channel and its reporter Charles Enderlin of presenting staged footage in its al-Durrah report. An initial court ruling found the claims to be defamatory, but the decision was overturned on appeal in 2008. France 2 has said that it will appeal the case to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.

The elephant in the room

When I read the posts defending the France 2 video, it is all reliable source this and fringe that. If an event happened in San Diego and the San Diego media reported a detail that the national media did not, would you conclude the San Diego media is "fringe"? The first 20 minutes of the unedited version of this video consists Palestinians hamming it up for the cameras -- faking injuries and then getting back up. Before there is any shooting, someone shouts "The boy is dead! The boy is dead!" It is as if a director is cuing the actors to start looking distressed. In last shot in which Durrah appears on the video, there is no blood and he is moving around in such a way as to suggest he is still alive and without serious injuries. Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner, I appreciate your question, and agree that the video has some ambiguities. However, I'd like to keep talkpage discussions here focused, not on "what did the video mean", but instead, "what are the reliable sources saying?" and "How are we going to write the article?" Or in other words, I would prefer if your comment could be phrased in a way such as, "I don't like the sentence in the article that says (text), and think it would be better written as (alternate), because (source-based reason). What do other people think?" Or even better, just go ahead and make the change yourself, per the #Conditions for editing. Thanks, Elonka 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead

I've just posted a suggested lead, as follows:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen on September 30, 2000.

The report of his death was based on 59 seconds of a 27-minute film taken by a local freelance cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, who was filming alone for France 2, the largest of the French public television networks. The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire, the father shielding the boy, and waving to make the soldiers, police, and gunmen aware of their presence. Toward the end of the footage, both the father and al-Durrah appear to have been hit, the boy slumped over the father's legs. The France 2 reporter, Charles Enderlin, who was not present during the gun battle, said in a voiceover that al-Durrah had been killed. His report attributed the death to the IDF, after the cameraman said he believed the IDF had aimed their fire at the boy. France 2 provided three minutes of its footage free of charge to news organizations around the world, the broadcasts triggering international outrage against Israel.

Because there was no forensic evidence, and the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and was not made available in its entirety, a number of questions were raised, including about the source of the bullets and the video's authenticity. The IDF initially apologized for the boy's death. Although a later IDF investigation concluded that he may have been hit by bullets from one of the Palestinian positions, the army did not otherwise contest the accuracy of the France 2 report. A small number of commentators suggested that the boy may not have died, or even that the entire incident had been staged, an allegation strongly denied by France 2.

In 2006, the network sued one of those commentators, Philippe Karsenty of the French Media-Ratings Agency, for libel after he alleged that the reporter and cameraman had presented staged footage. France 2 won the case after the judges said that Karsenty had "seriously failed to meet the requirements expected of an information professional." In May 2008, that judgment was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence," and that his criticism of France 2 was legitimate, although the factual accuracy of his evidence was not examined. France 2 has said it will appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Better than current rev but still too long and not NPOV enough --Julia1987 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The length is fairly easy to deal with during a copy edit. Which parts do you feel aren't neutral enough, or what is missing that would make it neutral?

Apologies for overriding the edit conflicts there; I should have used the "in use" tag until I had finished. SlimVirgin 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please hold off posting that version to the live article for now? You and I have differing versions. We've proposed both on this talk page - let's get some feedback before making either one live. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm happy to give feedback on this version, but will you give feedback on mine (posted above?) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, my understanding was that we weren't supposed to revert wholesale. SlimVirgin 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So how come you wiped out the version I posted before I'd even had a chance to discuss it on the talk page? I don't want to argue about this. Let's just present our alternatives here and discuss it, without trying to put either into the live article without wider agreement. We might be able to find an acceptable synthesis between the two versions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in Slim's version -

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen...

– is weaker than what it replaced –

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was reported to have been killed by gunfire from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers during a clash with Palestinian police and gunmen...

– for two reasons: (1) Slim's version oddly suggests that the very fact of al-Durrah's death – or perhaps the material cause (gunfire) – is seriously in question, whereas the previous version accurately suggested that what's contested is Israeli culpability. (2) The previous version is more precise about how and why al-Durrah became an icon: the widespread belief that he was killed by the IDF.

On the other hand the details Slim adds in her version (where the incident took place and the victim's age) are welcome improvements.--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with the above. A few points in particular:

1) We can't leave out the death date (i.e. 2000). As has been pointed out numerous times before, the vast majority of reliable sources state definitively that he is dead. Even the Israeli army has stated this - no official body on either side of the conflict has ever stated that he's not dead, as far as I know. We don't omit Elvis's death date because a minority of people claim he's still alive - it's undue weight, pure and simple. Also, if you leave out his death date you are in effect stating that he is alive - correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think you have any sources to support that.

