Misplaced Pages

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 08:46, 28 June 2008 (→rephrasing intro: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:46, 28 June 2008 by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) (→rephrasing intro: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

ŭ

Template:Medcabbox

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.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

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

Archives

Additional subpages

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

Sources

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

Conditions for editing

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

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

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

Good luck, Elonka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely don't agree with this - it's far too early. Please withdraw the request for the lifting of page protection. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your objection is noted, but I'd like to give it a try. Do you think the above conditions are sufficient? --Elonka 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you propose to enforce it? You've seen for yourself that people are blatantly soapboxing and promoting their personal views ; if they don't respect our most fundamental policies (NPOV, V etc) what makes you think they will respect your conditions? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Because I have other cards I can play.  :) I start with, "Please, and thank you." Then I upgrade to "nudge", then I up the ante to "reminder", then "caution", etc. Or maybe I can skip steps and go straight to "warning". But most people, when they receive a polite and respectful request to moderate their behavior, are able to do so. At least, that's where I like to start from.  :) --Elonka 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Furthermore the "alter without reverting" rule is absolutely inapposite when dealing with fringe theorists. Elonka, you know this. When point X is fringe, once its in, there's no way of removing it without it being a revert! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If something is added which you think gives undue weight to a point of view, but it is still reliably sourced, one way to deal with it is to change it, as in moving it down to the "controversy" section. Yes, that might make the controversy section a bit long for now, but we can always winnow it shorter later. Remember There is no deadline. We can take some time to circle in towards consensus. --Elonka 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, in addition, moving the disputed wording "down" to the controversy section is indistinguishable from a revert. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus requires people to be on the same page as to how it can be achieved. We aren't there yet. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the nub of the problem. Have we even tried to define the specific areas of disagreement yet? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we have. I know that at least on my end, I have articulated clearly what my disagreement is: I object to the undicussed change of a consensus version which had been in the article for more than 2 years, from "became an icon when he was filmed and reported killed" to "became an icon when he was killed". There is substantial dispute over the claim that he was killed, with current reliable sources studiously refraining from making such a bold statement, if not agreeing with the "staged thesis" outright. Misplaced Pages should not take sides, but return to the neutral wording that has been the consensus version in the article for a long time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This argument has been made several times, but unfortunately the several eloquent, policy-based answers and explanations made in response appear to be ignored. I don't think there is anything more to say until those making this argument make a basic good-faith attempt to engage. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil, as Elonka has requested. There's no need for that kind of tone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner, please try to adopt a more civil tone. I have also left a more detailed note on your talkpage. Refactoring comment as the related post has been removed (thanks!)
Relata, I understand your frustration since it appears that some people "aren't listening", but please remember that this page is scrolling very fast. Even though ChrisO had archived it on June 1, it was already back up to 350K (and some people's browsers have trouble with anything over 32K!). I'm currently archiving threads that are only a few days old, just to try and keep things manageable. Or in other words, except for those of us who keep up on the page "edit by edit", it is very unlikely that other more occasional editors are reading everything. So those of us who are trying to keep up with things in a more detailed fashion, should make allowances for this. If this means that we need to answer the same questions or re-explain the same policies over and over, well, that's what we gotta do. :) --Elonka 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

An alternative proposal

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

This will stipple progress -- Julia1987 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO: Why don't you go ahead and change what you think is wrong in the article ? --Julia1987 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple ways of editing an article, just as there are multiple ways of formatting citations. Some basic methods of editing are:
  1. Wide open editing, no restrictions of any kind except asking everyone to stick to policy
  2. Taking disputes to the talkpage, and protecting the article until consensus is achieved
  3. Bold, revert, discuss cycle
  4. Allowing cautious edits to the article within certain restrictions, and allowing editors to flow through, making steadily successive "tweaks" to try and find consensus somewhere in the middle.
  5. Have different editors work on different sandbox versions, and then see about splicing them into the main article (or replacing the main article with a sandbox version)
All of these are valid methods, at different times. This article has been in state #1, and then state #2, possibly #3, and right now I am encouraging everyone to try state #4 (which has elements of #3, except we're not allowing people to revert). Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I would like to at least try it.  :) Can we please give it a chance? --Elonka 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • shrug* I don't think it will work here, because that method is particularly unsuited for narrow-focus FRINGE problems, as I explain above. I will turn my attention elsewhere, I believe. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page

Uninvolved admins

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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 been actively engaged with this article over the last two weeks (early June 2008)

