Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 3 October 2009

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

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

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

Archives

Additional subpages Collection of sources (last updated June 2008} Assessment Summary page (last updated June 2008)

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

RfC on statement in the lead

Is the statement currently in the lead, that "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged", sufficiently sourced (and properly worded based on those sources) to not violate WP:AWW or WP:UNDUE? Previous discussion on the topic can be reviewed here. ← George 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And the massive number of sources supporting this can be found here. IronDuke 05:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead must include notable controversies, and given the mainstream coverage the hoax allegations have had (Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, and similar), it's fine to summarize them in one sentence like that. It would only be if it were more marginal that you'd want to give details (Researcher A writing in Marginal Newspaper X said that ...), but then if it were that marginal, it might not belong in the lead at all. SlimVirgin 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the vague, weaselly wording of the existing statement. Thus far, as no one has been able to give me a list of who the "number of researchers and commentators" that claim this was a hoax are (despite my repeated requests), I've only been able to find five or six people among your sources who actually claim to have reviewed the evidence and concluded that it was a hoax. Compare that to, say, the Holocaust article. Surely there are even many more articles discussing Holocaust deniers than people who claim that this event was a hoax, so why then does the Holocaust article not mention such people in the lead? That article doesn't even mention Holocaust denial in the body, relegating it to the See Also section. Do you think a statement like "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the Holocaust was staged" would be appropriate, if cited to a couple articles describing such people? I certainly don't. ← George 06:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no comparable mainstream coverage of Holocaust denial, such as in this lead, for example. SlimVirgin 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when do op-ed's count as reliable sources for anything other than the author's personal opinion? All I read is that the author thinks that the French judge finding that Philippe Karsenty was not guilty of defamation against France 2 for calling their broadcast a hoax was "of great significance". He then draws the conclusion, based on the French court's ruling, that the event "may have been a hoax". I'm not sure how one jumps from an accused party being found innocent of defamation to the accuser being guilty of what they were accused of, but that's exactly why we avoid using op-ed's for anything but the author's opinion. ← George 06:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As SV implies, no reputable scholar or newspaper takes the idea of Holocaust denial seriously, unlike this particular theory, which is given serious, respectful attention by same. IronDuke 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources in the Western world maybe, but such is the systematic bias of Misplaced Pages. Hopefully we'll be able to get the outside input of editors not already involved with this article (which was, of course, the reason for filing an RfC). I don't even disagree with it being in the lead (aside from the fact that majority of the lead is already about the event, and not about the boy) - I only find that it's worded in a very misleading way. ← George 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you prefer to see it worded, George? SlimVirgin 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on who makes the claim that it was a hoax, which is why I've repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) requested such a list. The terminology "A number of researchers and commentators" has several issues. First, saying "A number of people say that weasel words are great!" is even worse than saying "Some people say that weasel words are great!", because the term "a number of..." is often used to imply that "a (surprisingly large) number of...". Second, how many people who claim this are researchers (a researcher being someone who actually examines available evidence), and how many are commentators? Third, who actually claims that this was all a hoax, and that the boy was never killed, versus how many claim that the boy was really killed, but by Palestinian gunfire instead of Israeli gunfire? There's a significant difference between those two views. So far I've found two Israelis (working for the IDF), two German reporters (producing a documentary), a French author, and a French member of a media watchdog group who have claimed that this may have all been a hoax. Finally, which commentators have said that they agree with said researchers? Akerman... and who? I'm not even sure that the "commentators" are worth mentioning. Why not just stick to people who actually researched the case themselves instead of the people who reported on them? ← George 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

George, could you read the sources, and suggest an alternative sentence that would satisfy your concerns? Then we can decide which of the two is more appropriate. SlimVirgin 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the links are dead, and I ignored those I don't consider to be reliable sources (as an aside, I would highly suggest separating actually articles from editorials in that list), but here's what I've come up with based on those sources: "Two Israeli scientists who examined the scene, and several reporters who reviewed video footage of the shooting, raised the possibility that the incident may have been staged. This has since become the official stance of the Israeli government." Thoughts? ← George 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this differ substantially from the current, "A number of researchers and commentators ..."? SlimVirgin 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• It distinguishes between the researchers who examined the scene, and those who only watched the video footage.
• I've changed "a number of", which I find vague and weaselly, to "several". If you think it's more accurate to say "two German reporters, a French author, and and a member of a French media watchdog group" instead of "several", I'm open to that as well, but it seemed quite long to me.
• I've expanded it to add that it's also the view of Israel (per your source quoting the chairman of the Israeli GPO). It wasn't in there before, but I think it's significant (more so than the handful of researchers).
• I've dropped the explicit reference to "commentators". It's vague, and hard to verify; distinguishing between commentators who make the claim them self, and those who identify it as the claim of the researchers is difficult.

I think that mostly covers my changes... ← George 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your first point, that would be OR and not entirely accurate (did the scientists examine the scene?). But OR in any event, because you're implying that one group had access to the right information and the other didn't, whereas in fact access to the video might be enough to determine that something wasn't right, in the view of those who looked at it. You'd need a source making clear what you're saying, in other words.
• "A number of" means the same as "several," in my view.
• Has any Israeli administration taken a position?

SlimVirgin 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• According to the source cited in the article: " commissioned and an engineer, Yosef Duriel, to work on a second IDF investigation of the case... Shahaf took one trip to examine the crossroads, clad in body armor and escorted by Israeli soldiers. Then, at a location near Beersheba, Shahaf, Duriel, and others set up models of the barrel, the wall, and the IDF shooting position, in order to re-enact the crucial events." I'm not sure how you want to word it exactly, but their investigation was distinctly different (not necessarily better or worse) than that of the German & French reporters. I didn't mean to imply anything, other than that the two groups investigated in different ways, which is something worth mentioning.
• If "a number of" means the same as "several", would you mind if I change the current article to say that "Several researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged"? That's at least a step in the right direction for this statement.
• My addition of this statement was based on your source, which states: "The September 2000 death of Palestinian child Mohammed Al-Dura in the Gaza Strip was staged by a Gaza cameraman, Government Press Office (GPO) Director Daniel Seaman said yesterday... in an official letter, representing the Prime Minister's Office".

I've updated my proposal based on your concerns. How about: "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, raised the possibility that the incident may have been staged. This has since become the official stance of the Israeli government." ← George 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have no objection to those changes, except you should check the Israeli govt issue with other sources, as one comment from a press officer may not be quite enough. Perhaps they've commented again since then. SlimVirgin 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think of that proposal. ChrisO is having trouble posting, but left a message on my talk page saying that "the Israeli government disclaimed its own spokesman's claims about the case, saying that he was only expressing his personal opinion", so the second sentence will probably have to be kept out unless we can find reliable sources for it (which I haven't been able to, outside of that one Haaretz article). ← George 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a grammatical point: "raised the possibility that the issue may have been staged," is close to saying they raised the possibility of the possibility; "raised the possibility that the issue was staged" would be better. Or if you feel that sounds more definitive, "suggested that the incident may have been staged." But if you prefer your version, I'm fine with that too. SlimVirgin 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Combined with ChrisO's suggestion to remove the second statement, we have: "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, suggested that the incident may have been staged." ← George 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, as others have weighed in on this issue (who did not necessarily, say, visit the scene), I think the current proposal would be misleading. IronDuke 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to people other than Schapira, Huber, and Karsenty? If so who, and what analysis did they perform? ← George 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's more who studied the subject and gave a note that the event could have been staged. e.g. Modechai Kedar and Richard Landes. Still, Israel has not made it an official stance. In short, I'm displeased with the (no offense intended) grocery list feeling of the suggestion to count the people. In fact, the numbers may change on a weekly basis and slowly inflate the lead further and further... 2 researchers, 14 academics, 3 documentarists, 17 media analysts, 4 right-wing activists, 1 wizard and a goat... I hope my perspective is clear.

Waem regards, Jaakobou 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My only concern here is with finding a wording that matches the sources. Let me give you an example: say I give you a hundred sources that all cite the same person as saying something. How would Misplaced Pages report on that? We would state it as that one person's opinion. What if half of those sources talked about one person, and the other half discussed another person who said the same thing? Misplaced Pages would say that it was the opinion of those two people. What if each of the hundred sources cited a different person? Then Misplaced Pages could easily use terms like 'many' to describe those people.

My goal here is not to make a list, it's to pin down the vague statement in the lead and clarify it, which is why I requested a list of who made the claim that this was staged in the first place. If it was many researchers, we could say many; if it was few, we could say a few. But nobody would offer up such a list, so I had to go digging through the sources myself. I found a couple Israeli researchers who reenacted the events, who in turn convinced a few other people that this was a hoax (namely, the German film makers and one or both of the Frenchmen). Had I found a wide variety of different groups in the sources making the claim, I would have pushed for a broader wording. But I didn't.

Now, regarding Modechai Kedar and Richard Landes, what are the sources for them having this view? You're correct regarding Israel's official stance, which is why I've dropped that from my latest proposal. I'm really hoping we can get the outside input of some editors not involved in this discussion though, or the whole RfC will prove useless. ← George 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the way yout put it, George, as I think it may illustrate where our disagreement lies. If a hundred commentators all shout "Amen" to the research of one person, provided the commentators are notweworthy in their own right, we would regard the research as having, say, wide approval. Not everyone who supports the research has to be an expert in the field for their opinion to count. (And you were given a list, George, a long one...) IronDuke 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with it. The sources provided are reliable and WP:lede request a brief mention any legit controversy. Richard (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and providing an outside opinion Richard. Is anyone opposed to me leaving the currently wording and sources, and just changing the "A number of" to "Several", per the discussion with SlimVirgin above? ← George 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the earlier phrasing of "A few" but I wouldn't mind to hear other perspectives here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

two of the sources used to support that sentence in the lead only suggest the possibility that aldura wasnt actually dead. the story in the atlantic is the only one of the three that mentions the "staged" theory, and this is qualified with, "A handful of Israeli and foreign commentators have taken up Shahaf's cause." it is described as "his cause" and noted that nearly everyone (including the german documentarians that worked with him) rejects it. the views of one private citizen "obsessed" with proving his theory seem undue here, especially since (as the atlantic described it) "The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day."

my personal opinion is that this is undue weight for the lead, but if its going to be there, then it needs to be qualified with a quote from a serious news outlet mentioning the "obvious"ness of its status as a fringe conspiracy theory.untwirl(talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You've captured the very essence of my comment above. Initially, Shapira, believed that the boy was probably accidentally shot by Palestinians and they simply believed that the Israelis shot him. However, in more recent articles, she mentions that a face recognition expert told her that the boy in the video and the "dead al-dura" picture they showed her at the morgue were two different children, leading her to suspect that it is possible that the entire event was staged. More examples of scholars who believe the event was staged are Mordechai Kedar, who completely believes it, and Richard Landes, who believes in the possibility. These are not crusaders for Shahaf and neither are several other notables. I figure a large amount of the recent reporting reflect on the possibility that there's some staging in the event and, as, such this is notable enough for a carefully phrased one liner.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What about replacing "A number of" with "A handful of", per untwirl's quote? ← George 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good George, I would personally support that. Richard (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on "a handful," because it makes it sound like a tiny number, whereas we don't actually know how many people argue this now. "Several" or "a number of" sounds less definitive. SlimVirgin 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

SV beat me to it. IronDuke 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

neither the jpost or bild article suggest that the event was staged, and they are used to support that sentence. if the atlantic is the only source used that actually references the statement then we shouldn't assume that there are any more than they say. they state that "shahak's cause"(a private citizen and inventor "obsessed" with proving his theory - not "researcher") was taken up by a handful of "israeli and foreign commentators." if there are other sources to support this statement, please add them, as i am only referring to the three cites used in the lead to support that sentence. untwirl(talk) 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

also, if this is a "tiny minority fringe view" it doesn't belong in the lead at all. if it is used, it should be disclaimed as a conspiracy theory. untwirl(talk) 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the accusations about the event being staged be put in a controversey section, if at all. The article that is referencing this accusation just came out a few days ago and the documentary has not been widely screened. Until there is some more public information about the accusations, it should not be in the lead, if in the article at all. This is about a child killed in a gun battle and is a sensitive matter whether doubted or not. It just does not belong in the lead of the article. This is a matter of true until proven false. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"neither the jpost or bild article suggest that the event was staged" is a powerful argument against inclusion of this in the lead, if it were true. The Jpost piece refers to "the alleged death" of MaD. Bild says "Biometric analysis supports the claim – the boy who was pictured with the father and the child who was buried have different faces." Yes, both sources are from this year. If we eliminated sources because they offered the most curent information, many WP articles would look very different, and by "different" I mean "wrong." IronDuke 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

suggesting that the boy may not have died is not the same as suggesting that the entire event was staged. untwirl(talk) 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one is saying "the entire event" was staged. Obviously, a skirmish did happen. But what's been alleged is fraud, that MaD was not killed. It's been a while since I researched all this; is there someone out there suggesting that MaD and his father were actually caught in the crossfire, possibly wounded, but then faked the boy's ultimate death? IronDuke 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke wrote "Well, no one is saying 'the entire event' was staged." Umm... the sentence we're discussing in this RfC states that "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged". Those who have made such claims fall into a few different groups - those who think the whole thing was staged, those who think that the boy was killed by Palestinians (intentionally or accidentally), and exploited for propaganda purposes, those who think that the boy was just wounded (either by Palestinians or Israelis) and that he isn't really dead, and that his burial was staged. Each of these views has one or two proponents, while almost none on them agree on exactly what they think happened. ← George 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you read what I wrote in context? IronDuke 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine said that the sources didn't support the current wording of the statement in the lead. You said that the sources say that the death was "alleged". untwirl said that saying that someone was alleged to have died does not mean that the "entire event was staged". You said that nobody says the "entire event was staged". I reminded you that the statement in the lead says that some people claim that the "entire incident was staged". If nobody claims such, why are we saying so in the lead? ← George 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. According to the sources cited, the Israeli physicist hired by the IDF does make the claim that the entire thing was staged. That doesn't mean that the Palestinians and the Israelis colluded to stage it, it means that he thinks that there were no Israelis shooting (at all, or at least in that direction), and that the Palestinians made up the event and filmed it. Others believe that he was shot but not killed, and that the funeral was staged, while still others believe he was shot (and possibly killed), but by Palestinian gunfire. IronDuke - do you have a counterproposal to "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, suggested that the incident may have been staged."? The term "hoax" would be inappropriate, as a hoax is usually meant as a joke. ← George 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I've made a couple serious comments above and it feels as though you missed them. To reiterate, I disagree with the suggested rephrasing because the level of staging that each notable persona is claiming is not unequivocal as most of them only came out with a strong statement that the possibility exists rather than say that "this is how it happened". All the staged footage from the Netzarim junction certainly gives rise to this assertion but I'm positive that we should not "grocery list" each of the people who made a statement in the lead and the level of staging that they asserted. Shahaf, btw, only raised the suggestion that we're talking about two boysbut did not say it as a "this is how it happened". Most researchers though agreed that Israel could not have shot the boy from the angle suggested by the cameraman. Also, I haven't seen any explanation to his claim that Israelis shot at the boy "in cold blood" for 45 minutes in contrast to the 1 minute and 6 seconds of shooting hehad footage of. Anyways, getting back to the point - the list (i.e. "two Israeli") is a bad idea. We have academics and state officials and news reporters andmedia analystsand lobbyists and many more with input.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, I think you've made some fair points. Do you have a counterproposal? I'm looking to reach a consensus, not vote between two different versions, so I'm of course open to suggestions. I believe that Shahaf, based on current sources cited, has made the claim that the entire event was staged - not just that there were two different boys:

"Almost as soon as the second IDF investigation was under way, Israeli commentators started questioning its legitimacy and Israeli government officials distanced themselves from its findings. 'It is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation,' the liberal newspaper Ha'aretz said in an editorial six weeks after the shooting. The newspaper claimed that Shahaf and Duriel were motivated not by a need for dispassionate inquiry but by the belief that Palestinians had staged the whole shooting... 'The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation—almost a pirate endeavor—on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying,' Ha'aretz said."

"A handful of Israeli and foreign commentators have taken up Shahaf's cause. A Web site called masada2000.org says of the IDF's initial apology, "They acknowledged guilt, for never in their collective minds would any one of them have imagined a scenario whereby Mohammed al-Dura might have been murdered by his own people ... a cruel plot staged and executed by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a television cameraman!" Amnon Lord, writing for the magazine Makor Rishon, referred to a German documentary directed by Esther Schapira that was "based on Shahaf's own decisive conclusion" and that determined "that Muhammad Al-Dura was not killed by IDF gunfire at Netzarim junction." "Rather," Lord continued, "the Palestinians, in cooperation with foreign journalists and the UN, arranged a well-staged production of his death." In March of this year a French writer, Gérard Huber, published a book called Contre expertise d'une mise en scène (roughly, Re-evaluation of a Re-enactment). It, too, argues that the entire event was staged. In an e-mail message to me Huber said that before knowing of Shahaf's studies he had been aware that "the images of little Mohammed were part of the large war of images between Palestinians and Israelis." But until meeting Shahaf, he said, "I had not imagined that it involved a fiction"—a view he now shares. "

"For the handful of people collecting evidence of a staged event, the truth is also clear, even if the proof is not in hand. I saw Nahum Shahaf lose his good humor only when I asked him what he thought explained the odd timing of the boy's funeral, or the contradictions in eyewitness reports, or the other loose ends in the case. "I don't 'think,' I know!" he said several times. "I am a physicist. I work from the evidence." Schapira had collaborated with him for the German documentary and then produced a film advancing the "minimum" version of his case, showing that the shots did not, could not have, come from the IDF outpost. She disappointed him by not embracing the maximum version—the all-encompassing hoax—and counseled him not to talk about a staged event unless he could produce a living boy or a cooperative eyewitness."