2) I think it goes into a bit too much detail, to be perfectly honest. For instance, do we need to know in the lead about "59 seconds of a 27-minute film" or that Karsenty is "of the French Media-Ratings Agency" (hardly a major outfit)? It seems to me that we need to give the basic outline of the story, without going into the fine detail of it.

3) "A later IDF investigation" is inaccurate - it turns out it wasn't by the IDF at all and it was disowned by the IDF chief of staff as a "personal initiative" of one of its officers. This needs to be made clearer in the article, admittedly.

4) "A number of questions were raised" - this is distinctly weaselly; raised by who, when, where, how, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SV's version, as modified by ChrisO & G-Dett's comments would work for me. One change I'd make is to the sentence "The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire" - the footage does not show any crossfire, and the existence of crossfire at the time of the filming of this incident is one of the issues under dispute. I'd change it to the way ChrisO had worded it - "al-Durrah and his father were seen sheltering from gunfire". I agree that "A number of questions were raised" is weaselly, but then so is "Some supporters of Israeli policy". We need to explicitly name the main proponents and their issues. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Point taken about date of death.

2. The 59 seconds of the 27 minutes, and later distributing only three minutes, is important, as is showing the court only 18, saying the rest had been destroyed, which I'd actually like to add. I say who Karsenty is because the court says in the next quote that he's a media professional (or words to that effect) so that's just a question of the writing.

3. Okay.

4. I don't think it matters for the lead who -- we say a small number, and we do say what. SlimVirgin 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

4) I think this bit does matter. It makes a difference whether "questions were raised" by official sources, by the media or (as in this case) by activists. To be honest, I dislike the passive voice from a stylistic point of view as well. Can you come up with an alternative version of that line that uses the active voice? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Credibility should be mentioned higher up in the lead. Doubts on the report :

"Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate. While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a "coherent mass of evidence" and "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible."

Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty:

"observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin."

--Julia1987 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Doubts on the report" expressed in an OpEd pose no relevance to the article whatsoever, and cannot be given an ounce of space in the lead or anywhere else in the article. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I will gladly do so for as long as is necessary. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, my mistake of not being clear enough. The doubts exist for a long time independent of any op-ed. The doubts were raised in as series of news reporting from many sources: Shahaf (reported by mena news agency), Karsenty , Shapiro on German TV and others. Those are all good sources. The verdict is quoted in the op-ed – that is the reason I brought it and you are correct we should find a direct quote from the published verdict itself.

The other part with op-ed is that France-2 "reporter" Enderlin was actually doing an op-ed that he presented as "news reporting" – after all he was in his air conditioned Jerusalem office while reporting on events in Gaza (100 K'M away) as if he is there and see them with his on eyes…..

In any case I agree with you that we should all use proper sources. The lead, as suggested above - is all based on facts not on op-ed. --Julia1987 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask that editors who oppose including certain material in the lead stop talking about op-eds. We have serious news reports and unsigned editorials from serious newspapers. They are not all op-eds, and even if they were, there is nothing in the policies to prevent their use to show that a certain view is held. The fact is that no news organization would write about this issue without mentioning the doubts that have crept in, and mentioning them prominently. If anyone disagrees with me, please produce a recent source showing the contrary.

We must stick to our policies, including WP:LEAD, which explicitly says that notable controversies must be included in the lead. SlimVirgin 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambulance driver

One of the initial reports, quoting the father (probably during his first interview with the cameraman), said:

"Mr Durrah said the Israeli troops had fired relentlessly, even shooting at an ambulance that had tried to rescue him and his son.

"Its driver was also killed in the incident, and a second ambulance driver was wounded."

Was this something that turned out to be true, or false, do we know? SlimVirgin 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Adura showed scars that were caused by what he claimed are Israeli bullets that hit his leg. An Israeli doctor remembered that few years before he treated a a palestinian in the Barziliy Ashkelon hospital – he pulled the medical records and indeed it was Mr. Adura that was wounded in a knife fight over a drug deal that went sour with other palestinians and was rushed into a hospital in israel…...--Julia1987 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the source for that? SlimVirgin 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, I've seen some far-right bloggers making this claim but (as usual with such people) they never cite any source. It's certainly not been mentioned in any reliable source that I know of. It also directly contradicts something we do have in reliable sources - that he underwent several operations in a Jordanian military hospital for multiple bullet wounds and spent four months recuperating there. One would imagine that doctors (especially military doctors) would be able to recognise the difference between fresh bullet wounds and old knife wounds. But presumably if the conspiracy theorists have ever addressed this point, they would argue that the Jordanian government and military were part of the conspiracy as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How come a reasonable edit becomes a target of a threat?

We all agreed to no reverts – but Tarc is exempt from this ?

The edit he reverted was:

1. accurate
2. based on sources (see this edit by leifern: )
3. NPOV – it added to the description of the scene as "iconic" a question about the authenticity. The words used weere from leifern edit.

So why is Tarc alowed to make threats ? only to cause editors to flee from this article ? or from Misplaced Pages in general ?--Julia1987 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc's edit summary could have been more civil, but the removal was appropriate, because information was added without a source. There's also the issue that the image caption may not be the appropriate place to argue the veracity of the image, since it may be giving undue weight to the controversy. Better is to ensure that things are properly included in the body of the article, and to ensure that the image caption stays neutral and brief. --Elonka 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The caption is the proper place since the image itself is highly POV. The image was added by an editor that was since that time banned and we need to point out to any reader that the image may not be what it seems. As for sources – as indicated in the edit summary: the doubts are well documented by newspapers around the world and if needed a specific citation can be provided.

Can you please restore the image caption – we all agreed not to revert so I would like to comply with that.

If there is an alternative suggestion how to phrase the doubts/controversy in the caption – please do so. tnx. --Julia1987 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that the current caption is misleading? Or simply that it is not comprehensive enough? --Elonka 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead again

I've tried again with the lead, incorporating some of the points that ChrisO raised above. I'd still like to add that France 2 has lost the last nine minutes of the tape, and was only able to show the court 18 minutes, apparently ending as the boy is seen to move his arm and leg, but I've not come up with a succinct and neutral way to express it yet. I do think we need to say something about it in the lead, because the first question any reader would have in their mind is: "Why don't people just look at the remainder of the tape to see what happened to the boy?" SlimVirgin 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, when I read the article as an outsider, the first thought that comes to mind is, "Okay, where's the body?" The article mentions that the boy was buried, but has little other info. So I'd be curious about things like, "Where was he buried, who went to the funeral, what was it like, is there a memorial or statue there today," etc. Not that these things have to go into the article, but I'm just offering it as a datapoint from a neutral reader. Generally when there is a controversial death, the locals put up a memorial, grave marker, statue or other art somewhere. If there is such a memorial, a picture of it would be a good addition to the article. --Elonka 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times reported at the time that there was no autopsy and that he was buried the night he died, or the night after (Muslim custom is to bury within 24 hours, as I recall). I'm not aware of any images of his grave.

The missing footage issue is more complicated than I remember. It seems the initial report was 59 seconds out of 27 minutes. Only three minutes were made available to the media. Three prominent French journalists viewed the whole 27 minutes in 2005, and wrote that much of it consisted of apparently staged scenes: Palestinian protesters pretending to be injured etc, according to the journalists. The Paris Court of Appeal asked to view these scenes, and was told by France 2 that only 18 minutes of the footage could be found, the rest apparently destroyed. I will try to find some good sources for each of these claims. SlimVirgin 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a funeral that night apparently. It is referenced in the Fallows Atlantic article which is prominently mentioned in ours: "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." --JGGardiner (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Making of a martyr", The Guardian, October 3, 2000.
2. ""When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17, 2000
3. "Fierce clashes in Gaza and West Bank", BBC News, October 2, 2000
4. "Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", Tamar Liebes & Anat First, in Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, eds. Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, Marion R. Just. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415947189
5. ^ O'Loughlin, Ed. "Battle rages over fateful footage". The Australian, October 6, 2007
6. "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", BBC News, October 1, 2000
7. ^ "Reportage sur la mort d'un enfant palestinien: Charles Enderlin débouté en appel", Libération, 21 May 2008. Cite error: The named reference "liberation210508" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
8. "Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", Tamar Liebes & Anat First, in Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, eds. Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, Marion R. Just. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415947189
9. ^ Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, Monday, February 7 2005.
10. Enderlin, Charles. "Non à la censure à la source", ("No to censorship at the source") Le Figaro, January 27, 2005. Reproduced on the site of Kol Shalom].
11. "Eyewitness: Anger and mourning in Gaza", BBC News, October 4, 2000.
12. Gelernter, David. "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12 2005.
13. "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", BBC News, October 1, 2000
14. "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy". New York Times, November 28, 2000
15. Elkaim, Stephane. "French TV station wins al-Dura case", The Jerusalem Post, October 20, 2006.
16. Durand-Souffland, Stéphane. "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada". Le Figaro, October 20, 2006.
17. Robert-Diard, Pascale. "Reportage enfant Palestinien; Charles Enderlin et France 2 gagnent leur procès". Le Monde, October 20, 2006.
18. Glick, Caroline. "Our World: Prime-time blood libels", The Jerusalem Post, October 23 2006.
19. "Al-Durra case revisited", Wall Street Journal Europe, May 28, 2008.

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Biography articles of living people