| Revision as of 18:31, 1 July 2008 editWikifan12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,039 edits →Initial vs. Later reporting← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:42, 17 November 2024 edit undo750h+ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,758 editsNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=yes|disclaimer=no}} |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled --> |
|
|
|
|action1date=22:13, 25 January 2010 |
|
{{medcabbox|2008-06-17_Muhammad_al-Durrah}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1 |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=340010517 |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|
|maindate=30 September 2021 |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2023-09-30|otd1oldid=1177788526 |
|
|archive = Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|otd2date=2024-09-30|otd2oldid=1248563600 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|living=no|listas=Al-Durrah, Muhammad|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|nested=yes|importance=Mid|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|nested=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Photography|history=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|living=no |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=low}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=low}} |
|
|priority=Low |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views}} |
|
|
{{WPMH|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Not censored}} |
|
{{WikiProject HOP|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{ARBPIA}} |
|
|
{{Notable citation|Goldman, Lisa. , ''+972'', October 11, 2010.}} |
|
|
{{tmbox|text=Sources for the development of this article can be found at ].}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(92d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Blp}} |
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = page |
|
{{archives|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
| author = Phyllis Chesler |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
|
| title = Palestinian Lies Never Die; Misplaced Pages and Google Keep Them Alive |
|
'''Additional subpages'''<br> |
|
|
|
| org = ] |
|
* ] (last updated June 2008} |
|
|
|
| url = https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/04/27/palestinian-lies-never-die-wikipedia-and-google-keep-them-alive/ |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| date = 2020-04-27 |
|
* ] (last updated June 2008) |
|
|
|
| quote = Although Google continues to automatically link to Misplaced Pages, it eventually included the fact that a controversy about what happened to al-Dura actually exists. However, the controversy section appears at the very end of the Misplaced Pages entry, long after the false narrative has had its way with most readers. |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 2020-04-29 |
|
|
|
|
|
| subject2 = article |
|
|
| author2 = Omer Benjakob |
|
|
| title2 = The Second Intifada Still Rages on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-second-intifada-still-rages-on-wikipedia-1.9201705?lts=1601639306928 |
|
|
| date2 = 2020-10-01 |
|
|
| quote2 = As the debate swelled, it was decided that the entire Muhammad al-Durrah incident would be afforded an article of its own – a common solution on Misplaced Pages, meant to quell the growth of contentious articles. |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 2020-10-02 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
==Sources== |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
Please leave this at the top of the talk page. There is a list being compiled of reliable sources who question the France 2 version of events, including (but not limited to) sources who report that the incident is being viewed as a hoax. Please see ]. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| style = background: #DFE8FF; |
|
|
|
|
|
| text = As this is a featured article about a complex and sensitive issue, before making a substantive change to it—one that might reasonably attract an objection—please consider doing the following: |
|
==Conditions for editing== |
|
|
|
#Post the proposed edit on this talk page as you would like to make it, and say where in the article you're proposing to place it. |
|
I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am '''placing some restrictions:''' |
|
|
|
#Post details of the source (name, title, publication, date, page number if appropriate), and if it's offline, type up here what it says. Consider posting what the source says even if it's online. |
|
* '''No reverts''', except for obvious vandalism. |
|
|
|
#Explain why you feel the edit would improve the article. |
|
* Keep edit summaries very neutral and '''civil'''. |
|
|
|
#Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another. |
|
* Ensure that any new material that is added, has a ] |
|
|
|
#Open each of your suggestions in a new section. |
|
* If you see someone add something that you disagree with, '''don't revert it, ''change'' it'''. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby. |
|
|
* If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{tl|verify credibility}} tag next to it. |
|
#If a change you make is reverted, please do not restore it unless there is a clear consensus in support of it. |
|
|
Please keep your proposals and any responses succinct. Many thanks. |
|
* If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{tl|verify source}} tag to it |
|
|
|
}} |
|
* If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{tl|fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed. |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
* If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there ''is'' a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead. |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Muhammad al-Durrah incident}} |
|
* Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per ] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, ''change'' it.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck, ]]] 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Administrative notes=== |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page'' |
|
|
|
|
|
====Uninvolved admins==== |
|
|
* {{admin|Elonka}} |
|
|
* {{admin|MZMcBride}} |
|
|
* {{admin|PhilKnight}} |
|
|
* {{admin|Jayvdb}} |
|
|
* {{admin|Wizardman}} |
|
|
|
|
|
====Editors under ArbCom restrictions==== |
|
|
: ''The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{user5|Julia1987}} ''']: one month ban from editing the ] of the article''' (by ]) |
|
|
** Note: Julia1987 was previously editing as {{user|Southkept}} |
|
|
* {{user5|ChrisO}} (admin participating as involved editor) ''']: 30 day ban from article-editing ''' (by ]) |
|
|
* {{user5|Tundrabuggy}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Canadian Monkey}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Jaakobou}} |
|
|
* {{user5|PalestineRemembered}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Wikifan12345}} |
|
|
|
|
|
====Other frequent editors on this page==== |
|
|
: ''Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article''. |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{user5|Beit Or}} |
|
|
* {{user5|CJCurrie}} (admin participating as involved editor) |
|
|
* {{user5|JGGardiner}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Kauffner}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Kelly}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Leifern}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Liftarn}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Moreschi}} (admin participating as involved editor) |
|
|
* {{user5|Nickhh}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Pedrito}} |
|
|
* {{user5|Relata refero}} |