Essentially the source currently cited in the article makes the claim that this was a (questionable) IDF investigation led by two Israeli scientists, who re-enacted the events, who were joined by a very small group of supporters (masada2000.org, Amnon Lord, and Gérard Huber, who at best had access to video footage, and Schapira, who was collaborating with Shahaf but rejected his "all-encompassing" version of events. You wrote that "we have academics and state officials and news reporters and media analysts and lobbyists and many more with input". Can you identify any of them by name? Someone had proposed changing "A number of" to "A handful of", which is the wording used in the second paragraph above from the source. I'm not entirely opposed to that, since that's what the source says at least. ← George 18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus to change the wording, nor do I see significantly new arguments being advanced. IronDuke 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some general agreement that it should be changed, just no agreement yet on what to change it to. Do you have any suggestions that those who dislike the current wording might consider? ← George 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that general agreement. You appear to be suggesting various ways of minimizing the decription of how many view the incident as fraudulent is some way, and I don't see support for that. IronDuke 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I'm not sure if IronDuke was correct in his assesment of your wishes on the paragraph but I'll give this issue some thought for a day-two and try to think of a linguistic change that might satisfy everybody. Shahaf, btw, is not the only investigator and the report made out by the IDF, criticized or not, was signed by some other respectable figures. Obviously, for those who want to attack Israel, its easy to attack Shahaf who's strongly opinionated towards the possibility of a large scale fraud. The level of it, as interpreted by the source you cite, seems innaccurate by the sources I've gone over - even if he were disappointed that others wern't taking matters further in their interpretations of how far fetched the conspiracy could be. Anyways, if you have other suggestions that don't turn the lead into a "grocery" list I'd be willingto give them thought on top of trying to come up with a suggestion that will satisfy your concerns regarding the lackonic version we have on now. I'm not sure there's something wrong with this version and SlimVirgin and IronDuke seem to think this as well, but I will give it some serious thought.

p.s. thank you for boldening the importantparts of the text you cited.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More proposals are always welcome Jaakobou, as they can only help the consensus-building process. Who else signed the report you mentioned? I'm not opposed to changing "A number of" to "A few", something you proposed earlier, though I think I prefer "Several" to "A few" (as I think "A few" is too narrow, which, despite IronDuke's claim, is not my intention). But please keep us apprised of any suggestions you come up with. ← George 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to recap and see where those who have weighed in stand:

• George - prefers "Several" to "A number of", prefers listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly, open to relegating the statement to a controversies section rather than the lead
• IronDuke - opposed to any changes proposed thus far
• SlimVirgin - open to changing "A number of" to "Several", open to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly, opposed to changing "A number of" to "A handful of"
• Jaakobou - prefers "A few" to "A number of", opposed to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly
• Richard - open to changing "A number of" to "A handful of"
• untwirl - opposed to including the statement in the lead, open to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly
• Elmmapleoakpine - opposed to including the statement in the lead

As far as I can tell, four editors are open to changing the term "A number of" to something else, three editors are open to explicitly listing who makes the claim, three editors are open to removing the statement from the lead entirely (moving it to a controversies section), and only one editor opposes making any changes at all. Did I miss anyone? ← George 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has rewritten the lead (and done a good job, in my opinion). I think we should review and think over his changes for a few days and see if this discussion is still necessary. ← George 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable right now (although The boy quickly became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel. needs to sourced, that will be easy to find a source for). Thanks to SV for taking a stab at resolving this. Perhaps we can have some kind of re-vote or re-debate about this current version? The Squicks (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I'd like to change it from

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Template:Lang-ar) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

to

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Template:Lang-ar) was a Palestinian boy initially reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

Thoughts? IronDuke 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

completely unnecessary. "reported to have been killed" is accurate and neutral. untwirl(talk) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So "initially" would be inaccurate? IronDuke 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It takes things a step further. "Reported to have been killed" is already a step too far for some. That wording was the compromise position. Adding "initially" implies that things have definitely changed substantively since the initial report, but that wouldn't be true. They have changed somewhat, but not substantively. SlimVirgin 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't think anything has changed substatively since the initial reporting? IronDuke 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as much as your proposed change would imply. As I see it:

1. "MD was a Palestinian boy killed by gunfire," implies "no reliable source is saying or implying otherwise."
2. "MD was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire," implies "all we can say for sure is that this was reported, because questions have been raised that reliable sources have taken seriously."
3. "MD was a Palestinian boy initially reported to have been killed by gunfire," implies "the initial report is now regarded as wrong, and it has been, or is in the process of being, corrected by reliable sources."

In my view, 1 and 3 are wrong; 2 is correct. SlimVirgin 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me which RS's still maintain MD was killed by Israeli fire? IronDuke 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether Israeli or Palestinian gunfire is not the point, as you know. Why do you want to add the word "initially," when "was reported" is perfectly accurate and neutral? SlimVirgin 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I confess I'm confused now. Of course it's the point. If the current thinking is that the IDF did not shoot him, then the thinking has changed since the initial reports, when it seemed obvious it was the IDF. No? IronDuke 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the current view of a few people in the world (as we were discussing in the discussion above). It's not the current thinking of most people, which is what your change would imply. ← George 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so your contention is that most people believe the Israelis shot MD? Is there an up to date source for that? (BTW, just to be clear: if it was the case that the Israelis did not shoot MD, it wouldn't therefore automatically follow that the event was staged.)IronDuke 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the event as the boy being shot by the IDF. ← George 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How recent? IronDuke 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

From 2001 to 2009, give or take. ← George 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ID, you didn't answer my question. Why do you want to add the word "initially," when "was reported" is perfectly accurate and neutral? SlimVirgin 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought the answer was clear; because adding "initially" would make it more accurate. Or at least, I think it would, willing to be convinced otherwise. IronDuke 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the suggestion since we already do have some type of qualifier. There is room, however, to make some sort of listing on how news-sources describe the events in recent reports. I'd suggest a constraint to the year 2009 with a soft review on 2008 sources as well. Also, if anyone has any idea on where I could watch the second film by Schapira, that would be appreciated.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We could have something like

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Template:Lang-ar) was a Palestinian boy killed by gunfire, initially reported as from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

// Liftarn (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Liftarn,

Its nice to see suggestions made but I don't think you've been following the input on this incident. I suggest you make a review on some of the more recent publication to get a grasp on where your suggestion is incorrect. For starters, the use of a source from October 2000 is of little help. Try publications from 2009 please.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rumor Mill Note: I heared a rumor that Israeli Channel 1 will be broadcasting the second documentary upon the 9th anniversary to the incident. Jaakobou 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I've rewritten the lead because it was too long and too wordy (as is the rest of the article), and I incorporated George's suggestion. Below are the old and new side by side. SlimVirgin 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial reactions to this change are positive. It looks more concise, accurate, and neutral to me. Good job. ← George 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also added the date of death at the beginning, as I just noticed we were saying 2000, but not giving the date.SlimVirgin 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One additional thought - you may want to include the statement "The boy quickly became an iconic martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel." from the original (or some variation thereof), possibly at the end of the first paragraph. I think it's noteworthy and gets quite a bit of coverage in the body of the article (with the stamps and such). ← George 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Slim. I don't have much strength to go deeply into the changes right now and I don't want to overly step on your toes either (we've had a bit of a run in a little while ago). However, there's some clear issues with the recent changes such as a missplled name of the Palestinian reporter, as well as a possibly false claim in the first paragraph in regards to the father being injured in the reported altercation. This has been heavily disputed by many sources of repute. Another clear problem is the use of Suzzanne Goldenberg's article to back up "facts" since, best I'm aware, she is simply repeating the info she got from the Palestinians. If more issues arise, it might be better to rework your version (which I'm sure has some valuable improvements) into the original in smaller bits rather than as a large edit.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of the name. Who are the "many sources of repute" that have "heavily disputed" that the father was injured? We could reword this similar to the first sentence and say that the father was reported to have been injured, if it is as heavily disputed as the boy's death. ← George 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was reported that an Israeli doctor treated the father, in 1996 (if my memory serves me right), for axe injuries inflicted by a Palestinian gang and that the father later pointed at these scars as if they were caused by IDF bullets. This, in my opinion, is of higher repute than, for example, the claims that this might not be the same boy as the one shown in the morgue image of the first documentary (who the heck trusts biometric analysts?). Anyways, I've seen the docotor (Yehuda, I believe) in multiple electronic as well as television news articles and he is a reputable character, treating both Jews and Arabs on a daily basis. I have no argument/objection against your rephrase suggestion though. I would actually tag the boy and his father together into the same "reportedly injured/killed by IDF bullets" line.

p.s. (offtopic) in regards to your assesment on my preffered version of the text, I didn't have any preference between "few" and "numerous" and anything similar. My objection was to the listing-in-the-lead suggestion. Apologies for not having the time to follow up on everything here diligently. I've had a few other pressing matters as well as a few problematic editors putting sticks in the wheels of proper consensus building by playing juvinile IP/tag-team games.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Jaakobou, that's not what happened; I don't think the doctor is a remotely credible character. The doctor came forward, years after the shootings, to claim that the scars on the father's body were not bullet wounds and therefore he couldn't have been shot. What's left out from that account by the conspiracy theorists and irresponsible journalists is the fact - widely reported at the time of the shooting - that the father went through multiple operations in a Jordanian military hospital, to which he was evacuated after the shooting, to remove bullets and repair some of the injuries he suffered. Such operations would of course have produced surgical scars. If the father was indeed injured by a Palestinian gang - an assertion sourced solely to the doctor, which nobody appears to have tried to verify independently - then it is quite possible that some of his wounds are from that incident. But it has been used by the conspiracy theorists to assert that all of his wounds are from that incident and that he suffered none from the shooting. This, of course, would require the Jordanian government and military to be complicit in the supposed conspiracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

All due respect to Jordanian doctors in comparison with Israeli ones, you have missed some of the info in this case. There's issues that caused for more than wiki-editors speculations and we have a respectable(?) documentarist come out and change her mind as to the validity of the initially reported story and there's a few academics involved and some media analysts and reporters as well (I'd hate to get into a personal wiki-debate on the supposed facts as we interpret them). Anyways, you know I believed the father completely until I noticed (in a 3rd time I was watching it) he used the term "Zionist entity" in an interview in the first documentary. Anyways 2, I think that your "concerns" about the Israeli doctor are quite unfair and, to be frank, a bit of a conspiracy theory in itself. I don't believe that there's any reliable source raising such concerns about him, unlike the suspect cameraman. Btw, I'm curious if you've had a chance to view the latest documentary by Schapira?

p.s. on the issue, there'd been enough speculation on the event that we can't write that the father was injured in the reported altercation. That gives a false air that we know the facts when the facts are disputed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Schapira, sadly, has irresponsibly let herself be led by the nose by conspiracy nuts. We should not be in the business of promoting bad journalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an online version of this film in English? Or at the very least a transcript of it from a reputable source? ← George 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a subtitled version - try YouTube. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

If you have sources for your, seemingly, exceptional allegations towards the doctor (and his hospital department?) and documentarist (and the people working with her on both documentaries?) and the other "nuts", I'm open to review them. Otherwise, I suggest you keep this fringe theory to public forums. Currently, it sounds like a psychologically-based wild stretch of events (i.e. with nothing to go on but a hunch) and the usage of "nuts" as a descriptive to some fairly respectable and living people is not the right way to approach making an encyclopedic article.

George,

Are you interested in the older film or the new one. I couldn't find the new one but I might be able to get you a copy of the older one.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I'm truly, truly shocked. I just watched one of the films (I didn't realize there were two; not sure if it was the older or the newer), and the so-called "journalism" contained therein was simply atrocious. The video doesn't support the claims in the least - if anything it reveals a fundamentally flawed IDF investigation. I'm not sure if I can support the inclusion of this material in the lead in any form after seeing the video of their "investigation". Debating what to do next... ← George 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I have to say that this is a new approach to Misplaced Pages. To be honest, I feel the same about almost every article coming out of The Guardian in relation to Israel (some people dub it "al-Guardian" -- a reference to the pro-Mukawama al-Jazeera -- for its repetition of Palestinian narratives and ignoring of Israeli perspectives). I'm still interested in hearing why this is dubbed an "investigation" (quote on quote) but I don't believe personal interpretations (mine included) of the film or the other sources matter.

On another note,

I've noticed that the entire note that the incident is suspect as staged (to some degree) was delegated to the fourth paragraph when it's quite a notable issue and should be mentioned earlier than that. I'm also quite unhappy with the current fourth paragraph with its over-listing of details. I'll probably make a rewrite attempt merging the old version with the new and making it shorter and less detailed. Better if we leave that for the body of the article.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attempt a rewrite, because your rewrites in the past have been somewhat problematic. SlimVirgin 10:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirgin,

I'm sorry for suggesting this, but perhaps a more collegiate approach would benefit the discussion. You didn't see me assuming bad faith despite our old run-in and the errors in your recent suggested rewrite here. In fact, I tried to handle this in a delicate fashion so as to avoid giving rise for old bad blood. While I think you've made an honest attempt and gave a good effort it feels as though you missed (and, in a way, trampled on) the very worries that were raised above. Both the listing issue as well as the first paragraph making clear that there are recent developments that makethe initial report suspect. I say, lets not discuss things like angry mastodons and I ask of you to try and work on this with me so we can get it to long lasting encyclopedic levels and, with any luck, even to GA levels. I'm sure you, at the very least, agree that having a wrong name on the lead is a bad way to start. Yes?

Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my issue with the "investigation" (and why I use the term loosely), is that the video of Shahaf's re-enactment, which purports to show how IDF bullets could not have caused the bullet holes in the barrel, clearly shows that the "comparable" concrete barrel they were shooting at is completely different than the original. The impenetrable barrel they're shooting at is substantially taller, wider, and thicker - the difference is and stark and measurable. The intellectually insulting part is you can see the edge of another, smaller concrete barrel, one of approximately the correct dimensions, hiding behind the wall, not being test fired upon in the "re-enactment". Not on video, anyways. There are really so many problems throughout this video. I can't believe no reliable sources have torn it apart. I guess it probably didn't receive enough attention for reliable sources to have done any in depth, critical review of the material being presented. ← George 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

General note:

OK. Let's assumin George is correct about the size of the barrel and shahaf (and everybody else who signed on that report) used a larger, bulkier sized barrel to make a false analysis. Now, we still need explanations to why the cameraman said the Israelis shot at them (boy and father) in cold blood for 45 minutes and he only came up with 1 minute and 6 seconds of "raw" footage. Also, we need explanation to why that Palestinian was filming a molotov coctail holding kid who was one second running holding this bottle and the other second 6 guys were bringing him into an ambulance (see: "Pallywood")- that scene can'tbe reassuring about the level of honesty inhis reporting. To be honest, I don't care that much about the version of the truth each and every one of us can claim to hold/explain. What matters for the purpose of this article discussion is that there is not a slew of reliable sources suggesting the Israeli doctor is a liar or that the German documentarist is not reliable. Personally, I would take the word of a surgical doctor who treats both Jews and Arabs over the word of a stinger cameraman, regardless of that cameraman's origins - others, I'm sure, would take the wordof anyone over that of an Israeli, even if he's a race-blind doctor. It doesn't matter that, for the sake of this argument, we've already seen dead bodies come to life and clean toys caught in the middle of dusty rubble. On topic, I request that people here avoid making smears against anyone involved in this initial report and the later investigations and only report on what reliable sources say. We can't get this article to good levels if people start concocting their own conspiracy theory and try to promote it... there's enough of that going on blogs and that's where it should stay. Aside a single comment, we already have collegiate atmosphere which is a nice start, but its note nough if everyone takes an incivil tone with what reliable sources say. I know this is a controversial subject, but let's stay focused on the purpose of this project.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So I must have a seen a different documentary than you did. In the video I saw, there was no Israeli doctor being interviewed, nor any mention of one. There was in fact the opposite - they said that the Palestinians specifically would not let the father be moved to Israel for treatment, and insisted that his wounds be treated in Jordan. They identified a slew of bullet wounds he was treated for in Jordan, said additional bullets were removed from his body in Jordan, and showed pictures of him in a Jordanian hospital, bandaged and bloodied.

The real issue on this is one of notability. In general, fringe conspiracy theories are not covered by reliable sources, so finding reliable sources that dissect or refute them can be difficult, if not impossible. Unfortunately, several of the things claimed in the documentary I saw were akin to Adnan Hajj's faked photo. In the same way that even a non-expert looking at that photo can see that it was manipulated, some of the things shown or claimed in the documentary are so obviously flawed that I'm not sure any honest, unbiased party that reviews the claims can believe them.

Another issue is just the pure lack of journalist integrity shown in the video. For instance, let's say I'm interviewing a person named Jack. In my interview, I ask Jack if he likes children, and Jack responds that yes, he loves children. Great. Now say I go and make a documentary on Jack. I put ominous music in the background, play a clip of Jack saying "I love children", freeze the image of Jack halfway through the video, when he's making some weird face, then have a narrator in a deep, spooky voice say something like "Why does Jack love children so much? Is Jack a pedophile? Can he be trusted around your children?" That's not good journalism; that's tabloid journalism. A journalist is someone who relays information "while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased".