Admin log

  • ChrisO (talk · contribs), for violating the editing conditions, has been banned from this talkpage for 1 week, and from editing the article for one month. --Elonka 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Julia1987 (talk · contribs) banned for one month from editing the lead section 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. --Elonka 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) 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. --Elonka 04:38, 17 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 uninvolved admins 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, Elonka 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. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is backed up by ArbCom. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions: (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." --Elonka 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. SlimVirgin 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. -- Ned Scott 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 WP:POINTy, 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. --Elonka 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. -- Ned Scott 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 #Conditions for editing as I have described above, provide a better-crafted solution than all-out protection. --Elonka 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. - Penwhale | 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 Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. 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 dealing with disruptive editors, the Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Dealing with disputes page, a successful reconciliation project at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and (though we can't take credit for this, but I did encourage it), the new Misplaced Pages:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard, primarily spearheaded by Folantin's group and Moreschi. 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 Muhammad al-Durrah 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 brief page bans, 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? --Elonka 03:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus on interests, not positions

I think that I noticed we were talking in circles when I saw the moon landing mentioned for the 14th time. I think the problem is we can't see the forest beyond the trees. We need to take a step back. It looks like my browser is currently displaying a 20,000 word disagreement about how we should weigh the last seven(ish) years of articles against a group of recent pieces (Slim Virgin's sources), the trial decision itself and, well, what some see as the apparent obvious truth.

Like I said above, I was hopeful when Elonka suggest that we wordsmith a solution to this one. But I think that this is a tough issue and we are an imperfect group of humans. It looks like it won't come easy. I think that before we can start to bridge our differences, we need to know what they are and reconcile that they might co-exist on the page.

I didn't enjoy it but I did take undergrad mediation. As you can see from the section heading, I did read Getting to Yes. So I'd like to know what people want, rather than hearing which policies they think other users are violating. So could you please say so below, without commenting on other users ideas for now. When we know what everyone wants, we can start to think of ways to make something work for everyone. *crosses fingers for luck* --JGGardiner (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I think that looks like a good start. Unfortunately it looks like Chris is blocked from the talk page for now so it may be a little bit difficult to proceed for the moment. That does, however, give the rest of us an opportunity for some introspection and time to consider the points that have been raised. I think that we're actually not as far apart as all of the text above might make it seem.
Moving forward, I think the next step is for dialogue. In a real mediation I’d want everyone to honestly consider the concerns expressed by the other editors and think about how they could be fulfilled. That might mean incorporating or removing things from the article or it could just be calming their worries. I know that it is easy to simply dismiss other opinions as violating policy and it may come to that but for now we should think of reasonable alternatives that don’t violate policy. I know this sounds like the kind of thing that we'd have already done mentally but sometimes it is to counter another user's argument without really considering the concerns which prompted it. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
JGGardiner, I really appreciate your attempts to mediate here. Misplaced Pages can always use more mediators! If you'd like to set up a separate page for mediation, ChrisO would be free to participate there, as currently his ban only applies to the article and its talkpage. I recommend looking at something such as WP:MEDCAB, which allows for informal mediation. More formal mediation is also available at WP:MEDCOM. --Elonka 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't really trying to mediate per se; I just thought that some mediation techniques might help us get the ball rolling again. I think that creating a mediation page sounds like a good idea. I would like for Chris to be involved as well. But I don't have much mediation experience and none at all with Misplaced Pages. Maybe somebody a little more knowledgeable than I am should handle that. But I'd be happy to give a try myself if nobody else wants to do that. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read the instructions at WP:MEDCAB, it's fairly straightforward to open a case, I'd start there. --Elonka 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia1987

We are dealing here with a case in which 1/2 of the world think it is a true news story and the other half thinks this is the biggest staged fabricated story. In between those we must keep NPOV – which means that we can not use the photos from this "news" story or the story itself as facts we must present them as what they are: One sided view with an alternative view which claim it is a fabrication.
We can not judge between the two – all we can is bring each side, each "evidence" or what is claimed as evidence. That is it. The reader will decide ... . --Julia1987 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

Thank you for the constructive question, JGG. I would like to see a well-written, nuanced article that succinctly addresses all the questions a reader immediately thinks of (insofar as these have been addressed by reliable sources): (a) who actually witnessed the incident, (b) who else was present, (c) who has seen the tape, (d) what does the last scene of the footage show, (e) why did the tape end there, (e) who saw the boy's injuries, (f) was there an autopsy, and if not, why not, (g) where and when was he buried and who was present, (h) was there any forensic evidence, and if not, why not, (i) what were the political consequences?
I'd like to see these issues addressed within a narrative that flows naturally and intelligently, describing the incident as reported at the time, then as reported later on. I'd like to see it written sensitively, bearing in mind that, if the boy died as France 2 described, it is deeply offensive to his family to imply otherwise. But we should also bear in mind, with each sentence we write, that if he didn't die as described (or even didn't die at all), this is a major media scandal that led to many deaths on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, because the stories about the boy helped to fuel the Second Intifada.
The alternative theories can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories, because there are too many serious commentators with doubts about France 2's reporting. The writing needs to be such that we don't endorse the France 2 view, but also don't undermine it by weaving the shadow of the alternative theories throughout the entire article. That will take a lot of careful wordsmithing. SlimVirgin 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO

The conspiracy theories have certainly attracted a small (emphasize small) degree of support from commentators in a small (emphasize small) number of mainstream sources. This is a very long way from saying that they have any kind of widespread mainstream support. As I've said ad nauseum on this talk page, only a relatively small number of mainstream sources have even mentioned the conspiracy theory, let alone spoken out in support of it. You will have noticed that only a small number of mainstream sources bothered to report on the recent verdict. If it's such a "major media scandal", how come it's only been covered by a minority of media outlets? Several editors, not just myself, have repeatedly pointed out that policy - heck, Jimmy Wales himself - tells us that we cannot treat minority viewpoints as deserving as much attention as a majority view. That is a standing, non-negotiable rule.

I'm certainly not arguing for endorsing anyone's POV but let's not beat about the bush. This controversy is being driven primarily by right-wing activists for overtly political reasons. As a Guardian report has put it, "For some of Israel's supporters, a primary aim of their war on the web is an attempt to discredit what they see as hostile foreign media reports, especially those containing iconic visual images. One particular target has been the respected French TV correspondent, Charles Enderlin." Let's not forget that Enderlin himself has been the target of death threats and vilification like this edit. We cannot allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a tool in an ongoing political campaign, particularly if that involves violating our most basic principles. As long as we can agree on that point, I'm happy to work with you in good faith to ensure that the article is as comprehensive and fair as we can make it.

Regarding SlimVirgin's comments about structuring the article, I have some reservations about the points that she mentions. I notice that virtually all of the points she mentions relate to issues raised by the conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure it's appropriate to delve that deeply - after all, we're trying to write a summary overview with links to relevant reliable sources, not a thesis describing every possible point. We are not in the business of trying to determine the "truth" about this affair, despite what some editors apparently believe. I think it would be appropriate to get some input from others on how much detail we should include, and to that end I've posted a request for advice on the fringe theories noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you call it a "conspiracy theories" show how far are you yourself a representative of a fringe view. In the name of this view you have edit-war endlessly and disrupted this aerticle ever since the verdict in france was announced. There is no other alternative but to suggest that you will be banned from this article so that others will be able to edit it and get an updated version based on the most recent sources. --Julia1987 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That kind of language is just not helpful on the talk page. If you have a problem with something specific that another editor says, try to let them know only that. If we want to make progress on the article we are going to have to work together. I think that it would be a good start if we could all respect the other editors even if we disagree with them. I think that everyone here is working for what they feel are the best interests for the article and the project. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to secong JGG here, Julia (with repect), and ask you to help lower the temperature. I know it's a highly emotional issue, but all the more reason, really, to hew to AGF. I'd also like to suggest that Elonka has a good idea in terms of mediation. Neutral (and deliberative) opinions are often a breath of fresh air. IronDuke 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved from the prior section

I think ChrisO suggestion that people will actually read WP:NPOV is great one as he needs to be the first to follow his own advice.--Julia1987 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you by "1/2 of the world" you refer to 50% then you are so very wrong. The number of people believing in the conspiracy theories is utterly small seen on a global scale. It's just some highly vocal conspiracy theorist on the far right. // Liftarn (talk)
Comment - would be best to stop calling either the Talal/Enderlin or the Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian perspectives as conspiracies. Stick to the known facts and let the readers decide. Jaakobou 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right in that they can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories. They should be dismissed as "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)
I would appreciate if everyone could keep focused on actual changes to the article. If there is disagreement on specific text, then please suggest different text, or make changes yourself, if they are in line with the current #Conditions for editing. --Elonka 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Far too much detail on Karsenty court case