|
|
* {{user5|SlimVirgin}} (admin participating as involved editor) |
|
|
* {{user5|Tarc}} |
|
|
* {{user5|SJP}} |
|
|
* {{user5|6SJ7}} |
|
|
|
|
|
====Admin log==== |
|
|
* {{user|ChrisO}}, for violating the editing conditions, has been banned from this talkpage for 1 week, and from editing the article for one month. --]]] 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{user|Julia1987}} banned for one month from editing the ] of the article (this includes any changes to the caption of the top image). She is still allowed to make other changes to the rest of the article, and to participate at the talkpage. She is also ''strongly encouraged'' to spend some time editing other articles than just this one. --]]] 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{user|Tundrabuggy}} ban modified, from 90-day total ban on article and talkpage, to only a ban on article-editing (this was after good contributions by Tundrabuggy on other articles, and discussion between administrators Elonka, MZMcbride, and Jayvdb). Tundrabuggy is allowed to resume participation at the talkpage, and is encouraged to continue editing other articles as well, trying to find at least a 50-50 balance between al-Durrah edits and other work. --]]] 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{user|Tundrabuggy}} editing ban lifted, based on excellent work editing and creating other non-Durrah articles. He once again has full privileges to edit the article and participate at the talkpage, in accordance with the current ]. He is still strongly encouraged to maintain a 50-50 balance (or better) between al-Durrah edits and other work. --]]] 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* Wizardman and I chatted about this off-wiki, and to summarize: {{user|Wizardman}} is now chief mediator for the dispute on this article. He is the point person for content issues, while I (Elonka) will remain as point person for user conduct issues, specifically as related to the Conditions for Editing and any needed discretionary sanctions. All editors are invited to post a statement at ] to help the mediation get going. --]]] 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Discussion==== |
|
|
: ''Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.'' |
|
|
I have started the above section for my own (Elonka's) notes, to keep track of who's who, and also so that everyone knows where they stand in terms of ArbCom restrictions. If the section grows too large, I may move it to a subpage. Any other ] who are interested in this dispute, are welcome to update the above lists, though of course you should avoid changing another admin's restrictions, unless you check with them first. Thanks, ]]] 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is a bad idea. "No reverts" is completely unworkable if one wishes to maintain our core policies and values. -- ] 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This is backed up by ]. See ]: (emphasis added) "''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; '''restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors'''; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.''" --]]] 04:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think ORR for everyone is a very good idea on an article like this. I started to rewrite it last year, and ended up taking it off my watchlist because of the reverting on both sides. It's frustrating when someone adds a version you don't like and you can't revert it, but the challenge then is to improve it. The article should get better bit by bit if we each use the last editor's work as a platform, rather than something to be discarded. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::(To Elonka) You made a blanket restriction, which arbcom did not authorize. Arbcom said you could place restrictions on ''editors'', '''if''' ''"despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."'' In other words, the restriction should not apply to ''every'' user on the project. -- ] 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I placed restrictions on the article, which are effectively restrictions on all of the editors who are participating at this article. When an editor, in my opinion, does not abide by those restrictions, I have the authority to place increased restrictions, such as I did with ChrisO and Julia1987. If you disagree with the actions being taken here by uninvolved administrators, you (or any editor) are welcome to file an appeal, though I personally think that would be getting a bit ]y, especially since there is an extensive history of prior warnings. Still though, you are welcome to do this if you choose. Appeal instructions are at the ArbCom case page. --]]] 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I only noticed this because ChrisO's talk page was on my watchlist. I haven't really looked into the merits of ChrisO's or Julia's arguments, but that would besides the point. Consider my comments here as a word of caution, that a blanket restriction on reverting is extremely unwise. It makes sense only in the context of a dispute, but not outside of that. I have no real interest in this situation or this article, but I saw this as a very big flaw, and felt the need to say something about it. -- ] 05:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: For most articles on Misplaced Pages that are ''not'' in dispute, I would agree that a "no revert" restriction would seem bizarre. However, the context here on this article, is a longrunning dispute that has been characterized by an excessive amount of reverting and edit-warring. Usual practice in these cases is to protect the article and not let anyone edit at all. However, my feeling is that a simple limit on reverts, along with the other ] as I have described above, provide a better-crafted solution than all-out protection. --]]] 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*(reset indent) I think N.S is talking about the fact that normally a blanket restriction of revert isn't a common solution for a problematic area. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 14:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** I agree that it is not a common solution. However, I am one of the people that was tasked by ArbCom to participate in the ]. Over the last few months, we have been discussing Misplaced Pages's ethnic disputes in some depth, as well as examining previously tried solutions for dealing with them, to identify successes and failures, and try to compile a list of "best practices", as well as brainstorming possible new techniques. Results so far from the Working Group have included an overhaul of procedures for ], the ] page, a successful reconciliation project at ], and (though we can't take credit for this, but I did encourage it), the new ], primarily spearheaded by ] and ]. In other words, there is an active movement by multiple editors and taskforces to try new methods of dealing with these longrunning ethnic conflicts on Misplaced Pages. When I volunteered to help out on this ] article, I did so not just as a random uninvolved admin, but also as part of my WorkGroup research, as I'm trying to get a feel for the various types of ethnic conflicts on Misplaced Pages, ranging from Hungarian/Slovakian to Turkish/Assyrian to Polish/Lithuanian to Israeli/Palestinian, to the Irish "Troubles", the Sri Lankan topic area, and so forth. If my methods here are a bit unorthodox, well, okay, but I would also point out that ''they are working''. This article, which used to be protected and in the middle of a severe dispute that was causing threads to sprout up on admin boards all over Misplaced Pages, has calmed down considerably since my restrictions of June 10. And all of this with no further page protection, and ''no editors being blocked''. Just a clear set of restrictions, a lot of communication and education, a few ], and everyone else is allowed to get back to work, with no aggravating "black marks" in people's block logs. The article is once again in a state of healthy editing, with editors flowing through and making a steady series of edits to improve it. And all this in just a week. I'm not sure what else could be seen as a better marker of success? --]]] 03:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article name change== |