I haven't decided what to do yet. The current introduction likely has to be modified. If you read the section of the article on the IDF investigation, the majority of the material in there is actually disputing the conclusions as those of unprofessional conspiracy theorists, citing reliable sources as well as Israeli government officials who label the investigation "bizarre... amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional" and "biased from the start". If the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's content, the current lead fails to properly summarize this section. I would suggest everyone take the time to read this section itself before taking another crack at summarizing it (I'd be quite interested in how SlimVirgin would summarize this section in a lead, as he seems to write in a fairly neutral manner). There was also some information in the documentary not present in this article that should be added, like the fact that the general who hired Shahaf and Duriel to conduction an investigation is the same general who was responsible for the Israeli base accused of shooting the boy - a clear conflict of interests. ← George 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

George,

I'm sorry but non of the recent reports I've seen in 2009 treat the Israeli investigation in this way and, in fact, most sources I've seen discuss the recent raised concerns with a little more respect. It's not a perfect report and certainly, Shahaf is an easy to attack target, but this doesn't change that there's still clear errors and a bit of a shift of direction from the new material in the newly suggested lead and I still don't see anything in the direction of sources claiming the docotor is a liar or that the documentarist and her team are (as you seem to suggest) cheap propagandists.

I'm again hearing this new theory (from you) that I just don't see -- not in the first film or in any reliable sources. If you have anything reliable on this, I'd be happy to take this point with full seriousness, but for now it just seems like a blank argument. If anything, that documentary is of fairly high quality among the articles I've seen made on this topic. The woman interviewed the mother, the father, the cameraman, the police chief, the Palestinian doctor in charge, soldiers from the outpost and many more -- the only people who were put to question were the ones who appear to be blatently lying. i.e. the cameraman who says he keeps secrets (WTF?!). I haven't seen the father being made out as a liar until, later, an Israeli doctor said that the wounds he showed as supposedly coming from Israeli bullets (the father used the word "Zionists") were actually serious inuries that he treated a few years before the Netzarim junction incident. The doctor is consiered reliable until further notice and the documentarist remains a respectable one until further notice. The investigation's critics should have their say as well but they don't seem to have major notability - best I'm aware. Find me reliable sources and all these new theories could be treated with respect, until then, I request to remind people that Misplaced Pages is not a forum to raise theoris.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, how many cinder blocks tall would you say the cement barrel in this image is? And how many cinder blocks off the ground are the heads of the two people? And where is the interview with this doctor? I still haven't seen or read about it...

On the topic of the fourth paragraph, in smacks a bit too much of recentism, and not enough of summarization of the issue. It also fails to provide any information on the sources that counter the claims made, or identify those that have labelled them "conspiracy theories". ← George 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know what exactly that image you just gave is supposed to be and its absolutely besides the point (as is any point I raise about the father using the word "Zionists" to describe Israelis after working in Israelfor many years). You just can't raise theories without reliable sources to back this. I don't know what you call recentism, but the new rewrite attempt goes to the other side of the scale (i.e. anachronism), giving undue credence to reports from 2000 that have been thourughly challanged -- with little success at first but this changed after a courthouse demanded of France 2 to produce their raw material. That was a clear turning point, IMHO, in how the media treated this story and this can't be delegated to the fourth paragraph, certainly not when just a few days ago an editor suggested we should clarify the recent changes issue further by adding 'initially' to the sentence in the first paragraph. I felt that was overkill at the time, but the recent change is just as bad. Anyways, I currently fail to see the big improvement in the new version and it most certainly isnt a neutral representation on this event and all the mess surroundingit. Anyways, I will review it a bit more before making changes. Maybe in the meantime, some of the raised concerns could be restored and discussed with suggestions... that would certainl be helpful.

p.s. I've seen multiple interviews with the doctor and one of them, from before the "raw" footage (1 minute and 6 seconds of the boy and father when the cameraman claimed they were shot at "in cold blood for 45 mintues") was shown and Karsenty was aquitted, can be found here and they include a differnt size barrel than the one in the picture you link to.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is from the video of Shahaf's original "re-enactment", which purports to show that Israeli bullets could not have killed the boy or injured the father. There were bullet holes through the cement barrel at the scene, and the Israeli claim was that Israeli M-16s were not powerful enough to put holes in cement barrels. To illustrate this point, they re-enacted the scene, but, as can clearly be seen in the video, they used a much larger, thicker cement barrel in their tests. (Oddly, they claimed they couldn't find any AK-47's to test against the barrels.) I'm not raising any "theories" - I'm not saying that they were "cheap propagandists" (to use your words), and I'm not saying they were "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional" or "biased from the start" (to use the words of Israeli officials and Haaretz). I'm saying, however, that I have a very hard time considering their "investigation" as a reliable source for anything, when it is was so clearly flawed.

The fourth paragraph fails on a number of points. First, it does not properly summarize the Israeli investigation section of the article. 80% of that section is critical of the Israeli investigation, and yet the criticism of it isn't mentioned. Second, the majority of the paragraph is dealing with the French ruling, giving a fairly minor point too much weight in the lead. You do understand that the French court did not rule that it was a hoax, eh? They ruled that Karsenty's claims were not defamation. Defamation is when you claim something as true when it is actually false. All the French court was saying is that there wasn't conclusive proof that Karsenty's claims were false - not that they were true, and not that it wasn't a conspiracy theory - just that Karsenty had a right to express his opinion.

Thanks for the link. I don't have time to review it now, but I hope to later today. ← George 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
I know all the current details with the court thing. I thought it was clear from my phrasing above. I don't know the details of ths image you gave and, as hard as it is to accept, that is the nature of sources in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Some sources make us cringe when we know/feel that they neglegt a large chunk of the story. CNN, for example repeated allegations of hidden mass graves during the Battle of Jenin... and the mediacompletely neglected the issue of terror in the center of Israeli towns, the worst in the history of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, and focused on bogus massacre allegations. Back to al-Durrah, reports of this story from the past couple years are different than those from October 2000 and this should be reflected in the lead.
Side note, I'm not sure that criticism of the investigation should be as largely notable as you suggest they currently are. I don't care somuch to go into this at this very instance since it is more important to go into the generics. I'll try to review this in context and see ifmy perspective changes to resemble yours more.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)+c 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wentahead with reintroducing the issues raised about the lead and shortened the not very notable details of the initial inspection into the raw footage. Jaakobou 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tought/concern: I'm wondering on fellow perspectives on whether or not Daniel Pearl should be mentioned in the lead. It seems like a fairly noteworthy issue regardless of whether webelieve or disbelieve the investigators. Btw, Geroge, I wentover a couple sources and, while you raise concerns with the tests run by Shahaf, we have an independent expert running his own investigation so I hope we can drop this debate.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've partially reverted you. I can tell your edits were made in good faith, but I disagree with several of them for a variety of reasons. Can we discuss them in a more detailed, granular nature here? ← George 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got around to watching the video you posted earlier. I didn't realize it was only two minutes long - I would have watched it earlier. So it's interesting that the doctor says he treated Jamal al-Dura in 1994, and that was the cause of the scars on his arms and legs, but it doesn't explain the (more massive) stomach wounds described elsewhere. ← George 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The second documentary goes into further detail on the scars. The movie raises the suspiscion that he was attacked by the Gang for being a suspected collaborator and cites a bullet-wound in the butt of Jamal as a common trade-mark for such humiliation attacks. Btw, the tape only showed one stomach wound so I'm not certain you are exactly accurate with how you cite the source you've read.

Cheers, Jaakobou 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going on what Schapira's documentary said (I'm still unclear if it's the first or second). In it, she states that he was hit by several bullets, in the arm, abdomen, and leg. It would still be nice if someone found a copy of this other documentary. ← George 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy of the first one in English, so I'm assuming that is the one you're addressing.The secondone is in German and I've had the chance to see a subtitled version of it... I will let you know if I see a copy of it somewhere accesible. Anyways, that is the one that should be used for discussing the scars since it really elaborates on them, unlike the first documentary. Jaakobou 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an accessible copy of the second would be great for verifiability. ← George 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

The previous dicussion was getting long to open. I've reinserted some stuff since I wasn't that happy with the errors that sat on the page for a while now (since SlimVirgin made her edit) but we could, for the sake of argument, move it backtothelongstanding version priortothat edit and then discuss my suggested changes. Feel free to elaborate on your concerns here.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we can be clear what happened (to readers who are not following this closely)=

'''Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah''' (1988–September 30, 2000) {{lang-ar|محمد جمال الدرة}}) was a ] boy reported killed by ] (IDF) gunfire during a clash between the IDF and ] at the ] in the ] on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the ].<ref name=Goldenberg>Goldenberg, Suzanne. , ''The Guardian'', October 3, 2000.</ref> The boy quickly became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

In the lead was then changed to=

'''Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah''' (1988–September 30, 2000) {{lang-ar|محمد جمال الدرة}}) was a ] boy who became an icon in the ] and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel following reports that he had been killed by gunfire from the ] (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and ] at the ] in the ] on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the ].<ref name=Shapira2>Shapira, Esther. ''Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit'', ARD television, 2009.</ref> The initial report was questioned and several investigations stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy, but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the report was staged by the cameraman and one commentator became the focal point of a libel lawsuit.

Which is currently what is in the article right now. The Squicks (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'd appreciate it if Slim would check the cited source as well as other recent sources and not mass revert. Certainly, the revert on the "After a few minutes" text, a clear error, is not helpful for conductive discussions. Jaakobou 04:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) + diff 04:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with "after a few minutes"? SlimVirgin 06:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for responding to a question with a question, but have you seen the footage? Jaakobou 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

J, no games, just tell me what's wrong with a few minutes. SlimVirgin 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I fail too see why the wording is something worth arguing about in the first place. A different wording such as In the video, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire. would be a reasonable compromise, wouldn't it? (But I don't why something so minor is at issue at the first place, whatevers...) The Squicks (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just confused why SlimVirgin keeps reinserting factual errors into the text and reverts me when its clear she hasn't taken the time to really go over the information. In response to the question raised by SlimVirgin, the boy takes less than 20 seconds -- which is considerably less than 'a few minutes' -- of footage to slump over and the entire footage of him and the father amounts to approximately 1 minute and 5 seconds so even if you argue the point in time where he slumps over - its fairly clear that 'a few minutes' is not an option. Also, there are two large and serious documentaries in the references of the version where the "conspiracy theory" isnotable. Multiple sources, such as the removed BBC ref (titled: "Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage") also exist on the topic that make the staging allegation notable enough to appear in the first paragraph. Without a doubt, this is not a fringe conspiracy theory when Charles Enderlin states himself that he didn't see the boy's death and that the boy moved after he pronounced himdead to the world and that he knows staged images are coming out of from the hired Palestinian stingers. When several independent and notable people say the buried boy is not the same as the one reported by France 2, then there is enough material to mention that its not just a report anymore. I'm actually quite upset at how quickly my rephrase was reverted to clearly errorneous versions without even an attempt to discuss the matter. I've been more than hospitable to a prolonged stay of errors for the sake of a collaborative spirit. I've also used sources for support of the change to the first half of the first paragraph, but this was ignored. SlimVirgin, could you please allow for the fixes to be reintroduced and discuss your concerns and misunderstandings towards my changes. I promise to explain everything and be collaborative to the point of taking things out and waiting until we can get consensus.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) +wl 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) fix 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to SlimVirgin: Is Talal not a Gaza local? Is he from the West Bank or perhaps another country? Why is this, among others, being removed? Jaakobou 06:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this earlier as well. What is a "local Palestinian"? We don't write that he was shot by "local Israelis" or something, so I'm not sure what it adds. ← George 07:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question Does "After a few moments, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire" seem like an acceptable compromise wording? I personally would prefer it. The Squicks (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its better than the clearly wrong "a few minutes" but I'm not sure that 10 seconds should be equated with a few moments. How about "after several seconds" or just what I initially suggested (i.e. with the boy slumping over) instead? Jaakobou 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "After a few moments". It's more neutrally vague, and neither of the other terms suggested ("After a few minutes", "After several second") is particularly accurate. ← George 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest and tell me how many seconds you think it is. Let me know if you count more than 30. Jaakobou 11:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say more than 10, and less than 30. I would define it as more than "several seconds" and less than "a few minutes". ← George 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm unhappy with 'several moments' since it implies a time span longer than one minute where this is clearly less than that. I'm not sold on several seconds either and was quite happy with my initial rephrase of 'slumping over' which suggests the boy wasn't slumped to begin with but didn't take a considerable timespan (about 10-15 seconds if you ask me) to be slumped over. Thoughts/suggestions? I just thought of "a short moment" as a more accurate descriptive. Its not that bad IMHO. Jaakobou 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the wording is "a few moments", not "several moments" (a few is less than several, in general). "A few moments" sounds to me like 6-20 seconds (when someone says "just a moment" they might say "just a couple seconds" or "just a few seconds", so a few moments is some multiple of that in seconds). "A short moment" sounds like even less time... like a split second or something. ← George 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

George's thoughts

To add to the discussion, I have a couple thoughts on SlimVirgin's version (the current version as of my writing this):

• The sentence "The controversy deepened because the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death." This claim sounds like something that has to be cited to who said it: "Person X said the footage did not show the actual shooting, and Person Y said the footage did not the moment of the boy's death." I don't think we can state either as unequivocal truth.
• In the third paragraph we state "later investigations by the Israeli Army... suggested the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets." In the fourth paragraph we write that "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events suggested the incident may have been staged." There's a bit of a disconnect here: the two scientists in the fourth paragraph were the ones who conducted the Israeli army investigation mentioned in the third paragraph. I don't think we should mention them twice, though I could see including one statement or the other.
• I would like to see a short, simple mention of the criticism and controversy of the Israeli army investigation performed by those two Israeli scientists, based on the plethora of sources in that section of this article. Something like inserting the word "controversial" would probably be sufficient. Depending which of the two sentences that I mentioned earlier we use, either "...a later, controversial investigation by the Israeli Army..." or "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events suggested, controversially, that the incident may have been staged."
• Should we mention that it was two German television documentaries? The problem is that they were made by the same person - maybe state it something like "two television documentaries by a German journalist"? I'm open to suggestions.

← George 07:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We say in the first reference to an Israeli army investigation that they concluded the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets. We say in the second reference to it that they concluded it may have been a hoax. If there was only one Israeli army investigation, which is correct? SlimVirgin 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the course of events surrounding this investigation (and the investigators), based on the sources used in the article:

1. Yosef Duriel, an Israeli engineer, writes an article in Haaretz criticizing the IDF for not saying that the Palestinians had used al-Durrah as a human shield.
2. General Samia says that the shooting could have been committed by an Israeli soldier returning fire from the Palestinians.
3. Nahum Shahaf, the Israeli inventor, sees the video, notices an "apparent anomaly", and contacts General Samia about doing an investigation.
4. Shahaf also contacts Duriel, after reading his article, and proposes they work together on the investigation for General Samia.
5. General Samia commissions Shahaf and Duriel to perform the investigation. Some groups criticize the move and choice of investigators.
6. Duriel does an interview where he says that the investigation would prove that the Palestinians had deliberately shot the al-Durrahs as propaganda. Samia fires Duriel for his comments.
7. The investiation is concluded. The investigation makes no claims about it being a hoax, but officially concludes that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs.
8. Quite a few papers and government officials criticize the investigation and its conclusion. Duriel sues a man that sent a letter, critical of the investigation, to the editor of Haaretz. He loses the case. The Israeli judge rules that that investigation was "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional".
9. Shahaf later comes to believe, separate from the official investigation he had worked on, that the entire event was a hoax.
10. Shahaf collaborates with German journalist Esther Schapira on her documentary. He's "disappointed" that she only advances the "minimum" version of his case (that the Palestinians may have shot them).

I think that pretty much sums it up. The two Israeli scientists worked on a controversial IDF investigation that concluded that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs. Both believe, independent of the conclusions of the investigation itself, that the whole thing was staged by the Palestinians as propaganda. ← George 09:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Was this a formal IDF investigation, or was this the informal one? I had always understood there were two. SlimVirgin 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I'm mostly speculating here, but I think that Shahaf was dissappointed in regards to the second documentary and not in regards to the first. As for the not seeing the boy being shot, that is mentioned in the Three Bullets and a Dead Child documentary where the scene is noted to blur out at the supposed moment of impact. As for showing the moment of death, everyone agrees on that one actually - including Charles Enderlin, but possibly not the cameraman - as the boy moves after he reports "the boy is dead" and Enderlin addmitted to this saying that you don't see the boy as dead in the report. As for the 'two scientists' text - it is inherently incorrect and is one of the problems with Slim's version that I've raised. I'm not sure why we're argueing over that version in the section that I was hoping would be dedicated to my own suggested changes. As for the criticism of the Israeli investigation suggestion - I'm not sure its that notable for the lead section, considering there were other investigations made by, for example, the biometrics expert and the ballistics expert who conducted his own investigation. In regards to the documentaries, they are two different stories. The first comes to the general conclution that its more likely that the boy was shot by Palestinian bullets and suggests the cameraman is inconsistent and that the rest of the evidence against Israeli fault is scarse. The second one looks further into the allegations and supports the note that one boy was killed closer to 10am and brought to the hospital with an injured ambulance driver (according to the Palestinian doctor interviewed). This boy was shown in the funeral footage of "Muhammad" at around 4:30pm (after autopsy etc.) while Muhammad's report was recorded at 3:30pm and includes many discrepancies. The second documentary also cites that images of an unidentified boy were found being brought to the hospital and that he could be Muhammad, but there is no way of knowing since there is no name and/or time qualifier in the shot. A side note is, that the second movie shows the Israeli officer who initially apologized for the death, make a 180deg, saying that the most likely option is that the report was staged completely with the less likely option being that Palestinians shot Muhammad at the intersection and the almost impossible option, following the evidencepresented inthe film, is that the soldiers in the outpost shot him. The movie itself closes with the note that its possible that its possible that two boys were shot.