Honest Reporting (an unremarkable propaganda source) report that "The international media virtually ignores Philippe Karsenty's court victory". That strikes me as near-enough cast-iron proof of what we were bound to suspect - there is no reason for us to publicise a campaign the RSs are ignoring. PR 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are over 25 mainstream sources listed at the top of the page. The claim than RSs are ignoring this is false. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be bizarre indeed if HonestReporting was found to be under-stating the importance of this court case. I'm not sure where these 25 references are, I can only see 3 and they're at the bottom of the article page. If that's the level of interest (one wire-story and two local), then HonestReporting would seem to be correct. PR 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources. --Elonka 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume Elonka you are only pointing to this link so that editors have the opportunity to review the material presented there, and you are not endorsing SlimVirgin's research or conclusions. Yes it looks like quite a few media reports, but on analysis most are to op-eds or even blogs (the Spectator link) rather than factual news reporting. And not one of the latter is a factual news piece that affirms the "hoax" theory - they merely report briefly on the case. None scream "this overturns everything that we know!!". There is indeed too much in both the lead and the main article about the controversy, and I've never understood why there is a clamour to add yet more, especially when we are relying on mainstream, reliable news sources for our information. --Nickhh (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We're not looking for news stories that affirm the hoax theory. We're looking to see whether reliable sources are writing about it, and they clearly are -- not just opinion pieces, but editorials too, as well as news stories. BTW, please don't call the Spectator pieces "blogs": many news organizations run columns that they call "blogs," but it's a gimmick. There is professional editorial oversight, and the columns are written by a well-known journalist, so they count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
When your opinion and attempts at original research are directly contradicted by a source that supports the viewpoint you yourself believe under-represented, that is the time to withdraw with as much grace as possible, I'd say. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
For best results, please try to avoid comments directed at other editors, and instead focus on suggestions for improvements to the article. It can be helpful to try and place posts in the third-person, such as to avoid the words "you" and "your". Thanks, --Elonka 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A modicum of research - the barest of glances at this talkpage - will note that I scrupulously followed that "rule" when nobody else did, and it did not lead to the best results. Given that, I'd question the relevance, accuracy and plain and simple justice of the above post. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My answer below actually addresses several of these points - I'm not denying opinion pieces are valid sources, I'm just clarifying what they may be valid sources for. Nor am I denying the "hoax" theory is being covered in some fashion, it's about whether we suggest it is credible or not according to reliable sources, and the weight we choose to put on it here - and plenty is currently being put in this article. I understand the principles of blogs, and blogs on newspaper, broadcast or magazine sites very well btw. And I know Melanie Phillips for example is well-known, and also what she is mostly well-known for these days. --Nickhh (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your exclusion of op-ed pieces shows over-attachment to one side of this issue. we are seeking to cover an issue which is clearly notable and significant, by any standard. there is no reason to exclude credible sources just because they are op-ed pieces. there is nothing in wikipedia rules which excludes credible op-ed pieces. not every source is a newspaper article or a history book. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, op-ed pieces are of course about the opinion of the author. The fact that the writer may have a column in a newspaper does not give them expert knowledge of the facts in question. Indeed in a lot of papers, columnists and op-ed writers get where they are because a lot of the time they are controversial or "outspoken". I have no attachment to one "side" or the other, I merely want to make sure that what we write here is reliably sourced fact, or alernatively credited as being opinion if that's what it is. Nor have I suggested the - undoubtedly real - controversy about what happened should not be covered. The issue though, as ever, is due weight and a fair acknowledgement of what is verified fact and what is opinion or speculation. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
ps: Please no-one reply that the France 2 version is not verified either, we've been over that one many times ..
Are you suggesting that we ignore editorials and opinion pieces or what? I'm not sure what position you're trying to argue here. Beit Or 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought I was being clear - all I was doing in so many words is stating what it says here. That is, be aware of the difference between news reporting based on speaking to sources and collating evidence, and a columnist giving us the benefit of their thoughts about the state of the world today. Actually I think this guideline is a bit over-cautious, because opinion pieces can of course sometimes set out facts as well as more speculative comment, all in the same paragraph. But there you are. --Nickhh (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably, this is the result of confusion between facts and opinions. The judgment in the Karsenty case is a fact. Many renowned journalists and mainstream media have expressed their opinion that evidence presented by Karsenty and others casts significant doubt over the France 2 story. The concern over the use of opinion pieces is misplaced because that's where opinions are published, by definition. Beit Or 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just as a nudge here, perhaps it would be more productive to talk about specific changes to the article? For example, "too much detail" is a bit vague. Does this mean "Shrink the section down by 50%" or "10 sentences need to be removed"? I encourage folks to try and make actual changes. For example, someone could go to the article and delete a few sentences or rework a paragraph, with an edit summary of "Condensing section". Then let it sit for a day or two, and see if anyone objects? If someone wants the information back in, they could add some of it back (remember, don't revert!), perhaps with slightly different wording to indicate the re-added information's importance to the article? --Elonka 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we take out all reference to the libel case, which according to one intimately involved source, has been ignored by the RSs (or the twist that brought in these new and un-labelled SPAs has been ignored, anyway). The matter is not concluded, it adds nothing whatsoever to the actual story of this incident and everyone seems to agree it exposes the project to legal risk from up to 7 sources. Don't misunderstand me, this information would probably be very useful in other stories, perhaps a section detailing law-suits against journalists as probably belongs in Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. PR 11:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
NO. The story has no tbeen ignored at all - you were pointed to the subpage of this article that currently lists more than two dozen articles covering it. The matter is indeed not concluded, and we will update the article as new developments occur. The claim that a notable allegation that the entire incident was staged 'adds nothing whatsoever to the actual story of this incident' is not a serious claim that deserves response. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As expected, the restrictions and premature unprotection have resulted in a disastrously weighted (and extremely poorly written) article. I am unsurprised. Whatever, another bad article being used as a soapbox by conspiracy theorists. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the restriction have led to significant improvements. You are welcome to participate and improve the artcile further, if you have any specific suggestions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
@Relata - I'm sure that bad editing could never drive out good. Have a look at Fisk: Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb and tell us whether an article headline, unsupported by the text, could ever be used to prove a negative. PR 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A request