|
|
Several editors have noted (a couple of weeks ago) that this article is not really a biography of Muhammad al-durrah, and that we don't create article for people who are only notable for being killed. I'd like to suggest we rename the article to ]. ] (]) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No way. Quite apart from the fact that "incident" is a pretty weak word (or are we back to saying he's not actually dead?) and also suggests yet another attempt to shift the emphasis of this article onto the post-death controversy, you're just wrong - see ], ], ]. None of them would have been notable unless they had not, unfortunately, been killed. --] (]) 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Incident" may work as a preliminary solution. This article is ''not'' a biography, though the title claims otherwise. It will not become a biography even if the entire controversy is removed. ] ] 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nickhh has a point. There is ], and ], ], ], ] and others. Pearl would arguably have been in for his personal achievements. The others, not. ] (]) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Important new article by ex-Israeli official == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding Israel's position vis a vis France 2. Some corrections need to be made in the article in relation to this |
|
|
For starters, the idea that the second investigation was "semi-official" is mistaken. ] (]) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:This in the lead is just plain wrong: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
Enderlin's report was initially accepted by the Israeli army, which issued an apology after conducting an internal investigation, saying the shots had apparently been fired by its soldiers. A later semi-official army investigation suggested al-Durrah had probably been hit by Palestinian bullets. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
From the JP article cited above. The writer is director of the Government Press Office:<blockquote> |
|
|
This situation was disingenuously presented by France 2 to further suggest that Israel agreed with the premise of its report. Before that, it repeatedly pointed to Israel's original acceptance of responsibility for the incident as an indicator of the report's accuracy. All along, ''France 2 failed to reveal that Israel's primary position was based solely on the France 2 edited report, its officials not having been given the opportunity to verify the facts independently before responding. |
|
|
'' |
|
|
That the State of Israel has not revoked the press credentials of France 2 correspondents has also been criticized. Yet journalists reporting for Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and even Iranian media carry official credentials from Israel. This testifies to the tolerance and character of Israel's democracy. It does not suggest agreement with the content of their reports, or appraisal of their professional abilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
<P>THOSE WHO concentrate on these aspects overlook the fact that Israel has, at the same time, maintained a more active position challenging the France 2 report. ''Immediately after the story swept through the international media on September 30, 2000, OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia initiated a non-military investigation into the events reported by France 2''. ''By virtue of his rank, this was an official investigation.'' He assembled a team of experts, which included both ballistic and forensic officials. Led by physicist Nahum Shahaf, they were the first to thoroughly examine the events and analyze the footage presented by France 2.</P></blockquote> ] (]) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: This is not a news article. It is an opinion piece, and clearly labeled as such on the Jerusalem Post website. It is significant, but should be presented only as Mr. Seaman's opinion, not as fact. ] (]) 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Daniel Seaman is not just anybody. He was in a position to make a statement. I think someone said that qualifies as "expert testimony" by definition. Notice how he speaks of his involvement in the excerpt below, italicized by me: |
|
|
''Daniel Seaman is the director of the Israel Government Press Office (GPO), which is a department of the Office of the Israel Prime Minister. Seaman is one of the foremost experts on the foreign press coverage of the Arab - Israel conflict, as a result of having headed the Information and Foreign Press Departments of the GPO during the 1990's. Seaman was appointed as head of the GPO in December 2000 and is responsible for working with thousands of foreign media who cover news events in Israel. Daniel Seaman had worked for the GPO for several years and was the first civil servant promoted to Directorship of the GPO after a period of 30 years. '' <ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
he wrote in the article above article: |
|
|
<blockquote>"''The analysis and findings were presented to the prime minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and then to myself'' in early 2001. After reviewing dozens of hours of materials, and only after all our questions had been addressed to our satisfaction, was our initial skepticism transformed into confidence that there was no basis for the accusations leveled against Israel in the France 2 story. Armed with that knowledge, both Gissin and I, as official representatives of the State of Israel, challenged the integrity of the France 2 report in several media interviews.</blockquote> ] (]) 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== rephrasing intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada. |
|
|
|
|
|
i believe this seems to be on the side of France 2 and those who hold the belief that al-Durrah was killed. Yes, it's a very legitimate argument, and there is proof (those recent information conflicts) but there is also legitimacy from the other, opposite spectrum. First, I think we should change the date of death. (1988-???) seems more balanced, or no date at all. no body has been found, no evidence truly points to his death (reports come from France 2 and Palestinian organizations). This gives the false impression that al-Durrah was in fact killed in all likelihood. |
|
|
|
|
|
i think we should change the intro to this: |
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-???) or none - not included in the article, Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy who was <b>allegedly</b> killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada. |
|
|
|
|
|
so? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Elvis Aaron Presley (January 8th, 1935 - ???) was an American singer who allegedly died on the toilet ..". Give it up, this page has been through this 100 times. --] (]) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. Anyone else?] (]) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And let's be REAL here. the source that is used in the intro is from the year 2000!! Come'on wikipedia, this is getting ridiculous. I went ahead and did the right thing anyways. |