I'd really appreciate itifwetry and focuse on my proposed changes rather than new suggestions when Slimhas reverted to the new version that still has some factual errors and has changed the previous balance of the text.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't mean to derail your discussion. SlimVirgin's version was the latest version when I saw your message about starting this discussion, so I thought this was just a general discussion of the lead. I'm breaking this off into a new section, and will reply later. ← George 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• So I can agree to including that the video doesn't show the boy dying (per Enderlin's admission), but the other part either needs to be specifically cited, or the wording needs to be changed. The current wording states that "the footage did not show the actual shooting", which can imply that the video showed a fake, or staged shooting. It can't be stated as fact the way it is.
• The IDF investigation by Shahaf and Duriel was the controversial one, and that's the only one I mentioned labelling as "controversial" in the lead. The other investigations or documentaries listed don't need to be labelled as controversial.
• While I can understand that the two documentaries covered different angles, they were done by the same person. Since a lead acts a summary, there's no reason to go into any great detail on them individually here.

← George 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused about the IDF. You say that the Shahaf/IDF investigation was the controversial one. Was there another IDF one, a non-controversial one? Also, the bit about the shooting -- we're simply saying that the footage does not show him being shot. SlimVirgin 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. "By Tuesday, October 3, all doubt seemed to have been removed. After a hurried internal investigation the IDF concluded that its troops were probably to blame." This was the only other IDF investigation mentioned. It correlates to the beginning of the sentence in the lead that says that "Israel accepted responsibility...". The IDF investigation later in that sentence, the one conducted by the two Israeli scientists, was the one that was heavily criticized.

Regarding the shooting statement wording, what about changing it to something like "the footage did not conclusively show the bullets impacting the al-Durrahs", or something similar. I think we can all agree that the video showed some shooting, regardless of if the bullets can be seen to hit the al-Durrahs - clearly something is making holes in the wall and causing the puffs of smoke ever time a bullet hits the wall or the ground. It's incorrect to say that the video doesn't "show the actual shooting", when what we mean to say is that the video doesn't show the bullets hitting the boy or his father. ← George 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That suggestion seems ok to me. btw, what source reported on a hurried investiagtion? Best I'm aware, Israel took the report for granted and apologized for killing the boy (while attacking the abuse of children) based on the repute of Charles Enderlin as a respectable reporter. Jaakobou 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly piece cited in the article. ← George 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Local cameraman

To help focus the dicussion, I'm breaking this minor discussion point into a sub-section.

In response to George:
Adding that Rahma is a local from Gaza puts his controversial report into a relevant context. His affiliation with the Gaza Strip rather than the West Bank or East Jerusalem has some encyclopedic value. esp. to people who study the conflict and are curious to know if he's orignally from Lebanon, Egypt, Jerusalem, Jenin, Nablus, Jericho or any other place. To further clarify the encyclopdic value of this (the comparison with Israeli reporters) - it is obvious that when a reporter is noted as Israeli, that he is from Israel. However, if a reporter gives a controversial report and the reported event has reportedly occurred in his own neighborhood, then it is encyclopedic to add the word 'local' to his adjectives. If, for the sake of making another example, a reporter revealed that a certain public official was dealing drugs - and he so happened to live in the same neighborhood as that public official, then I would consider this encyclopedic for the relevant section in the article about said public official. I hope this clarifies the issue and my perspective on it. Let me know if we can agree on adding this or that you have further concerns about the value of this one word.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I believe your suggestion is made in good faith, I think using "local Palestinian" is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as nuanced biased. What does local mean? Local to the neighborhood? Local to Gaza? ...to the Palestinian territories? ...the Middle East? To answer your question: if a reporter that lived right next door to the mayor of a town reported that the mayor was dealing drugs, no, I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article on the mayor. However, since I think your intention is just to make it clear that Rahma was from Gaza, why not just change the wording to "a Gaza cameraman"? It's accurate, less ambiguous, and I don't think anyone would take it the wrong way. ← George 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly changed this to "a Gaza cameraman". If others disagree with this wording, feel free to revert. ← George 10:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The general idea of using "Gaza" is fine with me but his nationality is still relevant so I'm not entirely pleased with the change made. I wouldn't mind it if it were 'Palestinian cameraman from Gaza' but it seems awefully long for the simple affiliation. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou 10:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Palestinian cameraman from Gaza" is overly long, but I'm not opposed to it if you prefer it. I only thought of "Gaza cameraman" after searching reliable sources to verify that Rahma was from Gaza, and noticed some of them use the term. ← George 10:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have a little pickle here since "Palestinian cameraman from Gaza" is a tad long and "local Palestinian cameraman" has a hint of suggestion to it albeit, I hope we can agree that its not a very large one unless you're already thinking ill of him (such is the case with some people every time a reporting body is noted as 'Israeli', btw). Personally, I prefer the shorter version but I can see where either version might not last long term. Thoughts/suggestions? Maybe we can put a linguistics/other RfC here to see how a wider and less content-involved audience feels about this mini-debate. This might help create a longer lasting version asanyone who argues will be notified that multiple uninvolved others have weighed in. Jaakobou 11:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) +clarify 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An RfC isn't a bad idea, though I would wait until we get some more input from editors here first. Btw, what would a "Gaza cameraman" be if not Palestinian? Didn't all the Israeli settlers leave some years ago? Are there Egyptians living in Gaza or something? ← George 11:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(A) Not everyone in Gaza is Palestinian - esp. reporters. (b) The report was made in 2000, prior to the 2005 disengagement - and prior to the Hamas takeover (and the Alan Johnston incident), which means far more foreigners than there are today. Hope this clears the issue :) Jaakobou 12:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most logical thing to do is to write Gazan Palestinian? The Squicks (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza cameraman" seems like the best choice here. i don't think it is "relevant", as jaakabou says, to throw "Palestinian" in there, unless we are trying to infer that by being palestinian he is automatically more likely to be doing something crooked or underhanded. If he were from israel we would just say israeli, not jewish israeli. charles enderlin isn't prefaced with "french israeli." untwirl(talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an inferment. It's a factual statement that identifies someone. Calling someone a "French Israeli" would not bring up any issues to anyone either, as far as I can tell.

"Gazan Palestianian camerman" is quite the tongue twister. Given that Israeli settlers lived in the area at the time, I'd say we should stick with the original "Palestinian cameraman" in the lead. Jaakobou's original case was that this may be important to "people who study the conflict and are curious" where he was from. Well, we describe him in the body of the article as "a freelance photographer and correspondent for France 2 and CNN, who lives in the Gaza Strip". If someone is so interested in studying the conflict, I'm sure they can read past the second paragraph of the article to find out. It's just not necessary in the lead, which is, after all, just a summary. ← George 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about we try and use "freelance Palestinain cameraman"? I guess its almost as clear that he's from Gaza as using the word 'local'. Jaakobou 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Neutral, accurate; easy to read. ← George 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Argument breakdown - pt 1 - global icon for the Mukawama

Following a screening of the new documentary, I believe that the most notable issue about al-Durrah ishis becoming an icon. He's not notable for being shot as there's plenty of those and he's not notable for the criticism of the initial report. His notability derives from his icon for martyrdom status. This is supported by the second documentary and I'm fairly sure that its supported by a numberof recent sources. Would appreciate an agreement on placing this in the manner I suggested on in asimilarmannerthat gives what I believe to be the proper weight.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all disagree with including this in the first paragraph (in fact, I think I was the one who suggested to SlimVirgin to include it in their version), but I don't agree with where you put it. The current version (SlimVirgin's version, more or less) is two sentences long - the first says the boy was shot, the second says he became an icon. Your proposal says essentially the same thing, but in one, really long sentence (which may be a run on), and in backwards order. I just think that having them in this order, in two separate sentences is easier to read, and makes more sense because it's very chronological. ← George 10:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to how you/we/RS define the boy. Is MaD a boy who was reportedly shot (X), or is MaD an icon in the Arab world (Y). The first sentence should define this (X or Y) and follow up with the reason/s he is notable as such (X or Y). This is actually a big step forward for the article in defining the subject properly, something which for an unknown reason was missing. Let me know if I'm making sense to you here. Jaakobou 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'm thinking the problemhere lies mostly with my overly long sentence than with the actual content change. Jaakobou 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the length made the statement difficult to read. I'd say he was an icon for Palestinians (or Arabs), but only in death. He was not iconified during his life, nor for what he did while alive. I think that makes his death more prominent. Contrast that with someone who was iconified following their death. Take your pick - Elvis, Jesus, a September 11th firefighter, Michael Jackson. They were all iconified to some extent following their death, but not because they died (or not just because of death, in the case of Jesus or the 9/11 firefighter). They were iconified following death for what people think of what they did during their lives (Elvis & Michael Jackson created popular music, the firefighter tried to save people; Jesus performed miracles). This boy was distinctly different, as the only reason he became an icon was for how he died, not for what he did leading up to that death. ← George 12:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as you said, is that his only claim to fame is his death rather than his life's work. Allow me to try a rewrite to my previous overly-single-sentenced attempt... Jaakobou 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is seen as an improvement, I also tried to mention what SlimVirgin noted as important. i.e. the lack of clear evidence of his death. Jaakobou 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s. its not "great" and I wouldn't mind some copy-editing on it. Hopefully each point stays in its general location on the text which seems like a fair make on positioning by notability. Jaakobou 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s. 2. there is roomto shorten it furtherand makeit less detailed still. Jaakobou 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I just don't see any value added by this rewrite, over the current version. My point was that you're focusing on his iconic status when that's not what made him important - his death is the only thing that made him an icon. This is different than the other icons I mentioned, as it was their lives that made them icons, and thus their iconic status might be their primary importance. The boys most important event was simply that he died - even those who don't view him as an icon acknowledge that his death was important in some way. His iconhood is purely secondary. ← George 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, and again, no offense intended, but I find both of your versions to be heavily lopsided, granting significant undue weight to extreme minority opinions. ← George 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You and ChrisO decided its extreme minority. BBC, JPOST and others reported on it as if its a legitimate opinion. So where do we go from here in deciding on whether you and ChrisO are right or that BBC and the others are?

p.s. I'm only talking on the points that have received significant coverage in reliable sources.

p.p.s. I'm actually rethinking the location of the iconography situation. I hear your point and am in the process of reconsidering.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you refresh my (poor) memory and list those sources for review? ← George 03:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Two issues

We're in danger of conflating two issues, and it's important to keep them separate. The first is currently not mentioned at all in the lead, and yet it's arguably the more important of the two:

1. Unfortunate journalism, and no forensic investigation

The bit that was removed from the lead: "The controversy deepened when commentators asked why the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and why no forensic evidence was available. Denis Jeambar, a former editor of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, who saw the raw footage, wrote in Le Figaro that Enderlin could not have known that the boy was dead at the time of the broadcast."

The issue here is that this was an unfortunate piece of journalism, and odd behavior from both the Palestinian and Israeli side. For example, a hand is placed over the camera at a crucial point. The footage trails away. Parts of it went missing. Enderlin says the boy was killed before he could possibly have known it. He said the boy was targeted by the Israeli, when there was no way for him to establish that, or even hold an opinion at that point, given that it had just happened and he wasn't there. Then when questioned about the footage not showing the death, he says it was cut to leave out the boy's death throes. But then other French journalists gained access to it, and there were no death throes.

In addition to that, neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian authorities conducted a forensic examination, and the Israelis demolished the wall the bullets had been shot into. That leaves people with no way of knowing what happened, and in particular no way of knowing which side fired the crucial shots.

In general, I agree that this should be in the lead somehow. I was feeling that it was "too much detail" in the lead with the names of people and the way it was inserted, and considered the phrasing about "and other critics", next to Karsenty to include this. I agree with this point that this should be in the lead, just that it could somehow be shortened to leave the reader to go into the body of the article to get the smaller specifics. Jaakobou 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Conspiracy theory, hoax

The confusion of the above has led to a conspiracy theory that the entire thing was a hoax -- either staged entirely from start to finish, or where advantage was taken of a genuine situation to make it look worse than it was -- though it's more of a series of questions than a theory, because no one has explained how e.g. the Jordanians were persuaded to go along with it, whether the boy is actually dead, who the dead boy in the post-mortem pictures is ,and so on. But this is true of a lot of conspiracies -- those who spread them do nothing but ask provocative questions, with no serious attempt made to answer them.

I hate the comparison to other conspiracy theories. Here we have an Israeli docotor making a statment contradicting the father as well as the Jordanian hospital notes. We have the sole eye witness among the Palestinian reporters at the scene involved in other, clearly staged, images from the same location. We have him give conflicting testimonies. And the dead boy we saw at the funeral got to the morgue at 10am when the shooting was at 3pm. We can't ascertain how much effort was put into finding the answers to the questions raised by these discrepencies and it isn't our place to do that either. Jaakobou 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it the least bit unsettling that the source for every single point you just made is from a documentary made by one person? We don't have much to verify most of this on (no, someone reporting that the documentary said something is not independent verification). From personal experience, these claims are quite similar in scope to those made surrounding the Kennedy assassination. ← George 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Our lead focuses on the wrong criticism

The criticism that our lead focuses on is (2), the fabulous, conspiracy option with the odd sources, rather than on (1), the perfectly legitimate criticism with the respectable sources (senior French journalists). SlimVirgin 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "senior French journalists", it's perhaps worth noting that Enderlin was awarded the Legion d'honneur - France's highest civilian award - last month. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead should focus on giving a general opener for the rest of the article IMHO. Per MOS. Jaakobou 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that leads are supposed to be both and opener and a summary of an article. But I think we're in agreement on this. ← George 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Commentary vs reporting

It's very misleading to speak, as Jaakobou does, of "reports" about the al-Durrah case from 2009. There has been almost no new reporting on the case in years, with the exception of the Karsenty trial (which was badly misreported in the English-language press). What there has been is a considerable quantity of very poor-quality commentary in the right-wing media based on speculation and innuendo - the "blood libel" that George complains of. Virtually the only people still banging the drum about this case, at least in the Western media, are right-wing hacks using the case as a club to bash those favourite targets, the media, the French and the Arabs. This distinction isn't an academic one; we make a clear distinction between opinion and statements of fact in WP:RS and treat those things differently in articles. The essential facts of the case have not changed in the last nine years. The only thing that has changed substantively in that time is the willingness of some on the political right to endorse loony conspiracy theories, such as Obama's birth certificate, "death panels", FEMA concentration camps or whatever. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the idea that Israeli/Jewish sources are inherently wrong to be not just offensive, but bigoted and prejudiced as well (I would feel the same way if you replaced that with the words "Arab sources"). WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid arguement for removing or adding material either. The Squicks (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, did you mean to write that somewhere else? I just read what ChrisO wrote, and I don't see him ever saying (or even implying) that either Israeli or Jewish sources were "inherently wrong", or even mentioning them period. He's suggesting caution to not cite opinions as reported facts, and in that regard he's entirely correct. ← George 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate George. Jaakobou 11:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I can tell, ChrisO is complaining about "poor-quality commentary in the right-wing media", "Western media", and "right-wing hacks". I don't see any of that as targeted at Jews or Israeli... ← George 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to talk in the third person here about an editor I mostly respect. ChrisO is experianced enough to know when he's crossed the line and he should be experianced enough to take a step back when this is requested of him. Jaakobou 12:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

The facts of this case have changed during thecourse of the past 9 years. Not everyone who noticed is an Arabopheobic drummer.

With respect, Jaakobou 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts have not changed. Al-Durrah is as dead now as he was 9 years ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

I wasn't aware that you are so much in the dark about all the developments that have changed through the years. Here's a few examples of things that have changed in the facts of this case during the past 9 years:

• In 2000, Talal claimed to have 27 minutes of tape and now that number changed to 18.
• In 2000, he said he has 6 minutes dedicated to the boy and father and now that number changed to 1 minute.
• In 2000 there was only one dead boy and now there's 2 boys, one of them is known to be dead but he's also noted to not be the same boy as the one in the report.

I hope things have clarified now but let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit too much into these numbers.

• Abu Rahma never said he had 27 minutes of tape, nor did he say he gave 27 minutes of tape to France 2. He said "I spent approximately 27 minutes photographing the incident." He gave 18 minutes of video to France 2.
• The question Schapira asked him was specifically was "How long did you film them, sitting there?", to which he replied "Well, maybe about 6 minutes. You would be surprised, you know, everybody, 6 minutes, it's easy for him, but he doesn't know this 6 minutes. This 6 minutes I took it in 45 minutes shooting at the boy." She didn't ask how long the film was, nor how long the film he gave France 2 was - she asked how long he filmed them while sitting there.
• Well, there were alleged to be two dead boys by Schapira, based on her expert's biometric analysis. Two young boys of the same age both being shot a dozen time in the same place an hour apart seems like an exceptional claim to me, but I'm not expert on the matter.

