Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 6

Fringe Theory ?
Are there current sources describing the Shapiro/Shahaf/Karsenty view as "Fringe" ? if the answer is "no": Tarc is violating WP:SYNT here:. We need to move beyond this violation and focus on how to improve the article and make it based on sources and wikipedia policy. Continuing to yell "Fringe Theory" will not change the facts that this story is hotly disputed and has (like anything else in I/P issues) two clear opposing POVs. The only issue before us is how to present both in NPOV manner --Julia1987 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a complete misrepresentation both my position and the nature of a fringe theory itself within the Wikipedia. What makes it "fringe" is not being necessarily being called such, but rather it is the lack of reliable sources that talk about it at all.  Refer to the following found at WP:FRINGE;

The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

In this particular case, no secondary reliable sources have been produced that discusses the idea that the boy's death was a staged event. Blogs, OpEds, and minuscule, regional newspapers do not meet the criteria. This is quite similar to what can be found in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories, as there are reams and reams of "evidence" and websites that discuss alternate theories about the tragedy, but none rise about the rabble into the realm of respectable, reliable sources. As it is there, so it is here; discussion of this event as if it was a hoax does not occur within legitimate circles. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is, in a word, nonsense. While not all reliable sources have endorsed the staging theory, a great many of them have discussed it, and an OpEd certainly meets the criteria for 'discussion in a reliable source". Have a look above - newspapers form Aftenposten through the IHT to Ha'aretz have discussed it, as have multiple German broadcasters. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Each and every one of those discusses the theorists. I refer any further claims that that that is a sign of the theory's non-fringiness to the passage I have written above, twice, about the nature of coverage of conspiracy theories. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply would ignore any trolling about "Fringe Theory" - the best thing against trolls is to ignore them (at least until they show some reliable sources that supports their strange view) don't feed trolls --Julia1987 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Without saying whether or not the theory is true, it does seem from a search at Google News, that it is getting coverage in many significant sources. --Elonka 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, fringe theories are often covered extensively in the context of the theories themselves. What makes them fringe is the degree to which reliable sources think they are true. Consider how many google hits in reliable sources there are for Kennedy assassination theories. But no bio of JFK is likely to alter its wording to take them into account. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are some important points lurking here.
 * First, the conspiracy theory has primarily been covered in the context of the Karsenty libel trial. It received negligible media coverage until France 2 sued Karsenty, which attracted the interest of the media. In other words, the conspiracy theory has derived its newsworthiness primarily from the trial. No doubt if Neil Armstrong sued one of the Moon landing conspiracy theorists, that would raise the profile of such people. It does not in any way imply that their views have become mainstream.
 * Second, the coverage of the conspiracy theory invariably attributes it to just three named individuals: Karsenty, Landes and a fellow named Juffa (who was also sued by France 2 in a separate case). As fringe theories go, this is one that seems to have a remarkably small number of proponents.
 * Third, please don't forget that the media do not have any equivalent of our NPOV policy. They are guided by what they think is newsworthy, not by any concerns of undue weight on fringe views. As Relata says, a viewpoint can be held by a small minority but still receive extensive coverage if its proponents happen to be doing something newsworthy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly how many proponents the hoax theory has but it must be more than three -- look at all of the op-eds you noted above. =)  --JGGardiner (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that the mainstream media did not give a lot of weight to the "staged" theory before the latest trial. What happened in an analogous way is that the appeals court judges looked at the evidence for this theory and decided that it was not so far-fetched to believe that we may have landed on the moon after all. 'Reliable' news sources are demonstrating respect for the opinion of the judges in this case. Reliable sources are considering the verdict a 'vindication' of those who have believed it was staged from the beginning.  The authority and reliability of France 2 has been completely compromised by the French courts, on the grounds that the (now) available evidence is compelling. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a "fringe" theory, and some Wikipedia editor insisting it is, doesn't make it so. This is hardly the first time such films have been doctored or staged. The Palestinians have a long history of providing the media with this kind of footage. See this link for another episode: . "Fringe theory" claims are disingenous at best.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I please ask folks to not use words such as "troll", "nonsense", and "ridiculous"? These kinds of terms often do little except to escalate a dispute. I am not seeing trolling here, I am seeing legitimate good-faith concerns, by established editors.  I would like if everyone could work harder to assume good faith.  I don't think anyone here is trying to damage the article. --Elonka 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd join that appeal, and also request that we stay on-point, and particularly that generalised negative remarks are not made about entities such as "the Palestinians". Not only are such remarks possibly offensive and certainly irrelevant, but they are capable of derailing discussion. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And on top of that they are blatant original research. Could I please ask people to stop trying to promote their personal views? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish that we could get away from trying to use wiki policy as a stick to silence discussion. This is a talk page and we are trying to get to some consensus here by sharing our thoughts and understandings on this page.  If something is mistaken, in your opinion, please simply tell us what is wrong and how it is wrong without trying to slam us with its being against this or that wiki policy.  We are all supposed to be trying to achieve something here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has received a great deal of media coverage. To claim it is fringe theory is just obtuse. News articles don't endorse controversial theories, so it is unreasonable to judge the issue by that standard. Does the Israeli media count? They could be considered the specialists on this type of issue. Kauffner (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: 20 Minuten from Switzerland is strongly advancing the staging theory, too. --Konstock (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
People who continue to argue that the Shapiro/Sahaf/Karsenty version is "fringe" while accepting the Abu-Rahma/Enderlin version as "truth" should not be editing this article. Such editors are too close to the subject emotionally. Only those who can detach themselves and present both views as opposing, equal validity POVs should be involved in this article .--Julia1987 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please avoid negative characterizations of the emotional well-being and/or motivations of editors you happen to be in disagreement with, or making judgments on who should and should not be editing; that is seriously out of bounds. Moving on...it isn't the truth that we're working on here, it is the reporting of what reliable sources out there report in regards to this event.  And as such, no reliable sources have been produced that would elevate the "this is a hoax" opinion to anything above a fringe theory.  Numerous people venting in blogs and opinion pieces, sure, but that utterly fails what the project policy requires here.  Again, we go back to other examples of faked moon landings, dynamite in the World Trade Center, or FDR's prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor; there is nothing that elevates these alternative theories to the level of established and verifiable reality. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists, or on deducing information about the importance of a theory from data about the occasional article discussing the dottiness of the theorist. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable articles would now never insist that the boy is dead (or not dead) without an autopsy and conclusive evidence (such as DNA). They are now under the impression that they may have been duped by France 2 when they reported he was dead. The court trial has put the original evidence in doubt, not affirmed that it was false.  The response of the media is, understandably --"fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me."  In other words, they are reporting the verdict without affirming a position. The verdict and the commentary following it, demonstrate that intelligent reliable trusted people (French high court judges, reporters, commentators) deem the idea of the boy's death having been staged not as a "conspiracy theory" but as a legitimate question, a controversy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I believe I have asked before, please present a reliable source presenting a retraction, correction, or statement that it was duped if we are to take this narrative into consideration. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The summary of the court is the correction and is independent of any news reports. And just what conclusion did it come to, considering France 2's claim against Karsenty? They found that when Karsenty said it was a hoax that he had a credible opinion in view of the content of the extended film, and other presented evidence.Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So you think we should count up how many articles that say Durrah is alive vs. how many say he is dead and base editorial decisions on that? Whether the boy is alive or dead is just a side issue. The main allegation is that this video, which provoked the world against Israel when it was first shown, is quite obviously a hoax when seen unedited. Actors fake their injuries and get up off strechers. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For best results, I'd like to see if we can focus on actual concrete changes to the article. What wording changes, based on sources, would people recommend? --Elonka 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead
I've just posted a suggested lead, as follows:


 * Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen on September 30, 2000.


