Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 5

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

Those who reject the criticism of France 2 say that most reliable sources support the original France 2 version of what happened, and that that is therefore the mainstream position. As I recall, all the sources who do this are very early ones, written before anything was known. Do we have any recent mainstream sources who continue to support, or who repeat without criticism, the France 2 version of events? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know no mainstream media is defending France 2. The current consensus revolves around the judgment against France 2, and the vindication of an accused "slanderer" who was behind the investigation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This user had no editing history before today. CJCurrie (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you genuinely think that this whole debate is about whether the "original France 2 version" is the agreed mainstream version (as referred to by other editors here), then you need to go away and do a lot of research into this issue and into the talk page debates above about it. --

talk

) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of reading about this in order to do the rewrite. The debate is about the accuracy of the France 2 report, with various views in support and opposed, ranging from the France 2 account being largely accurate but misleadingly described after the fact, all the way to claiming it was a deliberate setup and that the cameraman was aware of that.

What I'm asking is whether we have any recent mainstream sources who do not reflect one of the opposing positions. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that is exactly what the debate is not about. The debate is about whether the claim that this individual is dead is a hoax or a fraud, and what weight to put on that theory. It really isn't that difficult to understand. --

talk

) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, the debate began long before you made an edit to the page. It has been about the extent to which we ought to say "reported this" and "alleged that." This has covered whether the boy is dead to whether the footage shows X or Y, and many other issues. The principle underlying each issue is the same, namely that we do not take sides unless the issue is very clear cut and the opposing sources tiny-minority. Neither is the case here. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't patronise me, but nonetheless I'm going to do exactly that to you. For the fourth (?) time, this current debate is very precisely about whether to describe his death as "reported" or "alleged". No serious source has any evidence that he is not dead. Please let all of us know if you have any inside info on this one way or the other . --

talk

) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but no serious source has any evidence that he IS dead. All information pointing to the "fact" has proven to be largely fabricated, which that in itself should discredit France 2 as a reliable source. And since France 2 is the sole media outlet that initially claimed al-Durrag was dead, there is no other evidence that could prove he is in fact dead.

Get it?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; reply to Nick) It's interesting you say that I'm patronizing you when I was responding to your "um, no ... it really isn't difficult to understand" and "you need to go away and do a lot of research into this issue."

I repeat: the issue is (and has always been) about the extent to which the mainstream view should be presented as the truth. You are right that no RS has evidence that the boy is alive. Similarly, no RS has evidence that he died. There is no evidence, because for reasons best known to themselves both sides destroyed it, or have failed to produce it. Therefore, we have only a series of narratives, all of which should be included, unless they are genuinely kooky and reproduced only in very dubious publications. But anything the Los Angeles Times sees fit to reproduce is a position we take seriously, like it or not. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I "get it". You are all, quite seriously, nuts. Cloaking that insanity in speciously rational argument does not help. Present me with the evidence that the moon landings took place or else I will start editing that page with "reportedly" and "allegedly" as well. Please turn the lights off here before you leave. --

talk

) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate personal attacks nor does anyone else. I'm not quite sure what your angle is here. You say you "get it" (sarcastically), yet offer no insight aside from "your nuts."

I tolerate zealotry, but I don't have to like it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Read previous debates if you genuinely want my insight into this issue and others. "Zealotry" is of course an interesting choice of word.--

talk

) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I don't think you've read the sources carefully, because you're including as "nuts" some very serious French journalists who've studied what evidence there is. The problem with the initial reporting is that it was so conclusive, despite the doubts about the footage and the lack of any forensic evidence (and the reporting was particularly conclusive in the UK, where your user page says you live) that people who read it, and who come to look at the issue now, do think that anyone questioning that version is "nuts." But if read all the sources carefully, you can see that there are genuine issues with the initial reporting. That doesn't mean it was necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the media reported material as fact without having checked it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all that debate is covered in the article, even in the lead. What the main page - quite correctly - doesn't do is give equal weight to the idea that he is not dead, which is the ideological preserve of bloggers and right wing fantasists. And anyway that is very different from simply questioning the exact details of what France 2 and Enderlin said at the time. Btw, I read lots of sources, very carefully. --

talk

) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

update: Nothing was conclusive. The media was more than willing to accept another stab at Israel, whether it was true or not. France 2 blatantly lied to the world, then tried to sue the people that were mere steps away from discovering the awful truth. Adding the recent judgment against France 2, and the FACT that al-Durrah is likely still alive, means any conclusion made before the entire world jumped on Israel as unjustified. Let's not forget, sovereign nations worshiped Al-Durrah, declared him a martyr. How embarassing would it be if it was discovered the entire story was a total lie. This is the reason why media outlets aren't willing to spill the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn,

talk

) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scoff away Nickhh. I couldn't care less. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't. Luckily everyone can see where your edits are coming from now. Transparency can only be a good thing, surely. --

talk

) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Nickhh and Wikifan12345. It would be better for

But they are all nuts, that's the nature of conspiracy theorists. Anyway, I believe

talk

) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this whole issue is that much of the mainstream views are conspiracy theories. ChrisO summarized the mainstream views above as either a) the Israelis killed him, b) the Palestinians killed him or c) we don't know who killed him. Both B and C are in conspiracy theory territory themselves. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely accurate (being nitpicky here). The big difference between the mainstream and conspiracy theory views is that the mainstream views do not impute motives to the shooting, whereas the conspiracy theories do. Generally speaking, Western media reports have avoided trying to suggest any reason for the shooting other than that the al-Durrahs were "caught in a crossfire". The implicit assumption is that the shooting was accidental, which would be a reasonable assumption given that the al-Durrahs were unarmed civilians. (I should note that Arab sources claim that he was deliberately murdered, but I've not found any sources in European languages that argue that line.) By contrast, the conspiracy theorists are very aggressive about assigning a motive, claiming the existence of a conspiracy involving the media and Palestinians that seeks to defame Israel for propaganda reasons. Now, it's certainly true that the al-Durrah footage has been very extensively used for propaganda, but the conspiracy theorists go beyond this to claim that the footage was created for propaganda purposes from the outset. Consider also the targets of the conspiracy theorists - not just the Palestinians but the media. A Guardian article of 2006 that mentions the al-Durrah conspiracy theories comments that "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." [1] -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that most western sources will say the might have been shot by Palestinians but won't say exactly how that might have happened. I suppose there is the fog of war but the al-Durrahs weren't literally in the crossfire were they? From the map in the article it looks like no Palestinian could have been shooting at the Israelis and hit the al-Durrahs. Unless possibly they were to the east and a very bad shot. But the shooter couldn't have been to the east because the bullets are hitting the wall, right? The shooter had to be north of them and nobody to their north could have shot them while aiming at the Israeli post.

So it is true that the media won't speculate how it might have happened. I imagine any media who think "crossfire" must have arrived there by deduction: "If it wasn't the Israelis, it must have been in the crossfire." But I have never seen anyone articulate a particular scenario where the al-Durrahs were shot in the crossfire. I don't think anyone who has looked at the map thinks there was crossfire where the al-Durrahs were. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To be exact, the media won't speculate why it might have happened. I don't know how much credence to give to the map since I'm not sure what it's based on. From what I gather from the reporting, there was firing going on in both directions. All we know for sure is that someone with a line of sight to the al-Durrahs sprayed them with automatic fire. That could have been an Israeli fearing they were snipers, or it could have been a careless Palestinian or Israeli accidentally discharging his weapon at their position. We don't know, of course, and it's impossible to determine the "why" of the shooting, which is probably the reason the media have avoided that topic. The conspiracy theorists have come up with their own "why" but it's as much speculation as anyone else's "why". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I suggest you focus your comments on article improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, apologies. Most of them have been though. --

talk

) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more focus should be put on cleaning up the article. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out the blatant partisan tactics going on in this discussion. ChisO clearly has his own agenda and his stance in this article is far from neutral. A ranking admin with a personal agenda in a hot topic such as this one is quite alarming. I hope some of you agree.Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My only "agenda", as you put it, is upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, particularly when people are trying to use it as a platform for advocacy (you've made your own position very clear). Remember that

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk

) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please be reminded that CAMERA (spectacularly exposed as conspiring to cheat here only a few weeks ago), have long been taking a special interest in this case, with an extraordinary 33 articles devoted to it. CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin has made their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances brand new SPAs (do we now have 3?),should be treated not just with caution, but with grave suspicion.

Can I also remind people that we've now had several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating (often supremely confident, as if they had complete impunity). In (all?) cases these cheats seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. Editors currently in front of the ArbCom on charges of abusing admin tools ("long term problematic behavior" in the words of her chief accuser) should be particularly careful about engaging with highly suspicious editors apparently arrived for a smear campaign on career journalists. PR^talk 09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment (on the comment above by User:PalestineRemembered) - What is it now ? Not even "guilt by association" but guilt by having similar areas of interest? PS is this a "non-English-speaking" wikipedia ? --Julia1987 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a user named

talk

) 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop going on about CAMERA; you, in particular, with the user name you chose, can't point the finger at anyone else regarding being on Wikipedia to emphasize a particular POV.

The only thing that matters for us is that the article clearly reflect what reliable sources have said, and that no view is presented as though it's the truth. It takes nuanced writing to do that in a situation where sources on both sides are sometimes presenting thoughtful material, but are often simply repeating propaganda. The current first sentence, which states as fact that the boy was killed, is not good writing, or NPOV, because it aligns itself with one camp, and introduces the story as though part of it didn't exist.

The boy was "reported to have been killed" is correct, and does not in any way indicate that WP believes he is still alive; it simply introduces the reader to a narrative that has twists and turns in it, rather than pretending that narrative isn't there. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"The only thing that matters for us is that the article clearly reflect what reliable sources have said" - amen to that. --Julia1987 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. So what reliable sources say he was not killed? No, not just those that refer to the "hoax" claims - in passing or even with a hint of approval - but what reliable sources say he is, definitely, still alive? Come on, can someone finally answer that question and provide that information? Until these are presented, it is neither bad writing or POV to say simply he was killed. We don't use the (yes, strictly accurate) qualifier "it was reported .." each time we use reliable media sources for information in Wikipedia, unless there is a genuine disagreement between different mainstream sources about a specific matter of fact, which is not the case here. We take mainstream media reports as being accurate unless and until they are corrected or retracted. As discussed ad nauseam there is of course a dispute in mainstream sources about who killed him and exactly how he died, and this is all reflected in the introduction. As indeed is the fringe allegation that he is not dead at all. --

talk

) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• WSJ says "allegedly killed" --Julia1987 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In an online editorial it make a brief reference to him being "allegedly killed by Israeli bullets". I am not going to waste any more time debating with you if this is the standard of evidence you are going to bring, and if you are going to ignore all the points about

talk

) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all sources are now saying "reportedly" or "allegedly." Here, the Miami Herald says "supposedly." I can't think why we had "reported to have been killed" in this article for, I believe, years, and suddenly someone tried to remove it just as a French court said that doubts about the footage have not been dispelled. This is just not realistic. As I said earlier, can someone produce a recent reliable source who affirms that the boy was indeed killed? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who can actually read more than six words in one go? That Miami Herald piece says not simply "supposedly killed", but "supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers". And in any event it is clearly another comment piece, which should not be taken as a reliable source for issues of fact. And in addition I am of course asking for reliable sources that definitively say he is alive and therefore give real weight to the dispute, not ones which simply debate the overall controversy and refer to the hoax theory, even if approvingly. And finally, as also discussed ad nauseam above, the fact that poor phrasing was allowed to fester in this article for so long proves nothing. I tried to remove it on at least one occasion in the past and was reverted. Thank god it has now gone and won't be back for a while. --

talk

) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The "supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers" issue is irrelevant. Multiple reliable sources are now reporting that the incident may have been a hoax at worst, and that, at best, there is something odd about the footage, and France 2's reluctance to show all of it. You can dismiss this or that source, but there are too many for them all to be dismissed, and it means the idea can no longer be entertained that this is a straightforward issue, and that anyone disagreeing is verging on conspiracism. That is the only point that matters for us, because it has to inform the tone of the article. The current first sentence, for example, has to go. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a number of recent reliable sources from around the world reporting, to varying degrees, that the incident may have been a hoax. The onus is on editors who disagree with this analysis, and who feel it is fringe conspiracy material, to produce recent reliable sources who affirm the accuracy of the original reporting. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above Google link, which appears to bring up a fairly eclectic collection of occasional commentary from partisan "news sites", one or two online op-eds from conservative columnists in American or Australian newspapers discussing the issue in very broad theoretical terms and of course an op-ed from the Jerusalem Post in which the writer actually lays into the "conspiracy theorists". But no reliable sources whatsoever explicitly saying he was not killed. Sorry, but the onus is on YOU and others to justify why you want the weasel words "was reported" to appear in this article, when it refers to al-Durrah's death itself. --

talk

) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that using "reportedly" puts undue weight on the tiny-minority view that he is not dead. As I've said before, it's like saying that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" went to the Moon or that the WTC was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft. I've already pointed out what

WP:UNDUE states on how to treat small- or tiny-minority viewpoints. Could you try addressing that point rather than constantly ignoring it, please? -- ChrisO (talk

) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The repeated Apollo references seem to be irrelevant in this case - the sources for the disputes are nowhere on the same level of reliability. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a tiny-minority view anymore. Please look at the number of mainstream sources implying it was a hoax, or openly calling it that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And SV you are still confusing the debate about the accuracy of the original France 2 report in terms of how it said he was killed, with the entirely different debate about whether he is dead or not and whether the entire scene was faked. This has been endlessly explained and pointed out, but it never seems to sink in. --

talk

) 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources according to our sourcing policy,

WP:V. You can't go through them all and dismiss every single one: this is commentary, that one is partisan, that one conservative, this one Australian. Your opinion and my opinion of the issue or the sources is irrelevant when they are as widespread and as mainstream as this. The point is now being made by serious commentators (I suspect you strongly dislike them but that doesn't mean they're not serious) that this was a blood libel, [3] and that the speed with which it spread, and the intensity of the belief in it despite the lack of any evidence, is sadly illustrative of people's attitudes toward Jews/Israel. You personally may think this is nonsense, but it's a legitimate point of view, which this article needs to reflect, as it does all the other POVS that reliable sources see fit to publish (whether as news or commentary). SlimVirgin ^talk|edits

20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No they're not. They include blogs and personally published websites. Nor do they all "imply it was a hoax". Some do, yes, but many just report on the claims that it was a hoax. Please stop misrepresenting sources like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would the editors who believe the "video-might-have-been-a-hoax" view is tiny-minority conspiracism please produce some recent, mainstream, reliable sources who dismiss that theory out of hand, who say or imply that it's a fringe view, and who affirm the original reporting? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Or even just recent sources who affirm the original reporting without mentioning the so-called fringe views? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, SV, read

WP:FRINGE. Nobody responds to your request because they don't need to. They don't need to because those of us with long experience working on conspiracy theory/fringe articles know that "where are the sources saying the theory is wrong" is always answered with "there aren't any, because its a fringe theory not worth anyone's time". So your question is irrelevant per the standard policy for such pages. Move on and actually make a case for inclusion, please. --Relata refero (disp.

) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You are attempting to dismiss eight years' worth of news reporting in favour of two weeks' worth. That's a textbook case of recentism, and it blatantly contravenes

WP:UNDUE. You also ignore the fact that the majority of sources which reported on the original shooting have not returned to the story since. The recent court verdict has actually attracted relatively little attention (some of the partisan websites have complained about this). I can't think of a single source which has said "ok, we got this one wrong." -- ChrisO (talk

) 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate, Chris. The vast majority of the anti-hoax sources (if I can put it that way) were published shortly after the incident, when nothing was known. I am not dismissing eight years' worth of sources, but about 12 months' worth, if even that. It is over the last seven years or so that alternative views have emerged, and they now actually appear to be the mainstream view — that there is a strong possibility this was a hoax, either entirely or in part. Or, at best, that it was an example of poor journalism with crucial parts of the footage being cut, and then that not being admitted to. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't address the last part of your post. Yes, I agree. It is a feature of journalism that reporters rarely come back to a story if it's been messed up, to say "we stand by the original," or "no, we got it wrong." The problem it leaves us with is that finding the mainstream view is difficult. The mainstream view back in 2000 was that he had been killed by someone (Israelis, Palestinians, both), and the mainstream view now seems to be that it was a hoax. Therefore, we should simply reflect all views that reliable sources have published. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually sat down and systematically reviewed the sources and how the story has developed? I have, and this is what I found by doing a systematic Lexis-Nexis search. In 2000, the story was very widely covered with hundreds of reliable sources reporting first on the "Israel killed al-Durrah" viewpoint and then the "maybe the Palestinians killed al-Durrah" POV that the Israeli army subsequently promoted. Apparently Karsenty et al first started promoting their conspiracy theory around 2002, but it wasn't until France 2 sued Karsenty in 2004 that the conspiracy theory got any real attention. (That's always the problem with libel suits - they draw attention to the defamatory allegations that the plaintiff is trying to suppress.) At the same time, two newspapers in the same group - the Jerusalem Post and Canada's National Post, which I believe were both owned by Conrad Black at the time - began running a series of op-eds arguing for the conspiracy theory.

Now the important qualifier: very few of the articles mentioning the conspiracy theory actually endorse it, and virtually all of the handful that do are op-eds (which, per

WP:RS, cannot be used to support statements of fact). The total number of articles that even mention the conspiracy theory number perhaps a few dozen. The number of articles over the entire eight-year period that describe the al-Durrah killing as a matter of fact numbers many hundreds. Even when discussing the conspiracy theory, many of the articles state clearly that al-Durrah is dead (see e.g. [4]). We cannot simply dismiss all of that coverage in favour of a few dozen articles which report on the views of a few activists - not the Israeli government or army, or any official body at all - or indeed a handful of articles by op-ed columnists. -- ChrisO (talk

) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Black's company sold its remaining stake in the National Post to CanWest in 2001. But they had both been Hollinger papers before then. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Chris, an important point: RS is not policy, and in fact is a widely ignored guideline because it keeps changing. V is the policy. Opinion pieces are fine so long as the publication is a good one, or the writer, and there is in-text attribution if the view is contentious.

Secondly, the BBC article that says the boy died is from 2007, before the recent evidence and ruling. Can you find a more recent one where a reliable source writes that the boy died, or implies it in some way?

And yes, I spent days reading the sources when I did the rewrite. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what makes this difficult is that nobody is really sure of what happened. I notice in the court documents that the judges note that even Landes thinks the probablity of that this was a staged scene is only "supérieure à 95%". So even one of the originators of the theory isn't really sure what happened. It is hard for us to say with certainty what even Landes won't. On the other hand, there are these serious questions. It is hard to pick apart what was a journalistic error and what is a discrepancy in the whole story. This is just the kind of thing that makes it hard to write an encyclopeida article, especially with multiple authors. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right. The "hoax theory" (for the sake of identifying opposing views) has wide latitude. At its heart, it says that this was not good journalism, that there is no evidence that anyone died, and that France 2 showed poor judgment in their original reporting and/or their subsequent responses. At the extreme end of the theory, some people are saying the entire thing was a set up. The bottom line is that no current reliable source seems to want to publish that the boy is dead, because there is now too much reasonable doubt about what happened. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One other point. You seem to be arguing that the small number of journals which have reported on the verdict now (a) constitute "the mainstream view" and (b) that by reporting on the case they're somehow endorsing the conspiracy theory. That's nonsense. The vast majority of the media have not reported at all on the story. Even some of the conspiracy theorists are complaining that the media is somehow "ignoring" the verdict. The media outlets that have reported on it are, as Nickh rightly says, predominately conservative. You might be able to argue that the conspiracy theory is a mainstream view in the conservative media (though you would have the difficulty of defining what's in that category). But you can't possibly argue that it's the mainstream view when the vast majority of the mainstream hasn't even mentioned it. It's also undeniably not been supported by the Israeli government or military, something which I note Karsenty has been complaining about. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So what that certain newspapers are conservative? Most of those continuing to report (until last year) that he had died in the way France 2 claimed were left-wing. It matters not. If they count as reliable sources, the politics are irrelevant. We report what they have said without taking sides. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Their political leanings matter only inasmuch as that they are only a section of the media as a whole. They do not constitute "the mainstream" all by themselves. And once again you're ignoring the central point: yes, we report what they have said, but

WP:UNDUE directs not to treat minority views with as much weight as majority ones. Are you ever going to address this point? I'm going to keep hammering on it until you do. -- ChrisO (talk

) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I posted a list of newspapers reporting these allegations above. They are not only conservative, but even if they were, it means that a substantial part of the media sees the allegations as worthy of reporting without commenting that they are clearly wrong or nuts. And so must we. There is no way we can do otherwise. That the original story is deeply problematic in some way is no longer a tiny-minority view, as I've said many times. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reports. Given that, the rest of what you say is irrelevant. Give it up, SV, this is not worth your time. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they are "clearly wrong or nuts". Personally I don't take a position on the issue. I don't know who killed al-Durrah and I don't particularly care, to be honest. I deliberately haven't watched the video because I don't want my personal impressions of it to colour my edits (and my own view of it is irrelevant anyway, since that's OR). I'm going solely by (a) what the totality of reliable sources have said (not giving a small number of articles over two weeks a higher priority than a huge number over eight years); (b) what

WP:BLP requires, since the conspiracy theory so clearly affects the reputations of multiple living people. -- ChrisO (talk

) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To go deeper into my previous suggestion, I believe the article's focus should be on who reported (and what he further claimed), since that's the point of conflict. Saying "reported to have been killed" actually promotes the perspective that he might not have been killed a little bit and the main contest is the claim that he was "controversially reported to have been targeted and killed by Israeli soldiers -- with the Palestinian cameraman going further, saying "that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead". This version certainly doesn't promote that the boy is alive, and leaves enough room for the "following XXX and YYY, many accused that that the report was staged" perspective also to be presented in the following line. Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to wrap my head around what you are saying but it doesn't seem to work. Could you please rephrase? By the way, NickH contends that there is no way that the original will be changed for some time. If that is true, and if as ChrisO contends that it is POV to include "reportedly," and that NPOV trumps consensus....what exactly is the point of this argument? The article will remain locked until consensus is reached that agrees with ChrisO's belief as to what constitutes NPOV? Are there wiki mediators who do not have a stake in this argument?

talk

) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors, and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus.. Go and read

WP:NPOV - I'm quoting directly from the second paragraph. If you can't accept that principle, you shouldn't be editing here in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk

) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what most of us are arguing — that this article not take a position, because there are many mainstream sources supporting and opposing the various views. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit that you and the conspiracy theorists are resolutely ignoring is just below that section I cited - namely

WP:UNDUE. Note also that WP:UNDUE states "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", not "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources published in the last two weeks". -- ChrisO (talk

) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"You and the conspiracy theorists" -- come on, Chris, that just isn't fair. I've spent as much time on this page (if not more) trying to keep out the wilder conspiracy theories as trying to make sure that the more reasonable doubts are allowed in. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(deleted -

WP:BLP -- ChrisO (talk

) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

OR. When the majority, or a significant minority of reliable sources, make a similar claim, please return. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SV, I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist, otherwise I would have done so. But let's not pretend that we don't have any active conspiracy theorists on this page, OK? Wikifan12345, I've redacted your allegations about France 2 - please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to talk pages as well as articles (and also note that I can block you for violating it). I'm going to enforce this from now on, so please don't repeat it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, with respect, neither of us can block anyone involved in this article, because we ourselves are both involved. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so - "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." (

WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material). BLP is an exception to the normal rules. -- ChrisO (talk

) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Any thoughts/suggestions about my comment from above please? I thought it was a reasonable compromise suggestion that might actually be accepted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jaakobou, I don't think it's so much a case of people ignoring you as people not really understanding you. Like Tundrabuggy, I don't really get what you're trying to say. Could you suggest a form of words for the article that would address the concerns you've raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some May-June 2008 mainstream sources

• BBC News, UK, May 22: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
• Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.
• The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4: calls the death a "fake."

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Op-ed. Blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this a blog post? And if you don't like it, read the previous story of theirs that they link to. There is nothing wrong with op-eds, so long as we provide in-text attribution. Do not be so dismissive of sources you disagree with, please. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reports. They are distinctly less useful and encyclopaedic as sources of fact, per long precedent and usage, especially in areas subject to heavy propagandising. I would imagine that you are already aware of this. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, its a blog post because it says its a blog post. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recommend this new movie: http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php "France 2 vs. Evidence" Narrated by Richard Landes. Not a reliable source but well worth looking at as it discusses the evidence using the film and analysis and interviews with the father and the cameraman.

talk

) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I call it a blog because it's Melanie Phillips' personal blog on the Spectator website? The print edition certainly doesn't cover the story - I should know, I get it on subscription. Also, it's not that I disagree with them, it's simply that what you're citing is mostly columnists giving their opinion (that's why they're called "opinion pieces", you know), not reporters doing actual journalism. Their parroting of the Karsenty-Landes conspiracy theory doesn't advance our knowledge of the story one inch. By way of analogy, op-ed columnists have claimed that Barack Obama is a Muslim; on that basis, should our article on him state that he is only "reportedly" a Christian? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've elsewhere linked to the Los Angeles Times and International Herald Tribune. It isn't possible to continue to claim that no or few reliable sources take this seriously. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So let's see, including the LA Times and IHT we have... 2 articles that aren't op-eds? Please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take the opinion sources and those that talk about the conspiracy theory rather than the incident itself out if you wish this list to be taken seriously. Please also familiarise yourself with the standard approach about conspiracy theories. The talkpages of the 9/11 arbitration, WP:FTN and WP:FRINGE would be a start. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's a very, very complex story, probably the most complex I've encountered on Wikipedia. I had to do some serious reading to know enough to do the rewrite last year, must more reading than would normally be necessary, because there are a number of theories, most of them put forward by serious commentators who have evaluated the evidence, including the raw footage. I suggest that anyone commenting here do the same before going any further. Things really aren't what they seem, and the more you read, the more confusing it gets. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, replace what I say with "complex stories" and do what I suggest anyway. This is no different from a dozen other such complex stories, and will not be treated as different either. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is being treated differently: we are stating as fact something that no reliable source now states as fact. More sources below, as I posted above. I again recommend this wording with an update to include the recent verdict. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That is no different from anywhere else. "Now" means nothing: we are not news, nor do we make OR-y inferences of the sort you suggest. If you do indeed find a source indicating that a significant minority of informed opinion now believes that this was a hoax, please present it here, rather than this combination of op-eds and analysis of what "isn't there". Please believe me, these are approaches that have been seen before, and are precisely what WP:FRINGE has been written to stamp out. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you'd ever been involved in this article before. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no point to that statement. Please detail any objections to my post, or take it on board and alter your approach appropriately. I have some considerable experience in articles that are subject to fringe activist campaigns, and I detailed above the approach not to take to such in order to stay within our policies. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that neither your current nor previous account has been involved here before, so I'm assuming you haven't read the voluminous source material. What triggered your interest today, incidentally? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted an alert about this to the

fringe theories noticeboard. Relata commented on the matter there several days ago. -- ChrisO (talk

) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, a familiarity with everything ever written about an incident is not necessary to recognise a fringe POV - requiring that would make our job impossible (and claiming it is necessary is also something a lot of us have seen before in such articles) and second, I'm not discussing my "current or previous account" here or anywhere, thanks, and it is neither appropriate nor good conduct for you to bring it up on an article talkpage. It should be blindingly obvious why I'm here, this has been on AN/I and at FT/N, both of which I read and post to regularly, so I can't imagine why on earth you asked a question that has such an incredibly obvious answer. Please stay on-point and away from personalities, SV, this is not doing anyone any good.

Again, we are not news, nor do we make in the text original inferences of the sort you suggest. If you do indeed find a source indicating that a significant minority of informed opinion now believes that this was a hoax, please present it here, rather than any further combination of op-eds and analysis of what "isn't there". These are approaches that have been seen before elsewhere, and are precisely what WP:FRINGE has been written to stamp out. You should read that sometime, by the way. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
• The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

Speaking of cutting things out, do you suppose that you could cut out the original research that screams out from your last line? It would be helpful if you could also stop misrepresenting sources. That Reuters story you cite says no such thing (the word "supported" never appears). The court found only that Karsenty had not violated the

WP:FTN: ""Is not libellous" is not synonymous with "is true". That is very easy to understand." -- ChrisO (talk

) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, if you read all the reports, you'll see that the court appears to have gone further than that in his remarks. I believe people are waiting for the full decision to be published. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been published and I've read it. My comments were based on reading that full text in conjunction with what the French media has reported about it in brief. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the full decision, please? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - see http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF . It's on Richard Landes' personally published website, so it's not a reliable source per se, but the document certainly seems authentic enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more detail, the law in question enables a defendant to evade a conviction for defamation if it can be proven that (a) the matter is of genuine public concern, (b) the publisher has acted in good faith and (c) he has made at least a basic attempt to verify the defamatory material. Truth doesn't enter into it - not only is truth not an absolute defence, but courts are apparently specifically forbidden from investigating the truth of defamatory statements. If you read the judgement (which I have, in the original French - hard work, I can tell you) it states - as the French media has reported - that (a) the matter is of public concern; (b) Karsenty wasn't motivated by malice, therefore good faith is assumed; and (c) the witnesses called by Karsenty supported some or all of his claims, so he had made at least some attempt at verification. But the court also said, to quote the Reuters report you linked to, that "Karsenty did not provide proof of his allegations." So claims that the court in this case did endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory (how could it, if it said he didn't have any proof?) are basically self-serving bunk. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

False, yet again. Read the

article in question, which, under 'defeneces' clearly says 'Truth of the defamatory statement is available as a defense in most libel cases'. Now, of course, you already know this, because you wrote the article in question. What you hope to accomplish with this easily proven false statement, is beyond me. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And, since yoyu read the verdict, you also know that in addition to the above, the court stated that (d) the testimony of the Palestinian cameraman, which is , in essence, ALL the France 2 offered as evidence for their case, is not credible, and (e) that the thesis brought about by Karnesty and supported by his expert witnesses, that the event was staged, can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no hard facts to prove the boy's death or his non-death. All we have are assumptions based on a film and a film-maker's word. The idea that the boy is dead is as much an opinion as the one that he is alive -at least until we have a body to exhume and test. The fact that everyone believed it initially may in fact have been due to a hoax (as the French courts say is not a libelous position). Until we exhume a body and do DNA testing everything will be op-eds. Until then all we have is Enderlin's assertion and a film. What France 2 produced as evidence of the boy's death is being reviewed by the courts & the world press and found wanting.

talk

) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And if the world press pronouces it false in reports, we will update this article dutifully. Till then, we do not rely on two op-eds and a blog post. All the other detail you provide is irrelevant to questions of sourcing and evaluation of weight. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into debating evidence with a conspiracy theorist because (a) that's original research and (b) it's like mud-wrestling with a pig. But I will note that the original reporting on the killing didn't depend solely on the videotape - there were also a number of reports from the hospitals involved and the funeral, as well as comments by Palestinian, Israeli and Jordanian figures (including the then King of Jordan). Larry Derfner noted in a recent JPost op-ed that the alleged conspiracy would have had to involve "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 who knows who else. There was much contemporary reporting of the events immediately after the shooting, not just on the day itself, by many more journalists than just Enderlin. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, the person who interviewed the father in hospital was the same cameraman, again alone. Otherwise, all sources are secondary, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that assertion? My own reliably published source (L'Humanité, 22 November 2004) states that the father was treated in a military hospital in Amman, Jordan, where he was visited by the King of Jordan. I'm pretty sure that the King of Jordan was not the person who took the pictures in Gaza. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So? What was the King testifying to, even if he was there? The boy was obviously not there, alive or dead. At best, the King could testify that the father was being treated for some injury in the hospital - not where this injury was sustained. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if he was there? Are you implying that the conspiracy extended to faking a visit by King Abdullah? Those conspirators sure do have a long reach! According to the contemporary reports, the father underwent multiple operations by military surgeons for "wounds to both legs, one arm and his midsection, and spent four months in a Jordanian hospital." Incidentally, that needs to be reflected in the article when it's unprotected. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm implying that I don't have a source in front of me that says teh King was there, so at this point in time, I can's coment one way or theother on hi sbein g there. Now, Answer the question: what was the King testifying to, as a primary source? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was one contemporaneous interview published with the father, and the interviewer was the cameraman, acting alone. I don't have time to look for a source right now, but it's in most of the comprehensive sources; it was also in the version of the article I linked to above, after the rewrite. He may have been photographed with various celebrities at later dates, and he gave interviews at later dates too (although not always saying the same thing), but the main interview that was relied on by the early reports was conducted by the same cameraman, who is not someone who would normally conduct interviews. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to compile a list of people we know for sure are primary sources i.e. people who have firsthand knowledge of what happened. The two that I know of are the cameraman and the father. There would be whichever doctors treated the boy, but did they ever release a statement about the boy? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not need to rely on primary sources in any way. Enough secondary sources exist. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata. For the record, according to an AFP/AP report of 4 October 2000 the Jordanian doctors spoke publicly about the treatment of the boy's father ("Doctors in Jordan have said Mr. Durra will have permanent paralysis in the right hand and has been psychologically traumatized.") and there are extensive quotes from an interview he gave in Jordan the previous day. I don't know if that's the same one as yours. I found a Le Monde article of 20 November 2004 stating that the Palestinian cameraman had interviewed the father in October 2004; maybe that's the one you mean? Some of the conspiracy theorists are quoted as citing reports from the Gaza hospital where the boy was taken, so evidently they must have given a public statement of some sort as well. Of course, all this goes some way to address the false claim that the whole story rests on one grainy videotape. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinian cameraman interviewed the boy's father when he was first admitted to hospital. It was the first interview and the one the media relied on. But did any doctor (or any other primary source) give a statement about the boy? It is what happened to the boy that we're discussing, not the father. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, no need to worry about primary sources. If several secondary sources note that a doctor discussed the nature of the supposed boy's alleged injuries, it might be relevant. Till then, no. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no dispute that the "supposed boy" was, in fact, an actual boy. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire "it would have had to have been a wide conspiracy" has been dealt with already. There is ample proof that Gazans are capable of orchestrating wide conspiracies, and of Western media falling for it, if not willingly playing along. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. I think this entire section of discussion is irrelevant to the central point. As and when the mainstream media wakes up in the manner in which that blog wishes it does, we will change this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen above. Numerous sources, from Aftenposten through Ha'aretz to ARD have been presented, in which current media news reports treat the hoax theory as at least plausible, if not likely. Perhaps you should get around to finaly reading them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly, "dirty ragheads and liberal media are all liars", which I suspect is the underlying subtext if the blogged comments by some of the conspiracy theorists' supporters are anything to go by. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Derfner's piece, which you are recommending all over the place, can be summarized succinctly, as "dirty lying Israelis and their supporters are to blame for all the world's ills"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The other way of looking at it is that critical thinking is always important. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on WP, not to the extent of second-guessing the vast majority of reliable sources, no. In fact, that's the very opposite of important. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone not understanding the importance of critical thinking will not be able to understand this case.

As for your other point, where you say "till then, no" or something. Till when and no to what? I am losing the point of your posts here. If you have something of substance to add, by all means add it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you seem to think that critical thinking has a place in assembling secondary sources. It does not. Please do not use it to second-guess our sources, as that is original research. The collation of primary sources in order to do that is also original research. If you have any future trouble with comprehension, please feel free to ask. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An answer to Relata[5]:

"We must take into account new information as it appears and this is the crux of the issue now: court have heard expert testimony and ruled. You and ChrisO are as disruptive as people who would still cling to the theory of "flat earth" after a voyage around the globe have been completed."

--Julia1987 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is what the court ruled on. As the French press reporting makes very clear, it ruled on the narrow question of whether Karsenty was guilty of libel, not the bigger question of whether Karsenty was right. Nowhere in the judgement does the court say that Karsenty's witnesses were right - only that their views could not be dismissed. It's a lot more nuanced than the conspiracy theorists have claimed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisO: It is nice that you offer us your own (very original) view but above you rejected published op-eds ….

If you don't mind we shall simply ignore your interpretation and analysis of the verdict and go by what the published sources understood the ramification of the verdict is. We can start with the WSJ source: [6] or use any of Slim's sources above you rejected.

As for the facts in this matter:

Since the French court ruled the Karsenty/Shpira/Shahaf version has a valid reason to be presented we in wikipedia shall do exactly that - We shall present two versions:

1. The Abu-Rahma/ Enderlin version
2. The Karsenty version

--Julia1987 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And we shall describe the controversy as this is exactly what

Please do not get sidetracked into discussing the moment of the verdict. Neither individual wikipedians nor the tiny fraction of presented op-eds are relevant to the wording of those sections that do not deal with this latest verdict, which, per NPOV, needs to be a tiny fraction of the article itself. The French court's verdict is completely and utterly irrelevant, whatever it may be, untill reflected in a significant proportion of reliable source, or until reliable sources issue some form of retraction or clarification. This is now the fifth time you have been told this. Please note that repeated failure to address issues in this manner is considered a breach of the normal editorial process. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And once again, no, we should not be doing nothing of the sort. All of this section's sources, plus the WSJ one just cited, cannot and will not be used in this or any other article. As numerous people have stated, OpEds are not

reliable sources. Once again, I will direct you to legitimate reliable sources such as the BBC, which notes that the ruling was that it is legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world". That is FACT. This OPINION of the matter, that the ruling actually means Karsenty's claim of "pure fiction" was substantiated is just that; OPINION. The OpEds produced here may share the OPINION as some editors, but that doesn't bring it to the standards of Wikipedia policy for inclusion in and attribution to in articles. Tarc (talk

) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"The website, Media-Ratings, said the pictures of a father and son being fired on had been staged by a cameraman working for France 2 television. The state broadcaster sued, insisting it had shown the boy being killed" " A French court has ruled in favour of a media watchdog "--Julia1987 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event, one side here seems to be discussing a slightly different point at times. The article clearly does "describe the controversy" around both the Karsenty allegations and other different criticisms of the original France 2 broadcast. And it "presents" the "versions" expressed by those critics. In great detail. I don't think anyone is suggesting it shouldn't do that (at least to a certain extent and in the main body of the article) - what is immediately at issue is the weight to be attached to some of the more extreme criticism in the lead of the article, eg by reducing the broadly accepted fact of his death - however it happened - to being a mere "report". --

talk

) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No the article does not describe the controversy when it uses France-2 report as facts…--Julia1987 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the court ruled that the media watchdog has the right to say it. That is all. There is nothing in this ruling to suggest that it was a ruling on the truth of the media watchdog's claim itself. Attempting to read one's own interpretation into what a source says is the epitome of a violation of

WP:SYNT. Tarc (talk

) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

T-A-R-C. Its only 4 letters. What I do or do not favor as far as an opinion goes is not relevant here. What I do favor is an adherence to policy, which is continuously being violated by reading into the court verdict something that is not there. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So what Julia are you suggesting the enormous section titled "Controversy" within the article is about, if it's not about, er, the controversy? And the article as is does NOT endorse the France 2 "version" (which blamed the IDF for shooting him) or "use it as fact" - it does however, yes, reflect the mainstream contention that he is dead in the opening paragraph. It then goes on to discuss the various (different) criticisms, eventually in some detail. --

talk

) 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is more fundamental than that section (and the lead) currently present. The whole incident is under doubt: Was it a hoax or an actual event ? Is the boy dead ? etc… There are now two different versions to the events in Nezarim Junction: One version is the France-2 version the other is the independent investigation.

The source (only source) to the France-2 version is Abu Rahma. Anything that comes out of that tape can not be presented here as fact but as one side. The other side is the Karsenty/Shpira/Shahaf Version that need to be presented as well. I am not saying Karesenty is correct I am saying that we need to write this article in NPOV manner. I am glad that ChrisO/CJ no longer raise the "fringe conspiracy argument" and that we are finally discussing how the article should look like. I'll admit that there are better wordsmiths than me who can re-write the needed sections.--Julia1987 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lost count of the number of times people have pointed out there are not "two different versions" of what happened - there are actually multiple versions being claimed by various different people, some of which are being given more credence than others in mainstream reporting. You seem incapable of understanding that. Or of understanding the point that this article does not say that the original France 2 report - which asserted that he was killed by IDF fire - is "fact", or necessarily correct. This debate has now become as ghoulish and offensive (since it is about a child who was almost certainly killed) as it always was tedious. --

talk

) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask participants to please avoid terms such as "ghoulish" and "you seem incapable"? Let's please just stick to the sources. Also, when the article is unprotected, I'd like to see all parties avoid any kinds of reverts (except of course for blatant

WP:UNDUE seems to be the core policy here, in that we want to concentrate on identifying "significant" views. But even minority views, if they are represented by multiple sources, are worth including, as long as we are providing things in the proper proportion. --Elonka

19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

May I join all Elkona's requests and add that since we now have new data we need to focus on adding info from current sources. We would like to have this encyclopedia up-to-date. --Julia1987 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, consensus here sounds nice in theory, but the reality here is that consensus cannot override policy. A

WP:FRINGE theory is a fringe theory, and no amount of calls to the contrary, regardless of the number or status of those who are calling for it, can elevate a fringe theory to a factual one. Tarc (talk

) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I'm tasked by ArbCom with investigating ethnic and cultural edit wars (see

WP:WORKGROUP), I'd like to see if I can help here as an uninvolved administrator. First though, I'd like to check that I'm acceptable as a neutral party? I have definitely worked on articles related to medieval history of the area, as well as articles about more current subjects such as the Hajj (see my userpage for a full list of articles I have created or expanded, from Fustat to Franco-Mongol alliance). So I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical complexities involved, without being biased towards one side or the other in terms of Israel-Palestinian disputes. I've also had success with moderating other disputes[7]. In terms of this particular page on Muhammad al-Durrah, I'm willing to do my best to be neutral and fair. Would this be acceptable? --Elonka

05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I have never been a member of

Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. Bottom line: It might be good to go both routes, to have me (and any other uninvolved admins) helping out as an admin, and to also continue seeking assistance from MEDCOM or MEDCAB. --Elonka

14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Greg Palkot of Fox News covers the controversy and about the content and veracity of the French Report, and the doubts raised. [8]

Just as a general reminder to everyone, please:

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

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

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

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

For a long time, the article lead took no side. It said, for example (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was reported to have been killed by gunfire on September 30, 2000 near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada. [9]

Recently, ChrisO changed this [10] to the current version (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was killed in an exchange of gunfire ..." [11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just another nudge, again, let's please avoid the words "you" and "your", to try and de-escalate things a tad. As for the wording here, I'm sure that we can come up with a source-based way of describing the events, that still stays within

WP:UNDUE. Is there a specific sentence that seems to be at the center of the conflict? Let's try word-smithing a bit. --Elonka

21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do strike out any of my comments that uses the word. The particular dispute seems to center around the

reportedly'. --Relata refero (disp.

) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, are there any sources that use the word "reportedly"? If not, we should stick to how the current reliable sources are describing it (random example[12]) and then follow their lead. --Elonka 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

As for your comments about primary sources, I am very familiar with

WP:NOR

and the primary-source issue because I helped to write it. It says (and it is policy):

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

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

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

WP:FRINGE

, into which I had significant input, IIRC, is also worth reading as relevant, as I believe I might have mentioned once or twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not trying to "keep this stuff hidden" (and please respect Elonka's request to depersonalise this). The undisputed fact is that none of us are experts in French law and the nuances of a complex judgment in a foreign jurisdiction, written in a specialised format and using specialised non-English vocabulary, are exactly the kind of thing that requires what

WP:NOR terms "specialist knowledge". We can certainly express our own view of the verdict on talk pages, but ultimately we're simply not competent to determine which bits of it are significant. Relata's example of the ambiguous use of "legitimate" illustrates the point perfectly. -- ChrisO (talk

) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

talk

) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would like to see some suggestions from participants here, as to how you think the lead should be worded, if you don't like what's there right now.[13] Could you please suggest an actual sentence or two, which you think is the best

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

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire on September 30, 2000. The incident was filmed by a local Palestinian cameraman working for the French television station France 2,[1] during an outbreak of widespread violence on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[2] Images from the footage of the al-Durrah shooting became an iconic symbol of the Palestinian cause in much of the Arab world.[3]

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

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

You've included (in fact, duplicated) the bit about "iconic symbol of the Intifada/Palestinian cause" ... however, that's actually the most important thing about this incident. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the

lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later - as we're informed at an article we seem to think so useful we're already citing it 7 times. An Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... [at] a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol". That's what we should be aiming to document. PR^talk

13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The diagram used in this article is not accurate – for a reason:[14] --Julia1987 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, please don't waste our time with blog posts -

we cannot use them as sources. -- ChrisO (talk

) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Misunderstanding the point

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

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

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

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

I said he was reported killed. That is an undeniable fact. It does not say "reportedly killed" but reported killed. Enderlin and the Palestinian cameraman reported him killed.

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

Tarc, let me ask you two simple questions:

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

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

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

tendentious editing like this. It's redundant because everyone is reported killed. Christ was reported killed. So was JFK. There's no difference between saying someone is killed and someone is reported killed. Ergo, I conclude this is nothing more than an attempt to reinstate the implication of "reportedly" by the back door. Moreschi (talk) (debate

) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

(ec)I'm sorry, but this strikes at the heart of the "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." caveat of

WP:AGF. It is extremely poor form for someone to pick up the revert war right where it left off following a page unprotection. I have voluntarily adhered to the restrictions proposed precisely by NOT diving in and reverting this myself, and all I ask at the moment is for Tundrabuggy to reverse himself. Tarc (talk

) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Not sure if reverting to a smaller

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

) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, for something like 95% of the world, there is no controversy at all... Could you seriously imagine starting the articles

Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination

, for which there are also conspiracy theories?

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 11:54

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

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

Julia, the court verdict is a

Muhammad al-Durrah and his death, and the conspiracies surrounding it are only secondary. Cheers, pedrito - talk

- 11.06.2008 14:54

Pedrito: Is this your

WP:SYNT conclusion that is my editorial on the facts so please let's focus on the facts here.--Julia1987 (talk

) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, do you have a reliable source making the link between the court ruling and an explicit endorsement of Karsenty's view? If not, then it is

WP:SYNTH. Cheers, pedrito - talk

- 11.06.2008 15:34

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

Julia, thanks very much for suggesting a lead for the article. :) For more tips on writing a good lead paragraph on Wikipedia, you may also wish to review

WP:UNDUE), then the wording of the lead will be easier to deal with. --Elonka

15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What ? I do not understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6SJ7 (talk · contribs) has just resumed the edit war with a reversion to the "reported kill" wording that was our resident SPAs were forcing into the lead just before the article was protected [15]. He's done this despite never having edited the article before, never participating in this talk page or mediation, or indeed any of the other discussions of this article (AN/I, FTN, BLPN etc ). He followed this edit immediately with a completely unprovoked personal attack against me on a completely unrelated discussion page [16]. He appears to have tracked my contributions list, where my now-reverted edit to this article [17] was followed five edits later by the edit [18] which he followed up with his personal attack against me. It's extremely improbable that he should randomly find this article, revert my most recent contribution and then immediately afterwards attack me on a completely unrelated page.

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

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

ChrisO, thanks for the report, and I agree that the personal attack on a different page was inappropriate (and I commented there). As for the edit here at the al-Durrah article, can you help me out a bit? I see the edit, where he moved the description of an acronym from one part of a sentence to another,[19] but I'm not seeing how that's a revert? If you can point out diffs that prove it is a revert, I'll take a look. In the meantime, you could also follow my "editing conditions" above, and try to change the edit to something you think is more appropriate? Again, don't revert, but there might be a middle-ground that hasn't been tried yet. --Elonka 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

OK, Canadian Monkey here [20], pre-protection, and 6SJ7 here now [21]. Some minor differences in other wording in the paragraph but the "reported killed" wording is identical. That's the point of course - he's blown off all this discussion (not even bothering to participate in it) and simply jumped straight back into the edit war. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Re: "That leaves open whether killed..." The thing is, there's nothing substantial or reliable to suggest that this should be "open" at all. The idea that the subject is not really dead is what rubs up against

WP:FRINGE here. Tarc (talk

) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Some of the earliest claims of staging were raised by Shahaf, and publicized by Israeli jouranlist Amnon Lord, in July, 2002: [22] Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000)

Palestinian police and gunmen in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000.^[1] In footage recorded by a Palestinian cameraman working for the French television station France 2,^[2], al-Durrah and his father were seen sheltering from gunfire during an outbreak of widespread violence on the Gaza Strip and West Bank.^[3] The images of the al-Durrah shooting quickly became an iconic symbol of Israeli conduct towards the Palestinians in much of the Arab world.^[4]

The issue of who was responsible for the shooting has been the cause of considerable controversy.[5] Initial news reports on the incident blamed Israeli forces for the shooting. The Israeli army stated that the fatal shots had apparently been fired by its soldiers and issued a public apology.^[6]. A later semi-official investigation carried out for the Israeli army stated that it was probable that al-Durrah had instead been hit by Palestinian bullets. Some supporters of Israeli policy have argued that the entire incident was staged.^[5]

In 2004 France 2 sued commentator

Cour de cassation, France's highest court.^[7]

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

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