← George 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By "exceptional claim" I think you mean "lunatic fringe theory". It's a claim that is wholly unsupported by any other source or evidence - no better than 9/11 trutherism. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

To be honest, I think you need to take a break from the page. Jaakobou 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think you need to start applying some common sense to this issue. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Schapira is putting forward a claim that would require there to be a second dead 12-year-old boy, whose identity is completely unknown, whose death has never been reported elsewhere, and with a remarkable resemblance to al-Durrah, to have been substituted for the real al-Durrah who was somehow hidden or smuggled out of Gaza and has never resurfaced in nine years, while the Palestinian and Jordanian authorities conspired to fake the father's wounds and hospital treatment in Amman while the Israeli government either never worked out what had happened or was itself part of the conspiracy since it's never endorsed the conspiracy claims. Three governments and hundreds if not thousands of individuals would have been implicated and they would all have had to keep quiet for nine years. If anything, the conspiracy theory here is more complicated than that put forward by the 9/11 truthers. It's rather an indictment of the quality of journalism on the Arab-Israeli conflict that an apparently respectable journalist can put forward such lunacy and not find herself marginalised as a promoter of whackjob conspiracy theorists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't share your interpretation as to the biometrics expert and the ballistics expert. Both btw, are considered reliable in the court of law. I would suggest that you try and catch a version of the second documentary but it seems as though you've already decided what The Truth™ is. From my own review of the presented evidence, it seems quite likely that the boy who was brought to the hospital at 10am is not Al Durrah who was reportedly shot at 3pm. As fot a striking resemblance - all you have is two boys with dark hair and toned skintone - that covers about half the child population in Gaza. Btw, the biometrics guy said the funeral boy is older than the one reportedly shot by the IDF in Netzarim. Now, I just don't know how to make you stop with the "whackjob" descriptives but its lost all charm and I request that you stop.

With respect, Jaakobou 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said below, it's an extreme minority claim and does not belong in Misplaced Pages, period. I will remove any attempts to add it. On a personal note, I'm sorry to see that you appear to have bought into the conspiracy theory; I thought you had more sense than that. I note that you've not bothered to comment on the implications of the claim you're presenting. Conspiracy theorists make a habit of making claims about individual elements of their theories while ignoring the big picture and refusing to answer questions about it. I've seen exactly the same behaviour from those peddling conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate, the moon landings, 9/11, climate change and the Holocaust. It seems to be part of the standard conspiracy theorist rhetorical bag of tricks. I'd advise you not to fall for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

George,

I'll have to re-review the second documentary. Anyways, the biometrics expert stated that there is no doubt that there were two boys (he pointed out some examination evidence) and there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm. Also, the Palestinian doctor said that the boy was admitted at 10am along with an injured ambulance driver and not with Jamal, al-Durrah's father. Basically, there's also several more reasons to believe that there were two boys. I agree that this is an exceptional claim, but we have a couple serious investigators supporting this in various reports in wiki-reliable sources. I'll try and find a copy of the second documentary so you can see all the relatively new input... I thought it was a ridiculous claim a while back whenthe only person supporting it was Shahaf, but apparently, things have changed. Anyways, I'm pretty certain you're incorrect about the exact phrasing the Palestinian cameraman used, but I can't be 100% prior to a checkup. Will keep you posted.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two boys, since this an exceptional claim that isn't widely reported, it can be included but it has to be specifically sourced - "A German biometrics expert... concluded that the boy shown in the video being buried was not Muhammed al-Durrah" - something to that effect. And feel free to double check my quotes. I wrote them while listening to the documentary play in the background, but I may have mistyped something, and Abu Rahma's English was quite terrible. I don't think I mistyped anything, but the more people who review my transcription the better. ← George 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be included. It's a classic example of a red flag claim. As our policy states, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. An unsourced, uncorroborated claim in a single conspiracy-laden "documentary" is not remotely an exceptional source. Including it would be giving undue weight to a nutty conspiracy theory. As WP:NPOV#Undue weight says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." A viewpoint held by a single "German biometrics expert" with no indication of any wider support and no other sourcing falls squarely into this category. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, I agree with ChrisO that its not that notable in reports and should not be in the lead. At least not the lead I think the article should have, which is supposed to be a summary of the issue rather than a list of people and what they suggested. Jaakobou 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It should not be in the article, not just the lead. The policy I quoted applies throughout, not just in leads. I will remove this claim if anyone tries to add it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, are you going to remove the name of the ballistics expert who said this as well? Jaakobou 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While ChrisO did not say this, it is a relevant topic that we should careful about use of overly promotional language such as "reports", "reported", "report", and so on. As per WP:WTA, more netural terms such as "articles", "stated", "article" or things like that are preferable.

As per the rules on sources, whether or not to include notable opinions (and which opinions to cite) is an editorial decision by users working things out and trying to achieve consensus. This is best thought of as a case-by-case determination. To claim that WP policy says that opinions cannot be mentioned anywhere is not accurate. The Squicks (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reports" etc is not "promotional". It's mentioned in WP:WTA only in the context of an "unreliable source such as a political action committee, a government press agency, or a spoof news source, that may be inappropriate." If one is talking about a mainstream news organisation's original reporting - not commentary - then "reports" is entirely appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We're dealing here with reliable sources that for an unknown reason, you're paining in badlight while reliable sources have not rejected them and reported their concerns without prejudice. Let me know if I misunderstood you or missed something. Jaakobou 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone identify more specifically which sources you are all discussing? As far as I can tell, ChrisO is talking about right-wing oped pieces in the Western media, saying (correctly) that they aren't reliable sources. I'm not sure what the rest of you are talking about though. ← George 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not so much that they're not reliable sources, more that we have to treat them for what they are - statements of the columnist's personal opinion rather than statements of fact. Generally we prioritise factual reporting above opinionating. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right - opinion pieces are only reliable as sources for stating what someone's opinion on a subject is, not for stating something as fact. ← George 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with that. Opinion pieces are usually more opinion than fact in these controversial instances. Jaakobou 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Three changes to the shooting section

I made three changes to The shooting section which Jaakobou revert (in good faith), that I'd like to discuss:

• I changed "According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes" to "On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father." I think it's more readable, and neutral.
• I changed "Abu Rahma was also interviewed for a German documentary, in which he stated to have 6 minutes of raw footage from 45 minutes in which Israeli shooting towards them had occurred" to "He was later interviewed by Esther Schapira for her documentary, Three bullets and a dead child, in which he said he had filmed 6 minutes of the 45 minute shooting while hidden behind a minibus." In this case I was just trying to clean up the English (this is the third sentence in a row using the word also), and specific (citing the name of the documentary).
• I changed "Also, an October 1 BBC news report said the gunfight lasted for 20 minutes, and the following day it stated that France 2 had a 45 minute film" to "The day after the shooting, BBC news reported that the gunfight lasted for 20 minutes." The source cited for the second part of this statement never says that France 2 had 45 minutes of film. I also moved this statement up to the correct place chronologically (it was written the day after the shooting, yet is listed after Abu Rahma's statements, which occurred later).

Thoughts? ← George 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For point one, it appears as if the central point of the initial wording (that Rahma stated that the Israeli fired at the people for a full 45 minutes continuously) has been lost in the changes. The Squicks (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, because I don't see mention of Israelis firing at them continuously for 45 minutes in the source cited. The source says "the incident... took place for 45 minutes" and "Shooting lasted for 45 minutes", but it doesn't say that only the Israelis were shooting during that time, and it doesn't say continuously. Do you have a different view on what the source says? ← George 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the source seems quite plain to me. There was a 45-minute gun battle with shots fired on both sides, during some of which time shots were fired towards the al-Durrahs. You're correct to note what the source does not say. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

Could you do us a favor and link the source. To be honest, I remember two segments discussingthe shooting, and one of them was an allegation that the Israelis shot at the boy and father intentionally and in cold blood for 45 minutes after 5 minutes of interchanging shots in both directions. I don't recall the word continuously though.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're at least partially correct on this. The source can be found here. It says there was 5 minutes of firing back and forth between the Israelis and Palestinians, and 45 minutes of "intermittent" firing at the al-Durrahs and the Palestinian outposts, and that from the direction the shots were coming from (and based on the sound of the gunfire) the only logical conclusion he could draw was that they were coming from the Israeli position, and that they were firing at the al-Durrahs intentionally.

If you compare your wording and my wording, the difference is that the heart of your sentences states that the "intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes", when what he actually described was "intermittent" fire directed at both the al-Durrahs and the Palestinian outposts. ← George 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion thus far has surrounded the first bullet point above. Is there any objection to the other two changes I listed? ← George 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The second source on the BBC didn't say 45? If it didn't then I have no problem with the change... albeit, I'm not sure that the BBC is all that important here. Was this in the lead? If it were, I would suggest we remove their name. Jaakobou 01:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't mention it. I suspect some editor misinterpreted what the source does say, which is similar to what most sources say... 45 minutes of fighting, and a video provided to France 2 (though not necessarily 45 minutes long, which was the editors mistake). And this was in the "The shooting" section, not the lead. ← George 02:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the second and third change I proposed weren't controversial, so I've gone ahead and implemented them. Jaakobou - what are your thoughts on my first change? Haven't heard back from you for a while, so not sure where you stand. ← George 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any discussion on the first point lately, and I don't see any particular objection to it when there was discussion, I've boldly changed it. This should make the sentence more neutral, and avoid problematic phrasing. ← George 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it pertinent to his testimony that he's the source for "cold blood". I'm sorry if I missed you here for a bit, but ChrisO has made a substantial change to the page that I disagreed with and it was more important on my 'to discuss'/'fix' list. May I ask for the importance/value in the change you've inserted? Would you mind pasting both versions here? I'll do my best to see this one through in a timely manner. Jaakobou 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Your version:

According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes.

My version:

On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father.

The differences:

• I've added the date of the affidavit.
• The wording "According to " can be misleading, as it can imply that he later changed his stance. He didn't, though the hint is subtle.
• I've removed the word "alleging", which is a word to avoid.
• I've broken up the one, overly long and complicated sentence into two shorter, more readable sentences. The grammatical structure of your sentence actually implies that he alleged intentional Israeli shooting while filming, which, I suspect, isn't what you intended.

The original version doesn't mention "cold blood", so I'm not sure what you're referring to on that. This is mostly an English grammar change, while making the statement more precise. ← George 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

The source - - has the words "in cold blood" twice so its more than just a Grammar change. I agree with the Grammar changes, just not with the content change.

With respect, Jaakobou 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting an all, but as I said, I didn't remove the words "in cold blood" because they were not in the original version of the text to begin with. I don't oppose the inclusion of the term, which would give the following statement: On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father, and killed the boy "in cold blood". ← George 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its in the source twice, so your assertion requires an explnation.

p.s. Talal doesn't portray a "45 minute-long gun battle", but rather 5 minutes of exchange of fire with 45 minutes of the Israelis intentionally shooting at the boy in cold blood. It this is how the key witness portrayed it, we shouldn't water it down.

How about this:

• On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the incident, which took place for 45 minutes. He also testified that he believed the Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father, and killed the boy "in cold blood".

Let me know, Jaakobou 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about being in the source twice - the term "cold blood", a term I don't oppose and a term which wasn't in your original wording? Regardless, I think your rewrite is a good one. As a side note, I've read that he later recanted this testimony. If true, we may need to re-evaluate this statement. ← George 17:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My rewrite

So I thought I would take a stab at rewriting the lead myself:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988–September 30, 2000) Template:Lang-ar) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) gunfire during a clash between IDF and Palestinian Security Forces at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The boy became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

Several photographers were at the Netzarim junction during the incident, but the shots fired at the al-Durrahs were only caught on film by Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman filming for the French television network France 2. The footage shows Muhammad al-Durrah and his father, Jamal, seeking cover from the crossfire behind a concrete cylinder. After a few moments, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire. Journalists at the scene said the the shots appeared to come from the Israeli position.

Israel accepted responsibility and apologized, but a controversial subsequent IDF investigation suggested that the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets.

Aside from some minor cleanup here and there, I've stripped it down to what I think are the essential points of the article. I've kept in the more "official" theory put forward by the IDF investigation, and left out the more fringe conspiracy theories put forth by various individuals. These more fringe conspiracy theories may find a home in the body of the article, but, after reviewing policy, I'm more inclined to not include them in the lead. The French 2 court case was also given way too much space relative to its importance and coverage, so I would leave that to the body of the article as well. Thoughts? ← George 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Enderlin did not break the story. There were eyewitnesses there from several news agencies. AP was the first to report the shooting (though it got al-Durrah's name wrong), several hours before Enderlin. The very first report on the affair was from the Chinese news agency Xinhua, while the gun battle was still ongoing. I've found no evidence to suggest that Enderlin's words (as opposed to the footage) were rebroadcast outside France; other early reports followed AP's line, including the misspelling of al-Durrah's name, not Enderlin's. The reason why the conspiracy theorists focus on Enderlin is not because his reporting was any different from anyone else's - it wasn't - but because his cameraman shot the iconic pictures. The idea seems to be to discredit the reporter and so discredit the pictures. Of course, this requires the conspiracy theorists to pretend that Enderlin was the only one who reported the story and to ignore all of the rest of the coverage. Your lead, while good, falls into the trap of focusing on Enderlin - which is what the conspiracy theorists want - while overlooking the supporting coverage. If I recall correctly, eyewitnesses from at least four news agencies stated unequivocally that the shots fired at the al-Durrahs came from the Israeli position. I think we should seek to reflect what was actually reported on the day, not simply reflect the framing that the conspiracy theorists have created. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the sources to support that? If we can find the sources that either (a) broke the story before Enderlin, or (b) reported on the incident independent of him, then yes, I could definitely see a rewrite of this. Specifically, the last sentence of the second paragraph would need to be reworked, though the first sentence of the second paragraph may still work. ← George 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, as it happens - I downloaded from Lexis-Nexis and Factiva literally every article between 2000 and 2008 that mentions or relates to the al-Durrah case. I'll see if I can construct a rough timeline of the coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be the entire new lead? What happened to the independent investigators? Why is the IDFs initial apology taking up such a prominent role while all the developments which occurred after 2001 remain missing? Jaakobou 02:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I'm trying to draw a line, between more popular, "official" investigations, and what ChrisO has argued are fringe conspiracy theories. I'd say that the IDF investigation (the one conducted by the two Israeli scientists) that I mention here was more "official", and reported on more than the wilder conspiracy theories, so probably okay to mention here. I don't think every possible theory every individual's "investigation" comes up with (aka, conspiracy theories) should be in the lead, however. I'm undecided if I oppose the inclusion of those more conspiratorial theories in the body of the article (ChrisO's stance), but I definitely don't think they belong in the lead. ← George 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough sources below ChrisO. I've changed this sentence based on what you wrote. Let me know your thoughts. ← George 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coverage timeline

Here's a rough timeline of when various reports were filed on Saturday 30 September 2000, the day of the shooting. This data comes from Lexis-Nexis and represents a snapshot of how the story developed during the day. Most of the reports have a GMT (UTC) timestamp associated; for convenience's sake, I've also added the time in Israeli time (UTC+2). A few of the reports I've listed below do not have a timestamp attached, but it's possible to reconstruct when they were filed as they are sandwiched between reports that do have timestamps (the reports are indexed chronologically by filing order). Enderlin's report is not included in the Lexis-Nexis database; I've added it to the timeline but have listed it in italics. None of the subsequent coverage even mentions Enderlin, who does not appear in the coverage until November 2000, nearly 2 months later. The France 2 TV pictures were (obviously) rebroadcast on many other networks but it would have been distributed without his voiceover - TV networks distribute footage, not commentary.

A condensed timeline of the day's events would look something like this:

• 09:30 UTC / 11:30 UTC+2 - clashes at Netzarim occur. (Xinhua)
• circa 10:00 UTC / 12:00 UTC+2 - Palestinian security official Saeb al-Ajaz tells reporters that five people, including three policemen, were killed at Netzarim. (AFP)
• 10:35 UTC / 12:35 UTC+2 - Palestinian health minister Riad al-Zaanun tells reporters that three people, including one policemen, were killed at Netzarim. First eyewitness report of the shooting of al-Durrah. (AP, AFP)
• 13:37 UTC / 15:37 UTC+2 - Shifa hospital in Gaza City reports three dead - a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver. (AP)
• 17:25 UTC / 19:25 UTC+2 - Second eyewitness report of al-Durrah shooting. The name is misspelled as "Rami"; other media outlets subsequently use the same misspelling. (Reuters)
• 19:00 UTC / 21:00 UTC+2 - France 2 broadcasts al-Durrah shooting footage.
• 21:42 UTC / 23:42 UTC+2 - Jamal al-Durrah reported hospitalised in Gaza, said by family members to be expected to recover. (AP)

The Xinhua report stated that fighting had been taking place around 11:30 local time. At around 12:00, a Palestinian security official reported five deaths. This was corrected shortly afterwards by the Palestinian health minister, who stated that three had been killed. Al-Durrah's death was first reported by name at 12:35 by an eyewitness reporter. The main hospital in Gaza City was reported an hour later to have confirmed the three deaths, including al-Durrah (though not by name). A second eyewitness reporter with a different news agency filed a report of al-Durrah's death at 19:25. France 2's famous footage was not broadcast until 21:00, but was then rebroadcast around the world.

The tenor of the coverage over the following days is interesting. The press was initially uncertain about assigning responsibility for the shooting of al-Durrah. The Guardian's Middle East editor, Brian Whittaker, wrote a commentary about this on 5 October:

It is now clear that Mohammed was shot by the Israelis, probably deliberately (and anyone who still doubts that should read the detailed article, Making of a martyr, by my colleague, Suzanne Goldenberg. But on Saturday, as the British Sunday papers went to press, the facts were still unclear.

The first report of Mohammed's killing came from the American agency, Associated Press, just before 6pm last Saturday. Unedited, the relevant part said: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the crossfire. The boy, Rami Aldura, and his father, were crouched behind a metal barrel, trying to seek cover and pleading for a ceasefire. The father held his hand protectively over the boy, who was screaming with fear, only to see his son fatally shot in the stomach."