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for all the love and support! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A couple of comments: first, Nickh is quite right; we have numerous sources stating that al-Durrah is dead. I can't think of a single source - certainly no reliable sources - that claim he is still alive. Given that, it would be completely inappropriate to leave out the death date. Second, "allegedly" is a standard ]: such words "explicitly mak it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Misplaced Pages maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications." There's an overwhelming consensus that al-Durrah is definitely dead - the dispute in mainstream sources is over who killed him, not over whether he was killed in the first place. As has been said many times before on this talk page, the view that he's not dead is at best a minority view, more realistically a fringe view. -- ] (]) 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::ChrisO, you are committing a serious logical fallacy here. I haven't seen anywhere here arguing the "fringe view" that al-Durrah is alive, or a fictitious character. But in the last couple of years, mainstream media and journalists have raised serious questions about the authenticity of the tape. If it turns out that the footage is staged, then there are further questions about the role of the boy we now know as Muhammad al-Durrah. It all hinges on the authenticity of the footage, about which there are serious and non-fringe doubts. If there are credible doubts about the authenticity of the footage, then there must by logical necessity be doubts about whether al-Durrah was killed that day, or even who he was. --] (]) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There is no logical fallacy in anything Chris said, let alone a serious one. There is however something very odd about the claim that you "haven't seen anywhere here arguing the fringe view" - haven't you noticed people inserting words to say that he was "supposedly" or "allegedly" killed, or claiming that the footage is a "hoax" of some sort? This whole section of the talk page was started by another editor who wants to remove the year of death from the introduction. In ''your own comment'' you say there are "doubts about whether was killed..". I don't know how you missed all those. --] (]) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::What I haven't seen is someone asserting that al-Durrah is a fictitious person or that the footage is definitely fake. It is not a fringe view to take into account legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the footage. And yes, ChrisO and you are constructing a strawman argument by inferring from this doubt about A (the authenticity of the footage) that someone is asserting B (that al-Durrah wasn't killed or didn't exist).--] (]) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Now I'm confused - you say it's a strawman argument, invented by myself and ChrisO, to infer that those expressing doubts about the accuracy of the footage are suggesting that he might not have been killed. But I don't have to infer anything since ''this is exactly what you asserted'' - "If there are credible doubts about the authenticity of the footage, then there must by logical necessity be doubts about whether al-Durrah was killed that day, or even who he was". Do two different people use your account? |
|
|
:::::I would add of course that there ''are'' doubts about aspects of the footage and what it actually shows, as is all recorded in the article. But it depends what that doubt precisely attaches to. It's a big leap from saying the footage might not prove who shot him, to saying that it's all a staged hoax (and, logically from that, that the hoax has been kept up for the last eight years by a conspiracy involving his friends, his family, the King of Jordan, the doctors in hospitals where the boy and his father were taken and/or treated etc). But it's a leap that some seem willing to make, and then seem willing to deny making. --] (]) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Wikifan's wording is used by Wall ST Journal Europe 5/27/08, and I might add that the ''alledged'' part alone does not necessarily refer to the boy's death, but to the question of the IDF's guilt in it. This is certainly in serious question. I will withhold on the idea of no death date but I support Wikifan's wording as written. |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
''It's hard to exaggerate the significance of Mohammed al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli bullets on Sept. 30, 2000. The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.'' |
|
|
</blockquote> ] (]) 15:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Those who refuses to recognize the recent investigation against France 2 and the legitimate criticisms of the original reporters seriously need to consider leaving this discussion. Everybody has a right to have an opinion, but what you guys are doing is BEYOND spin. |
|
|
thanks you ] (]) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What "recent investigation"? If you are referring to the (ongoing) French court case, that - as explained endlessly above - did not come to any conclusion about whether the original report was accurate or correct, or whether the whole incident was a hoax as alleged by Karsenty. Please go and read it if you haven't already. As to your claims that there is a refusal to recognise criticism of the original report, this is just wrong - have you not noticed how much material there is on the controversy in the article, both on the debate around who shot him as well as the alleged "hoax" controversy? And can you point me to where any editor here has demanded it all be removed, or tried to remove it? |
|
|
:::::The point around the word allegedly is that its use strongly suggests there is serious, credible doubt about whether he was killed at all, as opposed to simply questions about the overall accuracy of the original report. Using "reportedly" was deemed an acceptable compromise a while back, because although many of us argued it was unnecessary it was also factually accurate (in that the shooting, like any other, was of course "reported" at the time), and when it referred specifically to the claim of being shot by the IDF, allowed - accurately - for the possibility that he was shot by someone else. You have unilaterally overturned that implicit compromise, claimed there was consensus for that (when in fact of the editors who commented, two were against the change, one was in favour and one did not explicitly commit either way) and edit-warred to protect your change. The fact that the word is used in a Wall Street Journal comment piece does not justify using it here, even if you cite that editorial. Since when did Misplaced Pages follow the editorial lead of the WSJ, or indeed any other individual paper? We have to look across all the sources, and find a fair and neutral wording. And I would love to leave this page, but do not want to see this article turned into a shop window for every wild theory being floated in the blogosphere. --] (]) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Suggetion to first paragraph by Jaakobou:'''<br> |
|
|
:Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) is a controversial icon of the Second Intifada. In September 2000, the Palestinian boy was reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts/Comments? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm broadly happy (as mentioned above) with the compromise "reported killed by .. the IDF" or some sort of variation on that, as it acknowledges what was originally reported, which is important for all sorts of reasons, even if it turns out to be wrong. That's of course what the intro said before Wikifan's intervention. I'm not sure about describing the boy ''himself'' as a "controversial icon". That point is briefly covered in the photo caption to the right anyway. --] (]) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Just to clarify on your words: Are you saying that the incident, not the boy is the controversial icon of the second intifada? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Well strictly, as I understand it, the word "icon" refers to an image rather than the subject of the image per se, whether an incident or an individual. Although that's really its original meaning, and I guess these days it's expanded to mean more than that. --] (]) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Initial vs. Later reporting === |