 * The report of his death was based on 59 seconds of a 27-minute film taken by a local freelance cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, who was filming alone for France 2, the largest of the French public television networks. The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire, the father shielding the boy, and waving to make the soldiers, police, and gunmen aware of their presence. Toward the end of the footage, both the father and al-Durrah appear to have been hit, the boy slumped over the father's legs. The France 2 reporter, Charles Enderlin, who was not present during the gun battle, said in a voiceover that al-Durrah had been killed. His report attributed the death to the IDF, after the cameraman said he believed the IDF had aimed their fire at the boy. France 2 provided three minutes of its footage free of charge to news organizations around the world, the broadcasts triggering international outrage against Israel.


 * Because there was no forensic evidence, and the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and was not made available in its entirety, a number of questions were raised, including about the source of the bullets and the video's authenticity. The IDF initially apologized for the boy's death. Although a later IDF investigation concluded that he may have been hit by bullets from one of the Palestinian positions, the army did not otherwise contest the accuracy of the France 2 report. A small number of commentators suggested that the boy may not have died, or even that the entire incident had been staged, an allegation strongly denied by France 2.


 * In 2006, the network sued one of those commentators, Philippe Karsenty of the French Media-Ratings Agency, for libel after he alleged that the reporter and cameraman had presented staged footage. France 2 won the case after the judges said that Karsenty had "seriously failed to meet the requirements expected of an information professional." In May 2008, that judgment was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence," and that his criticism of France 2 was legitimate, although the factual accuracy of his evidence was not examined. France 2 has said it will appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk| edits 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Better than current rev but still too long and not NPOV enough --Julia1987 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The length is fairly easy to deal with during a copy edit. Which parts do you feel aren't neutral enough, or what is missing that would make it neutral?


 * Apologies for overriding the edit conflicts there; I should have used the "in use" tag until I had finished. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please hold off posting that version to the live article for now? You and I have differing versions. We've proposed both on this talk page - let's get some feedback before making either one live. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm happy to give feedback on this version, but will you give feedback on mine (posted above?) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris, my understanding was that we weren't supposed to revert wholesale. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So how come you wiped out the version I posted before I'd even had a chance to discuss it on the talk page? I don't want to argue about this. Let's just present our alternatives here and discuss it, without trying to put either into the live article without wider agreement. We might be able to find an acceptable synthesis between the two versions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in Slim's version - Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen... – is weaker than what it replaced – Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was reported to have been killed by gunfire from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers during a clash with Palestinian police and gunmen... – for two reasons: (1) Slim's version oddly suggests that the very fact of al-Durrah's death – or perhaps the material cause (gunfire) – is seriously in question, whereas the previous version accurately suggested that what's contested is Israeli culpability. (2) The previous version is more precise about how and why al-Durrah became an icon: the widespread belief that he was killed by the IDF.

On the other hand the details Slim adds in her version (where the incident took place and the victim's age) are welcome improvements.--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I pretty much agree with the above. A few points in particular:


 * 1) We can't leave out the death date (i.e. 2000). As has been pointed out numerous times before, the vast majority of reliable sources state definitively that he is dead. Even the Israeli army has stated this - no official body on either side of the conflict has ever stated that he's not dead, as far as I know. We don't omit Elvis's death date because a minority of people claim he's still alive - it's undue weight, pure and simple. Also, if you leave out his death date you are in effect stating that he is alive - correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think you have any sources to support that.


 * 2) I think it goes into a bit too much detail, to be perfectly honest. For instance, do we need to know in the lead about "59 seconds of a 27-minute film" or that Karsenty is "of the French Media-Ratings Agency" (hardly a major outfit)? It seems to me that we need to give the basic outline of the story, without going into the fine detail of it.


 * 3) "A later IDF investigation" is inaccurate - it turns out it wasn't by the IDF at all and it was disowned by the IDF chief of staff as a "personal initiative" of one of its officers. This needs to be made clearer in the article, admittedly.


 * 4) "A number of questions were raised" - this is distinctly weaselly; raised by who, when, where, how, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SV's version, as modified by ChrisO & G-Dett's comments would work for me. One change I'd make is to the sentence "The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire" - the footage does not show any crossfire, and the existence of crossfire at the time of the filming of this incident is one of the issues under dispute. I'd change it to the way ChrisO had worded it - "al-Durrah and his father were seen sheltering from gunfire". I agree that "A number of questions were raised" is weaselly, but then so is "Some supporters of Israeli policy". We need to explicitly name the main proponents and their issues. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Point taken about date of death.
 * 2. The 59 seconds of the 27 minutes, and later distributing only three minutes, is important, as is showing the court only 18, saying the rest had been destroyed, which I'd actually like to add. I say who Karsenty is because the court says in the next quote that he's a media professional (or words to that effect) so that's just a question of the writing.


 * 3. Okay.
 * 4. I don't think it matters for the lead who -- we say a small number, and we do say what. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 4) I think this bit does matter. It makes a difference whether "questions were raised" by official sources, by the media or (as in this case) by activists. To be honest, I dislike the passive voice from a stylistic point of view as well. Can you come up with an alternative version of that line that uses the active voice? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Credibility should be mentioned higher up in the lead. Doubts on the report : "'Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate. While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a 'coherent mass of evidence' and 'exercised in good faith his right to free criticism.' The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered 'perfectly credible.'"

Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty: "'observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin.'"--Julia1987 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Doubts on the report" expressed in an OpEd pose no relevance to the article whatsoever, and cannot be given an ounce of space in the lead or anywhere else in the article. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I will gladly do so for as long as is necessary. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tarc, my mistake of not being clear enough. The doubts exist for a long time independent of any op-ed. The doubts were raised in as series of news reporting from many sources: Shahaf (reported by mena news agency), Karsenty, Shapiro on German TV and others. Those are all good sources. The verdict is quoted in the op-ed – that is the reason I brought it and you are correct we should find a direct quote from the published verdict itself.

The other part with op-ed is that France-2 "reporter" Enderlin was actually doing an op-ed that he presented as "news reporting" – after all he was in his air conditioned Jerusalem office while reporting on events in Gaza (100 K'M away) as if he is there and see them with his on eyes…..

In any case I agree with you that we should all use proper sources. The lead, as suggested above - is all based on facts not on op-ed. --Julia1987 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I ask that editors who oppose including certain material in the lead stop talking about op-eds. We have serious news reports and unsigned editorials from serious newspapers. They are not all op-eds, and even if they were, there is nothing in the policies to prevent their use to show that a certain view is held. The fact is that no news organization would write about this issue without mentioning the doubts that have crept in, and mentioning them prominently. If anyone disagrees with me, please produce a recent source showing the contrary.


 * We must stick to our policies, including WP:LEAD, which explicitly says that notable controversies must be included in the lead. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The op-ed point is a serious one that can't be ignored. Op-eds do not have the same value as original reporting. By definition, they're an individual commentator's opinion and analysis of a particular issue, based on previous reporting. They don't often develop a story with new information. The fact that a particular right-wing commentator says "OMG! Hoax!" in reaction to the recent French judgement is not intrinsically significant because it doesn't tell us anything more than that particular commentator has bought into the conspiracy theory. It might have a bit more significance if the commentator is someone particularly notable or is a party to the issue at hand. But some random commentator endorsing the conspiracy theory is not inherently notable or worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambulance driver
One of the initial reports, quoting the father (probably during his first interview with the cameraman), said:


 * "Mr Durrah said the Israeli troops had fired relentlessly, even shooting at an ambulance that had tried to rescue him and his son.


 * "Its driver was also killed in the incident, and a second ambulance driver was wounded."

Was this something that turned out to be true, or false, do we know? SlimVirgin talk| edits 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Adura  showed scars that were caused by what he claimed are Israeli bullets that hit his leg. An Israeli doctor remembered that few years before he treated a a palestinian in the Barziliy Ashkelon hospital – he pulled the medical records and indeed it was Mr. Adura that was wounded in a knife fight over a drug deal that went sour with other palestinians and was rushed into a hospital in israel…...--Julia1987 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have the source for that? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it, I've seen some far-right bloggers making this claim but (as usual with such people) they never cite any source. It's certainly not been mentioned in any reliable source that I know of. It also directly contradicts something we do have in reliable sources - that he underwent several operations in a Jordanian military hospital for multiple bullet wounds and spent four months recuperating there. One would imagine that doctors (especially military doctors) would be able to recognise the difference between fresh bullet wounds and old knife wounds. But presumably if the conspiracy theorists have ever addressed this point, they probably argue that the Jordanian government and military were part of the conspiracy as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ChrisO is right; it is easy to tell the difference between bullet wounds and knife wounds. [redacted - BLP -- ChrisO (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)] here is the source: --Julia1987 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (replying to a question since deleted) Sources in other languages are acceptable, if they are reliable sources, and there are no comparable English-language sources for the same information. Also, per WP:RSUE, quotes should be provided in the reference which both quote the relevant text in the original language, and also provide an English translation. --Elonka 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've redacted an unpleasant smear against the father, who is (let's not forget) very much a living person - WP:BLP applies on talk pages as much as it does on articles. Julia, please moderate your language when discussing the people involved in this incident. As for the video, who produced it? If it's by some random conspiracy theorist it's patently not a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Video produced by Israel channel 10. This is not a smear campaign as the channel clearly states : "the fact that al-dura lied about the scars is still no proof that the incident is staged, the kid is alive as some claim and that France -2 knowingly published a wrong report. However, it raises serious questions about the authenticity of Jamal Al Dura story."--Julia1987 (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from being a claim by 'far-right bloggers', this is in fact part of the evidence presented by Karsenty at the recent appeal - a sworn statement by Dr. Yehuda Ben David who treated Jamal al-Durah for knife and ax wounds inflicted on him by Palestinians. This has been cited in one of the sources already used in our article- the Wall Street Journal piece by Nidra Poller, which reads "'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. '". I think it's about time we stop baselessly attributing things we don't like to 'far-right bloggers' or to 'loony conspiracy theories', and start reading the relevant material form the court case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How come a reasonable edit becomes a target of a threat?
We all agreed to no reverts – but Tarc is exempt from this ?

The edit he reverted was:
 * 1) accurate
 * 2) based on sources (see this edit by leifern: )
 * 3) NPOV – it added to the description of the scene as "iconic" a question about the authenticity. The words used weere from leifern edit.

So why is Tarc alowed to make threats ? only to cause editors to flee from this article ? or from Wikipedia in general ?--Julia1987 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarc's edit summary could have been more civil, but the removal was appropriate, because information was added without a source. There's also the issue that the image caption may not be the appropriate place to argue the veracity of the image, since it may be giving undue weight to the controversy.  Better is to ensure that things are properly included in the body of the article, and to ensure that the image caption stays neutral and brief. --Elonka 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The caption is the proper place since the image itself is highly POV. The image was added by an editor that was since that time banned and we need to point out to any reader that the image may not be what it seems. As for sources – as indicated in the edit summary: the doubts are well documented by newspapers around the world and if needed a specific citation can be provided.
 * Can you please restore the image caption – we all agreed not to revert so I would like to comply with that.
 * If there is an alternative suggestion how to phrase the doubts/controversy in the caption – please do so. tnx. --Julia1987 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that the current caption is misleading? Or simply that it is not comprehensive enough? --Elonka 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarc was quite right to remove it, as it was a grossly POV statement; it stated one side of the dispute as fact (clearly France 2 doesn't consider there to be "major questions" about the authenticity of the footage). Elonka, could you please explain to Julia1987 what NPOV requires and disallows? I've explained it repeatedly but apparently futilely. It would save everyone a lot of time if editors here had a common understanding of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you have so far done a commendable job of mediating this dispute – not only calming things down and nearly eliminating the edit wars, but also driving the process to a point where we now have a lead that just about all the editors agree on. However, Julia raises a valid point, which I do not think you have properly addressed. One of your requirements for continued editing on the page was “No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.” – in fact, this was the first requirement, and the bolding of “no reverts” was your emphasis, which you then re-iterated at the end – “Don't revert other editors”. Here we have an editor who clearly and directly violated that important principle, and reverted an edit, with an uncivil edit summary, to boot. He is getting off, as far as I can see, without so much as a warning. This follows on the heels of a similar revert, by ChrisO, of SlimVirgin’s changes to the lead. (The only reason I did not speak up on ChirsO’s revert was that he quickly self reverted, and engaged in good faith dialog on the Talk page). In contrast, Tundrabuggy made an edit that was not a revert, and one which many editors here (yourself included) found reasonable, and got slapped with a 90-day article ban. If it was appropriate to ban TB, it must be the case for Tarc as well. If you are to have credibility in this dispute, please impose a similar sanction, or it will appear that only reverts from one side of the argument are subject to sanction. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian Monkey, please note Elonka's rules above: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." That's precisely what Tarc did, and as Elonka has stated, "the removal was appropriate, because information was added without a source." Please go and re-read what Elonka stated at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this one by one – the words I used came from. In this edit the editor described what the Norwegian press is saying: "Norwegian newspapers ….. merely reporting that there are serious questions about its authenticity". So it is obvious that this is sourced (not only to Norwegian press, since the serious questions that were raised during (and before) the trial were reported by many newspapers and TV stations. (I have seen this on NPR in the US).  So we have:
 * 1) "un-sourced" – clearly not. This is sourced (if you disagree let us know)
 * 2) "potentially untrue" – clearly not: The questions (about authenticity) exist
 * 3) " very biased" – this is a matter of judgment. Why do ChrisO and Tarc think what was added is "biased" ? it did not say that this is a hoax it simpley added to the fact that the scene is now iconic the valuable information that there are " serious questions about its authenticity" --Julia1987 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said over and over again, that is one side's point of view. We do not state one side's POV as fact. This is a fundamental element of NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." Please answer me honestly - have you actually read Neutral point of view? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where in the words used a POV is stated as "fact" ? The fact is that the scene authenticity is questioned. Your answer is as if I wrote that the scene is fabricated " (which it is is but that is not what I wrote) I wrote a sourced fact. You are the first that need to read WP:NPOV--Julia1987 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead again
I've tried again with the lead, incorporating some of the points that ChrisO raised above. I'd still like to add that France 2 has lost the last nine minutes of the tape, and was only able to show the court 18 minutes, apparently ending as the boy is seen to move his arm and leg, but I've not come up with a succinct and neutral way to express it yet. I do think we need to say something about it in the lead, because the first question any reader would have in their mind is: "Why don't people just look at the remainder of the tape to see what happened to the boy?" SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, when I read the article as an outsider, the first thought that comes to mind is, "Okay, where's the body?" The article mentions that the boy was buried, but has little other info.  So I'd be curious about things like, "Where was he buried, who went to the funeral, what was it like, is there a memorial or statue there today," etc.  Not that these things have to go into the article, but I'm just offering it as a datapoint from a neutral reader. Generally when there is a controversial death, the locals put up a memorial, grave marker, statue or other art somewhere. If there is such a memorial, a picture of it would be a good addition to the article. --Elonka 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times reported at the time that there was no autopsy and that he was buried the night he died, or the night after (Muslim custom is to bury within 24 hours, as I recall). I'm not aware of any images of his grave.


 * The missing footage issue is more complicated than I remember. It seems the initial report was 59 seconds out of 27 minutes. Only three minutes were made available to the media. Three prominent French journalists viewed the whole 27 minutes in 2005, and wrote that much of it consisted of apparently staged scenes: Palestinian protesters pretending to be injured etc, according to the journalists. The Paris Court of Appeal asked to view these scenes, and was told by France 2 that only 18 minutes of the footage could be found, the rest apparently destroyed. I will try to find some good sources for each of these claims. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a funeral that night apparently. It is referenced in the Fallows Atlantic article which is prominently mentioned in ours:  "A boy's body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like Mohammed's in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route. A BBC TV report on the funeral began, "A Palestinian boy has been martyred." Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday."  --JGGardiner (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, SlimVirgin. I think we're getting somewhere at last.


 * I've made a number of changes to the text while keeping (I hope) the spirit of your version. Specifically:


 * 1) Your version mentions what happened to the boy but not what became of the father. This is an important point, not least because it's far better documented than what happened to the boy. I've added a line to rectify that.


 * 2) It seems to me that the intro narrative breaks naturally into three parts: the basic facts of the incident as we know them; the initial reporting; and the later conspiracy theories and legal actions resulting from them. I've therefore structured the intro along these lines, in roughly chronological order.


 * 3) There seems to be some sort of line among the conspiracy theorists that the story of the shooting is based solely on Enderlin's report. This plainly isn't true. Several of the reports over the last eight years have gone back to the people involved - the father, the mother, the cameraman, other eyewitnesses from the scene, all interviewed by different journalists. The footage was certainly solely produced by France 2 but the mass of contemporary followup reporting was not. It's therefore inaccurate to say that "The reports were based on 59 seconds of a 27-minute film" because they were actually based on much more than that. I've therefore changed this to "Enderlin's commentary and much media reporting immediately after the incident blamed Israeli forces for the shooting."


 * 4) Don't forget the Israeli army report was only semi-official. I've added a mention of the ARD documentary too.


 * 5) It's important to note that the conspiracy theories only gained currency some time after the shooting. I've made this clear and made the paragraph on the theories a bit more direct (active voice!). Frankly, I think the line "Because no forensic evidence was available" goes into too much detail for an intro, so I've taken this out. I don't think it's really necessary to go into great detail about why the conspiracy theorists think as they do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current version keeps the "spirit" of SV's version at all. Her version is balanced, the current version is not.  With the exception of putting some information in about the father (lower down in the intro, not in the first paragraph), SV's version should be restored in its entirety.  As for Elonka's comments above, isn't that the whole problem?  There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that the boy died at all.  I believe he probably did, but there is enough doubt about it that it is not a "conspiracy theory" to believe otherwise.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No reverts please. See .  However, changes are encouraged to try and find a middle-ground. --Elonka 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to revert. And the middle ground is SlimVirgin's version.  6SJ7 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there is evidence - eyewitness accounts from multiple individuals, reported by multiple journalists (not just Enderlin), attesting to the killing of the boy and the wounding of the father. Not even the Israeli army or government has disputed that he was killed. But that's irrelevant - we're not here to find "the truth", we're here to report what reliable sources say, without putting undue weight on minority viewpoints or violating BLP by calling living persons liars. Now, rather than just making sweeping "I don't like it" comments, perhaps you could say what specifically you object to? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I specifically object to each of your changes to Slim's version, with the one exception I mentioned above. Her version is a compromise and should have been left alone.  6SJ7 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, SlimVirgin's version is a starting point, as are all good-faith edits. Don't forget, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We don't "leave alone" contributions - we try to improve them if we think there are improvements to be made. Remember what Elonka said above. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that BLP covers Muhammad as well. =)  --JGGardiner (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly we don't have a policy on Biographies of persons claimed by conspiracy theorists to be living... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it would sure help if we did -- WP:BLP(?). I actually had high hopes when Elonka suggested we should try and wordsmith our way out of this one.  But we've just been talking in circles about policy interpretation.  So let's try this:


 * The French page, which is a model of unparanoid sobriety, registers, for what it was worth, that Reuters filmed the boy's body in the morgue.
 * 'Le 18 novembre 2004, suite à l’extension de la polémique, France 2 diffuse toujours en privé des images tournées au même moment par une équipe de Reuters, des images du cadavre de l’enfant à la morgue ainsi que des images récentes du père de l’enfant montrant ses blessures. Elle maintient sa position et annonce également avoir porté plainte contre X pour diffamation.'
 * For those interested, there are several other tidbits there that might be adapted for this English page. (such as the Israel Law Centre asking the Supreme Court of that country to cancel or withdraw both  Enderlin and Talal Abou Rahma's accreditations as journalists Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nishidani. It would be good to find that Reuters footage, and to know who exactly filmed it, when and where. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The note to the morgue item is in the following link on the French page .Hope it works Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked it out myself because my computer took donkey's ages to half-load it, but that is probably my problem.

What is not clear in the words "no reverts" ?
is a revert. it is followed by a misleading edit summary: "self-rv - sorry," which did not restored back any of the reverted info:. Elkona: You either enforce your own rules or this article will again have to be protected. I am sure that some editors would prefer protection – as long as they can make sure that the protected version fits their fringe minority view about "conspirac theories" etc… --Julia1987 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you check User talk:ChrisO, it can be seen that I'd already banned him for that. Now, I'd appreciate if everyone could get back to discussing the article, instead of other editors. If there are further concerns about someone's behavior, please take them to my talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

?
"The incident became the subject of controversy when... (conspiracy theories follow)". This is quite clearly wrong. The incident was already massively controversial long before the "is he dead?" questions arose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the problem on this page is that there is an editorial attempt to write down what is believed by the mainstream views as "truth" while I'm not so certain that the mainstream media has made a conclusive decision to what is the truth. There are two "blood libel/conspiracy" perspectives/narratives here. The Talal/Jamal version: "The Israelis shot at the boy intentionally for 45 minutes and wouldn't stop killing him in cold blood" and the Shahaf/Karcenty version: "Talal and Jamal are lying and the scene is clearly staged. There are no bullets and the boy is moving - it's even possible to say that he was not killed". At least, this is my perception of both "conspiracy" allegations. Thoughts? p.s. I hear the father is claiming he is planning on suing Israel, now that he's being accused of lying (by showing scars from the past), and suggesting he's got "great surprises in store". Personally, I can't see any new evidence coming from exhuming the body of the boy 8 years later (assuming that's his "great surprise"), but I'm not a forensics expert.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) p.p.s. I think editors here should stop using the word 'conspiracy' since it degrades the quality of the debate.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure I do agree with that framing of the debate. There are far more questions. Did the Israelis kill him intentionally? Or was it an accident during a shootout? Or were the Israelis the only ones with guns? Or did the Palestinians kill him during a shootout? Or did they do so intentionally to frame the Israelis? Lastly, did anyone kill him at all? Our article devotes a massive amount of space to the last question, when all the others have received just as much - and probably more - investigation and reporting. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Were the Israelis the only ones with guns?" - I'm not aware that this was even raised as a possibility. Maybe I haven't read the article for a long period, but is the last question really getting too much space? (linkme please)  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the Atlantic Monthly article that's linked to in the references section. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, isn't this a bit of too much weight to 'James Fallows' attacking Shahaf (possible BLP breach)? Fallows seems to be changing Shahaf's points as he attacks them and he is just a regular reporter no? certainly non of the documentaries or the people at the scene even suggest that there weren't any armed Palestinian militants at the scene so if he makes this into an actual point, I would promote that we exclude it being that no one else even suggests this while others report a different account.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that to suggest that Al Durrah is not dead, and that a whole bunch of people including his friends and family, the Palestinian and Jordanian medical services and the world's media are somehow concealing this fact fits the definition of "conspiracy theory" perfectly. And Jaakobou the nature of what is in dispute has been explained endlessly above, by myself and others - there is no serious doubt in mainstream news reports as to whether he is dead or not. There is doubt as to who might have fired the actual bullets that killed him, ie was it the IDF as initially claimed by France 2? If so, was that deliberate? Or alternatively was it Palestinian gunfire that killed him? It's not as simple as one version against another, and no-one here has ever attempted to say that the mainstream media has made a "conclusive decision" as to what actually happened - and I repeat that point here for the benefit of editors who keep avoiding it and/or pretending that the article does not reflect that debate. And also of course, writing to what mainstream reliable sources say is not an "editorial attempt" to find the "truth", it's just Wikipedia policy. I don't know what the truth is. Other editors here seem to think they do and are trying to give that version huge and undue prominence in the article, based on their own analysis of what they've seen on Youtube, or on what they've read in blogs and a couple of op-eds. --Nickhh (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nickhh, I disagree that the media has not expressed doubts that "whether he is dead or not." I've seen quite a number of reports that sound like "Initially reported that XXX, but now we hear that YYY". Regardless, and as I've stated before, the issue of his death is unimportant to both sides of the discussion - one alleges Israeli intentional cruelty, and the other alleges Palestinian intentional fabrication, the living status is a side issue here, certainly when you put this story within the perspective of the entire conflict and all the casualties on both sides. I believe that both "conspiracy" allegations should be written as they are presented by both sides without us trying to determine which is the supposedly accepted version - I don't believe any of them were accepted anymore once the second perspective was raised.
 * p.s. I don't believe that the question of the boy's "possibly living" point made by the Shachaf/Karcenty/Enderlin side was really made as their main argument - to me it seemed like a side argument - something like: "with all the Palestinian lies we caught, we can't even be sure that the boy is actually dead". Shahaf did some actual exploration into raising this as remote/dubious/conspiracy/etc. possibility which is more than we can say to Enderlin before he agreed with his stinger cameraman's "evil J00s", "they kept shooting and shooting at them" version. Anyways, I'm certainly not suggesting that the boy is alive, but rather suggesting we focus on what each side alleges and write the article with both "conspiracy/blood-libel" narratives without writing as though the global media decided which story is correct.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once more ....It's not as simple as one version against another, and no-one here has ever attempted to say that the mainstream media has made a "conclusive decision" as to what actually happened - and I repeat that point here for the benefit of editors who keep avoiding it and/or pretending that the article does not reflect that debate.--Nickhh (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe I read your earlier comment wrong, but I believe it said: "there is no serious doubt in mainstream news reports as to whether he is dead or not." which was a statement that I disagreed with. I therefore explained my disagreement and reiterated my suggestion to change the focus of the article. I also believe that the "Israeli conspiracy theories" version is more subtle than you have chosen to present it and that there is an actual research behind it, unlike the "Palestinian blood-libel fabrications" version (I'd prefer if we stop the "conspiracy" language).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did say that there is no serious doubt about his death, that's precisely the point. Yes some people - none of who are forensic analysts or were present at the scene - have questioned whether he is dead, but they are by definition conspiracy theorists, since (as I also pointed out above) it would require a conspiracy of silence to keep the secret. However there is widespread doubt about how he died and exactly what happened that day, as is reflected in most media coverage and hence in this article. Can I stop repeating this point now? --Nickhh (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, who exactly is questioning that MaD is dead? Please show me some unambiguous quotes to that effect. Beit Or 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not very many people at all. That's the point, it's a fringe theory that some editors here seem to believe and want to have given equal weight to in this article, as if it were a valid point of view. --Nickhh (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, who are these people, if they exist? Name names and provide quotes. Beit Or 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Best I'm aware, this is not a main point in the raised arguments and only made as a side comment with Shahaf explaining on why he's willing to suggest something so unexpected. However, I believe this side point has been raised by enough people that the media is actually repeating this suggestion (without taking sides).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We've still got plenty of op-eds and partisan sources being used as references, something else I'm not especially pleased about. FrontPage magazine, for instance apparently runs a "Jihad Watch" (Obama is a Muslim, and hence a clear threat to the Constitution!) and so is clearly a good and fair source for Israeli-Palestinian issues. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From Jihad Watch: "And that's why the mounting evidence that he was indeed known as a Muslim in his youth in Indonesia matters -- not because of some paranoid fantasy that Obama is a Manchurian candidate, a secret Muslim who will tell Americans on January 20, 2009, "Surprise! I'm imposing Sharia!" (I have never credited any of that nonsense) -- but because it raises questions about his honesty." In addition, FrontPage Magazine, which is affiliated with David Horowitz, does not run the Jihad Watch, which is affiliated with Robert Spencer (though neither of them qualifies as a reliable source). This is off-topic, of course, but doing some reading before arguing never hurts. Beit Or 12:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see new editors, or ones that have previously participated on this page but have gone missing for a week or so, comment on this page at this point in time without bothering to get fully up to speed on what has been discussed and presented so far. Editors claiming "there is no serious doubt about his death ", or asking 'who exactly is questioning that MaD is dead?' are invited to read the section above, "Sources from Slim Virgin", which lists 20+ reliable sources, from Ha'aretz to Aftenposten, all of which either express doubts, or directly say "the video is a likely hoax". Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that this page is scrolling very fast. Some of the heavily involved editors are definitely keeping up with things "edit by edit", but others are just going to dip in with occasional comments.  In such cases, it's better to just give them a  polite pointer to what they may wish to be aware of, rather than chastising anyone for not reading the several hundred K of archives. --Elonka 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because I haven't contributed to discussion for a week doesn't mean I haven't been reading it you know (I like the rather grand idea as well that everything's now been sorted out, that you've been proven right and I'm just, like, way behind). I also looked through most of the posted sources at the time anyway, and as discussed back then most of them do not quite make the point you want them to make. Yes some of them discuss the hoax theory, but virtually none - even the op-eds - explicitly endorse it.--Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a way of improving the tone of the discussions here, I encourage everyone to place posts in the third-person (avoid the words "you" and "your"). Also, for best results, it would be preferable if all comments could be focused on specific changes to the article, especially with specific suggestions on wording.  Thanks, --Elonka 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nature of conspiracy theory

 * Can I ask, please (again), that people stop referring to other views as "conspiracy theories"? A conspiracy theory is something that can't be proven false no matter what evidence is produced, because it keeps evolving to accommodate any new evidence. It is an ideology, a cognitive error.


 * In this case, there is no evidence, and never was. What is being alleged by journalists in France who have looked into this carefully is that the France 2 story was, at best, poorly presented &mdash; because when Enderlin said the boy was dead he apparently did not know it to be true; and when he said the IDF had shot him, he had no reason to say that; and when he said the raw footage had been cut to avoid the boy's "death throes," it transpires the footage had never shown any death throes &mdash; and that this poor presentation continued after the fact, and continues today, with the cameraman laughing when asked if any bullets were found, and with bits of the tape even going missing. To raise serious questions about these very serious discrepancies, in a situation where people have died because of this tape, is not what it is to be a conspiracy theorist. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no, a conspiracy theory is a theory that there was some secret conspiracy among a group of people to do something that is then kept hidden, as part of that conspiracy, from the unsuspecting public. In this case, that is the idea that some Palestinians and France 2 plotted together to pretend that this boy was killed, to produce fake video evidence of that and then to broadcast it - and throughout all the years that followed to conceal the "fact" that he is in fact alive and well and now living in Ramallah or wherever. This is what some people are claiming happened. They are not simply noting a couple of discrepancies or "raising questions", they are constructing theories around those questions. And claiming that people have died purely because of this tape - which is a questionable assertion anyway - does not of course make any difference as to whether they are conspiracy theories or not. --Nickhh (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A "conspiracy theory" involves more than just a bunch of people doing something, or being alleged to have done something, and keeping it quiet. Iran-Contra, for example, is not a conspiracy theory. A "conspiracy theory" is a narrative &mdash; usually a secret plot by powerful conspirators &mdash; with an epistemological flaw, namely that nothing can contradict it, because it evolves to incorporate its inconsistencies. It is a closed system. What we have here is a controversy, not a conspiracy theory.


 * BTW, there is no need to involve France 2 in any of this, except that they have not been as open or as rigorous as they could. The maximalist claim is that the cameraman, a local freelance, was involved, not France 2. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The more you explain your idea of what a conspiracy theory is, the more the "hoax" theory being supported here begins to sound like one. And Iran-Contra is indeed not a conspiracy theory - it's a documented series of events that actually happened. The point about a conspiracy theory is that there is very little evidence in favour of it - what the proponents tend to rely on is apparent inconsistencies and "questions" arising out of the standard explanation, from which they build a fantastic and fairly implausible alternative explanation, based around the idea of a secret conspiracy (does that sound familiar at all?) --Nickhh (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A conspiracy theory is not tantamount to a logical fallacy, and it isn't necessarily non-falsifiable. The idea that the al-Durrah death is a "hoax" alleges complicity and cover-up at multiple levels, and it's been propounded by a small number of marginal and ideological pundits, many of whom have taken to using an ethnic slur ("Pallywood") to allege a larger phenomenon of which this is supposedly an instance.  Calling this a "conspiracy theory" is fair comment – debatable, of course, but fair comment.


 * But the term certainly isn't necessary to make the (extremely important) point that ChrisO was making before he was temporarily banned from this article – to wit, that letting the marginal theory of a "hoax" piggyback onto more general criticism of France 2's handling of the al-Durrah episode violates WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with WP:UNDUE, of course, is that it assumes that there is a consensus as to how much weight to give a particular theory or view of events. No such consensus exists here.  6SJ7 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you G-Dett, that it is a fair but debatle comment to call the "hoax" theory a "conspiracy theory". However I don't think it is generally a useful comment on this talk page.  It hinders the dialogue that we are trying to create here when some users use dismissive language, even if it is an otherwise reasonable opinion.  --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead, yet again
Per Elonka's suggestion above, back to some specific changes to the article. The lead, post ChrisO's edits, reads much differently than the last version which appeared to have a consensus (or at least, a plurality of editors supporting it) - which was Slim Virgin's. One element that was present in Slim Virgin's version but is missing form the current lead is the issue of the FT 2 footage - 57 seconds published out of 3 minutes released out of a total of 27 filmed, and subsequently the refusal of FT 2 to release the rest of the footage, until the recent court case. I propose we re-introduce SV's summary of this important fact, which contributed to the controversy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is felt that the lead would be strengthened with this information, and it complies with WP:LEAD, go ahead and put the information in (while of course ensuring that it is kept scrupulously sourced). However, rather than "restoring SlimVirgin's wording", I recommend trying to find a slightly different way of saying it, which keeps things neutral and addresses some of the other concerns that have been raised, which caused it to be removed by someone else. --Elonka 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is that significant, and certainly not significant enough for the lead. It's kind of obvious that broadcast news reports use edited and cut down versions of what was originally filmed. What happened in this case is that people pushing the "hoax" theory have siezed on this totally normal practice as if it were evidence that somehow backs up their allegations (ie that France 2 were hiding something). Putting that in the lead gives tacit backing to that claim. It only needs mentioning as part of the broader detail, further down. --Nickhh (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is of course common to use edited and cut down versions of what was originally filmed. It is not common to refuse to release the unedited footage when it is requested, and it is not common to edit the raw footage so as to completely eliminate the context - which in this case was 20+ minutes of staged scenes and play acting.  But this is really  not about what you and I think is common practice, but about what reliable sources say about th editing. If reliable sources say that France 2's editing was problematic and contributed to the controversy - I don't see why we wouldn't mention it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of the footage, and who saw what, is essential to this article. France 2 filmed for 27 minutes. Of these, only 59 seconds were shown, purportedly including the boy's death. The media was given access to three minutes. The scenes shown did not include the scene with the boy moving at the end. Enderlin said this was to spare the audience the boy in "agony" or his "death throes." Two senior, independent French journalists were given access to the whole 27 minutes in 2005. They said that there was no agony, and there were no death throes. So far as I know, France 2 has never explained this discrepancy. The journalists also said it was obvious that, before the scenes of the shooting, Palestinians were play-acting at being injured.


 * Then, in 2008, the Paris Court of Appeal asked to view those 27 minutes. However (if I have understood things correctly), nine minutes of the tape has apparently been destroyed, and only 18 minutes could be found for the court. This in itself is very unusual. News organizations do not destroy parts of sensitive footage that court cases hinge on, and that journalists all over the world want to view.


 * What is also odd is why there is nothing on the tape that shows what happened to the boy after the shooting -- no scenes showing his removal to an ambulance, no one shown tending to him, nothing. Or if there is, I have not seen or read about it.


 * There are basically two views, what journalists are calling the minimalist and maximalist views. The former is that there may have been a shooting and the boy may indeed have died, but there is something fishy about the way France 2 filmed and presented it, and there is no evidence that the shots came from the IDF. The maximalist view is that it was entirely staged with the cooperation of the cameraman. Both these views hinge on the doubts surrounding the footage, so not even to touch on those issues in the lead would be obtuse of us. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's relevant to the lead. The lead has to say there is a dispute about the accuracy of the reporting, and then it can expand on why, and the arguments of those who are challenging the authenticity (which as you've summarised them above are pretty weak, but that's another point), in the main body of the article. This is more or less what it does currently. I don't think we need the detail about what is or isn't in the video itself right from the start. --Nickhh (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But we should restore that 59 seconds were broadcast, three minutes distributed, 27 minutes in total filmed. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Video of doctor
Someone raised a question about the video of the doctor that Julia1987 wanted to use as a source, saying it couldn't be used because we didn't know the original source or when it was broadcast.

I believe this is the original, which was broadcast on Israel's Channel 10 on December 13, 2007. It's an interview with a doctor saying he treated Jamal al-Durrah in 1994 for the injuries the latter says were sustained in the 2000 shooting. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a link to the same interview on another website that Julia1987 added.  SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag at the top
What is it doing there? There is no consensus that this person is still alive, and, as it has been pointed out above, this article is not actually a biography. Beit Or 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's there to remind us that Phillip Karsenty, Richard Landes, Nidra Poller, Steve Silver and other are living people, and that editors should be very very careful about smearing them as "right wing fantasists", "loony conspiracy theorists" and other similar terms that seem to be used quite liberally on this talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and Charles Enderlin, Talal Abu Rahma, and Jamal al-Durrah...--G-Dett (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Like I said above, I was hopeful when Elonka suggest that we wordsmith a solution to this one. But I think that this is a tough issue and we are an imperfect group of humans. It looks like it won't come easy. I think that before we can start to bridge our differences, we need to know what they are and reconcile that they might co-exist on the page. I didn't enjoy it but I did take undergrad mediation. As you can see from the section heading, I did read Getting to Yes. So I'd like to know what people want, rather than hearing which policies they think other users are violating. So could you please say so below, without commenting on other users ideas for now. When we know what everyone wants, we can start to think of ways to make something work for everyone. *crosses fingers for luck* --JGGardiner (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Julia1987

 * We are dealing here with a case in which 1/2 of the world think it is a true news story and the other half thinks this is the biggest staged fabricated story. In between those we must keep NPOV – which means that we can not use the photos from this "news" story or the story itself as facts we must present them as what they are: One sided view with an alternative view which claim it is a fabrication.


 * We can not judge between the two – all we can is bring each side, each "evidence" or what is claimed as evidence. That is it. The reader will decide ... [Derogatory remarks or comments about another editor moved; see below]. --Julia1987 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[Derogatory remarks or comments about other editors moved; see below.] SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

 * Thank you for the constructive question, JGG. I would like to see a well-written, nuanced article that succinctly addresses all the questions a reader immediately thinks of (insofar as these have been addressed by reliable sources): (a) who actually witnessed the incident, (b) who else was present, (c) who has seen the tape, (d) what does the last scene of the footage show, (e) why did the tape end there, (e) who saw the boy's injuries, (f) was there an autopsy, and if not, why not, (g) where and when was he buried and who was present, (h) was there any forensic evidence, and if not, why not, (i) what were the political consequences?


 * I'd like to see these issues addressed within a narrative that flows naturally and intelligently, describing the incident as reported at the time, then as reported later on. I'd like to see it written sensitively, bearing in mind that, if the boy died as France 2 described, it is deeply offensive to his family to imply otherwise. But we should also bear in mind, with each sentence we write, that if he didn't die as described (or even didn't die at all), this is a major media scandal that led to many deaths on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, because the stories about the boy helped to fuel the Second Intifada.


 * The alternative theories can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories, because there are too many serious commentators with doubts about France 2's reporting. The writing needs to be such that we don't endorse the France 2 view, but also don't undermine it by weaving the shadow of the alternative theories throughout the entire article. That will take a lot of careful wordsmithing.  SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[Derogatory remarks or comments about other editors moved; see below.] SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * The fact that you call it a "conspiracy theories" show how far are you yourself a representative of a fringe view. In the name of this view you have edit-war endlessly and disrupted this aerticle ever since the verdict in france was announced. There is no other alternative but to suggest that you will be banned from this article so that others will be able to edit it and get an updated version based on the most recent sources. --Julia1987 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That kind of language is just not helpful on the talk page. If you have a problem with something specific that another editor says, try to let them know only that.  If we want to make progress on the article we are going to have to work together.  I think that it would be a good start if we could all respect the other editors even if we disagree with them.  I think that everyone here is working for what they feel are the best interests for the article and the project.  --JGGardiner (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to secong JGG here, Julia (with repect), and ask you to help lower the temperature. I know it's a highly emotional issue, but all the more reason, really, to hew to AGF. I'd also like to suggest that Elonka has a good idea in terms of mediation. Neutral (and deliberative) opinions are often a breath of fresh air. IronDuke  00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * If you by "1/2 of the world" you refer to 50% then you are so very wrong. The number of people believing in the conspiracy theories is utterly small seen on a global scale. It's just some highly vocal conspiracy theorist on the far right. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Comment - would be best to stop calling either the Talal/Enderlin or the Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian perspectives as conspiracies. Stick to the known facts and let the readers decide.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [in response to SV] You're right in that they can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories. They should be dismissed as "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)
 * I would appreciate if everyone could keep focused on actual changes to the article. If there is disagreement on specific text, then please suggest different text, or make changes yourself, if they are in line with the current . --Elonka 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Far too much detail on Karsenty court case
Honest Reporting (an unremarkable propaganda source) report that "The international media virtually ignores Philippe Karsenty's court victory". That strikes me as near-enough cast-iron proof of what we were bound to suspect - there is no reason for us to publicise a campaign the RSs are ignoring. PRtalk 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are over 25 mainstream sources listed at the top of the page. The claim than RSs are ignoring this is false. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be bizarre indeed if HonestReporting was found to be under-stating the importance of this court case. I'm not sure where these 25 references are, I can only see 3 and they're at the bottom of the article page. If that's the level of interest (one wire-story and two local), then HonestReporting would seem to be correct. PRtalk 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources. --Elonka 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume Elonka you are only pointing to this link so that editors have the opportunity to review the material presented there, and you are not endorsing SlimVirgin's research or conclusions. Yes it looks like quite a few media reports, but on analysis most are to op-eds or even blogs (the Spectator link) rather than factual news reporting. And not one of the latter is a factual news piece that affirms the "hoax" theory - they merely report briefly on the case. None scream "this overturns everything that we know!!". There is indeed too much in both the lead and the main article about the controversy, and I've never understood why there is a clamour to add yet more, especially when we are relying on mainstream, reliable news sources for our information. --Nickhh (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not looking for news stories that affirm the hoax theory. We're looking to see whether reliable sources are writing about it, and they clearly are -- not just opinion pieces, but editorials too, as well as news stories. BTW, please don't call the Spectator pieces "blogs": many news organizations run columns that they call "blogs," but it's a gimmick. There is professional editorial oversight, and the columns are written by a well-known journalist, so they count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When your opinion and attempts at original research are directly contradicted by a source that supports the viewpoint you yourself believe under-represented, that is the time to withdraw with as much grace as possible, I'd say. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For best results, please try to avoid comments directed at other editors, and instead focus on suggestions for improvements to the article. It can be helpful to try and place posts in the third-person, such as to avoid the words "you" and "your". Thanks, --Elonka 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A modicum of research - the barest of glances at this talkpage - will note that I scrupulously followed that "rule" when nobody else did, and it did not lead to the best results. Given that, I'd question the relevance, accuracy and plain and simple justice of the above post. :) -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My answer below actually addresses several of these points - I'm not denying opinion pieces are valid sources, I'm just clarifying what they may be valid sources for. Nor am I denying the "hoax" theory is being covered in some fashion, it's about whether we suggest it is credible or not according to reliable sources, and the weight we choose to put on it here - and plenty is currently being put in this article. I understand the principles of blogs, and blogs on newspaper, broadcast or magazine sites very well btw. And I know Melanie Phillips for example is well-known, and also what she is mostly well-known for these days. --Nickhh (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your exclusion of op-ed pieces shows over-attachment to one side of this issue. we are seeking to cover an issue which is clearly notable and significant, by any standard. there is no reason to exclude credible sources just because they are op-ed pieces. there is nothing in wikipedia rules which excludes credible op-ed pieces. not every source is a newspaper article or a history book. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all, op-ed pieces are of course about the opinion of the author. The fact that the writer may have a column in a newspaper does not give them expert knowledge of the facts in question. Indeed in a lot of papers, columnists and op-ed writers get where they are because a lot of the time they are controversial or "outspoken". I have no attachment to one "side" or the other, I merely want to make sure that what we write here is reliably sourced fact, or alernatively credited as being opinion if that's what it is. Nor have I suggested the - undoubtedly real - controversy about what happened should not be covered. The issue though, as ever, is due weight and a fair acknowledgement of what is verified fact and what is opinion or speculation. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ps: Please no-one reply that the France 2 version is not verified either, we've been over that one many times ..
 * Are you suggesting that we ignore editorials and opinion pieces or what? I'm not sure what position you're trying to argue here. Beit Or 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought I was being clear - all I was doing in so many words is stating what it says here. That is, be aware of the difference between news reporting based on speaking to sources and collating evidence, and a columnist giving us the benefit of their thoughts about the state of the world today. Actually I think this guideline is a bit over-cautious, because opinion pieces can of course sometimes set out facts as well as more speculative comment, all in the same paragraph. But there you are. --Nickhh (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably, this is the result of confusion between facts and opinions. The judgment in the Karsenty case is a fact. Many renowned journalists and mainstream media have expressed their opinion that evidence presented by Karsenty and others casts significant doubt over the France 2 story. The concern over the use of opinion pieces is misplaced because that's where opinions are published, by definition. Beit Or 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, just as a nudge here, perhaps it would be more productive to talk about specific changes to the article? For example, "too much detail" is a bit vague.  Does this mean "Shrink the section down by 50%" or "10 sentences need to be removed"?  I encourage folks to try and make actual changes.  For example, someone could go to the article and delete a few sentences or rework a paragraph, with an edit summary of "Condensing section".  Then let it sit for a day or two, and see if anyone objects?  If someone wants the information back in, they could add some of it back (remember, don't revert!), perhaps with slightly different wording to indicate the re-added information's importance to the article? --Elonka 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest we take out all reference to the libel case, which according to one intimately involved source, has been ignored by the RSs (or the twist that brought in these new and un-labelled SPAs has been ignored, anyway). The matter is not concluded, it adds nothing whatsoever to the actual story of this incident and everyone seems to agree it exposes the project to legal risk from up to 7 sources. Don't misunderstand me, this information would probably be very useful in other stories, perhaps a section detailing law-suits against journalists as probably belongs in Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. PRtalk 11:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NO. The story has no tbeen ignored at all - you were pointed to the subpage of this article that currently lists more than two dozen articles covering it. The matter is indeed not concluded, and we will update the article as new developments occur. The claim that a notable allegation that the entire incident was staged 'adds nothing whatsoever to the actual story of this incident' is not a serious claim that deserves response. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As expected, the restrictions and premature unprotection have resulted in a disastrously weighted (and extremely poorly written) article. I am unsurprised. Whatever, another bad article being used as a soapbox by conspiracy theorists. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the restriction have led to significant improvements. You are welcome to participate and improve the artcile further, if you have any specific suggestions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * @Relata - I'm sure that bad editing could never drive out good. Have a look at Fisk: Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb and tell us whether an article headline, unsupported by the text, could ever be used to prove a negative. PRtalk 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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