A few minutes later, Reuters circulated a report which said: "In Netzarim, 12-year-old Rami Aldura and his father Jamal were caught in the crossfire."

Both reports got the boy's name partly wrong and both mentioned "crossfire". As the picture of what really happened became clearer, "caught in the crossfire" began to look like an Israeli-inspired phrase to deflect blame, but I suspect that is not how it actually arose.

The Israeli army's first explanation was that Mohammed was a stone-thrower who had been pulled back by his father which in their eyes presumably made it perfectly all right to shoot him dead.

More usually, "crossfire" is inserted into stories by journalists who are not sure who was at fault. The trouble is that it implies that nobody in particular was at fault. It would be much better to say something like: "It was not immediately clear who fired the fatal shots" but professional pride sometimes stops journalists admitting their ignorance.

It would be wrong, however, to imagine that journalists don't think about these things before rushing into print. A colleague working on a Sunday newspaper tells me there was a discussion in the office about where the shots that killed Mohammed might have come from.

Although the first impression was that he had been shot from in front, the holes in the wall behind him indicated to some people in the office that he might have been hit by bullets passing through the wall from behind.

Of course, after the IDF admitted that its soldiers had probably shot al-Durrah, the debate over responsibility became somewhat academic - at least until the issue was reopened by the subsequent "investigation" which cleared the IDF of blame. But it's worth noting that there is no indication whatsover in the coverage that Enderlin's attribution of blame was even reported outside France. According to the judgement in 2006 of the French court which found Philippe Karsenty guilty of libelling Enderlin and France 2, "many journalists ... were present at the scene, notably ... Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News, all of whom claim the shots were fired from the Israeli side." With multiple eyewitnesses from multiple agencies all attributing the fatal shots to the IDF position, there would have been no need for anyone to rely on Enderlin's words alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at some basic issues:

• 'Muhammad' is so darn close to 'Rami' that I often make that mistake myself.
• The ballistics expert's credibility (not Shahaf), the biometrics guy or the Israeli doctor for that matter. Bad liars all of them. Freelance photographer in Gaza... honest guy.
• Two boys dying in Gaza on the same day... preposterous right?
• The "Zionists" (as the father of the boy put it ever so elegantly) did it.
• Freelance cameraman don't fake stories... that never happened in the history of photojournalism... esp. not in Gaza.
• Israeli soldiers shot at the boy intentionally for 45 minutes and then kept on shooting to prevent the ambulances from evacuating him. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

p.s. I'm being sarcastic. We really need to stop with the original research. A smear campaign against material we might not like is just not what we should do here. I would love to tear Goldenberg apart but this is not what we should be doing here.

p.p.s. wasn't the 2006 verdict successfully appealed against?

p.p.p.s. ChrisO,have you seen the second documentary?

With respect, Jaakobou 01:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts regarding your points:

• I actually remember reading an explanation for the confusion in one of the sources. One of them stated something along the lines of Mohammad was his first name, and Rami was his middle or nickname. That seems entirely feasible, in a region where there's say, more than one person named Mohammed.
• I don't think anyone has to be classified as a liar or honest. People can and do make mistakes. A ballistics expert watching a video, a biometric expert watching a video, and an Israeli doctor commenting on leg and arm wounds shown in a video (neglecting to explain the stomach wounds) certainly do not overrule the five journalists ChrisO mentioned who were actually there, on the scene.
• Two boys the same age with multiple, similar gun shot wounds to the stomach dying on the same day? Well yeah, it's kind of preposterous. Impossible? No, but so unlikely that you would need numerous exceptional sources to support it, and since we don't have a single source mentioning another boy the same age being shot in the same way... yeeeah.
• Please don't try for a sympathy vote. If a Palestinian complained about "Zionists" after his son got killed, I wouldn't be super surprised. But even if he's racist, that doesn't prove your case.
• Doesn't matter what happens in other cases, only what reliable sources say about this case, and this journalist.
• Reasonable..? No. Possible? Yes.

The verdict was successfully appealed. The court didn't say that the Israelis didn't shoot the boy, they just said there wasn't enough evidence to silence someone who claims that it was a hoax. I really wish I could see the second documentary. It seems to have you very convinced, which surprises me, given how lackluster the first was. ← George 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the second documentary? SlimVirgin 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the second documentary is called "Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit".

George,

I am in complete disagreement with how the events of 2001, as reported in reliable media are presented. I also disagree with the level of argument on this page, where we're supposedly debating what could and what couldn't have happened as if we are the investigators ourselves. For example, I haven't seen any place saying that both boys were shot in the same places... so I'm not following where did that one come from exactly(?) as well as why am I even supposed to reply to (or shall we say "defend against") this argument if it wasn't published anywhere?

With respect, you can't decide that one "controversial investigation" (read: criticized by a few people, some of them changed their minds later) matters while the others (the ones reported on in reliable media) are not.

I also don't understand why the claim (read: excuse?) that Rami was Muhammad's nickname has any more merit than the assertion/report/claim that the boy in the funeral (at 5pm) is the same boy who arrived at the hospital at 10am while the boy who was filmed by Talal was reportedly shot at 3pm and is another boy. Is it not possible that the hospital was confused? That because they had good images of one boy, they immediately connected them to another to sell the story (it's not the first time that would happen).

Anyways, this isn't even relevant for how we should be conducting the article constructing. What matters is notability in the press - and you need to reinsert the after-2001 material, which was published in reliable sources, into any rewrite suggestion. If you disagree that it was reported upon, that is a different case, but I don't believe that this is the case.

-- Jaakobou 04:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I do believe that this was a thread about the timeline of sources, and that you were the one who brought up the boy's name, the relative credibility of different experts, preposterously unlikely coincidences, motives of people who use the term "zionist", "fake stories" by journalists, and how reasonable it is to believe someone intentionally killing a 12-year-old boy. If I feel that I can help answer some question for you, or clear up some misunderstanding you have of what reliable sources say, then I'll do so. Regarding the boy's name, I was merely trying to explain what I had read about why there was a confusion with the names. You seem confused on the issue, so I conveyed what I had read to you. Apologies if my explanation offended you.

So the second boy didn't have a bullet wound to the stomach? Did he have any bullet wounds? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who had seen this secondary documentary, so you would know best. I assumed that if two boys are so easily mistaken for each other, then surely they would at least have similar wounds, but maybe not...

One investigation was conducted by the Israeli army, officially, regardless of how criticized it was, and involved a re-enactment. The others were done by individuals who watched a video. This is the same distinction we discussed over a week ago. I'm not sure who you're referring to as having changed their mindafter criticizing the investigation, and I'd love to see the sources for it, but I'm still waiting for the sources that say another twelve-year-old boy was shot on the same day. Or did the documentary stop after they decided that the faces didn't match, and not delve into who the mystery boy was?

Can you provide the source that says the boy was shot at 3pm? All of ChrisO's listed sources appear to indicate he would have been shot sometime before 10am. Do you have any sources beyond this film you watched?

Ok, let me try to clear this up. What reliable sources have published these theories, and how did they report them? I would prefer a list of links to articles that we can review, not vague claims that they exist. ChrisO has made the point that some of the more exceptional claims being made require exceptional sources, and I agree with him, and you seem very convinced that they exist, so please provide us with them. ← George 06:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for the 3 pm time seems to be that the hospital announced/certified al-Durrah's death around this time (see the report of 15:37 local time). However, there's no doubt whatsoever that he was shot before 10:35 am, as that was the time of the first report specifically naming him. (Obviously his death could not have been reported before it happened.) As for the "Rami" name, this (misnomer? nickname?) is sourced to the Palestinian health minister Riyadh al-Zanoun's press conference of around 10:30 am. The Reuters report of 19:35 local time quotes him saying: "Bassam al-Bilbeisi, the ambulance driver went to save the boy, Rami al-Durra, who was 12 years old. But he was shot at, the boy was shot at as well. Bassam and the boy Rami were both killed." The first AP report uses the name "Mohammed", the next one switches to "Rami", then both agencies switch back to using "Mohammed" consistently. Later Reuters reports also switch to using "Mohammed". A small number of early follow-up reports in other news outlets also use "Rami" (evidently following the early AP and Reuters reports) but the majority use "Mohammed" from the start.

Now let's deal with Jaakobou's objections, which frankly appear to rely more on innuendo and supposition than any objective review of the known facts:

• Yes, the father uses the term "Zionists". So what? I gather it's a pretty common term in the area.
• Analyses years later from fringe analysts positing some kind of huge complicated conspiracy theory do not - cannot - override contemporary eyewitness accounts. Jaakobou is acting like a 9/11 truther here, arguing that the eyewitnesses who saw planes hitting the WTC must have been wrong because later analysis proves the planes were really missiles or holograms or something.
• Only one boy has ever been reported to have been killed in Gaza on 30 September 2000. There is no source whatsoever for a second boy, of the same age and similar appearance. All of the reports of the day's violence speak of three deaths - a policeman, al-Durrah and the ambulance driver who tried to rescue al-Durrah.
• "Freelance cameraman don't fake stories" is just a smear - effectively saying "all Palestinian cameramen are liars". It's like saying "Presidents of Israel don't rape women" to make the case that all Presidents of Israel are rapists.
• There's no original research going on here (except maybe by Jaakobou, who seems to be firmly convinced of the conspiracy theory). Source-based research of the kind which I've listed above is what we are supposed to do.
• Yes, the verdict of the French court in 2006 was overturned. Its findings of fact were not. The appeal succeeded on a legal technicality - i.e. whether Karsenty had an adequate defence under the French press law - not because the basic facts were in dispute. The first court took the view that Karsenty's defence was inadequate and convicted him. The second court took the opposite view. We'll have to wait and see which way the re-appeal goes (I suspect Enderlin will probably win it). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My time is limited for the next couple days but you just need to run a search from 2006 and onward and see what comes up. I'll help the gathering process as soon as I have the chance. Jaakobou 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. What you find is a small number of columnists for a small number of newspapers - principally the (formerly) Conrad Black-owned National Post of Canada and Jerusalem Post of Israel - promoting increasingly lurid conspiracy theories. It's just op-ed bloviation. There is very little actual reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually started to search for articles in the range Jaakobou suggested, but stopped on this one, titled Rattling the Cage: Al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks. It's an op-ed, but an interesting read anyways. I'm a bit busy as well, so I'll leave the sourcing of these claims to Jaakobou, when he finds more time. ← George 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou, you wrote above that, "Anyways, the biometrics expert stated that there is no doubt that there were two boys (he pointed out some examination evidence) and there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm." Who has said that Muhammad al-Durrah was shot at 3 pm?

Also, I have to object to some of the changes that have been made to this article. Under the "incident as reported" header, which started life as "as initially reported," we include analysis, which clearly isn't as initially reported. I would like to revert to a much earlier version of this section. SlimVirgin 10:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The 3pm claim actually appears to come from Enderlin, who evidently got the timings wrong. Here's the transcript of his report in the original French, from the 2008 Karsenty appeal judgement (which you can find in translation here): « 15 heures, tout vient de basculer au carrefour de Netzarim, dans la bande de Gaza. Les Palestiniens ont tiré à balles réelles, les Israéliens ripostent. Ambulanciers, journalistes, simples passants sont pris entre deux feux. Ici, Jamal et son fils Mohammed sont la cible de tirs venus des positions israéliennes. Mohammed a 12 ans, son père tente de le protéger. Il fait des signes (…) Mais une nouvelle rafale. Mohammed est mort et son père grièvement blessé. Un policier palestinien et un ambulancier ont également perdu la vie au cours de cette bataille. » Incidentally, note that Enderlin does not attribute blame in the report - he says that the al-Durrahs are under fire from the Israeli position, but he does not say that the fatal shots - "une nouvelle rafale" - came from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. SlimVirgin 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO, is it possible that Enderlin did not get the timing wrong? Jaakobou 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No other source says the incident happened in mid-afternoon. Since we have sources filed in the morning that explicitly state the time of the shooting, it's clear that Enderlin is wrong. The first reports by AFP and AP about al-Durrah's death were filed hours before the erroneous time given by Enderlin. There's no indication that Enderlin's mistake about the timing influenced any of the English-language reporting; he isn't cited by any reports and the 3pm time he stated isn't even mentioned in any English-language sources prior to a September 2005 article in Commentary magazine in which it is attributed to Enderlin. Followup reporting in English-language outlets, such as this eyewitness report in The Guardian, speaks explicitly of "Saturday morning". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So the 3pm is mentioned in several sources and you believe it to be an honest mistake since earlier reports exist that include a decription of the same scene. Is this correct? Jaakobou 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to make this out to be some sort of disagreement between sources, that's not the case. The only source that said 3pm was Enderlin, in French. No other report in any of the languages I surveyed - English, French, German, Italian and Spanish - gives this time. The only sources that state 3pm subsequently are ones quoting and criticising Enderlin. That time is attributed to what he said in his report. All of the other contemporary reports that give a time state the time as Saturday morning. Besides which, please apply a bit of common sense - al-Durrah's death could hardly have been reported before it had happened. The timeline is quite clear, as I've set out above. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you're wondering why Enderlin made this mistake (and yes, I do consider it an honest mistake) I note that the hospital in Gaza may have announced or certified the boy's death around 3pm - note the report of 15:37 in the timeline. We can't know for sure why Enderlin got the time wrong but the death of al-Durrah had certainly been announced officially, by name, by the Palestinian health minister by, at the very latest, 12:30 local time. He may not have been aware of the earlier reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like too much speculation/assumption. As there are other sources reporting from earlier times, we should list "several sources reported that" with a citation, and also note what Enderlin stated. Seems fair? Jaakobou 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to highlight what Enderlin stated? No other source appears to have picked up his timing. Every source that mentions a time speaks of Saturday morning, with Xinhua giving the exact time. What purpose is served by highlighting Enderlin? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Talal Abu Rahma said the fighting started at noon. Schapira's documentary states that the al-Durrah were forced to get out of a taxi by police at the junction while heading home at noon (the police were keeping the road clear for ambulances), and that "the shooting begins at midday, suddenly and without warning - on this, all sides agree." ← George 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source based note, George. ChrisO, Would you mind adding a short text to the citation that at least 5 news agencies witnessed the incident so that people reading it would be able to see it immediately? Anyways, to answer the question, the issue with Enderlin has been reviewed so it does bare some notability. Jaakobou 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. ChrisO, I believe that the court appeal received more notability than the initial conviction. Could you please change the phrasing to accommodate this? Jaakobou 11:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the statements that George mentions is that they are not contemporary. Every single contemporary source we have - on the day itself, and in the days immediately afterwards, all speak very specifically of Saturday morning. Xinhua even gives the exact time. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the shooting could not have happened at noon because the first reports of it were filed in the morning. You can't report an event before it happens!

Jaakobou, I'm not sure what you mean by "notability". Both the conviction and appeal are notable. The current wording gives neither more prominence than the other - it simply states the sequence of events (conviction, successful appeal, unconcluded re-appeal). If you can suggest an alternative wording here on the talk page then please do. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well,

• The appeal was reported on in multiple reliable sources and is more "contemporary" than the initial judgment. It also received more exposure since suddenly, France 2 was ordered to release the secretive raw footage. The current phrasing gives more weight to the initial conviction. I will rephrase it per one of the sources I've seen a couple days ago.
• Your assertion that, "we know for a fact that the shooting could not have happened at noon" is incorrect. If you have a source for this, I'd be most inclined to quote that source but we can't leave out the sources that say something different. If Enderlin stated something else, it should be noted in the text.

With respect, Jaakobou 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't evade the issue. If the shooting happened at noon why do we have sources filed in the morning describing it? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I don't consider this speculation process to be a helpful exercise and would appreciate a more source-based approach. Anything I would reply here that is not backed by a source would be speculation and original research, much like your assertion about what "we know for a fact". I can repeat what was proposed in reliable sources, which is that "At around 3:00 P.M. Mohammed al-Dura and his father make their first appearance on film." As far as I'm concerned, there could have been more than a single shooting incident with injured people at the Netzarim junction but I don't know these things for facts and, I don't consider this speculation process to be a helpful exercise.

With respect, Jaakobou 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, we are not going to get anywhere if you choose to simply ignore the contemporary reports. The only contemporary reporter to give a time of 3pm is Enderlin. Fallows says of the time: "The time can be judged by later comments from the father and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of shadows in the footage" - in other words, he is speculating, and he clearly has no specific information on when the shooting happened. We know for a fact that al-Durrah was killed before 10:35 UTC because that is when the first report specifically stating his death was filed. Every contemporary report that gives a time specifically states Saturday morning. Those are documented facts. I don't propose to continue this fruitless conversation any further if you continue to ignore them. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

It seems to me that you are adding Fallows to the list of sources you deem to be unreliable. How do you suppose I should respond to your repeated assertions on what "we know for a fact"?

With respect, Jaakobou 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Small note/concern

I don't see any mention of a minibus in the used source. Jaakobou 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should change the source to cite the documentary itself. From the documentary: "Everybody runs for cover, including Talal Abu Rahma. Suddenly, from nowhere, a minibus approaches. Talal and several children attempt to find cover behind it." That would be the brown square labelled "Car" in this diagram. ← George 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Jaakobou 10:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewording to reduce undue weight

As I said earlier, we need to avoid undue weight on Enderlin. His report was not distributed internationally - none of the contemporary coverage in English references it - and focusing on him omits the critical point that the shooting was witnessed and reported on by multiple journalists, not just Enderlin. I've reworded the lead to make this clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you come up the the note that his report was not distributed internationally? I believe he was the only one with video footage and that this footage was broadcast internationally. Jaakobou 11:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing two things. The footage by Rahma was distributed internationally. The report by Enderlin was not - don't forget that it was in French. "Footage" has a very specific meaning (see Misplaced Pages's footage article). It's conventionally distributed just with the pictures and natural audio, perhaps being lightly edited to get rid of junk shots. TV stations then re-edit the footage and dub a commentary to create a package for broadcast. In this specific instance, numerous reports cite the footage shot by France 2 but make no mention whatsoever of the accompanying commentary by Enderlin. I've not come across any evidence that it was ever distributed outside France. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we know if the news outlets received the video as is or if they got it with the added input that the IDF was at fault? It matters if they reported IDF blame based on Abu Rahma. Jaakobou 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the coverage for the first couple of days after the shooting, it doesn't actually attribute blame - it speaks only of "crossfire" (this contemporary commentary from The Guardian discusses the issue of blame-attribution). An AFP report of October 1, 2000 says that "The film does not show who fired, but the shots seem to come from the Israeli position." It's not until October 3 that the media starts talking specifically of "Israeli bullets". But if you read Enderlin's report carefully (I posted the transcript in the original French further up the page), he doesn't attribute blame either - he says that they are being shot at from the Israeli position, but he does not say that the fatal bullets came from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying from the direction of the Israeli position seems to be of exact value as saying the Israelis shot him to me. I can't make any assertions by looking at the coverage since much of it is in the lexis-nexis system and it would also be a bit of original research. I'm interested in understanding if the news outlets received the video as is or if they got it with the added input that the IDF was assumed to be at fault. It matters if they reported IDF blame (or directionality) based on Abu Rahma. Jaakobou 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. You're trying to draw a direct line between Enderlin's report and the tenor of the subsequent international reporting. To do that, you have to demonstrate that Enderlin's report was distributed outside France. We know that Rahma's footage was distributed, because we have sources saying that. What is your source for saying that Enderlin's report was also distributed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a direct line that he sent them the video and that this, "result in it being aired worldwide". There is no reliable-source line that their report was not based on what the cameraman told the press. Is there?

p.s. please avoid the "you're trying" theme. If you're unclear on something, ask me to provide a source(s) or to clarify.

p.p.s. based on the second source, I would appreciate a rephrase to the "accepted responsibility and apologized" part.

With resepect, Jaakobou 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first source (which is an op-ed from a notoriously unreliable columnist, btw) states that France 2 "helpfully sent various news agencies three minutes of the footage of this incident" and explicitly contrasts this with the 55 seconds that was transmitted. Your second source speaks vaguely of France 2 distributing "the story" without saying what was actually distributed. Neither source says that Enderlin's report was distributed. Again, as I said, you need to find a source that explicitly states that Enderlin's words were redistributed. Precision is important here. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

It appears that this report has no clear relation with Al-Durrah. Unless one is provided, then this source should be removed. Jaakobou 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting by other agencies

As far as I know, only French television reported on the specific Al_Durrah shooting (as opposed to the general violent conflicts of the day) - and this is what the article says later on . ChrisO, can you provide the links to these other 5 agencies reporting? Millmoss (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Millmoss, thanks for your contributions. Please have a look at the detailed summary I posted at #Coverage timeline above. The death of al-Durrah was reported by Reuters and Associated Press several hours before Antenne 2 aired its report. Journalists from both of those agencies were present, saw the incident and filed their own reports on it. The other news organisations aren't reflected in the archives I used (Lexis-Nexis and Factiva), but their journalists' presence at the scene is attested in the judgement of the French court that found Philippe Karsenty guilty of libel in 2006. The judgement says (in English translation): "many journalists ... were present at the scene, notably ... Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News." -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Where can one find the French court's judgment? Millmoss (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy here. I'm still trying to track down the French original. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Millmoss (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the text says that, "As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma". There seems to be a misunderstanding between being present at the scene of the boy and father being shot at and the scene of who was firing bullets that day. If we don't separate this into the two, then this source is contradicting itself within the course of two adjacent paragraphs. Do we have other sources saying that the journalists were witnessing the same scene?

p.s. according to the second German documentary, there was a 5000 signature "testimony" of people attesting to the good character of Enderlin.

With respect, Jaakobou 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Netzarim Junction before the shooting

I found a picture on Flickr of the Israeli outpost at Netzarim Junction in January 2000 - see . I'll ask the contributor if we could use the image on Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What was distributed by France 2?

I've asked a media contact to do an archive search to find out exactly what France 2 distributed to the international media concerning the al-Durrah shooting. News agencies (for obvious reasons) keep extensive indexes of what they record or receive, so that reporters and researchers can go back to the archives and find whatever footage or reports they happen to be looking for. I'm hopeful that the France 2 distribution will have been catalogued with a reasonably detailed description. I'll post an update when (if) I get any answers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that they released a few minutes of video? ← George 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But Jaakobou is insisting that France 2 distributed Charles Enderlin's report (in French, remember). This would be a highly unusual thing to do - standard practice is to distribute footage without any voiceover, for the receiving news agency to re-edit and re-dub with its own commentary. Another reason to doubt that they did this is that no other contemporary reports even mention Enderlin's report, let alone cite it. The footage is certainly heavily discussed but Enderlin's reportage is completely absent from the record. I'm aiming to find out whether or not France 2's distribution included Enderlin's report or was merely undubbed footage. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that France 2 released the video with Enderlin's voice over (versus just releasing the video without commentary), or is this just a wild-goose chase? ← George 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change what I said. Jaakobou 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My media contact has come through with the goods. Here is the description from the database entry for the France 2 footage, which was catalogued on October 1st, 2000. The description was written by the person who catalogued the entry for the media organisation in question, not by France 2:

NATURAL SOUND FTG. VS ISRAELI TROOPS FIRING ON PALESTINIANS / PALESTINIAN FATHER AND YOUNG SON ATTEMPTING TO SHIELD THEMSELVES FROM GUNFIRE / FATHER AND SON CRYING / ISRAELI SOLDIERS SHOOTING FATHER AND SON / SON AND FATHER LAYING ON PAVEMENT W/ GUN WOUNDS / SON LATER DIES.

The first line describes the soundtrack - "natural sound footage", i.e. no voice-over. "VS" means "view shot". In other words, it's an entirely standard distribution of raw footage "as is" without anything else recorded on top of it. Unfortunately we can't use this in the article as it's non-attributable, but hopefully it will help to inform this talk page.

And in answer to George's question, no, there is no evidence that Enderlin's report was distributed outside France. I've made that point - repeatedly - to Jaakobou. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your data doesn't suggest that the video wasn't transferred with the cameraman's story. In fact "ISRAELI TROOPS FIRING ON PALESTINIANS" seems to echo his version of the events. Jaakobou 13:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could I ask a favour, please, that citation templates not be added to this article, per CITE? They can make the text considerably harder to edit for flow, and the writing tends to suffer. SlimVirgin 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses

Hi George, you added that the incident -- by which I take it you mean the shooting -- was witnessed by cameramen or journalists from ABC News, Associated Press, EPA, and Reuters, as well as France 2, and you cited the decision in the Karsenty case -- Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris. Can you say exactly what was said? SlimVirgin 03:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have just read the above, and I can't see who added this to the lead, but it may not have been George. I think we need to be careful here. We shouldn't take material from a primary source (the decision), unless it's very clear. In this case, although some cameramen from the above may have been in the area, they appear not to have witnessed the incident (the shooting), because they'd have filmed it if they had. SlimVirgin 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I didn't add that. I think ChrisO did, based on the court decision. He linked to an English translation of it a couple discussions up if I recall correctly... ← George 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he linked to an English translation here. Not sure where it's from, but it may be helpful as a guide to what that document says. ← George 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read it. First, this is one person's interpretation/summary of what was said in court. Secondly, it doesn't say any journalists were present, but photographers. Third, it doesn't say they witnessed the shooting, at least not unambiguously. I suggest we stick to secondary sources for this article, except where we can all agree that the primary sources are very clear. SlimVirgin 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's "one person's interpretation/summary"; it's a straight translation of an original document issued by the court. Second, photographers are journalists, and not all of those journalists present were photographers; it says specifically: "France 2 reported this statement throughout a report by Charles Enderlin ... in support of which was cited the written testimony of many journalists who were present at the scene." Third, it's clear that they did witness the shooting - don't forget that both AP and Reuters filed their own independent eyewitness reports of the shooting hours before Enderlin broadcast the footage (see the timeline I posted above). I'll quote the Reuters report for you, filed by one Ahmed Jadallah: "Reporters watched helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The document says:

... "It is more probable that was killed by the Palestinians than by the Israelis." France 2 reported this statement throughout a report by Charles Enderlin, broadcast the same day, in which he nevertheless emphasized the inconsistencies of these conclusions with the “evidence collected at the scene,” in support of which was cited the written testimony of many journalists who were present at the scene, notably that of Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News, all of whom claim the shots were fired from the Israeli side.

1. It doesn't say they witnessed the shooting.

2. These are photographers and cameramen, not journalists. This has been the problem throughout the case. In broadcast journalism, you go out with a cameraman and a reporter (or researcher, correspondent, producer). You don't send cameramen out alone. This is done overseas to save money, and this kind of situation is one of the consequences.

3. We really shouldn't be using primary sources, such as court transcripts, unless we can all agree that there's no ambiguity about what they're saying. This is one person's translation of a primary source, and it's not entirely clear what's meant. SlimVirgin 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs on (1). It says that they described the shots as being fired from the Israeli position - they are clearly eyewitnesses. We know that at least the AP and Reuters journalists saw the shooting, because they filed their own eyewitness accounts of it.

On (2), you really need to check what the description of a journalist applies to. A journalist is simply someone who works in the news gathering business. Cameramen and photographers most certainly are journalists (have you never heard of photojournalism or video journalism?). Seriously, ask someone who works in the media whether a cameraman or a photographer is a journalist. Better still, ask an actual cameraman or photographer. Also, I have to take issue with your assertion that they "appear not to have witnessed the incident (the shooting), because they'd have filmed it if they had." That's pure speculation. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, Reuters did film the part of gun battle (and even the al-Durrahs behind their barrel) though not the shooting itself, from a different angle. There are any number of reasons why they might not have filmed the actual shooting but I would have thought the most obvious is that it was too dangerous. You don't point a camera at soldiers who are firing in your direction unless you want to get shot. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(3) I would agree with you in the case of most primary sources but not in the case of legal judgements. They are extremely useful for background information as they provide details that have been documented to the highest standards in a court of law. The particular information cited in this instance - that multiple journalists were present - is not contested and is not opinion; it's a simple statement of undisputed fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, there's a danger of OR here. How do we know that the Reuters and AP reports were eyewitness accounts, for example? And given that you and I disagree about the meaning of the judgment in itself suggests it's not unambiguous. I really think we need to stick to secondary sources, except for basic facts about which there's no dispute. SlimVirgin 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear what is in dispute here, are you disputing that multiple reporters witnessed the incident? Because that is precisely what the Reuters report states. Second, what makes you think that the Reuters and AP reports are not eyewitness accounts? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to show me which reports you mean, then I can answer. I'll think they're eyewitness reports if they say that's what they are, in other words. SlimVirgin 08:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are the first mentions from AP and Reuters (Israel is GMT + 3):

1. Karin Laub, AP, 10:35 GMT: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen ... In Netzarim, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura and his father, Jamal, were caught in the cross fire. The boy screamed in panic as bullets hit a wall just inches above their heads. At one point, the father raised his head above the metal barrel that served as their cover and shook his finger, as if to admonish those firing at him. Moments later, Mohammed slumped to the ground, fatally hit, and the father, gravely wounded, lost consciousness."

Not clear it's an eyewitness account.

2. AP, 13:57 GMT: "Shifa Hospital in Gaza City reported three dead - a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver."

Not an eyewitness account.

3. Ahmed Jadallah, Reuters, 17:25 GMT: "Twelve-year-old Rami al-Durra died in his father's arms on Saturday, caught in the crossfire of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

"Reporters watched helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip.

"Rami crouched weeping behind his father, who tried in vain to shield him with his arms and body. At one point, the father raised his head and wagged his finger, as if to scold.

"Some time later, both were shot and Rami slumped into his father's lap. Rami died, while his father survived badly wounded. An ambulance driver, who braved the fierce shooting to try to rescue them, also died.

"Bassam al-Bilbeisi, the ambulance driver went to save the boy, Rami al-Durra, who was 12 years old. But he was shot at, the boy was shot at as well. Bassam and the boy Rami were both killed," Palestinian Health Minister Riyadh al-Zanoun said."

Almost certainly not an eyewitness account by this time. And none of them say he was hit by bullets from the Israeli position. SlimVirgin 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the issue of house style. Traditionally agency journalists do not put themselves at the scene of reports, using the first person ("I saw..."), but describe events in the third person - sometimes even describing themselves in the third person ("Sources told the Associated Press"...). AP used to - I don't know if it still does - promote a doctrine which was compared to Star Trek's Prime Directive, of observing and reporting but not participating in events. I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that the agencies' reporters did witness the incident, since we know (from Reuters) that "Reporters watched helplessly" as it unfolded, and we have detailed reports that were filed, in the case of AP, probably not much more than an hour after the shooting happened.

Regarding the use of the court decision, I suggest taking the following approach. Reuters is a reliable source for the primary fact that multiple journalists saw the al-Durrahs behind cover and under fire. The court decision provides supplementary detail on which journalists were present at the scene. We should therefore cite that for the supplementary detail about the individual journalists' identities and employers, but use Reuters for the primary fact of the journalists' presence. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added another source to the text which supports that there was only one journalist eye-witness.

• <ref name=JRosenthal>, by John Rosenthal, WPR.</ref>

I have no objection if anyone is interested in removing the ref name="decision-19-octobre",but I feel that they support each other.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing

Jaakobou, this is the English Misplaced Pages, and the English needs to be good, or at least grammatically correct. Please suggest changes on talk, and someone can add them for you if they're properly sourced. SlimVirgin 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't restore the citation templates. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit

This was Jaakobou's suggestion for the lead:

After riots in the West Bank on September 29, reporters had assembeled at the Netzarim junction the following day, expecting for the protests to expand to the Gaza Strip hot spot. The video sequence from the report was filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for Antenne 2, the only journalist eyewitness at the scene.

I disagree with it, so I won't be reinstating it. There's no firm evidence that Abu Rama was the only cameraman present—in fact, there's evidence that he wasn't—just as there's no firm evidence that others actually witnessed the shooting. Both of these positions are guesswork, so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a change to look at the JRosenthal source? I notice that its missing from your copy paste, but I did insert it to the text. Would you mind reading it and then, if you agree that it says, "It would turn out that Charles Enderlin had not been at Netzarim that day and that his narration had been based on the account given by France2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma: the sole known witness of the events." self-reverting. I also repeat my above note (22:25, 30 September 2009) that the primary source says As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma". Anyways, the secondary source should be good enough to resolve this issue. This is repeated on numerous other sources, including both documentaries by Schapira.

p.s. I know my English isn't perfect, but I'm not sure where the problem was/is. I'd appreciate a mini-explanation. You can write it on my user page so it doesn't get in the way of the content discussions here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Assembled is mis-spelled; expecting for isn't right; hot spot is poor; the video sequence wasn't really filmed, the incident was, and why say video sequence; and he wasn't the only cameraman on the scene. Also, in general, it's a little confusing as written. I'm willing to add your material to the article if I don't disagree with it, if you post it here first. But we need to keep the writing clean. SlimVirgin 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirign,

Would you mind looking at the content section of my comment?