|
|
|
|
|
We struggled mightily to reach consensus on the "reported to have been killed" phrasing of the intro, and now weeks later we have attempts to slip in the plainly ] "alleged" ? This is clearly an issue that the ArbCom Enforcement folk need to look into. So the source may be 8 years old, but since nothing in a reliable source has been found to contradict it in those 8 years, then that is what we can and should go with. This is the heart of the matter here; do new unreliable sources trump old reliable sources? IMO, our policies here clearly say "no". ] (]) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't know regarding the 'alleged' issue, but the 8 year old reports were clearly bogus to some extent and cannot be used as reliable source for anything other than ''"in 2000 it was reported that..."''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::They were not "clearly bogus", although there is a debate about whether the reporting was totally accurate or fair. But of course, the point is that whatever fault has been or may yet be found with the way France 2 originally covered the story, the wording "was reported .." will remain accurate for this article in perpetuity, precisely because IDF culpability for the killing is, er, exactly what France 2 reported at the time. --] (]) 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Nickhh, |
|
|
:::'''Advocacy:''' I have no idea on what IDF culpability you're talking about but it would be best to stop spreading original research. |
|
|
:::'''Reliable sources:''' Sources which are newer than 8 years ago have clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent and we will not write things down as though the initial reports ''must'' be more accurate than these later ones, which were based on actual investiagions rather than the testimony of two suspect individuals (per 'Three bullets and a dead child' and also 'Dr. Yehuda'). |
|
|
:::'''Historical perspective on immediate reporting:''' There's plenty of historical events where initial reports were innaccurate to varying degrees and this is one of them; or at least that is what reliable sources say so we cannot write it otherwise as if the initial reports from 8 years ago are accurate - They were not. |
|
|
:::With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Huh? I don't think you understood what I was saying. |
|
|
::::"'''Advocacy'''": Neither I nor the article say the IDF was to blame, we both say France 2 ''reported'' that the IDF was to blame. This is uncontroversially true, and since it is what a lot of people spend a lot of time complaining about, you'd think they might be happy that it was flagged up that way |
|
|
::::"'''Reliable sources'''": Newer sources have not "clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent", but different sources have ''queried'' different elements of the original report and offered alternative explanations, which is a different point. The jury is still out on exactly what happened (and may never reach a conclusion). ] applies on talk pages as well I believe, so I'd be careful of describing Enderlin or Abu Rahma as "suspect individuals" |
|
|
::::"'''Historical perspective''' ..": See two previous answers. |
|
|
::::With respect, --] (]) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Your first point is a very important one. The reason the story had the impact that it did was because of the original reporting - but one aspect that seems to have been missed in this article is how the Arab media, ] et al, reported it. Bear in mind that Charles Enderlin's report had quite a limited circulation, since (obviously) it was only aired on France 2, or Antenne 2 as it was at the time. The footage, on the other hand, was shown worldwide. I gather from what I've read that the Arab media took a far more condemnatory line than Enderlin, reporting that the IDF had ''murdered'' al-Durrah (not merely that he was killed in crossfire). So when we say that he was "reported to have been killed by the IDF" that's not only completely accurate, since that is exactly what was reported at the time, but it's also an essential part of the story. The fact that it was presented as an Israeli action, or even an Israeli war crime in the case of the Arab media reporting, is a big part of the reason why the incident became so politically significant. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Of course, if you replace "reported" with the weaselly "alleged" then you lose all of this nuance. -- ] (]) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::NickH, and everyone else: the source is <b>EIGHT YEARS OLD</b>. There is plenty of current, reliable sources that talk about the challenges and likelihood of the al-Durrah incident being faked. :::::I cannot emphasize this enough. Using dated information to verify such a crucial and significant portion of the article is not something wikipedia should be promoting. Get it? I know many of you have political allegiances that are unfortunately molded into the articles occasionally, but this is COMMON SENSE. What else can I do? ] (]) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I think you're misunderstanding what the source is being used for. It's being used to corroborate the fact - which you've not disputed - that the IDF was blamed for the shooting of al-Durrah. The intro doesn't say "the IDF shot al-Durrah". It says (in effect) "the IDF was ''reported'' to have shot al-Durrah". Do you dispute that that's what the reports at the time said? -- ] (]) 19:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes. It has been established that the likelihood of IDF killing al-Durrah is no less than the likelihood that Hezbollah/militant fighters killed al-Durrah in the cross fire, or he might not have been killed at all. "Reported" gives a false sense of legitimacy and fact when it is unclear what actually happened. We're are running in circles. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::That the source is ''dated'' does not mean that it is ''outdated''. There is a critical difference there. Thus far, a grand total of ''zero'' reliable sources have been provided to substantiate this claim of "the al-Durrah incident is being faked", or that the "dated" source is no longer reliable. The only thing that is "unclear" at this point in time is who is responsible for the boy's death. That the death itself is a matter of contention reats purely in the realm of fantastical speculation, and not in areliable, legitimate basis of reality. |
|
|
::::::::And really, how many times will one user be allowed to freely cast aspersions on other user's "political allegiances", imagined or otherwise, before something is done about it? Enough is enough already. ] (]) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Let me put it another way, Wikifan. We're not talking about "likelihoods" here (and where did "Hezbollah" come from? Are you mixing up Gaza and Beirut?). This is a very simple historical question: did the reports at the time say that the IDF killed al-Durrah? Not "were those reports correct" but "did they say that"? Yes or no? |
|
|
::::::::All we are doing here is reporting the fact - which nobody has ever disputed, as far as I know - that the initial reports blamed the IDF. We're not endorsing that view, we're simply reporting neutrally the historical fact that that was what was stated at the time. -- ] (]) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::But the problem is that report has is eight years old. New reports say differently. Unless this article is about the year 2000, but from I understand al-Durrah case is an on-going discussion and thus it should be updated accordingly. I believe we should include the updates regarding the initial report, which say that it is unclear whether IDF did in fact kill al-Durrag, or if he was killed at all. As I've said many times, the current intro gives the false impression that al-Durrah was killed in all likelihood, and doesn't take into account current findings. This is the problem, and it MUST be fixed. |
|
|
] (]) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I'm also confused as to the problem - the chronology is that 8 years ago, the IDF was reported as having shot him. Subsequently other accounts questioned that, with some doubting whether he was killed at all (let's leave aside any arguments about the validity of those alternatives for now, and discussion about how much weight exactly they need here). A lot of criticism - from certain quarters - has been directed at France 2 for its original report. Now doesn't the article more or less follow this narrative, as surely it should? If that's not too many questions for Wikifan. --] (]) 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::See previous response. ] (]) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you read the 4th paragraph of the introduction (which currently takes up about 50% of the total lead). Then come back and tell us that the lead doesn't "include the updates". --] (]) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've read it. But the intro topic needs to be updated. Why you ask? Because it's WRONG. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Interesting argument. In what way is it "WRONG"? Which "updates" exactly are missing? And once you've explained that, then read - or at least scan - the whole article and do a rough estimate of what proportion of it is devoted to the "controversy" and to criticism of France 2. I think you'll find it's about 50% again. I can't actually believe that your answers above are the basis on which you've edit warred and prompted gigabytes of talk page debate. --] (]) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::ps: can you please format and align your comments and signature here properly as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wikifan, we're not here to determine "]". Let me quote you something Elonka said in a previous discussion: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>One of the most common misconceptions that we deal with on Misplaced Pages, is the perception that Misplaced Pages is here to present ]. But this is not correct. What we are here for, is to ''summarize information that has already been written elsewhere'', in the proper proportion to the views that are being written about. So this talkpage should be for discussions like, "I think we're giving too much article space to View A" or "I think that we can find a better source than #27" or "The third paragraph is sourced to #5, but I don't think it's accurately reflecting what is in the source," or "We seem to be covering Significant Published Views B and C okay, but the article isn't covering A and D at all." To put it another way: If 90% of published sources are saying "View A", and 10% are saying "View B", then even if we, as editors, feel that View A is flatout wrong, our responsibility is still to ensure that the Misplaced Pages article is 90% about View A, and 10% about View B. We are just humble servants of what other reporters and academics are saying. If and as the published sources change their opinions, then the Misplaced Pages article can change to match. Our job is to reflect the current consensus of modern thinking, that's it. We are not here to debunk theories, we are not here to provide leading news coverage. We are here to summarize what has already been published. For other types of reporting, Misplaced Pages probably isn't the project for it. To catch stuff "as it's happening", there is ], or for presenting opinions, folks are encouraged to set up their own blogs and personal websites. But for this article, here on Misplaced Pages, we are just a summary service.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
That pretty much says it all, I think. -- ] (]) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This has nothing to do with truth. It has everything to do with CURRENT FINDINGS. The consensus is no longer IDF killed al-Durrah. The consensus is that it is unclear who killed al-Durrah. |
|
|
Period. ] (]) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Yes, and that's why this article does not state anywhere in it that the IDF '''did''' kill al Durrah. Again, what is the problem here? This is getting very trying. --] (]) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy <b>reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)</b> during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada. This needs to be changed. ] (]) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Do you not know what the words "''reported'' to have been ..." mean? Are you claiming that France 2 in fact reported something different? Have you deliberately been ignoring all the points and questions that others have spent a long time putting to you about this? --] (]) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Honestly, I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated. Al-Durrah was initially reported to have been killed by the IDF. That's an historical fact. It doesn't mean that he ''was'' killed by the IDF. All we're doing here is describing what the original reports stated. We're not endorsing what they say, we're just describing the fact that they said it in the first place. -- ] (]) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Uh? France 2 originally reported al-Durrah being killed by IDF, but that no longer seems to be the case. The intro should reflect current evidence, not past. Comprende muchachos ?] (]) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::And in the totality of "the intro" (you do realise that the ] is not just the single 1st paragraph, yes?), it makes that fact abundantly clear, without resorting to weasel words. The entire notability of this affair revolves around the initial reports of the IDF killing a child and having it caught on camera, and the lead goes on to explain in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs the subsequent events where the IDF's responsibility in the child's death is no longer certain, finishing up with a, IMO, far too weighty/lengthy 4th paragraph regarding the recent court case. The change you are asking for is, frankly, unreasonable and not supported by Wiki policy. Evidence being "current" is irrelevant if it is inherently unreliable. ] (]) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Semantics. It is blatantly obvious the the "initial" report against IDF has come under intense scrutiny, and recent evidence suggests that France 2 was very negligent in its original report. This has nothing to do with truth, just simple current events. This article isn't about the year 2000, it's about the years 2000 and beyond. PERIOD. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
I think we are trying to do too much in one sentence, and as a result the issues are becoming confused. How about this: |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah''' (1988-2000) {{lang-ar|محمد جمال الدرة}}) was a ] boy reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash between the IDF and ] in the ] on ] ], at the start of the ]. Initial reports, since called into question, stated that al-Durrah was killed by gunfire from IDF positions. |
|
|
|
|
|
This would preserve the "initial reports", for whatever they are worth, but does not get them tangled up with the issue of the death itself. Wouldn't this be clearer? ] (]) 01:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. ] (]) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:better,yes. ] (]) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's not bad. But I would get rid of the "since called into question" bit, since that effectively repeats what the next paragraphs say. Leave it as "Initial reports stated that al-Durrah was killed by gunfire from IDF positions." -- ] (]) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with your suggestion, 6SJ. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisO further up the page says: ''"Bear in mind that Charles Enderlin's report had quite a limited circulation, since (obviously) it was only aired on France 2, or Antenne 2 as it was at the time." '' |
|
|
We should not bear that in mind as it is not accurate. France2 gave it away free. It was seen (and the voiceover translated and heard) all over the world. That's why we have to correct the record now. ] (]) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:France 2 certainly gave away the ''images'' but do you have any sources to support your claim that the voiceover was translated? That's not the usual practice. TV stations have their own editorial line and reporters (obviously) compile their own reports. They may have drawn on reporting by France 2, but that doesn't mean that they slavishly repeated what France 2 said. The BBC . -- ] (]) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't know what other countries wrote about it, but in the US I distinctly remember seeing the original film and the reporters here were given the film and simply reported what Charles Enderlin said. Most news organisations simply ("slavishly") repeat what others have said, rather than manufacturing their own news either through omission or addition. The film was seen around the world which is how it got to be an "icon" in the first place. The accusation against the IDF was so pointed and specific that the IDF themselves actually believed it had to be true, and so "apologized" without first doing a full investigation. Virtually everyone in the world believed that Israel had killed this boy in cold blood, which was exactly what the the photographer said happened. He said he had filmed the boy for 45 minutes, which was also repeated slavishly by the BBC <<''TV footage shows that for 45 minutes, Mohammed and his father sought sanctuary in vain behind a small metal barrel as bullets rained around them.''>> and yet we now know that that is not the case at all. ] (]) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The other news organizations were using France 2 — specifically, the cameraman — as their source, because there was no other source. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To NickH argument: "Reliable sources": ''Newer sources have not "clearly indicated that the initial report was bogus to some extent"'' Oh but yes they have. And we have presented many of them. Ballistics reports, new film released, (acknowledged)contradictions in testimony, reenactments etc. plus more than a few (contemporary) ] agree. |
|
|
also this: ''The jury is still out on exactly what happened (and may never reach a conclusion)''. Not so, the jury came back with a conclusion: it looked at the evidence and voided the previous verdict. Until and unless France 2 appeals it, the verdict and everything it signifies, stands. ] (]) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wording of the third paragraph== |
|
Talk about changing consensus? Check this database out: <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
Some of the wording in the third paragraph is a bit off. |
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Over the months and years that followed, commentators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.</br> |
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"French journalists who saw the raw footage confirmed that France 2 had cut a final few seconds in which Muhammad appeared to lift his hand from his face; they acknowledged that he had died, but said the footage alone did not show it. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could be sure who fired the shots."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying ] was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way: |
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Postage stamps in the Middle East carried the images; one of the images was visible in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002."</BLOCKQUOTE> |
|
|
Unless it's just me who can't find any prominent media attention for this... ]? ] (]) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 2 October 2020 == |
|
: No responses? ] (]) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Page moved'''. <small>(])</small> ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
:: Could you please tone down the belligerence and start indenting things properly? Thanks. -- ] (]) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
::: Belligerence? Didn't see that one coming. : ) ] (]) 08:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Responses to what? ] is a laundry list of non-reliable sources which cannot be used in this or any Misplaced Pages article. It serves no purpose to cite it in this discussion, and should probably just be deleted. A response to "it looked at the evidence and voided the previous verdict" ? We've covered this particular ground countless times; the court verdict did not reflect a decision on the ] of the matter, only if the critics were allowed to, y'know, criticize it. ] (]) 12:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah}} – Since the boy was killed, this is the proper title. ] (]) 02:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::::Sorry Tundrabuggy, but newer sources have not "''clearly indicated'' that the initial report was ''bogus'' to some extent". They have called elements of it into question, which is not quite as definitive a point. Feel free to hold the view yourself that they've proved France 2 wrong, but don't insert it into this article. Following on from that, you have failed to understand that I was using a fairly cliched metaphor, to discuss the state of knowledge about what actually happened in 2000, when I talked about "the jury still being out" (I'd be very surprised if the libel appeal was heard at any point by a jury). And Tarc of course is right to remind you (again) that the latest verdict did not take sides as to what might have happened. The point is that no-one knows for certain whose bullets killed al Durrah at the junction that day and we probably never will. All we can do is report as it were on the reports - the initial one from France 2 and others at the time that blamed the IDF for killing him and the subsequent doubts that were raised about them, including - briefly - the fringe ones that claim the whole event was staged. And Wikifan, can you state for the record that you do understand that the article as currently written does not endorse the view that he was killed by the IDF? |
|
|
|
<small>—'''''Relisting.''''' ] <small>(please ] on reply)</small> 11:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
:::::And as for the proposed alternative opening above from 6SJ7, I don't see the need to separate out the issue of the death itself from the question of who might have been responsible for it when describing the initial reports. All it does is make two sentences out of one, which in part repeat each other. Arguably it gives too much weight to the idea that he isn't even dead. The original France 2 story was very clear in what it said - he '''was''' killed, '''by the IDF'''. Then that report was of course subjected to questions and criticism (and outright debunking, if of course you wish to take that view). --] (]) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Neutral''' on moving the article's main title header to ], but would '''support''' move to ]. This article appears under ], where the majority of entries use the form "Shooting of..." Even if there is no consensus that Muhammad al-Durrah was killed by shots fired by members of law enforcement, there is agreement that his death was caused by gunfire. —] <small>] • ]</small> 03:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm fine with that. Other voters: feel free to indicate whether you prefer killing of or shooting of. ] (]) 11:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support move to ]''', a more typical formulation that has less of an implication of intent. —] (]) 22:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' this request, YES, the boy was killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.--] (]) 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' per ]. The event is most commonly known as "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" and the article should stay at that title. (] · ]) ''']''' 01:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - I would prefer this page just be titled "Muhammad al-Durrah", but the proposed "]" is better than the current "]". Looking at Google books, ngrams, scholar, news, and web, I cannot find evidence that "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" is the common name, or even a common name, for this. I can find almost no examples in RSes, and those that I can find seem to be the product of ] originating in this article. "Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah" seems equally as prevalent, and I think it's a better choice than "incident", based on other "Killing of..." article titles for articles about homicides. "Incident" obscures what it is, and is euphemistic. However, I'm persuadable if there is evidence of common name. I notified ] and ] of this RM. I oppose "Shooting of" for reasons detailed at the concurrent discussion at ] (from whence I came). ]]] 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' – No evidence the current title is the clear COMMONNAME. Looking through GBooks, it appears both "Death of ..." and "Killing of ..." are more prevalent. I can't tell which of the two is more common. As an apparent homicide with video footage to confirm, this is should be titled as ''']'''. --- ]&]]) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "may not have been shot at all" == |
|
::::::Nick, we can't use France 2 as a source, because everyone who has looked at their story carefully has decided their report was not credible. This article is, in effect, about the France 2 report, rather than about the boy as such. The three senior French journalists who viewed the rushes (something that no one on this page has done, so far as we know) said clearly that when Enderlin declared the boy killed by the IDF, he had no reason to believe either that the IDF had shot him or even that he was dead. Therefore, Enderlin's report is at the center of the controversy. It is not a source any longer. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel the utter absurdity of the Israeli government conclusion that Muhammad al-Durrah may not have been shot, despite images of his corpse, his funeral, and examination of his corpse by doctors? I find his father's is quite apt: "Israel says my son isn't dead. He's not dead? Then bring him to me."''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::Well that's quite a sweeping judgement. ''Everyone'' who's looked at it has decided it's not credible? ''In its entirety''? Come on now. In any event, even if you wish to take that point of view yourself, it still leaves the fact that this is what the original report said at the time. That report was then criticised of course, as you know. Even someone claiming the report was all false or fake or whatever is presumably arguing - as you indeed are - that it was in a way the cause of this whole controversy. And you don't want to cite it or flag up what it said? Oh and by the way the fact that this article is now more about the France 2 report than it is about the killing of the boy is part of the problem of course, in my view at least. Like it is with many similar articles here. But that's a wider debate about I-P articles and WP:UNDUE. --] (]) 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If we are discussing the Al-Durrah ''Incident'', then perhaps in a linear context it would be appropriate to describe the events as they happened as a timeline --"initially reported" --but if we are trying to describe the consensus regarding what happened to Mohammed Al-Durrah, then we must start with the current consensus, not that of 8 years ago. Ever since the latest trial, wherein the appeals court looked over the various ballistics reports, raw footage, and listened to testimony, and came to a decision, virtually 100% of the articles written about the case have agreed that it is probably a hoax. Why are you trying to laugh off all the articles that we have collected here as fringy? Isn't it time for you to show some recent articles that demonstrate your position rather than poo-pooing all of ours as unreliable? Where are yours? ] (]) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. Per ], "<i>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</i>". Therefore they ought to be able to present the living boy if they are claiming their well documented death was a hoax. Otherwise the claims look no better than ] pushed by ] et. al. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Folks, interesting discussion, but can I get you to move it over to the mediation page, at ]? I recommend that everyone who hasn't offered a statement yet, please do so. You can probably also start new threads on the talkpage, to continue this discussion. --]]] 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Semantics NickHH. ] (]) 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well yes, if you mean by that reading things properly, understanding what simple words actually mean and trying to use them correctly. --] (]) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Y'know, it is ''extremely'' disrespectful to respond to someone's contributions to the discussion with a one-word blow-off. If you have nothing to add of substance, then please, add nothing. ] (]) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Since we're speaking bluntly: I'm not going to feed you guys. I've stated my opinion several times and you guys refuse to even respond. You've resorted to fallacies and bandwagoning and I'm not going to respond. France 2 is damaged, it's still unclear who killed al-Durrah or if he was actually killed regardless of how you spin it. I know my comments are rather harsh, but they are no less true. Good day. ] (]) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.
I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying Sandy Hook was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way:
Does anyone else feel the utter absurdity of the Israeli government conclusion that Muhammad al-Durrah may not have been shot, despite images of his corpse, his funeral, and examination of his corpse by doctors? I find his father's reaction is quite apt: "Israel says my son isn't dead. He's not dead? Then bring him to me."VR (Please ping on reply) 20:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