There are editors on this page who are still engaging in the personal comments, sarcasm etc that have plagued this talk for a long time. I'd like to reiterate the mediator's request that we all stop interacting this way. Please come here to make constructive suggestions about the article, and only the article. If we combine that with a genuine ORR from everyone, we will make progess with the content in the end, even if it's slow. SlimVirgin 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Source check

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

It is indeed a different Regards. It appears to be a magazine produced by members of the Belgian Jewish community. Fortunately they do have their archives up and the Zomersztajn article is there. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice find.  :) So the next question is, whether this magazine counts as a "reliable source" for the information provided, and/or whether it's even a significant enough publication to rely on for opinions. --Elonka 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say not. Unless the author has some standing as a journalist that I'm not aware of. However, the citation is only used to support that Mofaz said Samia was working alone. Just a quick google news search found several articles which say similar things. I would suggest we switch the source and tweak the language to reflect the new one. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to improve the source. Also, I have gone through and tagged a few sources which appeared to be questionable. I would also encourage other editors to tag (such as with {{fact}}, {{verify credibility}} or {{verify source}}) any statements or sources that you feel do not meet the reliable source standards. Then other editors can either improve the sources as requested, or bring up specific challenges here at talk. Any statements/sources that are tagged for a period of time (a week?) without any improvement or justification, we'll just go ahead and delete from the article. --Elonka 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Another potentially useful tag is {{Copyvio link}}. If anyone sees a link to an external source, where they feel that the source may be a copyright violation, please tag it. Then if the source is not replaced, improved (or explained) within a week, the source and any text which relies exclusively upon it, can be removed. Other potentially useful inline templates can be seen at WP:CTT#Inline. --Elonka 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory vs Legitimate Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As part of the evidence presented and considered by the court, he concluded:

"If Jamal and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position."

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

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

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

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

Inconsistencies at the hospital & in relation to the funeral.