Thanks, Jaakobou 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think the Rosenthal article is an authoritative one. And "of the events" is ambiguous. Clearly, the France 2 cameraman wasn't the sole witness "of the events," though he may have been the sole witness to the shooting. Some precision is needed here, and an end to POV pushing. SlimVirgin 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rosenthal source is used combined with the other one. I tried "the only journalist eyewitness to the event" because the Rosenthal source used "the sole known witness of the events" and you already raised concerns with the other phrasing -- i.e. "the only journalist present at the scene" -- that was used by the other source. I have no qualms with rephrasing "events" to "shooting" per your recent suggestion.

p.s. I think everyone on the page is sincere and just wants to get it right. What's missing is more listening and sticking to what reliable sources say without adding personal interpretations to them. This is why we suddenly had a version that mis-attributed the eye-witnessing issue. I only tried to rectify this issue, which you saw as a problem as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that multiple journalists were at the junction that day. Jaakobou's favorite source, Schapira's documentary, actually highlights that there were four of five cameramen there, showing them on film, one after another, as a way to question why Abu Rahma was the only one to capture the shooting of the al-Durrahs on film. It even shows a cameraman crouching right behind the al-Durrahs next to the barrel. Any source that claims that no other journalists were present at the scene is either being misinterpreted or flat out wrong. Likewise, Abu Rahma wasn't the only one to catch the al-Durrahs on film (another cameraman caught them just on the edge of his frame), but he was the only one to catch them being shot on film. The only issue is whether any of the other journalists witnessed the shooting without filming it. If there are reliable sources that say this, it should be included, though I'm not clear if such sources exist. ← George 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a point, but George put it too well. Clearly, there may only have been one reporter who witnessed the event (the child's death) but we know that multiple reporters were present at the scene (the overall Israeli-Palestinian gunfight). The Squicks (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says about 20 cameramen and photographers and says the only one to witness the shooting of the boy and father is Talal. This is repeated in a few other sources. No one of the 20 is reported to have witnessed the shooting as it was happening but Talal did show his video to them before he sent it out..that's where he got the name Rami al-Durrah, which he decided to change to Muhammad al-Durrah. Jaakobou 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,
Do you have any issues with the first part, that is referenced to the Schapira documentary. Where it is noted that cameramen assembled at the junction, expecting the riots to expand to the hot-spot? Jaakobou 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CITE

I'mnot following what part of CITE you're interested in pointing out SlimV. Jaakobou 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The part that says not to add citation templates without consensus. SlimVirgin 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a note that I shouldn't change the existing citation format. Is this what you were referring to? Jaakobou 13:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

\fixed typo -- 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I need an answer here, please. Jaakobou 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts

(moved from SV's talk page)

Heyo SlimVirgin,
You've recently reverted my edit, which corrected an issue of false information that was recently inserted into the article (per "was witnessed by journalists and photographers from at least five agencies"), and then moved on to argue in favor of my edit. My edit, it seems you have missed it, included an extra citation to support the removal of the recently introduced change (see ref name=JRosenthal) and, as such, it would feel as though you've chosen to revert my edit without looking into its merits.
I would appreciate it if you could, in the future, argue in favor of my edits without reverting them.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit uncomfortable that you ignored this message and reverted again. Still, I replied to you and hope that we can work this thing out. Jaakobou 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When you've been told the writing is poor and the information inaccurate, why do you feel it's okay to revert three times, or even once? SlimVirgin 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that WP:IDONTHEARYOU provides the explanation, SlimVirgin. Unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of blind reverts, Jaakobou, please don't blind revert en masse without rejoining the discussion on talk that I invited you to. I don't favor your poorly worded version of one of the statements you changed in your bulk revert, and the reverting without discussion is getting tedious. ← George 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the purpose of this copy paste from SlimVirgin's page. It seems like an effort to get a few people to make personal attacks. No one is addressing the content that I've mentioned and that it was pasted here, for the sole purpose of making incorrect personal attacks, is poor form. As to the content changes, I've been listening to everyone here and my English is not so horrible that reliable sources (and text) should be removed. Jaakobou 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

France 2 appeal

Do we have a source that they lodged an appeal and that the case is ongoing? SlimVirgin 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, France 2's application for cassation (not an appeal, strictly speaking; it doesn't quite map onto the Anglo-Saxon legal system) is stated in several May 2008 French news reports. They apparently did it as soon as the verdict came in. For example AP's report of 21 May 2008, "Affaire Mohammed al-Doura: le directeur de Media Rating relaxé en appel", states: "La chaîne publique , qui a dit dans un communiqué ne pas partager cette appréciation du triubnal , a décidé de se pourvoir en cassation." A May 2009 article attributed to Karsenty complains that "France 2 s’est pourvue en cassation et la profession s’est mobilisée, mais en faveur de Charles Enderlin." There is no indication that the case has yet been heard by the Court of Cassation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "ongoing" seems a bit unhelpful to me. Isn't there articles out there in the French media that give more detail (e.g. What dockets the Court of Cassation has in the near future and when exactly this case would come up)? The Squicks (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've come across. Perhaps the court has a schedule on its own website somewhere, but I've not looked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. It seems clear that the case is indeed pending. In that interview, I think Karsenty said something about the decision being expected this autumn. SlimVirgin 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, it'll be pretty soon. No doubt we'll see an influx of ranting POV-pushing newbies on the day, just as we did when the last decision was released in 2008. Can't wait... :/ -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there probably is a schedule there somewhere, but good luck to anyone trying to find it. But that's fine, there is no deadline in Misplaced Pages. Thanks to Chris) regardless. The Squicks (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickie mediation

Alright, I've talked to Jaak and ChrisO over IRC on this matter, as best as I can understand. Here's the problem:

• There are sources that were written contemporaneous to the incident. They put the time of exchange ~12pm, local time
• There are sources that were written after. They put the time after ~12pm, local time
• The discrepancy between them is generally "the morning of" (contemporary) and "the noon/afternoon of" (later reporting)
• This causes the timelines to veer.

Am I correct so far? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

More or less. But it's not so much "later reporting" as op-eds by various people, usually with a decidedly overt ideological slant. Contemporary reporting in English of the time of the shooting is unanimous about it happening on Saturday morning. As I pointed out in the timeline above, it was first reported at 10:35 am local time by AP. Clearly it could not have been reported in the morning if it happened in the afternoon - that is physically impossible, and I'm pretty sure they don't have time machines in the Gaza Strip. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that these events were said to have taken place at noon local time (which is 10am UTC time, which may be the source of confusion). I think all sources agree on that time, with the exception of Enderlin, who reported the event as occurring at 3pm (it's unclear to me why he reported this time). Abu Rahma said that there was fighting (Palestinians throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and Israelis responding with tear gas and rubber bullets) from 7am until noon, when the shooting with live rounds started. ← George 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry George, you're correct. The difference between UTC timestamps on the reports and local time is indeed confusing. I note that the Xinhua report listed in my summary timeline above puts the time of the crossfire at 11:30 am. That's close enough to noon. All of the subsequent contemporary reports that state a time - with the exception of Enderlin (in French, not distributed outside France as far as anyone has been able to show) - clearly state "Saturday morning"; that still fits with Xinhua's reported time. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the discrepancy. I wish to freeze this discussion from becoming too threaded, so I can get everyone's input independent of someone else's. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Like, who died and make me king?

Sorry Xavexgoem, I don't mean to overthread your discussion, but I don't know that there is any discrepancy between the bullet points you've listed. To the best of my knowledge, fighting (in the way of throwing rocks and rubber bullets in response) begins at 7am, and goes until about noon. At noon, someone fires lives rounds, and there's an exchange of gunfire that lasts about 45 minutes. During that 45 minutes, the al-Durrahs are shot, and Muhammad al-Durrah is killed. So yes, there was fighting in the morning, there was a shooting around noon, and the boy was shot shortly thereafter (or within 45 minutes of the shooting starting). Depending on what "incident" any specific source is talking about, any of the things you listed could be correct. If the "incident" is the general fighting, that started in the morning. If the "incident" was the eruption of gunfire, that was around noon. If the "incident" was specifically the boy being shot, that was also around noon, or very shortly after noon (within 45 minutes of the shooting starting). I don't see any discrepancies in that timeline. ← George 22:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Also with apologies to Xavexgoem.) I think the issue here is what we do about the sources that claim the shooting happened at 3pm, which appears to have become a theme among those promoting conspiracy theories about the incident. The TV documentary that Jaakobou likes to quote apparently focuses on this time (I've not seen it myself). Jaakobou himself has said above on this talk page, "there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm." I don't think he's told us specifically where he got this time from, though. I'd be interested to know. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, he got this from Enderlin, whose reporting is at the heart of the controversy, and who claims the shooting happened at 3. I wouldn't call Enderlin someone "promoting conspiracy theories about the incident". Millmoss (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where he got it from, so I think it would be useful if he could say. I will point out, though, that Enderlin's mistaken timing was not repeated by any other contemporary source. As far as I have been able to find from Lexis-Nexis searches, it was not even mentioned in published media sources in any language until it was cited in an opinion piece in 2005. Conspiracy theorists seem to have latched onto it subsequently as further ammunition in their campaign to discredit Enderlin. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it would be useful if Jaakobu could confirm this, I'm just saying is not a big mystery, since we all know Enderlin says this, and his reporting is at the heart of the controversy. I don't think we can say Enderlin was "mistaken" regarding the timing - he has never corrected this, as far as I know, and his critics claim the 3 PM event he reported on was a staged event (distinct from an earlier shooting, during which another boy might have been killed). Millmoss (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey ChrisO,

• Do we have a source saying (a) Enderlin got the time wrong, and\or (b) that there was only one shooting incident throughout that day? I don't consider these to be known facts.
• Here's a couple sources saying 3pm:
  • Schapira's 2nd documentary gives the following notes:
    • About 20 cameramen and photographers were there that day and that the situation escalated and live ammunition was used in the afternoon. The time for the live bullets is given as 2pm. The specific time for al-Durrah given is 3:30pm whereas a Palestinian doctor, Tawil, says he admitted a dead boy and an ambulance driver at about 10 am. The film says at this time, the boy and father were not yet at the scene. The father and son were picked up together and the arrival of a boy, who was later notified to the doctor as Muhammad, without the father suggests (to the film-makers) that there was probably a mix-up. The time in which the pathologist finishes is about 4pm, in which the boy is photographed with the name Muhammad next to him. This boy, is noted by the facial recognition expert, Kurt Kindermann, to be a different boy than the one in the video, who is the son of Jamal.
    • Talal is noted as the only one to shoot the scene, and for a single minute. Talal says he filmed the "famous scene" for "6 minutes in 45 minutes of shooting the boy". Talal is noted as the only eye witness to confirm the report. He says that when he showed his footage to the other reporters, one of them recognized Jamal and told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah. He says he decided to change it to Muhammad.
    • Landes is noted as one of the few people who saw the original footage and he says it was full of staged scenes and once he told this to Enderlin, Enderlin said that they always do that and its part of their culture but they couldn't get a fake like 'al-durrah' past him because they are not that good. Enderlin is pictured saying that its not staging but rather playing for the camera and says that everyone, including ARD (the newsgroup behind the documentary) report with such images.
    • The Jordanian hospital, which treated the father of the boy, has its papers criticized by the Israeli doctor, Yehuda, for a number of seemingly impossible observations and it has a glaring error in the date of admittance, which is a few days before Jamal Muhammad Ahmad Durrah (the father) crossed the Israel-Jordan border.
  • James Fallows, The Atlantic
    • "At around 3:00 P.M. Mohammed al-Dura and his father make their first appearance on film. The time can be judged by later comments from the father and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of shadows in the footage. Despite the number of cameras that were running that day, Mohammed and Jamal al-Dura appear in the footage of only one cameraman—Talal Abu-Rahma, a Palestinian working for France 2."
    • I also saw a few people on other reliable sources who echoed James Fallows, crediting him for saying the same thing. i.e. it would seem they consider him reliable enough.

Talal is the only cameraman "eyewitness" to capture the scene (according to multiple sources) and that scene is not continuous in the supposedly raw footage that is on youtube.

I hope this answers most of the recent queries made towards me. and I further hope that we can get reliably published material on the page (like JRosenthal) without reverting to factually incorrect versions.

With respect, Jaakobou 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If your quoted time of 10am from Schapira's second documentary is accurate, then the documentary itself is completely wrong. A Wall Street Journal piece from 2004 by Stephane Juffa, editor in chief of MENA (an Israeli group seeking to disprove Enderlin's report), quoted "Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil" as testifying that the "Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 pm". ← George 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The times "about 10am" and "before 1pm" are within the same time frame. This is what the doctor himself says about the time in which the boy he saw arrived. So I disagree that "the documentary itself is completely wrong". Maybe the doctor wasn't accurate on both times - but it doesn't look like a huge error that I'd call him "completely wrong". Jaakobou 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source for the "about 10am" claim, besides Schapira's documentary (or those who reprinted her claims)? Her documentary didn't come out until 2009, so surely there are sources before that that make the same claim... ← George 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have lexis-nexis approach and google seems to only give me articles from the past month. Anyways, the doctor is saying this -- i.e. about 10 am -- to the camera and continues to say that in the same minute also came the injured ambulance driver so there's no ambiguity here. Jaakobou 12:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see the verifiability issues with this, when nobody else has seen this documentary. It's even more problematic because no other source makes the same claim prior to the documentary (making it the likely original source), and the quote is in direct conflict with another source from 2004 that cites the very same person as saying something completely different. Have you had any lucky finding a copy of this documentary on the internet, or do you have a copy on your local computer that you could share with other editors? ← George 14:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy on my computer but I found the 10am thing here. Can you link to the 2004 source please?

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the documentary, George, and I can confirm that the doctor does say a boy was brought in at 10 (or maybe 10:30, I forget which, but I can check if it matters). There's a copy on YouTube. I'll post it shortly if it's still there. SlimVirgin 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is part one of five parts. It's the second Shapira documentary. SlimVirgin 14:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He definitely says something about 10am, though I'm unclear what (as the German announcer starts talking over him after that, and I don't speak German). Does anyone here speak German?

Jaakobou - the mention of 1pm comes from Stephane Juffa of the Israeli Metula News Agency (MENA), writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Europe on November 29, 2004: "We have the testimonies of Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil, two Palestinian doctors of the Gaza Shifa hospital who said Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 p.m." It's been reprinted by several pro-Israel groups, and you can read it here for instance. Oddly enough, this was one of the pillars of the 'hoax' conspiracy theories back then - that the boy was brought in at 1pm, while Enderlin said 3pm, therefore it must have been a hoax. Apparently this has now changed to 10am. What I'm more interested in, than the op-ed itself, is that the author says there was testimony made to this effect. I'd be interested if we can find that original testimony. ← George 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 10am is indeed "before 1 p.m." and he's also on record for saying 'about 10am' so I believe this matter, that there's a discrepancy between Enderlin and Tawil should be fairly settled and mentioned in the article. Yes? Jaakobou 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy isn't between Enderlin and Tawil. The discrepancy is between Enderlin and everyone else. I believe that's the point that ChrisO was making with long list of reliable sources - essentially everyone agrees on the time, except Enderlin, who reported that the event happened at 3pm. Should his mistake be mentioned in the article? Possibly, depending on how it's framed. ← George 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses

I'm interested in changing the text "The violence at the Netzarim junction was witnessed by journalists and photographers..." since it implies that (a) we need witnesses for something that no one disputes, (b) that they also witnessed the al-durrahs being killed, which is unsupported by multiple reliable sources.
Here's a couple of these sources:

• <ref name="decision-19-octobre">Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, no. 0433823049<br>"As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma"</ref>
• <ref name=JRosenthal>, by John Rosenthal, WPR.<br>"It would turn out that Charles Enderlin had not been at Netzarim that day and that his narration had been based on the account given by France2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma: the sole known witness of the events."</ref>
• <ref name=WSJ> <br>"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"</ref>

I would like to add some note that "After riots in the ] on September 29, reporters had assembled at the ] the following day, expecting for the protests to expand to the ] hot spot.<ref name=Schapira2/>". I'd appreciate any citation relevant corrections as well as grammar suggestions. Jaakobou 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

- self-reminder: . Jaakobou 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your last change (not right now, at least), but we have to be extremely careful here. Schapira's documentary, the video equivalent of an op-ed, shouldn't be used as a source for anything except (a) Schapira's opinion, or (b) direct quotes taken from interviews with people. Anything beyond that will require additional, more reliable sources. ← George 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Making of a martyr", The Guardian, October 3 2000. Cite error: The named reference "Goldenberg" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. ^ Patience, Martin (8 November 2007). "Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage". BBC. Retrieved 2009-07-20. Cite error: The named reference "BBC_8Nov07" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ "'Palestinians shot teenage martyr on purpose'". Independent Online (South Africa). November 27 2000. Retrieved 2009-07-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Cite error: The named reference Adi Schwartz Expert was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy", New York Times, November 28 2000
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fallows was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Jerusalem Post, Mar 5, 2009
8. Bild
9. ""When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17 2000
10. "Fierce clashes in Gaza and West Bank", BBC News, October 2 2000
11. ^ Rosenthal, John. France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech, World Politics Watch, November 3 2006. Cite error: The named reference "Rosenthal" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
12. "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", BBC News, October 1 2000
13. Hazan, Helen. "Mohammed a-Dura did not die from Israeli gunfire". Yediot Aharonot, March 19 2002]
14. Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, Monday, February 7 2005.
15. ^ Schwartz, Adi. In the footsteps of the al-Dura controversy, Haaretz, 8 November 2007. Cite error: The named reference "Schwartz" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
16. Durand-Souffland, Stéphane. "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada". Le Figaro, October 20 2006.
17. "Al-Durra case revisited", Wall Street Journal Europe, May 28 2008.
18. ^ "Reportage sur la mort d'un enfant palestinien: Charles Enderlin débouté en appel", Libération, May 21 2008. Cite error: The named reference "liberation210508" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
19. Devorah Lauter, JTA French Jews demand al-Dura probe July 8, 2000
20. "When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17, 2000.
21. Patience, Martin. Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage, BBC News, 8 November 2007; Hazan, Helen. "Mohammed a-Dura did not die from Israeli gunfire". Yediot Aharonot, March 19, 2002; Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005.
22. Durand-Souffland, Stéphane. "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada". Le Figaro, October 20 2006.
23. "Al-Durra case revisited", Wall Street Journal Europe, May 28, 2008.
24. "When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17, 2000.
25. 18 minutes of the France 2 raw footage; the al-Durrah incident begins at 01:17:06:09, YouTube, accessed September 18, 2009.
26. Patience, Martin. Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage, BBC News, 8 November 2007; Hazan, Helen. "Mohammed a-Dura did not die from Israeli gunfire". Yediot Aharonot, March 19, 2002; Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005.
27. Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit, on IMDB.
28. Durand-Souffland, Stéphane. "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada". Le Figaro, October 20, 2006; "Al-Durra case revisited", Wall Street Journal Europe, May 28, 2008.
29. ^ Shapira, Esther. Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit, ARD television, 2009.
30. "When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17, 2000.
31. 18 minutes of the France 2 raw footage; the al-Durrah incident begins at 01:17:06:09, YouTube, accessed September 18, 2009.
32. Patience, Martin. Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage, BBC News, 8 November 2007; Hazan, Helen. "Mohammed a-Dura did not die from Israeli gunfire". Yediot Aharonot, March 19, 2002; Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005.
33. Cite error: The named reference Schapira2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
34. "When Peace Died", BBC News, November 17, 2000.
35. Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, no. 0433823049

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles