Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 3

Adam Rose quote
After reading Adam Rose's entire article -- not just the snippet that was quoted in the WP article -- I removed the quote because it does not actually deal with the question of who shot Mohammed al-Dura. I realize SlimVirgin raised an issue of whether Rose is a RS, and I am expressing no opinion on that, as I have not looked into it. Whether he is an RS is really a question for a different article, if anywhere. His real conclusion (which is made clear by reading that snippet in context) is that it does not matter who actually shot al-Dura, because the IDF has shot other Palestinian boys. That is what Rose refers to as the "universal Mohammed al-Dura story", in other words, if not this boy, then other boys. OK, but this article is about this particular boy, and Rose does not reach the conclusion that the IDF shot him, or that they didn't, so his quote does not belong in this article. 6SJ7 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the article in question (The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows, by Adam Rose) was witten as a direct reply to the quoted article is is (somewhat) relevant. // Liftarn


 * He hasn't investigated the shooting, but is just giving his personal opinion on the impact of that kind of story (hence the quote from Aristotle). He's self-published; he has no qualifications or experience relevant to investigating the shooting; and his views have not been referred to by reliable, third-party sources. The quote that was added gave us no information about what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the head of the article last paragraph, there are dates with only month and day. What year? I see this all the time and it really ruins the value of the information in those articles. I don't know the true dates, so please someone add the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.151.76 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is in fact dead, even if the scene was staged
Even the Jewish World Review's Sept. 12, 2005, David Gelernter article says:


 * A boy named Mohammed Dura did die in a Gaza hospital that fateful Sept. 30. His face doesn't match the face in the video. Presented with these facts, France 2 officials said that "they would look into the matter.

The previous paragraph troubles me:


 * The voice-over reports that the child is dead, yet the rest of the segment — which wasn't aired but survives — shows the child propping himself on an elbow, shading his eyes with his hands. Poller saw the tape.

That is not reported in the International Hearald Tribune story also cited in the lead, even though it reports that the IHT had seen the whole tape. That sort of thing is so unlikely to have escaped others viewing the unedited footage, that honestly, I don't know what to say.

But as the IHT also refers to the boy as dead, and the only doubt cast on that is someone saying the event might have been staged, there doesn't seem to be any question that the boy named in the title of this article was in fact registered as dead by the local hospital. For that reason, I'm going to remove the suggestion to the contrary from the intro. &larr;BenB4 03:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben, you might want to look at the sources we cite before editing further. The tape is there for you to view, as are various opinions about it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the sources supposedly supporting the statement that the boy is dead. Is there any source which specifically supports the claim that Muhammad al-Durrah might not be dead, and not just that some other boy might have appeared in the video?  The Gelernter and IHT articles cited in support of the statement do not.  And I couldn't understand your edit summary. &larr;BenB4 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the edit summary; I hit save too soon.


 * There are sources for everything in the article. Please read them, then let us know which ones you don't understand. I'm a little confused as to what your point is, to be honest. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources, even Jewish World Review, say that Muhammad al-Durrah died in a Gaza hospital that day, but that the boy in the video may have been someone other than Muhammad al-Durrah.
 * The article says there is some question whether Muhammad al-Durrah died. I have not been able to find a source supporting that assertion.  Do you know of such a source?
 * Further more, the only video linked to in this article doesn't show any propping up on elbows or shielding eyes from the sun, but it only lasts for about a minute while the boy is laying flat. Is the full 28 minutes available? &larr;BenB4 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source says this: "The voice-over reports that the child is dead, yet the rest of the segment — which wasn't aired but survives — shows the child propping himself on an elbow, shading his eyes with his hands. Poller saw the tape. A boy named Mohammed Dura did die in a Gaza hospital that fateful Sept. 30. His face doesn't match the face in the video." So it's clearly stating that there's no evidence that the person described in this article died. Yes, a boy died in a Gaza hospital on September 30; but was he the subject of this article? Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wrote that above. So there is no question that "Muhammad al-Durrah" died, only that that some other boy might have been the one on the tape. So I'm reverting back to my version which actually says that. By the way, none of the other sources which viewed the entire tape say he was moving after shown laying flat. Also, shouldn't we qualify the description of the controversy to clearly state which sources have raised it?  &larr;BenB4 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually, there is a question of whether or not he died; someone described as Dura died in a hospital, but there's no indication that it was the subject of this article. "Then appeared the picture of the small boy that died the same day at Shifa hospital at Gaza and that the authors of the imposture wanted people to believe was Mohammed. “It seems”, announced very serenely the man from Upper Savoie, “that there is a small problem; that the face of this corpse is not exactly the same as the one we make out on your film.”" It's one of the sources of the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good; I'm glad that's up supporting the statement in question. There is still a question of whether the boy is the same; even your source leaves the question of whether the cameraman or the hospital had the name wrong if they are different. &larr;BenB4 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) Also, why would you trust a source such as that given the description of where the photograph came from, over the sources that named the hospital? &larr;BenB4 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trusting anything; I'm pointing out that whether or not the subject of this article (as seen in the photographs) died has been questioned. That's all, and that's what the lead says. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is titled with a name, not a picture. Forget it. &larr;BenB4 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about an individual; questions have been raised as to whether or not he was killed. I personally think he was, but my opinion doesn't matter, we have to report what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

three bullets and a dead child
why would this information be reverted out of the article?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which information in particular? The passages about the father? &larr;BenB4 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now creates the sensation that everything was staged. Honestly I do not think so. I have seen the aerial photograph of the place and the account of Fallow is completely unfair and does not fit with the photograph at all (not to say that is based in the end-of-course-work in a press intoxication training). THe first IDF explanation should have more relevance since there was no point to them self accusing themselves and it is not their way of working. Unfortunately we have no rights to publish the photo so we cannot show this key piece of conviction. I will try to found the owner and ask for ritghts. In the meanwhile is nothing to do except reflect what sources say even if are sources as these Fallow who looks to me as 100% unreliable since as I said above is basing his account in the work of the students of intoxication course.--Igor21 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a URL for the photo you are referring to? And, what do you mean by intoxication training? &larr;BenB4 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Igor21, please don't mix issues, i can't even follow your comment.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:BenB4, both the information about the bullets, the autopsy and directions of fire.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to be concise. Now I separate my points.

1-This is the link for the photo. It is below the vidpics in middle page. It would be very good if someone can find the owner for asking permission. It is a photo and shows how false is The Guardian diagram in the references and how false is the diagram that is now in the page supposedly done by the cameraman.


 * Ben, why do you believe that diagram to be more accurate than the Guardian's or the cameraman's? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2-Regarding the "end-course project of the intoxication training", the main source for James Fallows article is a work done by some students of an IDF training of a special nature: the fall of last year Gabriel Weimann mentioned the Mohammed al-Dura case in a special course that he teaches at the Israeli Military Academy, National Security and Mass Media and then goes on explaining how the students "investigate" from scratch. I know we cannot cherrypick sources but this particular source seems to me as really biased. "National Security and Mass Media" training does not sound as a CSI training. --Igor21 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Igor21, to your 1st point, it is explained in the article that france 2 has given the video rushes free of charge. i'm sorry, but i do not understand your 2nd issue about "intoxication training" so i cannot comment on it.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaackobou : I will explain myself more carefully

1-I am not speaking about the vidpics but about this We need to find the owner to be able of including it.

2-The part of the wikipedia article that says that everything was staged is based in an article of Fallows. This article of Fallows is based in the work that a teacher ask to do to their students. The training were the students were when doing this homework was called "Mass media and National security" and was part of a training for officers of the IDF. My point is that if some students that are doing a training in how spinning the press to become spin doctors of the IDF, do a home work about an issue and this work contradicts the official account of the IDF, it cannot be a reliable source since the aim of the training was precisely to spin and find the truth was not the goal.

This article is completely POV now and it says in big letters that everything was staged. This is because the parts stating that everything was true are being continuously eroded with "was reported" while the home work of the students of "how spin efectively" and the article of Fallows based on it are having undue weight. It is ludicrous to say that the first report of IDF charged israeli soldiers without having studied thoroughly what happened. IDF has a very long record of reporting biased in favour of their officers and soldiers. I do not see why here must be asumed that suddenly they changed their way of working and that students doing a training of how spin to the press are more accurate that the IDF officers that did the original report. --Igor21 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't become an edit war
SlimVirgin or Jayjg, since you're the more experienced editors, if you feel you should revert back, do you suppose you might find a way to use the added reference?

Jaakobou, I don't think the phrase "shooting from all directions" makes a lot of sense in English. Do you suppose it means "shooting in all directions?" There are some other usage problems throughout so I'm hoping you can get the assistance of a copyeditor to help.

I don't think either version is biased one way more than the other and I'm worried experienced editors might not be looking at what they are doing very closely, and reverting away a source instead of trying to incorporate it and help with prose.

The one issue I have at present is that "France 2 legal action" is a poor header when the courts have already ruled. The outcome of the libel case would normally be reported in the header, e.g., "Allegations of staging found libelous" or "France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court." Any objections to that? Which is better? &larr;BenB4 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:BenB4, according to the source, the palestinians were shooting from everywhere with automatic AK47 fire, and in particularly from (not "in") 7 major locations, one of which is the twin towers behind the israeli outpost (behind, compared to al-dura's location). i did not want to either state "7" and make for an incomplete statement (since they were shooting from everywhere) or muck up the intro with a long explanation; so i chose the phrasing used, which i believe to be accurate and well enough referenced.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "shooting from several locations"? &larr;BenB4 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i'd prefer "from 7 main locations".  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, there are several problems with your edits, primarily that you're trying to push the article further toward the view that the event was staged, but there are also problems with the writing. For example, in a section called "Incident as initially reported," you want to add subsections called "the reported shooting" and "reported injuries," which is repetitive. You also want to add to it material from much later, not "as initally reported."


 * Another example is that, in the injuries section, you leave a paragraph contradicting itself:




 * You give “Three Bullets and a Dead Child” by Esther Schapira as the source for the doctors saying no bullets or fragments were found. Can you tell us what the documentary actually said about this? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * bbc has made many mistakes in the past and i believe this to be no different. The movie talks directly with the palestinian people involved (i.e. you can see the doctor who worked on the boy showing pictures of him wounded and talking to the camera), surely a more accurate source than the BBC hearsay. i'm not "pushing" the article in any direction by stating 1st body (i.e. well sourced) notations. p.s. i did not erase the bbc claims, it's not my fault if they make mistakes, albeit they do have a strong tendency to do it when israel is involved. p.p.s. what the documentary states, was inserted into the article (you've just pasted it here) and i see nothing gained from repeating it again in a different phrasing. i hope i answered all your questions, i'm in a bit of a rush and haven't read your note word for word.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

new info
i've added a lot of new info to the article, and quite frankly, it's getting irritating that it's being reverted out of the article without proper reasoning.

please raise your issues to each part here before making the mass revert.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also irritated that you have reverted my header fix and ignored my help with English language usage. Furthermore, I don't think your version has any significant semantic difference from the one you reverted -- would you mind telling me exactly which facts you think your version includes that the other version doesn't? &larr;BenB4 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * as for your renaming from "France 2 legal action" to "France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court", it seems a tad POV but ok with me until i take a deeper look into the sources.
 * if i missed other changes you've made, i apologize and request you open a new section about it on talk (or just reinsert the changes) so it won't interfere with this issue.


 * here's the list on included facts differential: (link to the revert)
 * intro has input on direction of fire and a note that bullets were never recovered.
 * Personal background, has the correct input on the profession of father (house painter, not contractor).
 * Personal background, has correct input on the reason that school was out ("protest day") and also a statement muhammad's mother gave to the documentary.
 * Reported injuries, has testimony of the examining pathologist.
 * -- Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, saying "shooting from all directions" makes no sense in English. Where I live, house painters work on contract so the terms can be equivalent.  What difference does the reason school was out make?  And what exactly in the pathologist's testimony is not included in the version you reverted from?  You deleted the passage about there being a leg wound.  And finally, why do you think explaining the disposition of the case in the header of the court action section is POV?  &larr;BenB4 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * we've been talking about that one ("shooting"), and i've now made the change per my last suggestion.
 * he was a house painting employee for a Jewish contractor, phrasing as though he was the contractor is a mistake.
 * i will now (after changing the shooting direction issue) search for the leg wound issue in the article.
 * the court case was about the ability of a news agency to prove france 2 was lying, not about innocence of guilt... no serious investigation was made into the issue by the court.
 * you have removed the issues i've explained here from the article with your last revert, claiming "no substantial difference". something that seems unclear considering my full reply to your qualms.
 * --  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inuendo
I thing the header of the sections are completely POV. "Initially reported" implies that afterwards it was proofed as false but this has not happened. The so called "initially reported" facts are still the official reported facts. Some people have arised questions but I do not see them as relevant enough to change the whole article. I spoke above about Fallows source so let us now comment about this guy who has "surprising information about Rabin assasination" and gave IDF hints about what happened with Al-Durrah. To have "surprising information about Rabin assasination" only known by him is a good credential? Has he anything "surprising" about Bermudas Triangle too? I agree with a section of "doubts" or "controversies" but not about Wikipedia backing up bizarre non-official investigations in the whole article. --Igor21 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

most of what was initially reported has later been brought into contention.. so much contention (unlike the rabin case) that much of what was initially reported was later reported differently.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What has changed (apart from the conspiracy theorists)? // Liftarn


 * read and compare BBC and france 2 report notes with later notes.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * None of them says "Oh, and he's alive now.". The basic facts like that he was shot and is dead haven't changed. // Liftarn


 * 1) the most basic fact of death, has very little with the body of reports and claims. 2) even his death was put to question.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. we are discussing the "Initially reported" issue, not the issue of whether or not the boy is dead... that issue was discussed before with many people involved on the final phrasing that was achieved as consensus after hard negotiations and some warring.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No reliable source have said he is alive. If you find some, then we can discuss it. // Liftarn


 * User:Liftarn, we are discussing the "Initially reported" issue, not the issue of whether or not the boy is dead.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou : It is the same discussion. This trick you are using is as old as wikipedia. "It was initially reported that Kennedy was killed by a single sniper placed in a nearby building" and then in "Controversies" you put "Several sources speak about one or more shooters above the grass knoll". You can do this in many articles "It was initially reported that Amstrong was the first man on the moon" "Some sources have arised questions about shadows and craters under the lunar module so some people says it was staged". And so on. I have checked in Betselem website and the kid is there as a casualty. We cannot do primary investigation not to say primary conspirationist investigation. So for wikipedia he is dead. There are doubts about who kill him but the only official report (from IDF) says that the probability is on having been killed by their soldiers as collateral damage. This what must be called "official version" as in 9/11 official version is that some islamists crash the planes. You can ask for "Other theories" section and there you can state that the kid is alive and was killed by his father.--Igor21 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * it's definitely not the same discussion. one is about the way the issue was reported media hoopla and all (which was not factual), and the other is about whether or not the boy is dead, which is a different matter. i'm not supporting any conspiracy by making sure the initial report is shown with all it's mistakes... well, maybe just the "conspiracy" theory that BBC is biased when israel is involved.
 * anyways, i'm not discussing the boys death on this subsection. that was done earlier with many editors involved and a whole lot of wasted words. if you wish to reopen the issue, give it a proper subsection. meantime, i don't see much problem with liftarn's changes except for the one or two i changed back.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know how many editors participated but it is clear that the conspirationist won. The serious sources are dismissed to prepare the ground for the subsections were totally irrelevant subjects citing picturesque investigations, finish the job of creating the inuendo. You know, I know and everybody knows this. Unfortunately your spin will not revive the poor kid. Perhaps will convince someone but IMO will be someone ready to believe that Palestinians are pervers sub-humans who kill their sons for a headline while IDF heroes can respond a massive attack from all directions without causing any collateral damage. --Igor21 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * igor, obviously you have a misunderstanding of the "Resistance jihad" culture and narratives. i personally disagree with the ideology, but many in the pro-palestinian world do embrace it when jews are involved (and renounce it when sectarian violence is involved). i suggest you watch a film called Death In Gaza, it's slightly anti-israel because it doesn't give israel a chance to present it's point, but in general it's a fair film.
 * p.s. i don't recall mentioning something derogative about arabs and i find your comment to go in that direction. in all honesty, i don't think that different style of reasoning makes a person into a subhuman; black and white depends on the culture you come from and palestinians simply want victory.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court
i'd like to hear the reasoning for the connection of a libel lawsuit filed by "'France 2" and between claiming that France 2 was cleared in court.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "a court in Paris ruled that Philippe Karsenty, who runs the Media-Ratings Agency, was guilty of libeling France 2 and Charles Enderlin for alleging that they had faked their report" &larr;BenB4 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the court did not clear france 2 of anything, it only decided that enderlin could not prove his allegation. we are reporting enderlin's POV as 'allegation' without saying it is true, and surely we add a subsection that he was found guilty of libel by a french courthouse.. however, the title introduces WP:OR that was not part of the legal process.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not just that Enderlin couldn't prove that he was right -- that is not the standard for a libel award -- additionally, the plaintiffs proved that he was wrong. That the allegations of staging were found to be libelous is the same as finding that the video wasn't staged. The English idiom is that people so absolved are "cleared." &larr;BenB4 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i never saw proof that the france 2 report was correct, quite the opposite. i think this title is a serious stretch since the court has not conducted an investigation to prove the report was correct, and unless you can proving material that counters my perspective on how courts operate, i can't see how the title is not an introduction of original research and POV.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he dead or not?
Several times in the article he is mentioned as being dead, yet he is listed in the category of people being "possibly living". If we know for sure that he is dead, why is he still in that category? Nateabel 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * we don't know for sure (although it's the more probable option). the reports/propaganda are filled with inconsistencies and instead of raising a huge debate we are using "reported as" to avoid most conflicts between POVs.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody know that he is dead and he is listed in many respectable lists of victims of the conflict (e.g. Peace Now website). In fact IDF accepted him being dead and having been killed by loose bullets from an israeli soldier. However this is Wikipedia and everybody with patience enough can cause a conflict big enough to make editors accept bizarre wordings that induce the reader to doubt about evidence. Anti-conspirationist manpower is limited while conspirationist energy is infinite so anti-conspirationist editors must concentrate in protecting big articles such 9/11, the Triangle of Bermudas, etc.. so here we have this poor kid being "possibly living" because nobody has the time to remove the inuendo that has been constructed so masterly and carefully to mislead the reader. For me do nothing about this is rather vomiting but I must accept that I do not have the hundreads of hours that are needed to make truth prevail in this article so I carry on with my live.--Igor21 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i'll disregard most your post and note that your assertion about the IDF is completely 100% false... i suggest you go over the article and it's references.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not goint to read again the spin you have done in the article. The IDF initially admitted that it was "probably responsible" for killing Muhammad al-Durrah and expressed sorrow at his death. IDF operations chief Giora Eiland announced that a preliminary investigation revealed that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim". An IDF inquiry released November 27, 2000, reached different conclusions. Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia stated, "A comprehensive investigation conducted in the last weeks casts serious doubt that the boy was hit by Israeli fire," he said. "It is quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets in the course of the exchange of fire that took place in the area.". IDF is fair enough to accept that is not sure who killed the child. You are the only one who thinks that he was killed intentionally and that is still alive. You have constructed the article as if it were a media issue. If you have blood in your veins remove him from the "possibly living" cathegory and let him rest in peace once and forever.--Igor21 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone agrees that the boy named by the title of this article is dead. The only question is whether that boy is the same boy in the film, who some people think might not be dead.  I'm removing the category. &larr;Ben B4  00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay
With regard to this story : Obviously, Cybercast News Service, a right-wing partisan website, is not a reliable source. But even if we assume that this particular story is reliable, all it says is that Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte said that Abu Rahma retracted his deposition. In other words, it's hearsay, and hearsay evidence is not sufficient to support assertions like the cameraman later denied having made one of the statements or The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear. We must be particularly careful since WP:BLP applies, in this case to Talal Abu Rahma, who is being accused of giving a false deposition. Sanguinalis 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * no offense, but abu rahmeh has been the cause of BLP upon himself with how he testified "the police has the bullets.... eh we have the bullets, france 2..... eh... we have some secrets". he's very notable as a bullshit cameraman mock-jurnalist in the 18min video pallywood and while i don't think we should discredit anyone without sourcing, but this seems very possible. what are the current links/refs for this information.. only the hearsay or maybe there are more links with discussions about it?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have a problem with me removing this material. You yourself say "i don't think we should discredit anyone without sourcing". These particular claims were based on one Cybercast News Service article. I examined that article and it only contains hearsay evidence on this point. If there is other evidence besides the word of two Frenchmen that Abu Rahma has retracted all or part of his affadavit, then no one has found it. Also, if you're going to participate in the English-language Wikipedia, can you please learn how to use capital letters? Sanguinalis 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * it would seem that there are two people making this statement (i.e. Metula News Agency editor-in-chief Stephane Juffa, and filmmaker Daniel Leconte), so i suggest we name them as we mention this issue in the article.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article from CNS is pure spin. The filmmaker Laconte wrote shortly after an article in Le Figaro denying what it is said in the CNS post and explaining that he abandoned the investigation because he felt instrumentalized by Mena. He said that his only remark in this affaire is that it is imposible to proof that the kid was killed by israelian bullets and that Enderlin should not have said so THE SAME AFTERNOON but he should have waited for the conclusions of the Tsahal (that were published some time after and said as it is known that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim"). Laconte says in the article that in his opinion the incident was not staged and that Mohamed Al-Durrah is the kid who died in front of the camera. You can read this in here. So this article from CNS is as valuable as Von Daniken remarks about the Mayas. --Igor21 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the link, i'll get back to this issue once i read the new information.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this must be in the article. "The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear. It was apparently given to the Palestine Centre for Human Rights in Gaza on October 3 2000, and signed by the cameraman in front of a lawyer, Raji Sourani. France 2's communications director, Christine Delavennat, later said that Abu Rahma "denied making a statement &mdash; falsely attributed to him by a human rights group [the Palestine Centre for Human Rights] &mdash; to the effect that the Israeli army fired at the boy in cold blood." since is evident that the IDF does not shot in cold blod to the kid and nobody present there can say so.--Igor21 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Igor21: It's not clear to me what you're arguing here. Before I removed it from the article, the only source for the statement attributed to Christine Delavennat was the Cybercast News Service article.  In your previous post you made it clear that you don't believe CNS is a reliable source.  Even if someone can find reliable evidence that Delavennat said that, it still not sufficient to support a bald assertion like "The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear". Sanguinalis 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * how do you suggest we write this down then?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how this can be worded but my point is that we must distinguish from what the cameraman said and what the Palestinian association said that he said. The cameraman and everybody involved except the Palestinian associacion, denied that he said that the kid was killed in cold blood. So even if the affidavit was signed, he retreated from it afterwards and thus eliminates any relevance from it (except as a litmus of the will to spin of this Palestinian association). So more than discuss the authenticity of the afidavit, the emphasis must be in the fact that when everybody (the cameraman + the french journalists) was able to speak without pressure, they went for and accidental death as collateral damage, ruling out both a deliberate murder by IDF and a staged incident.--Igor21 08:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Igor, have you seen 'three bullets and a dead child' ?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. In general I hate spining and propaganda (from both sides). I prefer accounts from witnesses and in this case the winesses -including IDF- are clear. --Igor21 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * actually, it's one of the more serious films i've seen in a long time and i've seen quite a lot... they talk with everyone including the coroner and the mother of the boy.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor21: I'm still very confused by your sequence of posts, and I hope you can clarify. You seem to be taking it as known fact that Abu Rahma has etracted his affidavit, yet the only evidence that has been presented to support this are statements from two French journalists and one France 2 employee on the Cybercast News Service website. You seem to agree with me that this webite is not a reliable source - you compared it to von Däniken's theories. So what is your basis for believing that "the cameraman...denied that he said that the kid was killed in cold blood" and that he "retreated" from his affidavit? Sanguinalis 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not like articles being written as an ongoing investigation when all the data is on the table. What the group formed by the Frenchs+the cameraman says is explained with the nuances of each one in the link in french I provided. There is the article of Laconte in Le Figaro were he said that Enderlin should have not said that the bullets were coming from IDF and two comments of Enderlin were he says that everybody on site agree on this and that IDF confirmed the likeliness some days after. So from this link emerges a solid position with two clear things 1)Enderlin was imprudent in the first moment and 2)his guess (in fact the guess of Talal Rahma was confirmed by IDF that justified the incident in the violence of the palestinians and the presence of childs in a war place. Apart from this, the french say that Mena was manipulating (Laconte says and Enderlin agrees and explains the Mena campaign for bluring the facts). This is what must be stated in the article as the position of these Frenchs+Rahma. The story of the afidavit and the Palestinian Association is another story with no relevance once the French and Rahma have a clear position clearly written. I do not know if he retracted, if he do not signed it or what, but it is clear that neither him nor the French are backing up in any way what is said in the afidavit. And yes, that website is devoted to misinformation and spining and should not be used as source in Wikipedia, not to say for explaining what said the French when we have a link written from the hand of both parts of French (Laconte and Enderlin) where they declare everything they want to say about the facts. Perhaps we should ask for a formal translation of the french text. --Igor21 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what you're getting at. I have read the Figaro articles (I can read French), and they say nothing about Abu Rahma retracting his affidavit or denying he ever said the IDF killed al-Durrah in cold blood.  What's more, Enderlin clearly stands by his original report and his camaraman, Talal Abu Rahma.  Sanguinalis 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also can read french and when Enderlin says : "Mais revenons à l’article de Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte. Ils posent la question suivante : pourquoi Enderlin a-t-il dit dans son reportage que les balles venaient de la position israélienne ? Voici les réponses : D’abord, parce que, au moment de la diffusion, le correspondant de France 2 à Gaza, Talal, qui a filmé la scène, indiquait que tel était le cas." So he does not say that Talal said that "the kid was killed in cold blood. Secondly Enderlin says "Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte évoquent l’utilisation qui a été faite de l’image de la mort de l’enfant et posent ainsi un problème fondamental : lors de la réalisation de son reportage, un journaliste doit-il tenir compte de l’usage malhonnête qui pourrait en être fait ultérieurement par des groupes extrémistes ? Une telle exigence signifierait une inacceptable censure à la source". For me he is saying that say that was killed in cold blood is "usage malhonéte". But all this is speculative. I have no formal statement about why or if he signed that affidavit and if he retracted of just choose to stop speaking about it. --Igor21 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Enderlin doesn't say that Abu Rhama said al-Durrah was killed in cold blood, but he doesn't deny it either. The point about "usage malhonnête" is too vague to draw a conclusion about Enderlin's views of Abu Rahma's testimony to the Palestine Center for Human Rights.  Most importantly, if Abu Rahma wants to retract his affidavit, he has to do so himself, by making a public statement to that effect.  Charles Enderlin can't speak for him. Sanguinalis 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say is very wikipedian but is totally absurd in real world. If Enderlin knows that a presential witness thinks that the kid was killed in cold blood by IDf he would say all the time.--Igor21 08:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape
Have editors seen this post: IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape? I have glanced over it and the Wikipedia article. I quickly decided that I didn't know enough to add anything to the article so I thought I would just pass it along. Sbowers3 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A French appeals court has ordered the full unedited tape to be released. Sbowers3 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908848.html> Government Press Office Director Daniel Seaman said Monday that the September 2000 death of Palestinian child Mohammed Al-Dura in the Gaza Strip was staged. Seaman made the comments in a letter he sent responding to a demand that he strip France 2 journalists of their GPO credentials. France 2 broadcast the footage of Al-Dura's death in September 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremona (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel officially denies responsibilty
A recently released document, for the first time, Israel officially responded to this incident, denying that the boy was killed by israeli fire, and claiming some of the footage was staged. The statement was released by Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman. As part of the letter, they inform of their intention to sue to revoke journalist documents from France 2 unless they appologize. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455496,00.html (The hebrew version of the article links to the original letter (in Hebrew): http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/1_10_07/index1.htm Yonyb 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The YNET article is pure spin. The real piece of news are some verbal statements by Seaman who is director of the Governement Press Office. The document is not seen nowhere in the article and it is referred as "An official document from Jerusalem" which means nothing. So Seaman spins a little, making blur accusations to Enderlin, and then YNET takes the token and creates the ilusion that there is an official report just realeased when in reality they are speaking about "various investigations", probably refering to the famous recontruction that is extensively used in the wikipedia article. What is staged in the tape is some people simulating being hurt and the ambulance arriving. The plan is to use this fake scene to make the death of the kid look fake. Until nothing official comes, what IDF officially stated in its time must be considered truth (it is not in the wikipedia article but should be).--Igor21 08:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from the significance of this news (which is open for debate), the document IS seen, simply not in the English piece, since it is entirely in Hebrew (See my link above to the original letter). It is a pretty short letter (1 page), but the YNET piece only takes quotes from the letter (and covers most paragraphs), no other quotes from the Israeli side are used, as far as I can tell. Yonyb 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Can you please tell us what is this document, who is signing it and what new research is based on?--Igor21 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hebrew linkage: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-1769288,00.html http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/1_10_07/index1.htm http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-294448,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3455459,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3455479,00.html --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why and what are the parts in document blurred? --Magabund 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * fax and phone numbers.
 * p.s. that link has 3 pages of information, not just one.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So all in all, the document was just a written statement from the Governement Press Office to silence the fanatics that in Israel were asking for IDF denying even the posibility of the bullets coming out from one of their weapons. Since spin is normally conducted by Press Offices the selection of the signer was very adecuate. The importance of the document is clearly shown by the fact that was not released in English and nobody in the world has cared a fig about what says.--Igor21 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What balance needs to be struck?
It is becoming clear that, no matter your POV, there is a strong possibility that the al-Dura footage was staged, or otherwise faked in some way. At what point does the word "allegedly" need to start appearing throughout this article? And at what point could we conclude that this entire episode was a hoax? I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but it does seem highly possible that the tapes will expose this entire episode as a fraud. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * my personal opinon is that we should hold out for the 27 min tapes coming out in november... hopefully.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Schrodingers Mogoose : Do not worry. If there is the slightliest posibility of saying that the kid is alive and was killed by his father, Jackaboo will not hesitate. So with the help of profesional spin doctors in the Governement Press Office, the kid is not going to be dead for a long time except if they decide to blame the father. Wait and see.--Igor21 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the Israeli media see the idea that the killing was staged as a conspiracy theory. In my opinion this article gives undue weight to a fringe theory. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Abu Ali, you have to stop linking to articles written by Gideon Levi who's been called an "anti-Israel leftist fanatic" (and worse) by a number of fairly mainstream people who are not considered war-mongerers.
 * (2) Igor, i did not appreciate the implications at all and you've been noted harshly so that i hope this will not repeat.
 * (3) on point, my first reading of internet data had a few sources supporting the notes that there's a slight chance that some other boy was buried instead - this was noted by a head member of the israeli investigation team (partisan, but worthy of inclusion) and supported by the "extremely believable" testimony by Talal Abu Rahma, noted in the Pallywood short - however, i since then got hold of a rare documentary called "three bullets and a dead child", and it is my belief (considering the much larger body of evidence) that the odds of the boy being alive are indeed a bit UNDUE for a serious mention in the article... however, that is pending on the 27 minute tape.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom Jaakobou, Gideon Levy is a respected Israeli journalist, and the linked article was published in Haaretz which is probably the most serious and reliable of the papers published by Israelis. Jaakobou says that he is denounced as "an anti Israel leftist fanatic". This shows the way the Zionist establishment deals with even the most reasoned dissent. But this does not in any way affect Levy's notability, or the relevance of what Levy is saying. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Markhaba, Abu Ali, Gideon Levi is, nowdays, mostly respected only by the left and even they consider him an extremist. He is has an administrative job in Haaretz and sometimes writes op-eds - his opinions, which are not censored since israel is a democracy, are indeed heavily attacked on many occasions... just about every time someone has an interview with him (or that he wrote his usual material yet again). so no. he is by no means a representative of the "Israeli media" as you put it - and i find it troublesome that you try to perpetuate fallacies in such a blatent manner.
 * p.s. try to avoid soapboxing about "the all powerful zionist establishment dealing away with critics of israel".. it doesn't quite add the conversation dignity.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an ad hominem attack Levy. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * you made a false statement. i rebutted. end of story.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

About content and not about contributors : The idea that the kid is alive and another one was buried in his grave is not accepted by nobody in the mainstream media. When someone spokes about the "investigative team" should explain if he is speaking about the original IDF investigation -that established that there was a probability of the the kid having been shot by IDF- or about the fully private investigation conducted years after by an expert whose reputation came from stating that he have "secret information about Rabin assasination". This second investigation was ordered by a general but always IDF has stated that he did so as a private person. I see sometimes some confussion about the private nature of this second investigation. --Igor21 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * true. at the moment the notable available/referenced evidence support that he was killed. if no new evidence comes up, i will support your assertion.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed fringe opinion, bordering on conspiracy theory, to suggest that he was not killed. And currently the lead gives it weight as if it were a valid point of controversy, which is ridiculous.  Conversely, Jaakobou, Gideon Levy writes in a mainstream Israeli newspaper and is an entirely valid source to refer to, all the more so when it is being done on a talk page. The fact that he has been called an "anti-Israel extremist fanatic" by one person as far as I can tell (Steven Plaut, who himself is a pretty controversial figure), and that this has then been repeated by a few others, does not make the description either true or pertinent.  As you well know, debate over Israeli-Palestinian issues becomes heated at times. Nickhh 11:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The screams of "anti-semitism" are having a chilling effect on media coverage all round the world, and this business (according to CAMERA) is an attempt to sack a French journalist, the cameraman, and their manager/s. CAMERA is now turning it's fury on the last bastion of anti-Israeli coverage - where the newspapers carry reports like this:
 * "The assumption that the IDF soldiers firing at Palestinians at the Netzarim junction killed the boy cradled in his father's arms exactly seven years ago is the most reasonable one. As far as we can remember, there has been no other case in which Palestinians fired at the IDF and hit a Palestinian child. But even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children. So this ridiculous focus on who killed al-Dura, a question that will never be resolved, is no more than a tempest in a putrid teapot. There should be a tempest, a great and mighty one, but one focused on an entirely different issue: Why is the IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace, and why doesn't Israel take responsibility for this and compensate the families of those killed? But no one is conducting "investigations" about this." (Ha'aretz) PRtalk 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

link
no time to insert this in.

hamas detained al-dura's father:.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not related to the issue and I do not see the need to add it. --Igor21 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

James Fallows Quote
Fallows' article is about a completely speculative conspiratinist report done by a man who has participated in "unveiling" other conspiracies such as Rabin assasination thus achieving zero credibility. This report was ordered by a general of the IDF acting as himself and not acting oficially in any way. Not only the report has never been endorsed by IDF but the general who ordered it has been severely critized, specially for asking it to such a bizarre character. To quote all this rubish here is inuendo. However perhaps with the long quote, the kind of garbagge that is in reality becomes more apparent ("the shadows of the funeral showing that was done before the killing of the kid" comes out directly from the Moon Hoax lore).

It is unbilievable to me that such things can be in a enciclopedia as sources of any other thing than human stupidity and love for conspirationist theories.

I am not going to touch it because I am fed up of discussing non sense.

--Igor21 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the article grows it may be a good idea to keep the facts in this article and spin out the conspiracy theories in a separate article. // Liftarn (talk)

latest edit war.
can the reverting editors please explain why Pajamas Media are "hate site" and/or "blog"?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fully admit that they are a blog (or an aggregation of blogs, basicly a collaborative blog). // Liftarn (talk)


 * So you're saying this company is "a collaborative blog"? can you please provide a sound reference to this claim.
 * p.s. I'd also appreciate participation from the "hate site" editor.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I called this a hate-site since it contains such material as "I'm not surprised given the Islamic culture of dishonesty".
 * If anyone said the same about Judaism, I think we could be confident we'd describe it as a hate-site and instantly block the editor referencing it.
 * And it's not as if you don't recognise the concept of hatespeech, since you removed the words of a rabbi quoted at www.jewsagainstzionism.com with the summary "removal of rabbi baruch - i don't know since when it became reasonable to quote an "anti-zionism" hatespeech website".
 * Mind you, we never discovered why you described jewsagainstzionism.com as a "hatespeech website" - maybe you'd explain it now. PRtalk 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PRtalk, if you make a quote, its best to provide a link to a reference... otherwise, people might disregard your statement as non-factual rhetoric.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. i'm reverting since it's clearly not a blog and since PRtalk quote is not from the article.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pajamas Media admits to being a blog. "Pajamas Media began in 2005 as an affiliation of 90 of the most influential weblogs on the Internet." And as for being a hatesite, well they are certainly heavily biased. So that's two counts of non reliable. If you want we could bring it up at Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. // Liftarn (talk)


 * them starting out as a collection of the most influential weblogs, does not mean they are not a serious media company. your perception of bias, does not make their information false.. we simply write that "pajamas media reports that..." and let the reader decide. that's what we do with the BBC, the guardian, b'tselem, and other claimed to be "biased" bodies.
 * since it seems that we're at a dead end here, would you be interested in opening the WP:RSN?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart of what PJM is or is not (and it is certainly a gathering of blogs were opinions are published) it is cristal clear that Nidra Poller is an activist devoted to muddle the waters in this case.


 * The following text shows her total lack of objectivity :


 * This is the France 2 that brought us the Mohamed Al-Dura "death" scene, the blood libel that kicked off these long years of murder and maiming of Israeli civilians. That day, September 30, 2000, at Netzarim junction, France 2 stringer Tala Abu Rahmé was in the right place at the right time. Thanks to his too-good-to-be-true scoop, the whole world was fed the Jews-are-child-killers story. The repercussions are global and enduring.


 * So if a person who has signed the libel above cites Metula, -the people who aired the conspirationist "investigation" that is the source for Jackabou rekless attempts to blame the father for killing his son- and if Metula are citing Philippe Karsenty who was convicted for libel regarding this very issue; to intend to use this collection of manipulations as a source is as laughable (or deplorable) as all the rest of manipulations that are plaguing the article.


 * I seriously think that the conspirationist ideas must be segrated in a separate article were Jackabou's "sources" would find a place to be aired without destroying wikipedia credibility. Jackabou is showing that he/she has no limits and and is not going to stop until the whole article is impregnated of these nauseating lies extracted from completely and purposely biased sources.--Igor21 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, having the conspiracy theories in a separate article would perhaps be the best solution. If not, can I write about it on my blog and use that as a source? ;-) // Liftarn (talk)


 * Igor, i've seen worse from the guardian, and we use it plenty.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is a respected newspaper that do fact checking. As many other newspapers The Guardian also publish opinion pieces and they may be less reliable. Per WP:UNDUE we can't quote what every random blog has to say on the subject. // Liftarn (talk)

Table presents the views of each editor on the subject of Pajamas Media. It is hoped that presenting the evidence will enable us to close this discussion and proceed with construcive editing. And stop the kind of tendatious edit-warring that drives good editors out of the project. PRtalk 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Conclusion - Consensus overwhelmingly against using Pajamas Media as a source. PRtalk 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

news video on the scars issue
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=526858&TypeID=1&sid=126 channel 10 news report - in hebrew.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy (in english)--Igor21 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent Ballistics Expert
"Independent expert: IDF bullets didn't kill Mohammed al-Dura." I couldn't figure out where to place this new information in this complicated article. If someone can edit it properly it would be very helpful. Thanks. AviLozowick 11:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to go with the Karsenty case as it's part of the proceedings in his appeal, so I've put it there for you. Someone also has added a shorter bit to the intro. M1rth (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

video worth watching (post Philippe Karsenty acquittal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpI12vvntnE&eurl=http://israeligirl.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/the-truth-comes.html

video worth watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koala Paw (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal
"Karsenty's statements were defamatory" and "[The court] found that his claims had clearly been defamatory." I would suggest this be rewritten as "damaging" or some like adjective. The word "defamatory" is a legal conclusion (at least in the United States), and the conviction was overturned. Since I'm not fluent in French, I would like to verify the actual language used by the court before making any changes. Biccat (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have the advantage of knowing French, and if you read the linked Agence France-Presse story, it does actually quote directly from the verdict. The bit you quote directly reflects AFP's summary and key quotes from the verdict. Don't make the mistake of thinking that French law works like US law - it's a very different legal system! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add that AFP so far seems to be the only news outlet to have actually seen a copy of the verdict. Everyone else is either quoting AFP or the spin put out by the rival parties. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, reading the linked AFP article (I assume you mean the one that appeared in Liberation), I don’t see that it quotes the judge saying it was defamatory – only that it was damaging (“incontestablement atteinte à l’honneur et à la réputation des professionnels de l’information”.) That it was “defamatory” appears to be AFP’s interpretation, or “spin”, as you will have it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in light of the Karsenty verdict
There are now two versions for this story – each with equal footing in reality. One is the France 2 version and one is the Karsenty version.

NPOV demand that we "describe the controversy" which means the lead has to give the Karsenty/Shapira/Shahaf/Duriel version and not be based on the France-2 version (as the lead is now).

The lead must state up front that there is a possibility – not ruled out by a court which heard evidence in this matter – that the whole affair is a staged hoax by the TV cameraman who is the reporting journalist. The fact that the "reporting" by the Enderlin (an important part of the France-2 report) – who was not at all at the scene but rather added voice over hours later from his office in Jerusalem – this fact can not be overlooked. --Julia1987 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the "hoax" idea is largely a fringe opinion, it does not have to be given anything of the sort. WP:UNDUE is, or should be, your friend. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It is a valid POV. Julia1987 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The developments of the case, have certainly made an impact in mainstream media which presents it as a valid POV and can no longer be described as fringe.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If a fringe conspiracy theory is mentioned in mainstream media it doesn't change that it's still a fringe conspiracy theory. Other examples include Elvis sightings or the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)


 * I agree with Liftarn. I am sure he/she is referring to the "fringe conspiracy theory" that IDF killed Al-Dura - this was mentioned by the media (such as France 2 TV station) . After review of the evidence the court declared that Karsenty's suggestion -- that Talal's footage is staged -- was not a "hoax conspiracy theory" --Julia1987 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is what Liftarn meant. Regardless, the comparison to Elvis sightings and the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories is incorrect seeing that that just recently a French court declared that Karsenty's suggestion -- that Talal's footage is staged -- was not a "hoax conspiracy theory".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC) clarify 17:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The court said nothing about if it is a conspiracy theory or not, just that it is not alander to spread such theories just as it's not against the law to claim the Apollo landing was a hoax. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Well, to be exact, the court appears to have ruled that Karsenty was acting permissibly in the context in which he was operating (i.e. media criticism). The case has been badly misreported by many English-language blogs, which have claimed that the court backed Karsenty's views. There's nothing in the French-language reportage to support this. According to AFP, which apparently has a copy of the verdict, the court merely stated that "«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure» et qui avaient mis en doute l’authenticité du reportage." In other words, the judge said there was room for legitimate doubt, not that the supposed "staging" had been proved.


 * As for how widespread the "hoax" meme is in the mainstream media, I've done a comprehensive survey of this using Lexis-Nexis to review several hundred news outlets. Only two newspapers have supported it and then only intermittently - Canada's National Post and the Israeli Jerusalem Post. I believe I'm right in saying that they are part of the same group (formerly controlled by Conrad Black) so there may be a corporate reason why they've pushed the same line. However, no other English-language newspapers, nor any European news outlets, have supported the "hoax" line. It's still very much a fringe hypothesis. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with ChrisO, that we can't call France 2's report a hoax. Despite multiple non-blog sources stating that it's pretty much improssible that Israeli soldiers shot the boy and the cameraman's "IDF was shooting at them for 45 minutes... we have secrets" theory being rejected by even more people; It has not yet been remotely proven, for Wikipedia Fringe purpouses, that the boy was not shot by the IDF. Current information situation requires both POVs being represented fairly.
 * ChrisO, on a side note, I think it's a bad idea to connect sources to former ownership suggesting they may have corporate reasons to report whatever they report. Even if this is correct, it might lead to people picking and choosing what sources they like/dislike based on urban legends and the material within the article being favorable/unfavorable to their personal perspectives.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC) minor adjustments 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a quick search and came up with BBC and Haaretz reports on the controvesy. Al-Jazeera who calls it a "brutal murder" and add "Palestinian boy being killed by Israeli troops ... footage speaks for itself" (e.c. footage where source of fire is unclear and Talal shouts "the boy is dead" when it's clear that he's neither dead not hit) also reported on the controversy.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The best source would be an English translation of the actual verdict. --Julia1987 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just following up on what Jaakobou rightly says about fringe reporting, I'd like to emphasize a couple of points. First, this article is not, under any circumstances, going to state or insinuate a fringe conspiracy theory as fact. I'm not going to recap the whole of Fringe theories, but having looked into the coverage of the story in some detail, I can confirm that as far as reliable sources are concerned, the vast majority - by a ratio of literally hundreds to one - do not support the conspiracy theory. As I said above, only two mainstream publications have actually advocated the conspiracy theory, as opposed to merely reporting it and attributing it to others. Second, because the conspiracy theory inevitably involves making or insinuating allegations against living people (Enderlin, the cameraman, the dead boy's father) the biographies of living people policy comes into play. This is especially critical given that the allegations have already been the subject of libel litigation. This means that we have to be very conservative about what we say, and very strict in terms of confining ourselves to fully reliable sources.

Some specific comments about the edits I just reverted:

1) "Muhammad al-Durrah and his father Jamal before the shooting on September 30 2000" was changed to "...as seen in the September 30 2000 shooting report." Clear intention here is to insinuate that the shooting was staged. Unacceptably POV.
 * ChrisO,
 * I had no intention to insinuate anything by changing the image caption and it would be best to assume good faith and discuss content rather than the assumed intentions of fellow editors.
 * I can understand your concerns though, and if you're interested in making suggestions - I'm more than willing to keep an open mind.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

2) A lot of sourced material was deleted from the lead for no good reason that I can see. I've restored it.

3) "... was widely shown in the media, but is now being challenged as doctored and possibly staged" is a rather obvious example of poisoning the well as well as violating Fringe theories; the view that the video was "doctored and possibly staged" is, as already said, a fringe theory and this gives it undue weight.

4) "The edited film, consisting of 57 seconds out of 27 minutes of footage" is also poisoning the well as it doesn't bother to explain the context of this. It shouldn't be in the lead in the first place. Detailed context should be presented in the article proper; the lead is supposed to explain the basic facts.

5) "While Shapira's documentary concluded that the boy could not have been shot by the IDF, it affirms the accidental shooting and killing of Mohammed a-Dura's as real and not staged as claimed by others." Blatant POV, to say nothing of the misspelling. It's a statement of a personal opinion as fact.

Finally, with regard to Julia1987's comment that "Nothing on talk that justified this massive change. CJ first gather consensus for your view". Might I point out that the article has been stable for a long time, the only "massive change" is in fact the one that's just been reverted by CJ and myself, and the recent spate of edits has largely been down to Southkept/Julia1987 pushing a particular point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Well now there are three!  It is not a particular point of view but a dispassionate recounting of the facts.Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is now a court verdict that the "restored text" is not based on. There are now 2 versions and not as you try to present it: Claiming that one is the truth (France 2) and the other is WP:undue. see this: --Julia1987 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * exactly so. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * reminder: "'NPOV demand that we 'describe the controversy' which means the lead has to give the Karsenty/Shapira/Shahaf/Duriel version and not be based on the France-2 version (as the lead is now).'" see this: --Julia1987 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not overcome the undue weight points by directing everyone to a single comment piece in a right-wing publication, even if it a mainstream newspaper. There appears to be a genuine dispute in mainsteam discourse as to who shot the boy - there is virtually no dispute, in any serious sources, as to whether he was killed. This article gives massive prominence to these bizarre conspiracy theories - until they are covered in more detail and afforded more credibility by serious mainstream news or academic sources, Wikipedia should stay well clear of them. I have tried to trim and revert the lead to better reflect this, but as it has for a long time, the article as a whole remains a pretty shoddy piece of work. Several editors have now as well pointed out that you cannot use the latest court ruling as justification for saying "see! it was all faked", or even for asserting that this version of events now has as much mainstream credibility as any other. That is to misunderstand and spin the court ruling. --Nickhh (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - now that the media is picking up on recent developments, it would be best to stop dubbing the 'it was a hoax' perspective as "bizarre conspiracy". However, if anyone feels very strongly that it is indeed a fringe theory, WP:FTN would be the proper place to explore this.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Julia has already cited the same WSJ opinion piece, two paragraphs up - that's exactly what I was responding to with my comments above. As I said, a mention in one comment piece (which doesn't even endorse the theory explicitly) does not mean it has suddenly shifted from the out-there fringe to the mainstream. And I will in any event continue to refer to it as a "bizarre conspiracy theory", at least on a talk page, until heavyweight evidence points the other way. --Nickhh (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not sure everyone would interpret "heavyweight evidence" in the same manner and it would help if you clarify your comment on what would, hopefully, help both sides of the dispute reach a consensus that works for everyone.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added a NPOV tag in light of this ongoing and significant discussion. I have no knowledge of any of the facts and will likely not further contribute, but there seems to be a serious dispute as to the facts and how they and the dispute over the facts are being presented. The tag is totally appropriate under the existing circumstances. After all, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not required to perpetuate any media bias, if any. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal yesterday had two articles on the topic of the possibility of the incident reported on this page being a hoax. That is how I became aware of the issue in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they refer to the "possibility" of it being a hoax - as part of a comment piece on a recent appeal court verdict that has ruled it is not defamatory to suggest it might be. That's pretty weak. As of yet, no mainstream respectable source (in the media or academic world) has given any serious credence to the hoax theory. Given the number of people who would have to have been involved and are still keeping quiet about the fact that the boy is still alive today, this qualifies as a genuine conspiracy theory. Neither the court verdict or the low level reporting of it changes that. Having said that, I'm not going to argue with the NPOV tag because in my view the article as a whole still gives too much weight to the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. Oh and I've also made some small changes to the lead - most are just minor tidy-ups for language and repetition. --Nickhh (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also what Reliable sources states: "Great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." (bolding as in original) Unless the authors have some sort of special expertise in the matter (they don't), their opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the policy of wiki in regard to posting links to actual video footage such as this at youtube?

10 seconds of raw footage not shown on France 2 (can also be seen on the end of Part II: 18 minutes of France 2 raw footage, Part I:   Part II:   Can we post such videos on the article page, and if so where?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How come ?
No link to Pallywood from this article ? --Julia1987 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

still no answer here ? --Julia1987 (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda
According to the wiki def of propaganda it is not necessary for propaganda to be 'proved' true. True or false, the al-Durrah business has been used for propaganda purposes. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. --Julia1987 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Houston we have a problem.
What I see here over the last week at that 3 editors CJCurrie, ChrisO and nickhh are editwarring their way to make the French court verdict a "fringe" conspiracy theory while keeping the hoax as the official version. On the other side I see some editors trying to maintain NPOV: They don't kick out the France-2 version al together but try to follow wikipedia policy and describe the controversy, say that there are two versions with equal standing (at least now after the French court ruled)

This effort by the trio edit-warriors (one of them violated 3RR) has many aspects: They insist keeping the initial verdict in the article (although the appeals court overruled it) they keep describing the "facts" as they were described by France-2. These are all attempts to function as a "self appointed gate keepers" to prevent the other side "truth" from being in the article while keeping their "truth" as the only version.

So wake up. There is no one "truth" there are now two versions and the edit warriors should allow the article to reflect the new situation.--Julia1987 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we should avoid personalizing our conflicts. Commentary like "the edit warriors" or "Clear intention here" are not in the spirit of Civility and we should take a step back and also possibly consider refactoring these comments a little so that we can prevent Erosion_of_critical_thinking. The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the WP:NPA).
 * On topic: Personally -- after reviewing vast amounts of the most current information in this topic -- I feel that the shooting no longer has an official 'accepted-by-all' version as the case has had multiple mainstream medias report on the controversy without claiming Talal's version nor the pro-Israeli version to be the truth. I can't recall any reliable source considering either of the versions as the "official" one, now that the 18 minute video was presented. Talal's version is usually represented as "what was initially reported" or some other variation and the other version is usually presented without any prejudice for it being correct or incorrect. However, I can understand where ChrisO's concerns are coming from and believe this should be resolved on the "less involved" level of editors rather than with involved people -- who seem to be getting upset at each other for the gap in perspectives and the impasse it creates -- going head-to-head into WP:BATTLE.
 * On mediating the dispute: I can see where these comments (Julia1987 and ChrisO) are coming from and I believe that the head-to-head approach that has been going on here, esp. when editors who are not part of the discussion revert the article repeatedly, is unhelpful for a long term solution. It would be far better to open up concerns for uninvolved community inspection - such as opening threads on WP:FTN, WP:RfC, WP:MEDCAB (see WP:DR) - since the outcomes of such venues last longer than the results of "winning by numbers".
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia, I suspect you haven't done much research on how reliable published sources have covered the case. As I mentioned earlier, I've systematically reviewed the press coverage of the case to determine the relative popularity of the various positions. The initial coverage supported Enderlin's view (and that of the Israeli army at the time) that al-Dura had been killed by the Israelis. The later unofficial Israeli investigation of the case produced a revisionist view, that al-Dura had been killed by the Palestinians. Interestingly, much of the press coverage since then has been equivocal, neither supporting the original or the revisionist view (or mentioning both or simply saying that the responsibility for the shooting was unclear). Finally, Landes and Karsenty came up with a denialist view, that al-Dura had not been killed and the whole incident was a hoax. This has not been supported by any mainstream news reporting; the only mainstream support has been a handful of op-eds from columnists in the National Post, Jerusalem Post and now the Wall Street Journal. The vast majority of the coverage - we are talking a ratio of hundreds to one - states either the original or the revisionist view, or is non-committal as Jaakobou has observed. Until the Karsenty case, hardly anyone paid any attention to the denialists.


 * In those circumstances, WP:UNDUE applies. To quote: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Clearly, the Karsenty-Landes denialist position is a tiny-minority view, as far as mainstream coverage goes. Don't mistake the noisy agitations of bloggers for any kind of mainstream acceptance of the denialist position. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment is cheap:
 * I don't think Landes claimed the boy had not been killed are you certain about this?
 * Would be best to stop tagging Talal or Karsenty as "hoax"/"denialist". Even if Talal claimed the IDF shot intentionally at the boy for 45 minutes and that his office is hiding secrets from the scene, and even if Karsenty said that al-Dura had not been killed and the whole incident was a hoax - promoting your perspective by using WP:PEA/WP:WEASEL terminology only promotes the problem I just raised (under "However").
 * ChrisO, If I'm reading your comment correctly, I'm not sure editors here wanted to write "the boy is not dead" and it would be better for Collaboration to pay more attention to what Julia is saying rather than put words in her keyboard.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia - please stop claiming that myself and others are trying to make the Court verdict a "fringe theory", or are "edit-warring" when we are merely trying to keep nonsense out of this article. You obviously don't understand what the verdict means, despite people explaining it very carefully above. It was not an endorsement of Karsenty's claims, or a judgement that they represent the correct version of events, it was merely an endorsement of his right to make them, on the basis that they were not libellous. If you don't understand the difference, please go away and study the basic principles of libel before arguing the point here. And of course the facts of the initial verdict should stay in - otherwise we have no idea what ruling the Appeal Court verdict overturned. Even you I thought would understand that. The fundamental point, as explained above by Chris, is that Karsenty's version remains a fringe, minority view. The Appeal Court verdict does not change that, and accordingly the Wikipedia article on this subject should not give it any more weight than that. Maybe outside eyes would help explain this. As would someone coming in and explaining the WP:BLP policy to you - we are talking here about an issue which has of course been the subject of libel proceedings. --Nickhh (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * " I've systematically reviewed the press coverage of the case to determine the relative popularity of the various positions" - this is WP:OR.
 * "please stop claiming that myself and others are trying to make the Court verdict a "fringe theory" " - How can I stop this if this is what you claim ? If you stop claiming I will remove my comment.
 * "we are merely trying to keep nonsense out of this article" - please see: - quote: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." --Julia1987 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Well not exactly, it's just observing the obvious and making the point on a talk page
 * 2) Every point I made just sailed past you didn't it? Again - stop claiming I have described the Court verdict as a fringe theory. I have not. I have described - accurately - Karsenty's view as a fringe theory. They are two different and distinct things, all the more so because the Court verdict does not even say what you think it says. This is not hard to understand if you stop to think for two minutes
 * 3) Sorry, I should have said "giving undue weight to nonsense". You are selectively quoting from policy (and as it happens, a different paragraph from the one you linked to), and even the bit you have quoted explicitly says "significant published viewpoints". That's the entire point. --Nickhh (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(offtopic note to Nickhh:) please review CIV. I know the project is in your best interests but it would be helpful if you avoid calling other people's relevant perspectives "nonsense". You could, instead, request for clarifications on why they believe their version to merit attribution and work within' WP:DR.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, if we were talking about flat earthism, Elvis sightings or at the extreme end Holocaust denial, nonsense would be a mild world; to me we're in the same ballpark with this one.  And, very offtopic, while I appreciate your personality makeover (genuinely) I have to confess to feeling a little freaked out by the experience of you coming at me like some sort of Buddhist admin. --Nickhh (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

proportionately?
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias"--Julia1987 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Proportionality is precisely the point ... --Nickhh (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Question - Is anyone willing to do the source work to assert their perspective on proportionality?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chris says he's done a lot of stuff on this. I haven't any formal evidence to present myself, but I read and watch the mainstream UK (and other) media, and it's quite clear where the relative proportionality lies. The idea that he is not even dead is never treated with the same weight as any other version in mainstream sources. Yes the theory needs to be mentioned in the article, including in the lead, especially in the light of the latest court verdict - but it is. So I don't see where the problem is. --Nickhh (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Round Earth, Sun revolving around earth rather than vice versa, all ideas that were "fringe ideas" at one time. Appeal judges have looked at the evidence and have decided that there is reason and logic around Karsenty's POV.   It seems to me one needs only look at the raw footage films critically to see that it is more than likely a hoax. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither a very general (albeit correct) assertion that some minority scientific views in the past have become the mainstream view later, or a claim that "to me .. it is more than likely a hoax" are actually really relevant. Sorry. We can only go on what mainstream reliable sources say, about this particular issue, at this point in time. --Nickhh (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Round Earth, Sun revolving around earth rather than vice versa, all ideas that were "fringe ideas" at one time." - so what ?
 * "It seems to me one needs only look at the raw footage films critically to see that it is more than likely a hoax." - this is WP:OR
 * "Appeal judges have looked at the evidence and have decided that there is reason and logic around Karsenty's POV." - This is the key issue. We shall rewrite the lead based on the new verdict.--Julia1987 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead already says about the verdict that "an appeals court overturned the previous verdict and ruled that there were legitimate questions about the authenticity of the reporting". I don't understand in what way you are proposing to "rewrite the lead". If you are going to change it to give equal weight to the Karsenty view that the shooting was faked and Muhammed al Durrah is still alive, as well as to the current mainstream reported view, that would be out of order and would also be your OR as to what the verdict actually said. For all the reasons explained ad nauseam above. --Nickhh (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead need to present both versions:
 * 1) Shahaf/Karesnty
 * 2) Talal/Enderlin

Both are at least equally valid and deserve equal space. We can no longer rely on any of France-2 words as "facts". --Julia1987 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the fortieth time, it does at the moment - but roughly in proportion to each of their relevance and due weight. In fact in my view it gives way too much article space to fringe theories about what might have happened, epsecially further down. And have you not even noticed that the Shahaf & Karsenty versions both appear to contradict each other anyway, as opposed to being the single joint alternative to the mainstream account? Shahaf's investigation concluded that Muhammad was killed (but by Palestinian gunfire) while Karsenty appears to suggest that he might not even have been killed at all and that the whole thing is a hoax. If you can't understand that, and are incapable of using definite and indefinite articles when you write content here, perhaps you could leave this article alone? Thanks. I am not going to debate this anymore either, as it is such a waste of time. But at the same time I (and many other editors) will not allow you to use this article as a posting board for conspiracy theories being cultivated in the blogosphere. --Nickhh (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration but remember not to bite the new users. And frankly you shouldn't criticize any user's grammar like that.  Not a big deal but I know sometimes it is hard to notice that you've crossed a line so I think we should remind each other when that happens.  --JGGardiner (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysing the intro for balance and due weight
Further to the above debate, here's the intro plus some added notes in italics, in a bid to clarify the point

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.

''The opening paragraph makes no judgement about who might have been responsible for his death. The only reference to him even having been killed is the fact that 2000 is given as the year of his death''

Palestinian journalist Talal Abu Rahma [1] filmed the father and son sheltering during a crossfire between troops at an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outpost and Palestinian police and gunmen shooting from a number of locations.[2] After a burst of gunfire, the two slumped into prone positions. Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire.

''This second paragraph merely refers to the film showing them "slumped into prone positions". It then says Muhammad was reported (ie by Enderlin's voiceover) to have been killed by Israeli gunfire''

The footage was made available by the French television station France 2 to other TV networks and was re-broadcast around the world and produced international outrage against the Israeli army and the government.[3] Images from the footage became an iconic symbol of the Palestinian cause and al-Durrah himself was portrayed as an emblem of martyrdom; the footage was shown repeatedly on Arabic television channels and al-Durrah was publicly commemorated in a number of Arab countries.[4]

The third paragraph then explains the impact of the footage (the lead as yet has made no definitive judgement about what precisely happened)

Although the Israeli army issued an apology for shooting al-Durrah, others later disputed the assumed sequence of events and whether the IDF were responsibile for the killing. They disputed the authenticity of the tape and questioned the honesty of the France 2 cameraman and reporter, the source of the fatal bullets,[2] whether Palestinian gunmen had shot him rather than the Israelis and the identity of the boy in the footage. Some speculated that the entire incident had been faked with no actual casualties.[5][6][7][2] Campaigners sought the reopening of the case but did not attract public support from the Israeli government or army. Instead, unofficial investigations were carried out that disputed the official account of the shooting.

''The fourth paragraph points out that the IDF officially admitted responsibility - but that also other people publicly doubted this, with some even claiming he was not killed at all. That is, the alternatives are set out briefly''

In 2004 France 2 sued the French commentator Philippe Karsenty, who had accused the channel of manipulating the footage and had demanded the firing of Charles Enderlin, the journalist who had produced the original report. An initial court ruling found the claims to be defamatory, however in May 2008, an appeals court overturned the previous verdict and ruled that there were legitimate questions about the authenticity of the reporting. France 2 has stated that it will appeal the case to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.[8].

''This fifth paragraph then refers to the Karsenty court case and discusses the possibility that the incident was staged and/or the footage manipulated. That is, Karsenty's view is highlighted, as is the fact that the latest court verdict backed his right to make that claim''

The lead simply doesn't take sides - it broadly reports the main issues as they were reported from 2000 onwards, and covers all the alternatives. Yes there is a genuine dispute in mainstream discourse about which side's bullets may have actually killed Muhammad (although the official Israeli line still seems to be that they admit culpability), but there is no serious backing for the claims apparently being promoted by some that the whole thing was a fake. But despite that, it's all there in the lead. I don't get what you're complaining about. --Nickhh (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought Julia had already made it clear what s/he's complaining about - the fact that the article doesn't present the conspiracy theory as being just as important (if not more so) than the mainstream view. Of course, this is a violation of WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV), which is a non-negotiable policy - therefore it's not going to happen. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all based on your assertion that this is a "conspiracy theory" - an assertion that is not based on facts or sources. So your point is not valid. We shall present in the lead the two views not the France-2 view which you call the mainstream view. Only France 2 reported the issue, made the film available to many who repeated it – the lie was propagated world wide. Now there is a valid second view which court (after hearing experts) has approved and we need to present both views.--Julia1987 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we shall do no such thing. Fringe theories do not deserve and will not get equal footing alongside mainstream theories.  This is is a pretty basic guideline of the project, WP:FRINGE.  Fact; The boy is dead.  Fact; there is serious contention over responsibility for his death. Conspiracy theory; the death was staged.  Which of these things is not like the other?  Tarc (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * List of some prominent people who believe that the film was a hoax: Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a war going on on this very page. He are here to report the facts, not make them up, etc.  Obviously one side is telling the truth and the other isn't.  The number of believers who believe one side or the other is the majority view is totally irrelevant as to the truth.  The point is the truth, not as it is found here by wiki editors but as it exists in actuality.


 * Eventually the truth will be known. At that time the article should present the truth, then present a small section on the former existence of a controversy over the truth in the world (and not in wiki world).  Until then the article should be written in a neutral manner exactly as wikipedia requires and should not make conclusory statements on things people here conclude as opposed to the real world conclusions based on incontrovertible facts.  Right now it is obviously POV whether you favor one view or the other.  I suggest everyone just cool down and work this out properly within the framework of existing wiki guidance without the need for being uncivil.  I myself have no knowledge of any of very much on this topic so I will not be participating. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

raw footage at youtube
I wrote this earlier but no one responded. I found these videos compelling. Could someone please respond to this? I would like to put up a link on the article page. What is the policy of wiki in regard to posting links to actual video footage such as this at youtube?

10 seconds of raw footage not shown on France 2 (can also be seen on the end of Part II: 18 minutes of France 2 raw footage, Part I:   Part II:   Can we post such videos on the article page, and if so where?  ThanksTundrabuggy (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You might wish to have a look at WP:YOUTUBE, as this is something of a frequently asked question. The bottom line is that YouTube links usually aren't permitted, because YouTube videos are invariably copyright violations - Wikipedia's copyright policy forbids linking to copyright violations for legal reasons. I've had a look at the links you've provided but there's no indication that the videos have been posted with the permission of France 2. I think we therefore have to err on the side of caution and exclude the links. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note: The rushes are released creative commons share alike by France 2 (this is mentioned in the article also). I would run this question by a wiki copyrights related forum.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC) funny typo 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" WP:Lead --Julia1987 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the lead? It already states that there is a dispute over the case. I'll put the relevant bit below in big letters and bold to make sure you don't overlook it again. Your text is also inaccurate - is Enderlin a Palestinian and is Karsenty an Israeli? It's not just "Palestinians and Israelis" who dispute it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 of the lead:

'''Although the Israeli army initially issued an apology for shooting al-Durrah, it released a report of an internal investigation eight weeks later that demonstrated that "it is quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets." [5] Others later disputed the assumed sequence of events, the authenticity of the tape, questioned the honesty of the France 2 cameraman and reporter, the source of the fatal bullets,[2] and the identity of the boy in the footage. Some speculated that the entire incident had been faked with no actual casualties.[6][7][8][2] Campaigners sought the reopening of the case but did not attract public support from the Israeli government or army. Instead, unofficial investigations were carried out that disputed the official account of the shooting.'''

No hint of dispute at paragraph 1 & 2 of the lead
Yes. I read the lead and recent publications - we need to adapt the lead to a monumental court verdict.

So far this was not done. We can not present the France 2 version as "the truth":

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.

Palestinian journalist Talal Abu Rahma [1] filmed the father and son sheltering during a crossfire between troops at an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outpost and Palestinian police and gunmen shooting from a number of locations.[2] After a burst of gunfire, the two slumped into prone positions. Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire.--Julia1987 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. We are not even sure that that was a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.  I saw Palestinians but no Israelis.  Do we know that Israelis were involved in that episode at all, for sure?  Why wouldn't that be an "apparent" violent clash? Is there proof-positive that this was going on during a crossfire situation at all? All I saw was Palestinians attacking an Israeli outpost. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's purely your personal opinion, and it's a very idiosyncratic opinion at that. I don't think even the conspiracy theorists have tried to claim that there was no crossfire. The reliable sources we do have are unanimous that there was an exchange of fire between Palestinians and Israelis. Please leave the personal theories and focus on what the sources say - remember, Wikipedia has a policy prohibiting no original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that during the day, in the general area of Nezarim junction, there was exchange of fire. But a number of sources question whether there was an exchange of fire during what is purported to be the shooting of Al-Durra. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: First two paragraphs are not that bad. There might be room to reconsider structure of first paragraph to suggest he's no longer notable just for being an icon and for being filmed, but also for the later controversy. Thoughts/Suggestions?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at reworking the intro to simplify and summarise it without going into excessive detail and to reflect the mainstream views primarily (i.e. al-Durrah is dead but it's unclear who killed him). The conspiracy theories need to be mentioned but per WP:UNDUE we should not give them as much weight as the mainstream views. We need to start thinking about doing the same for the rest of the article. As others have mentioned, the article as a whole is flabby and gives far too much weight to the minority POV. It's as though half of the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks was about the 9/11 conspiracy theories - which of course the 9/11 conspiracy theorists would like. I'd like to highlight a recent arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, in which the arbitrators state:


 * Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.


 * That principle applies universally, of course, not just to 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris, if you want a fruitful discussion please avoid making the comparison to 9-11 conspiracy theories or any other such theory – the issue had a critical review by court and court appointed experts and it went to 2 levels of judicial review – none of them related to it as fiction/conspiracy theory. If you continue to argue about it I don't think anyone here would listen to you.--Julia1987 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia, the only issue decided by the court was whether or not Karsenty's claims met the legal standard for libel. That's all. It said only that there were legitimate questions to ask about the footage - "«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure» et qui avaient mis en doute l’authenticité du reportage." The ruling only addressed Karsenty's right to free speech, not the veracity of his claims. I'm well aware that Karsenty's supporters have claimed otherwise but it simply isn't borne out by what the ruling is reported to have said.


 * Now, when are you going to acknowledge the existence of Wikipedia's undue weight policy and its application to this article? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the contested point on this discussion is the theory that the boy is alive, rather than the "who shot him" issue. Are we in agreement on this?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be several (overlapping?) conspiracy theories. Larry Derfner summarises them in his recent JPost op-ed: "And this is the most cautious of the theories - that some or all of the above framed the IDF for killing al-Dura in a shootout in Gaza at the start of the intifada, when they knew he was really killed by Palestinian gunmen. A more adventurous theory has it that the Palestinians - including al-Dura's father, who was shot trying to protect him - deliberately killed Mohammed so they could pin it on the IDF and create an intifada martyr. Probably the most exotic theory, the one that appeals most to the conspiracy-monger's turn of mind, is that al-Dura was never killed at all, that he's walking around somewhere today. Like Elvis, or Hitler." So we have at least three conspiracy theories there, straight off. Note that some of the conspiracy theories do accept that al-Durrah is dead. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the "conspiracy theory" tag justifiably attaches to claims that he is alive, that the killing was staged or that there was some deliberate deception on the part of France 2 and others in how the incident was reported. I'm not aware of any serious source that asserts any of these things as fact. By contrast there is a separate and entirely legitimate dispute, widely covered in the mainstream news media, as to whether he was killed by Israeli or Palestinian gunfire - myself and Chris have been saying precisely this for, oh, about the last two thousand words posted on this talk page. All these issues are covered, both in the lead (including the recently reworked version) and in the main body of article. Without wishing to sound too narky about all this, life on Wikipedia would be so much easier if people actually read previous talk page posts properly and article content, as well as maybe doing a quick bit of research (in this case into Wikipedia policies eg WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps even into the basic principles of libel rulings), before dragging other editors into interminable further talk page debates, and trying to push fringe theories and personal viewpoints into articles. --Nickhh (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do any of you have any WP:RS source published after the verdict and claiming this is a "conspiracy theory" ? or is this your own educated analysis of the court verdict ? --Julia1987 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Before the verdict actually - it's the source I cited in the revised lead. See . -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO and NickH, you are overstating your case. It is true that the court case did not find that Karnesty proved his version is the truth. If it had, this article would be due for a much broader rewrite than Julia1987 is asking for – we would state clearly in the lede that “Al-durrah” was a large scale media hoax, describe claims that the IDF had  killed him as deliberate deception by France 2, and probably rename the article to something like ‘Al-Durrah media hoax’. But the court did more than just rule that Karnesty is within his freedom of speech rights – it said that upon examination of the rushes, the professional opinion of those who testified cannot be dismissed, and that there is doubts about the authenticity of the story. This suggests that we cannot dismiss these opinions as fringe conspiracy theory. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, you're missing the point that the court ruled that Karsenty was within his freedom of speech rights because there were legitimate questions about the story. But that isn't a controversial point anyway - the majority of media articles on the subject in recent years have acknowledged that there are legitimate doubts about which side was responsible for the shooting. The court did no more than acknowledge the same point. A ruling that Enderlin's report is the subject of legitimate dispute is not news.


 * Second, the "fringe conspiracy theory" is that the shooting was staged. I don't think we have any reliable sources to support that view as fact. A handful of op-ed columnists in a handful of newspapers have written a handful of articles supporting the conspiracy theory, but as WP:RS says, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." The only other sources for the conspiracy theory are a few bloggers and self-published websites (unusable per WP:V). The court did not, as you rightly say, find that Karsenty's version was accurate - from what's been reported, it seems to have said only that the views of the witnesses cannot be dismissed, which is very different from saying that the witnesses were correct. It also doesn't change the fact that the witnesses' opinion is outside the mainstream view that the shooting was real but the responsibility is disputed.


 * Let me turn it around a bit. If you want to assert that the conspiracy theory is not a fringe view, where are your sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I am missing that point at all – I am highlighting the part of that point (“there were legitimate questions about the story.”) that you seem to be glossing over when you repeatedly focus on the first part (‘Karsenty was within his freedom of speech rights”). You seem to be saying that all the court ruled was that Karsenty was exercising his free speech rights. The court did more than that. It said the evidence provided by him as to the whole situation being staged was serious, and while not conclusive, can’t be dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory. And this point was made not with regards to the question of who shot Al-Durrah (which, as you note, has been openly debated for 8 years, and not contested at all as part of this trial), but with regards to the question of was he shot at all.
 * I am not saying that we should present the theory that the whole incident was staged as fact – as we have no sources for that. If we had such sources, we would need a major overhaul of this article, describing the incident as a hoax. But neither can we state as fact that he was killed. What we should have is a neutrally worded lede – as it was before you reworded it introducing some significant POV changes - that describes only the undisputed facts: what the boy is famous for (a video purporting to show him being shot), the claims and counter claims made regarding who shot him, and the controversy surrounding this allegation – without stating as fact that this is a hoax or that he was killed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not serious – are you? if you are you are engaging in WP:point. Clearly I don't have to prove anything. You want to describe it as "conspiracy theory" bring sources that after the verdict call it a "conspiracy theory". Even the bluntly biased article you cited raise hope that truth will emerge from the court case – and guess what : it did. Now based on that verdict we will change the article to present both views.--Julia1987 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, no, we will not be doing any such thing. Unless you can point to reliable sources that say otherwise, this is a fringe theory that will not be given equal footing in this article.  Your efforts to skirt wikipedia guidelines here are not bearing fruit. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The appeal court ruled that karnesty's theory cannot be dismissed. It is no longer a "fringe theory". Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What we have here is a group of editors determined to keep this article as if the verdict can be ignored. I am trying to solicit cooperation so that we can together rewrite the article and the lead based on the new facts as they emerged from the dismissal of the libel claim by the French court. This effort seems to just fall on deft ears and every change that was suggested (included sources) is quickly reverted. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (offtopic note to Julia:) using sources, such as in this instance doesn't automatically mean that the construction works well with the rest of the lead. I agree that some information change is needed but the edit in itself was a bit iffy. Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Several days ago specific details about the latest court verdict were - quite rightly - put into the article, both in the lead and in the relevant main section. They are still there, albeit after some give-and-take editing as to the exact wording. No "new facts" or "truth" emerged from the court case - it was a legal judgement about whether Karsenty's accusations against France 2 were libellous or not. Take your single purpose account back to the paranoid ravings of blogland and please save me and others from having to repeat all their points over and over again in a bid to keep this article at least with one foot in the real world. And please CM, point me to where in the verdict it says Karsenty's ramblings "cannot be dismissed" or specifically that his claim that Durrah was not killed is "serious". As far as I can tell it says nothing of the sort. Let alone where it goes so far as to back up his assertions. --Nickhh (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nickh, statements such as “Take your single purpose account back to the paranoid ravings of blogland” are extremely uncivil. Please avoid them. As to your question, the Liberation article quotes the court saying

«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure» - (In English: “Examining the rushes no longer makes it possible to dismiss the views of professionals heard during the proceedings”) Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh, you are most definitely not very polite to Julia1987. In fact you may be violating wiki policy.  I do not know the facts in this case but the people on one side seem to be editing and the people on the other side seem to be attacking.  That causes me to wonder why, why the need to attack.  If the facts were as you say they are, you would have no need to attack Julia1987 as you do.  Other editors would follow wiki rules to produce a wikiworthy article.  But when one or a group of people is consistently rude and unwiki friendly on a persistent basis, one begins to arrive at the conclusion that those attackers are hiding something or attempting to control something.  I suggest for your own good of how people view your edits that you control your temper regarding Julia1987 and others like her.  Just sitting back and watching the back and forth on this page is a very disheartening thing.  The facts are the facts and they can be written accurately without the need for unwikiworthy conduct.  Please consider acting accordingly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I did quite a bit of editing on this article a few days ago, much of which was uncontentious minor tidying up which did not even touch on the issues being debated here. None of them were double reverts of the same material. Julia then filed a 3RR complaint against me (without I might add even extending the standard courtesy of informing me that she had done it; the complaint was rejected). Debate on a talk page - even when it involves criticising the views of others and trying to explain to them why you think certain content does not belong here in the way they want to write it up - seems a more productive way of proceeding than trying to get another editor blocked behind their back. And I'm sorry, but Julia's account is a single purpose account, and you can find plenty of "paranoid ravings" in the blogosphere (indeed I've come across a lot of them while do a bit more background reading into this issue). So while the comment may have been a bit strong, it was not inaccurate. And please don't forget I am being accused of wanting to censor information, of "ignoring" the court verdict or claiming the verdict itself is "fringe" - all of these accusations are inaccurate, but keep being repeated. Which can get a little frustrating. --Nickhh (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: I've asked a question to the point of conflict, and the response wasn't what I expected. I'd appreciate a source based explanation to why "accept[ing] that al-Durrah is dead" is a conspiracy theory or vice-versa - source based note on it is a reasonable mainstream accepted possibility. Has anyone here other than me seen the "Three Bullets and a Dead Child" documentary?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Small suggestion: How about "reportedly killed by Israeli fire (see also 'controversy')" in the intro? Not sure this solves the issue for everyone, but I figured it was worth suggesting.
 * p.s. earlier question still standing.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ok with this - but a variant of this is already in the lede - where it says "Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire." I am fine with just leaving it as it is. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean, Jaakobou. The point I was making is that the conspiracy theorists have put forward several different conspiracy theories; some accept that al-Durrah is dead, others dispute this point. If you want to break it down more fully, the spectrum of mainstream views seems to be as follows:


 * Mainstream view 1: Al-Durrah was killed by the Israelis. [Enderlin, Israeli army's original view, all media reporting from the time of the incident]
 * Mainstream view 2: Al-Durrah was possibly killed by the Palestinians. [Israeli army's revisionist view, some later media reporting]
 * Mainstream view 3: Al-Durrah was killed by one side or the other, but we don't know which. [Most media reporting over the last few years]


 * Moving on to the conspiracy theories, I've seen the following put forward:


 * Conspiracy theory 1: Al-Durrah was killed by the Palestinians and the Israelis were unfairly blamed due to media bias / a Palestinian propaganda campaign.
 * Conspiracy theory 2: Al-Durrah was deliberately killed by the Palestinians in a conspiracy to frame the Israelis.
 * Conspiracy theory 3: Al-Durrah wasn't killed at all and the whole incident was a hoax set up by the Palestinians / the media.


 * To answer Julia's question, we know that the conspiracy theories are fringe views because they've received a negligible amount of reliably sourced coverage compared to the mainstream views. I found around a thousand media articles on the case in a Lexis-Nexis search. Of these, the vast majority address mainstream views 1, 2 or 3. The conspiracy theories are advocated by perhaps half a dozen op-ed articles that have appeared in three newspapers - the Canada Post, Jerusalem Post and Wall Street Journal. A slightly larger number of mostly French newspaper articles mentions the conspiracy theories, generally in relation to the Karsenty libel case, and attributes them to Karsenty and Landes. The total amount of coverage that the conspiracy theories have received amounts to probably around 30-40 articles out of the aforementioned thousand. There's no way on earth that's not indicative of a fringe view. Even 9/11 conspiracy theories are more mainstream than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are overstating your case, and using biased language in order to push a point a view. Read RS - If you want to call something mainstream – you need to source that, i.e., find a reliable source, date after May 21, 2008, that says “the mainstream view is that al-Durah is dead, but we don’t know who killed him.” Similarly, if you want to call something a fringe conspiracy theory, you need to quote a reliable source, from AFTER the date of the Kersenty appeal verdict, that says that. Everything else is your personal research, which is not allowed. And while on the topic of your personal research, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you are overstating your case. The claim that post the Kersenty appeal, the theory that the Al-Durrah event was staged appeared in far more than ‘half a dozen op-ed ... in three newspapers “. In addition to the sources you mention – The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post and the Canada Post (which, btw, are more than enough in and of themselves to brush aside claims of “fringe conspiracy”) – these claims appeared in the Miami Herald (“The dramatic killing that wasn't”- , On Australia’s News.com (“Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax” - ), The Daily Telegarph (‘Fanning flames with a hoax” - ),  The European jewish press (“...the whole incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes...” - ), The San Francisco Sentinel (‘FRENCH COURT FINDS FRANCE 2 MEDIA MISLED WORLD - ISRAEL KILLING OF PALESTINIAN BOY A HOAX- ), The Ottawa Citizen (“All the lies that are fit to print" - ), World Politics Review (When bad Journalism Kills - “...what if the tragedy did not happen? What if it was all a hoax? ...” - ) ,  Israel Today (“French Court Confirms: Al-Dura Report Faked - ), even in Ha’aretz – that bastion of left-wing opinion , for heaven’s sake! (“Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged” - ).  Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And I wanted to add this paragraph from the Wall St Journal Online here A Hoax? "The court kept its eyes on the evidence. It is impossible in the limited space available here to do justice to a document that deserves line-by-line appreciation. The following examples drawn from the decision are a fair indication of its logical thrust: Material evidence raises legitimate doubts about the authenticity of the al-Durra scene. The video images do not correspond to the voice-over commentary. Mr. Enderlin fed legitimate speculation of deceit by claiming to have footage of Mohammed al Durra's death throes while systematically refusing to reveal it. He aggravated his case by suing analysts who publicly questioned the authenticity of the report. Examination of an 18-minute excerpt of raw footage composed primarily of staged battle scenes, false injuries and comical ambulance evacuations reinforces the possibility that the al-Durra scene, too, was staged. (There is, strictly speaking, no raw footage of the al-Durra scene; all that exists are the six thin slices of images that were spliced together to produce the disputed news report.)" "The possibility of a staged scene is further substantiated by expert testimony presented by Mr. Karsenty -- including a 90-page ballistics report and a sworn statement by Dr. Yehuda ben David attributing Jamal al-Durra's scars -- displayed as proof of wounds sustained in the alleged shooting -- to knife and hatchet wounds incurred when he was attacked by Palestinians in 1992. In fact, there is no blood on the father's T-shirt, the boy moves after Mr. Enderlin's voice-over commentary says he is dead, no bullets are seen hitting the alleged victims. And Mr. Enderlin himself had backtracked when the controversy intensified after seasoned journalists Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte viewed some of the raw footage in 2004. The news report, he said, corresponds to 'the situation.' The court, concurring with Messrs. Jeambar and Leconte, considers that journalism must stick to events that actually occur." "The frail evidence submitted by France 2 -- 'statements provided by the cameraman' -- is not 'perfectly credible either in form or content,' the court ruled." This is not conspiracy theory, but evidence that is being ignored by some people because they apparently favor another version of events. This little bit of Pallywood helped fuel anti-"Zionism" and anti-semitism and it is high time that it was acknowledged for what it is. This is an important decision by judges who got to look at the evidence this time, not a public lynching. There is considerable evidence that the whole thing was a hoax and it is only fair now that it has been adjudicated, to present this view as another mainstream view, and not try to relegate it to a closet somewhere. It has been in the closet long enough. It needs to be fairly aired and that is what wiki is all about. Not about a few people trying to decide what is "mainstream" and what is "fringe." Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me quote you another bit from the recent Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories:


 * "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited."


 * Please bear that in mind and keep your personal opinions to yourself. If you're here just to promote an agenda, that isn't what Wikipedia is for.


 * The WSJ piece you quote is an op-ed by someone who is apparently a fairly obscure novelist - i.e. not someone with any personal authority in the subject matter - and is not usable as a reliable source for fact. Per WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." The same applies to most of the pieces cited above by Canadian Monkey. The recent verdict has actually been very little reported in the English-language press and virtually all of the reporting seems to have been derived from [this single AFP report, which is the only one that quotes the text of the ruling in its original French (for some reason, only AFP seems to have got hold of a copy of the ruling). But once again we get back to the key point: the court did not rule that Karsenty's claims were true, as the AFP report makes clear. As for Canadian Monkey's claim that "the court verdict has changed everything" (to paraphrase), I suggest you look at [[Wikipedia:Recentism]]. We are required to consider the totality of reliably sourced reporting, not just the last week's worth. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstand what I was saying. I was not suggesting that an opinion piece in the WSJournal was evidence.  However, it was clear from reading the article that this individual was in the courtroom and had read the resulting decision. Her/His quotes from this show that the judges were looking at the evidence and had made certain statements in relation to it.  I have no agenda here except that some real weight should be given to this new development.  During the last trial the judges did not get to see the rushes or perhaps even other evidence. The part that is my opinion-- ie that the Al-Durrah affair has contributed to anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- is one that is shared by millions but nothing that I would put in the article as it is clearly subjective.  However, it seems to me not to be inappropriate to mention in a "discussion" regarding the "weight" to be put on the idea that the Al-Durrah episode may have been a hoax.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some checking on Nidra Poller to see if indeed she is a "fairly obscure novelist" "without any personal authority on the subject matter" and I think you are mistaken on that. The results of my research shows that she is a board member of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, has written articles about Al-Dura and other issues in the middle east in The Wall Street Journal, The American Thinker, The New York Sun, and FrontPage Magazine, and many others.  She acted as a journalist at the first trial (she was inside) The list of her writings (not all novels)  can be found at Amazon: I think to describe her merely as an "obscure novelist" is incorrect.  In fact, I was under the impression that she was actually at this second trial as well, based on my reading of the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, unlike the Wikipedia policy I pointed you to, Recentism is a personal essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Your misleading comment (“We are required to ..”) relying on such personal essays is worrying. In case you hadn’t noticed, a recent ArbCom decision admonished an editor for a very similar misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy.

Putting aside your inappropriate behavior, I am confused as to what you are suggesting. Surely as new facts are uncovered, they should be represented in relevant articles. They should not be given undue weight – but they shouldn’t be censored, either. Prior to the May 21st verdict, we had a fairly neutrally-worded lead, which avoided stating as fact that the boy was killed. Then came the May 21st verdict which made new information available. This information is a court ruling that casts even further doubt on the veracity of the original France 2 report, and clearly states that the opinions of those who claim the whole thing was staged can’t be dismissed. This was followed by dozens of press articles which give more prominence and wider acceptance to the opinion that the event was staged. If any changes are to be made to the lead as a result of this new information, surely they should be in the direction of giving more credence to the “staged” theory, and less credence to the original F2 report. Surprisingly, your response to this new information wasin the opposite direction – you rewrote the lead so as to remove the neutral wording, to state as fact that the boy was killed, and to introduce other, irrelevant POV-pushing material (“The killing of … other Palestinian civilians was strongly criticized by the international community”). This is simply unacceptable. Let me remind you that you are just as much subject to the editing restrictions imposed by Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as any other editor of this article, and that disruptive editing in violation of wikipedia policies can lead to your being sanctioned. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)