From James Fallows

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

Questions others have asked after viewing the raw footage.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for posting this, TB.
I can think of some answers that address your issues. For example, someone shouting "the boy is dead," before he was shot could be someone saying "he's going to end up getting killed if this doesn't stop." The confusion over the funeral time could simply be that someone has misinterpreted the shadows (I've seen lots of conspiracy theories hang on the issue of "this photo was apparently taken at time X, but if you look at the shadows, you see that ..."). The issue of where blood splatters and how much people bleed is a very complex one, and there have been serious miscarriages of justice committed on the basis of a forensic expert's opinion that turned out to be completely wrong.
Having said that, there are a few questions that I can think of no answer to. For example, why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? There was the France 2 cameraman, and (writing from memory) two other cameramen from news agencies. Yet of the three, watching a child being killed, not one of them thought to film the frantic efforts to save him, hurrying him into an ambulance, or the ambulance being prevented from helping him. That makes no sense to me, and I've not read France 2's explanation of it. Another question is why no one carried out any forensic tests, or collected the bullets from the boy's body or the wall, and why the cameraman laughed when asked about this.
Maybe there are answers to these questions published somewhere. That a lot of the news coverage is in France makes it easier than usual to miss things. But as things stand, I would say these questions alone raise a serious issue, and given that reliable sources are trying to address that issue, there is no reason for us to minimize it in this article. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that things may have happened the way France 2 said, in which case there is a grieving family that we need to show respect for. That calls for a lot of careful writing. SlimVirgin 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No slim. Any one who heard the shouts in Arabic knows it was very decisive : " the boy is dead". Arabic is a very compact language and if they wanted to say something else it would be almost as short (much shorter than English)--Julia1987 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are unanswered questions. But why do you think they belong in the article? I think that is the largest part of the dispute here. What happens if there is a legitimate question or problem but nobody much writes about it? Is the inclusion sustained by the weight of the matter or simply by the media that has written about it?
I'm not asking to dispute what you say. But I think that is what the real issue here is. I think that most of the other editors believe not that the issue is unimportant per se but that without a large mass of media attention it isn't worthy of inclusion in our article. I think that those editors believe that it doesn't matter if the problems are serious or even true but that we have no mandate to include them until they have been reported everywhere from the Moose Jaw Times to the New York Times and most of the way in between. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lord, and people above think they're not backing a conspiracy theory? Banging out a load of questions which you claim there is no answer for, and which therefore supposedly undermine the standard mainstream versions, is the classic stuff of which such theories are made. Go and visit any 9/11 "truth" site. There is still no positive evidence of a hoax whatsoever in the public domain beyond speculation and vague assertion of the possibility. The latter is not enough. I ought not to dignify this with a detailed response, but isn't it possible for example that there is no post-shooting footage because Abu-Rahma ran out of film or batteries? Because the other cameramen had left the scene? As for the boy "moving", has anyone here actually seen what happens to the human body when it's been shot and the person is dying? Anyway I don't know of course if these are the actual answers to those questions or not, but they are as plausible an explanation as any conspiracy theory about a faked death and subsequent cover-up. Also I believe France 2 did show detailed blow-ups which more clearly depict the blood at the scene. And please, Abu-Rahma "laughed" when asked a question? I mean that really clinches it. --Nickhh (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
ps: my view is that the controversy around the hoax theory and the Karsenty case needs to be covered, but with due weight and in proportion to the limited coverage it's had. It can't take up 50% of the lead as it does currently. The separate argument about who actually shot him and whether the France 2 report was correct in blaming the IDF also needs to be covered of course. As it is.

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

I would just add that there are a significant number of RS that have recently added their voices to this argument. As for the lack of positive evidence of a hoax, we have as much as we have positive evidence of a (particular) death. I would ask Nickhh to demonstrate positive evidence of Muhammad's death. And SV: What about the hospital claiming the dead boy came in at 1:00pm when he was not shot til three -- and another report that said he had 2 bullet holes on his left side and the report (with photo, torso only) of a boy with a large gash in his stomach? Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's an interesting debate on "was the video or hoax or not", but I still have to remind people that this talkpage is not the proper venue for this debate. One of the most common misconceptions that we deal with on Misplaced Pages, is the perception that Misplaced Pages is here to present The Truth. But this is not correct. What we are here for, is to summarize information that has already been written elsewhere, in the proper proportion to the views that are being written about. So this talkpage should be for discussions like, "I think we're giving too much article space to View A" or "I think that we can find a better source than #27" or "The third paragraph is sourced to #5, but I don't think it's accurately reflecting what is in the source," or "We seem to be covering Significant Published Views B and C okay, but the article isn't covering A and D at all." To put it another way: If 90% of published sources are saying "View A", and 10% are saying "View B", then even if we, as editors, feel that View A is flatout wrong, our responsibility is still to ensure that the 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 Wikinews, 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. --Elonka 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Try to focus things in an even more practical direction. In other words, instead of asking people to provide other sources, instead frame your question in relation to the article: What would you like to see changed? Is there a sentence, paragraph, or section in the article which you feel is inappropriate or unbalanced? Which one, and how would you like to see it improved? --Elonka 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, around and around this goes. In response to "I would ask Nickhh to demonstrate positive evidence of Muhammad's death" I will say that the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself, and that is all that is really needed at this time. The bone of contention by some here is that that footage was staged. At present, no reliable source elevates this from a fringe conspiracy theory to the mainstream. It just simply isn't there. There are certainly sources that mention or address the notion that some believe it to be a hoax, but that addressing is done in much the same way that an article on the 1969 lunar landing may make mention the idea that some believe it was faked. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the statement "the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself" is supported by current reliable sources. Reading through current souces, notably the Esther Schapira interview, the current mainstream position of reliable sources is "The video does not show the boy being killed - he is clearly alive at the end of the available footage". Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not just the France 2 footage. You also have the testimony of the boy's father who was right there. There's the fact that a funeral was held. There's the fact that the IDF's original investigation, which was done within days of the incident and is the ONLY investigation that was ever done at the scene (as the concrete barrier and wall were soon after destroyed), came to the conclusion not only that the boy died (!) but that the IDF was "probably" responsible. Sanguinalis (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
A statement was made that ""the "positive evidence" is the footage of the boy being shot and killed itself" . That statement is false - even France 2 today admits that the footage itself does not show the boy dying. There are certainly other elements to the theory he was killed - including, as you write, that a funeral was held (stating the obvious - this does not prove that the boy in the film was the boy buried), that his father testified, etc... Just as there are multiple elements to the theory that the vent was staged. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Until legitimate evidence from reliable sources can be produced, the prevailing story here is quite clear. Everything that has followed from this event i.e. funerals and investigations and such, have treated this case as if the boy were dead. So again, barring evidence to the contrary, suggestions that the death was a hoax do not belong in the article. Certainly we can mention that there are those out there who think it to be a hoax, but that is, at most, a footnote to this story. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, there are nearly 30 reliable sources listed in the subpage that discuss the possibility that this was staged. The standard on Misplaced Pages is not truth, but verifiability, and it is verifiable that many reliable sources treat the "staged" theory as possible, so it belongs in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
And once again, to characterize that motley list of blogs and OpEds as "reliable sources" is highly disingenuous. We have been over this numerous times before; opinion pieces and unreliable sources are not to be give equal weight in an article. Period. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The list consists of high quality, reliable sources. It includes some OpEds, published in mainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem post, and many, many, news articles, from sources that range from the newspapers of record of Norway and Israel, through Swiss and German public TV and Radio - some which explicitly declare "the video is probably a hoax". Repeatedly referring to this list as "that motley list of blogs and OpEds" leads one to suspect that those making such a claim have not actually looked at the list, let alone read it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, with equal respect, the comparisons are more than apt in this case as noted above. The French courthouse was not in a position to, and did not issue any such ruling, on the truth or merit of the tape. Only that the very act of calling the tape's authenticity into question did not rise to a commission of libel. The idea that this is a hoax is a fringe theory, and we have clear guidelines here as to how to treat fringe theories in an article. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps unsurprising, I agree with Jaakobou here. If it is true that 1) he was shot by Palestinians and not by Israelis or 2) that he was not killed... either way it is a blood libel against Israel. How many killings have taken place in his name, or in retaliation for killings in his name? Enough evidence has come up to demonstrate that this is no longer a 'fringe Theory' and after a while the insistence that we accept this becomes just plain insulting. NOthing is gained by this approach except to tie this article up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I know that this is a hot topic, but let's please try to (1) keep discussions at a very civil level, and (2) keep discussions focused on the article. I am seeing disagreement here, but I am still not seeing how this relates to actual changes to the article. What text changes are desired? Either state a change here, or just go ahead and make a direct edit to the article, thanks. --Elonka 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No reliable evidence has come up to suggest anything of the sort, and the "hoax" idea is still completely in the realm of the fringe. As to specific article changes, pretty much the entire 4th paragraph of the lead should be gutted. It goes into far too much detail of the most recent court case in general, gives far too much minutiae and quotes of who said what to who, where and why, and, obviously, devotes far too much space to the hoax theory. That is what the body of the article is for, but even there, a passing mention at best. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. A well documented controversy arose as a result of the court case, and removing this paragraph, or "gutting" it would not provide a balanced view of the situation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Related thread

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

Another edit to the lead

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

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

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

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

I am uncomfortable with all this focus on the lead section of the article, especially because there are now several sources in the lead, which appear only in the lead, and not anywhere else in the article. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article, and is not supposed to be making new points. Unless a source/statement is already covered elsewhere in the article, it should probably not be in the lead. --Elonka 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
When I last looked, all these points were expanded on in the body of the text, as they are key issues, but I'll check to make sure they're still there. The reason people focus on getting the lead right is that it's often the only part of an article readers look at, and it's meant to stand alone as a summary. SlimVirgin 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look and can't see anything in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the body. SlimVirgin 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me upgrade from "I am uncomfortable" to "I am unhappy, and getting steadily unhappier" (a bad trend, eh?). Over the last week and a half, I have been seeing editors here at this article, battle over the wording of the lead, while almost completely ignoring the rest of the article. This is not good editing practice. Instead, we should get the article into a proper state, and then worry about whether or not the lead is a "concise summary" of what is in the article. I have already banned one editor from working on the lead, and would rather not have to extend this ban to other editors, but please be aware that this option is still on the table. To be specific: The current lead has 11 listed sources, 7 of which are not used anywhere else in the article. This can be easily seen by looking at the "Notes" section, and looking for the little "abcd" notes, to see which references are "single use". There is also clearly information in the lead that is not in the rest of the article, for example the quote "coherent mass of evidence" is used only in the lead, and nowhere else. The petition also appears only in the lead, and nowhere else in the article. There are other bits too, but I don't want to have to list each piece of content, because that's not my job. What I am saying here, is that though the lead is supposed to be written in such a way that it can stand on its own, that does not mean that the lead should be written as a separate article from the rest of what's there. I would like all editors to be very careful that any further changes to the lead, should only reflect what is already in the article. Otherwise, don't add it to the lead. And anything that is in the lead, that is not covered elsewhere in the article, should be moved out of the lead. --Elonka 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The body of the article does not have to repeat sources that are in the lead. The lead also does not have to limit itself to material that is in the body. WP:LEAD says that "the lead must not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article," and that any "significant" material that appears in the lead should be expanded on in the body.
So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the lead that is alluded to in a mysterious or "teasing" way; that, indeed, was the point of my edit, because some of the issues raised were not explained (e.g. why people were questioning the France 2 report). And the only significant point in the lead that's not in the body is the petition of French journalists in support of Enderlin; it's important to mention that in the lead in the interests of NPOV, because we name two senior French journalists who have criticized him, so we have to make clear that others support him. It can easily be added to the body, though I don't see it as a hugely significant point in terms of the body.
The reason I've been working on the lead is that I've already worked on the body a considerable amount, and it's time to find a lead that reflects the key issues. SlimVirgin 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
SV, your edit also removed - and therefore effectively reverted - all this information about context and what was reported to have happened, leading the reader to perhaps conclude that this one (made-up) event was the spark that started a conflict that had hitherto not existed:
His father was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds. The incident occurred during a period of widespread violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which many people were killed.
There is also now a huge amount of detail in the lead about the amazing fact that TV stations edit footage for news bulletins, as well as of the ins and outs of the controversy, which now takes up maybe 60% of the whole introduction. This material is far more suited to being in the main body of the article, leaving the lead to then, as suggested, summarise that concisely. This article just gets worse and worse--Nickhh (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh, if you disagree with some text in the article, I encourage you to change it. You are not allowed to do a blanket revert, but you are welcome to edit, improve, change, move, adjust, tag, add sources, rework, expand, condense, and everything else.  :) --Elonka 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I can't face this article anymore - as I say, it's got worse. People with a very strong POV and an apparent belief that they are getting close to "the truth" are running all over it now. Plus the problem with a no-revert rule is that it makes it so much harder to trim or cut anything back, so that the entire article - but especially the lead - just gets more and more bloated and messy. It might eventually get back to a better balance POV-wise, but only at the expense of getting even more clogged up, with material that points the other way. One of the key points of good editing (in the widest sense of the word) is of course about how you remove material and keep information clear and concise. --Nickhh (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps there is a miscommunication on the meaning of "revert"? When the conditions say "No revert", that does not mean "no delete". Any editor is welcome to delete information from this article. If you think a paragraph is too long, condense it down, that's fine. Where it would be a revert, would be a case if editor A added a sourced statement, and then that same day, editor B comes along and deletes that same statement, without making any further changes. That's a "revert", or pretty much what would happen if someone clicked on "undo" or "rollback" and that would be a violation of the #Conditions for editing. But if someone wants to go in, in good faith, and say, "This section of 4 paragraphs is too long, and needs to be condensed down to one paragraph", then that's fine, go right ahead and delete entire paragraphs if you feel it would make for a stronger article. The only thing I would recommend being cautious about, is to avoid deleting reliable sources themselves. But you can definitely reduce the information that has been included from those sources. You can also move any information around to different sections, and tag any sources which are potentially unreliable. Any such tagged sources, that no one has improved or explained within a week, can also be deleted entirely from the article. --Elonka 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this in the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They found the following witnesses believable:

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

That in itself is shocking, is it not?

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

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

Article name change

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

No way. Quite apart from the fact that "incident" is a pretty weak word (or are we back to saying he's not actually dead?) and also suggests yet another attempt to shift the emphasis of this article onto the post-death controversy, you're just wrong - see Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, Leon Klinghoffer. None of them would have been notable unless they had not, unfortunately, been killed. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"Incident" may work as a preliminary solution. This article is not a biography, though the title claims otherwise. It will not become a biography even if the entire controversy is removed. Beit Or 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh has a point. There is Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg, Koby Mandell, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Tali Hatuel and others. Pearl would arguably have been in for his personal achievements. The others, not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact Check

Muhammad_al-Durrah#The_shooting_incident

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

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

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

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

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

Important new article by ex-Israeli official

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

This in the lead is just plain wrong:

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

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

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

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

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

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 allegedly killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada.

so?

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

Categories: