Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

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.[1] Jaakobou^{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^{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." [2] 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^{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.[3] Jaakobou^{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 Wikipedia: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^{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 Wikipedia: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: [4] --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: [5] --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,[6] 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^{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^{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 Wikipedia: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: [7] 18 minutes of France 2 raw footage, Part I: [8] Part II: [9] 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"[10] are not in the spirit of Wikipedia: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^{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:

1. I don't think Landes claimed the boy had not been killed are you certain about this?
2. 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").
3. 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^{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)

1. "I've systematically reviewed the press coverage of the case to determine the relative popularity of the various positions" - this is WP:OR.
2. "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.
3. "we are merely trying to keep nonsense out of this article" - please see:[11] - 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 Wikipedia:CIV#Considerations_concerning_civility. 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^{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^{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)

1. "Round Earth, Sun revolving around earth rather than vice versa, all ideas that were "fringe ideas" at one time." - so what ?
2. "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
3. "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: [12]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)

My thoughts on the Karsenty issue

My feeling is that Karsenty isn't that important -- even for the hoax theory. If France had a stricter libel standard or his website was hosted abroad, he might not have been pursued by France 2 and we'd have never heard of him. I think the Karsenty affair has some notability and I'd probably make it into an article on its own but I think it probably doesn't deserve much mention in this article. Not that he is wrong per se but the trial didn't really reslove anything. Like Chris said above, his speech was deemed permissible but not necessarily correct. All it did say that he based his notions on his own evidence rather than simply inventing them out of thin air.

That said, I think it is important that the court-appointed, independent ballistics expert said the bullets could not have come from the Israeli position. That's important. I don't think we have other opinions from disinterested experts. But the resolution of the trial doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't know before it. It may be that it spurs other people to talk about it but we'll have to wait and see.

Just my opinion. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Karsenty himself is negligible. It is the two descriptions of the same events that matter. For convince we can name them as the Talal/Endrlin view and the Shahaf/Karsenty view.--Julia1987 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, when you look at the sources there are actually three views (and perhaps four, depending on which way you slice it):

• Israelis probably killed al-Dura (original media reportage)
• Palestinians may have killed al-Dura (later media reportage)

• Nobody knows for sure who killed al-Dura (predominant current view)

• Incident was staged and al-Dura isn't dead (Karsenty/Landes conspiracy theory)

The first three are reflected in a huge amount of reliable sources - hundreds if not thousands of media reports, books, etc. The latter is only really supported by a handful of op-ed columnists, plus of course some right-wing bloggers and a few thoroughly unreliable websites. It has nothing like as much prominence among the sources as the other views.

Julia, let me put this simply: you want to get an opt-out from WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions. This is not going to happen. NPOV is non-negotiable, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's favourite conspiracy theory. If that's all you're here for (and judging by your edit history and talk page comments, it looks like it), then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

Incidentally, I noticed that the Jerusalem Post has (somewhat surprisingly) posted a scathing op-ed piece on the conspiracy theorists [13]. It's worth a read. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

it certainly is somwhat surprising. wasn't it your nutty assertion above that the jerusalem post failed as a reliable source because it's part of conrad black's zionist media conspiracy? i think you did. in fact anyone can see that you did right up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#NPOV_in_light_of_the_Karsenty_verdict

i guess the rule is that op-eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chrisO's narrative; must-reads which establish the fact of the matter when they do work for chrisO's narrative. court-appointed forensic ballistics experts are "fringe kooks" also.

side note, i actually added text which stated discretly that the libel conviction had been overturned by a higher court, but that was rv'd. such a statement of fact is a little too stark for the article campers' tastes. such things have to be insulated and obscured by intricately-parsed verbosity which in the end gives the impression that nothing was decided in the court case at all. the operative definition here for npov violation, after all, is "not chrisO's pov.

I agree with both Jaakobou and ChrisO: personally I do not know if the boy is alive or not. I hope for him he is alive but despite the fact that is a boy in his age called "Mohamed a-dura" in Gaza (a boy admired as hero by his peers) let us assume that he is indeed dead. Still there is as Chris suggest a "predominant current view : Nobody knows for sure who killed al-Dura" We should there for highlight this fact " Nobody knows for sure" in the article lead so as not to apear as placing blame on this or that side as it is not Wikipedia role to place blame. Next we should present the main views: There is the Abu Rahma report that IDF killed the boy and there is the other view – for NPOV sake both should be presented.

--Julia1987 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. IP to also see a double standard regarding op-eds here. I think the discussion would be in much better condition if people were to take up my suggestion for FTN, RfC or some other type of mediation. Someone willing to do the source work to assert their perspective would also be a nice change of pace. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on Jaakobou, surely you can see the difference between using an op-ed as a source for facts in an article and mentioning an op-ed on a talk page as an interesting read? Your "double standard" would imply that we're not allowed to mention op-eds anywhere, even on a talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email about my thoughts. You know where to catch me if you feel like discussing my above comment without further taking this page off topic.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess this is "my" section so I'll post this here. The Toronto Star, the most widely circulated, if not the best, paper in my country just posted an decent, even-handed article on the controversy.[14]

Also, I have a few questions and ideas that have come up. I'm new to this controversy so some of you might know the answers already. Firstly, I have noticed differeng opinions on the talk page about Shahaf. One says that he believes in the hoax like Karsenty, the other that he only doubts the bullets were Israeli. Which is it? I'm also thinking that the "independent journalists" and "Leconte" sections could be condensed. They were important earlier when they described the unseen rushes. But now that the rushes are available, they are less so. And this makes me think that perhaps the information should be grouped more thematically, rather than in chronolgical order. Right now it is a bit clunky and and I think confusing for readers. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the Star refers to Al-Dura as "the apparently dead" boy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:58, 4 June 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: [15] 18 minutes of France 2 raw footage, Part I: [16] Part II: [17] 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^{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^{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, Wikipedia: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." [18] 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^{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." [19] 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 [20]. -- 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^{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^{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^{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 Wikipedia:RS#Claims of consensus - 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”- [21], On Australia’s News.com (“Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax” - [22]), The Daily Telegarph (‘Fanning flames with a hoax” - [23]), The European jewish press (“...the whole incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes...” - [24]), The San Francisco Sentinel (‘FRENCH COURT FINDS FRANCE 2 MEDIA MISLED WORLD - ISRAEL KILLING OF PALESTINIAN BOY A HOAX- [25]), The Ottawa Citizen (“All the lies that are fit to print" - [26]), World Politics Review (When bad Journalism Kills - “...what if the tragedy did not happen? What if it was all a hoax? ...” - [27]) , Israel Today (“French Court Confirms: Al-Dura Report Faked - [28]), even in Ha’aretz – that bastion of left-wing opinion , for heaven’s sake! (“Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged” - [29]). 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 Wikipedia: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 , Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Reminder no WP:OR

ChrisO: "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. "

Thank you for this research.

Many of the "thousands edits" were before the recent court decision.

Your original research is not by doing the search but by making a conclusion based on that number of articles. The only conclusion we can conclude is that indeed the original France 2 report has been rebroadcast and repeated world wide by many media outlets. This is the only conclusion which is fact and not original research.

If you have a source saying "because this was published many times this means it is true" please show this source.

Some may see in this conclusion an indication about how antisemitism is spread. If we have sources connecting this accusation to antisemitism we can point that out.

We need now to focus on the post court verdict coverage, on the court verdict itself and on the experts that the court heard (and accepted their view). This is what we need to do as good encyclopedia editors if we want to keep this encyclopedia current with the best available data to date. --Julia1987 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments dated 08:11, 2 June 2008 in the section above. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this [30] is a threat but I do not that this [31] is either a lie or irrelevant for me.

I have not promoted original research – therefore the sentence "promotion of personal views and original research." Is either an unjustified attack on my behavior as an editor or it is an unjustified thereat? Now I understand that ChrisO is what's called "an administrator" however I also understand that actions taken by administrator need to be taken by someone who is uninvolved in a discussion. Since ChrisO is clearly involved I would ask that the following steps are taken:

1. removal of the notice given by ChrisO. If another uninvolved administrator would like to place it I would welcome the notification but would wonder as to why is it relevant to me as I have not promoted any original research. Most of m edits were a civil discussion here on the talk page trying to gather cooperation to change the article based on new sources (the court verdict and press articles discussing the newly published court verdict)
2. apology by ChrisO since he seems to accuse me of behavior I did not engage in.
3. ChrisO himself need to be warned that placing the label "conspiracy theory" on the Karsenty accusations (which were cleared by the court) is actually promotion of his own personal view: That the Karsenty view is "fringe theory".

What I learn from this experience is that there are people who would use their authority to promote their own political views. This is not new in this world and now it seems this takes place in an encyclopedia that supposed to be "free for all". I have noticed that ChrisO was first trying to gather support for his view in the "Fringe Theory" board[32] but once he failed he turned into using his power as an administrator.--Julia1987 (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: CrisO's opening of an FTN notice was a proper move. Notifying of the Arb case was proper also, although, I think the judgmental tone was out of place considering his direct involvement in the discussions. I think editors here should consider on how to present their cases (with sources) for FTN observers and a possible future mediation/RfC. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your entire point of view on this is fundamentally and fatally flawed, as it rests on your conclusion that the ruling addressed Karsenty's the truthfulness of Karantsky's claims. It did not, it only ruled that his saying it was not libelous. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to enter a discussion with you on your understanding of the court vs my understanding of the court. We need to use sources - do you have any post trial sources supporting your view ?

Clearly there are enough sources that see the ruling as casting a serious doubt on France-2 version of events. Why do you think France-2 was trying so hard to prove the facts? If the issue was what you claim the only issue in court would be interpretation of free speech laws in France. Obviously they went beyond: The court saw the rushes, the court heard ballistics experts. The court has looked at the facts. If the facts would have been as France-2 claim we would know about it. So now we are left with doubts and NPOV is presenting two sides of the story "describe the controversy".--Julia1987 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We've seen this method of attack by others in the past; take the prevailing opinion (which you oppose), take the minority viewpoint (you support), magically place the two upon equal footing, and then demand in the spirit of "NPOV" that both be given equal footing in the given article. Didn't work then, not going to work now. Your understanding of the court decision is factually incorrect, this is not a matter of conflicting opinion. Let's take stock of what legitimate sources have to say, such as the BBC;

In its ruling on Wednesday, the appeals court said it was "legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world". [33]

The decision simply upheld the right of a media watchdog group to, y'know, watch the media. Reading into this decision that it was a vindication or affirmation of the watchdog's assertions is a stretch of credulity. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you bother to read the sources you deleted and reverted you will find views that are different but I guess you choose to ignore and bring selective quotes…--Julia1987 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at some sources that have been posted here and even gone looking for some myself to back up your claims. I still have yet to see any mainstream piece of news reporting or professional legal analysis that concurs with your view that this "monumental" [sic] verdict has fundamentally changed anything about the underlying issue. I see a lot of comment pieces from right-wing websites and postings from the various blogs and forums claiming that the verdict somehow backs up their long-held views, but if you don't mind I am going to discount those. The article currently covers the court case and the facts of the verdict in a pretty straight and NPOV way. --Nickhh (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All of Us who Differ in our opinions from Chris O get a Warning?

What's up with this? I noticed that everyone of us who believe that the recent verdict no longer means that the view that that the AlDurah affair may be a hoax is a 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' view are being sanctioned? Is that what wiki means when it talks about achieving consensus? Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, no one is being sanctioned with this notice. I concur that this one-sided, selective notice seems more like an attempt to intimidate those with a different point of view, than a simple notice to all parties involved. I'd like to hear ChrisO explain why he chose not to issue a similar notice to Tarc or Nickh. That said, it is certainly within ChrisO's right to issue such a notice. Having done so in such a one-sided fashion, and given his strongly partisan POV pushing on this article, I am sure ChrisO realizes that he is a heavily involved editor on this article, and that he woulld not even dream of using any of his administrative tools on this page or the against the editors invloved in this dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The notice is a needed step and it must be done by an admin – an uninvolved admin…--Julia1987 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the notice can be posted by any admin, but any enforcement action has to be done by an uninvolved admin. But hopefully that won't be necessary. The purpose of the notice is to inform users who may not be aware of the arbitration case that there are certain restrictions on these articles. As new users, you, Canadian Monkey and Tundrabuggy joined after the arbitration was decided and weren't necessarily aware of its provisions, therefore you needed to be notified. It's not a threat, merely a procedural thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it feels like a little more than mere 'notification'. It was put on a log and both Julia and I were accused of "single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research." It does feel personal. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been a Wikipedia editor for less than a week. You created your account on the day of the verdict. Your first edit and most of your subsequent edits have been to this article. Julia has been an editor for only a week longer, and has never edited any article other than this one. The two of you obviously have a particular interest in this article; I'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for some advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have made edits in the past without having a user account and am fairly aware of Wiki's policies and standards. Nor am I a single-purpose account - and if the the date coincides with the date of the verdict, it is mere coincidence. Because of the argumentation surrounding this issue I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time on it. I believe my edits to have been valuable and well-thought out, and have attempted to be NPOV. What I got for my trouble is a logged warning, lots of reverts, and some accusations which are not even true. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While we’re handing out advice, here’s some for you, ChrisO: Have a read of this, and stop intimidating new editors, especially using false information. According to this, Tundrabuggy has edited 11 different articles. He has edited BBC (5 times) nearly as much as he edited Muhammad al-Durrah (6 times). There’s nothing to indicate this is a Single-purpose account. It may be helpful for you to reflect on the fact that when you started editing Wikipedia, you edited a grand total of two articles during your first three weeks. So unless you, too, started out your editing career as a “single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research”, please stop describing other new editors that way. (and, btw, an apology would not be out of order, either). Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, WP:BITE is really not applicable to a user whose first contributions (as Southkept) to the Wikipedia were to a contentious ArbCom case. The edit history of both accounts bears out an extremely narrow focus of intent. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The history of both accounts? The history of one or two weeks determines "an extremely narrow focus of interest?" Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:BITE applies to each and every new editor, and WP:AGF strongly cautions against the kind of bad faith assumptions you are making here, with a specific emphasis on doing this with regards to new editors. If you can't extend this minimum of courtesy to editors who've been here less than a week, you should not be editing contentious articles. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being a newbie or having a narrow focus. But new or single-purpose editors sometimes make the mistake of not familiarising themselves with Wikipedia's policies and standards, and diving into articles without understanding the requirements they have to meet. Misunderstandings of NPOV and sourcing policies are particularly common. It's not the fault of Tundrabuggy or Julia (or Canadian Monkey) that they've made those mistakes, but I think it's not unreasonable to expect them to listen to good-faith advice on why their suggested changes don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that it's a lot harder to be a newbie editor than it was when I joined - Wikipedia's policies have been tightened up a lot over the last few years. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That much is true. Now if you had simply made sure that Tundrabuggy or Julia were aware of policy, by pointing them to the approriate page before baselessly accusing them of being SPAs and of promotion of personal views and original research, we wouldn't have this debate. As I pointed out, you edited 2 articles for your first 3 weeks on Wikipedia, and I expect you didn't think of yourself as a SPA then. Please extend the same courtesy to an editor who has edited more than twice the number of articles in his firsst week. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Simply made sure that Tundrabuggy or Julia were aware of policy"? I've been doing this from the start. The frustrating thing is that you, Tundrabuggy and Julia don't seem to accept the requirements of WP:NPOV. Let me remind you that NPOV is non-negotiable. We all have to start from that baseline. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what you have been doing is attempting to win a content dispute through the use of intimidation tactics, and the framing of that dispute as problematic behavior by your opponents. This needs to stop. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, this might be a bit more fruitful if you tried actually engaging with any of the policies that I've been quoting repeatedly on this page. Take WP:UNDUE, which is at the heart of this issue. I've yet to see you or any of the other conspiracy theorists even acknowledging this policy, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable part of the neutral point of view policy. What is your view on how WP:UNDUE applies to this article? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Court Decision re Muhammed Al-Dura

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF

Rough translation to English re AugeanStables: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/category/france/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first link is [I should say "claims to be"?] to a photocopy of the report in the original French. Can it be added to the article, and if so, where? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to put the link in the article. But theaugeanstables appears to be an advocacy blog. For an article like this I'd really prefer that we had a better source on it. But if they got it, presumably it is available. But it is still informative for us to read so thanks for the link. I don't really doubt that is genuine I'm just not sure that is good enough for the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JGGardiner. This blogs doesn't seem suitable to take "originals" from. How about requesting a copy of the transcripts from the court and uploading to wiki-commons? (just a thought) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You could maybe contact the stables guy and ask from where he got his copy to get you started on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, Tundrabuggy. I have to say it's extremely difficult to read, both in the original French and in the (rather defective) English translation. I'll make some notes on it below for general interest. However, I should point out that our own personal takes on the ruling are not eligible for inclusion in the article, being original research, and we need to rely on what other sources say (by which I mean reliable sources, not blogs or advocacy websites). In that respect, people might like to have a look at what Le Monde has published - evidently it has a copy of the ruling as well. [34] -- ChrisO (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a point re: one's own personal takes. But when I Google News (Al-Dura & hoax) or (Al-Dura & staged) -- I get a lots of links. One Op Ed from the Jerusalem Post Staff refers to it as a "myth" . An Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal Europe says "the incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes" "the court ruled that Mr. Karsenty's allegation -- that the clip was staged -- was the reasonable conclusion." David Warren, Ottawa Citizen columnist , <Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged> By Ha'aretz Staff "Independent observers who have seen the film say the whole thing appears staged" are just a few of the many articles that characterise the situation thus. My point in putting this up is not to publish my own research, (which it is not) or to do a synthesis (which it is not); but merely to emphasize my point, and I think Julia's, that weight must be given to it at on the grounds that (especially since this new verdict) the viewpoint is held by a "significant" minority and has "prominent adherents." WP:NPOV Since the court verdict, it would not even be unreasonable to suggest that since neither position has been proven, and the original position has lost its authority due to the court ruling -- it not unreasonable to suggest the France 2 version was a hoax (or staged). That being the case, that position should now have some (serious -- not undue) weight. To me that means putting it in the lead as a legitimized view, not putting it in as throw-away "conspiracy/fringe theory" Martians-are-landing stuff. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Google machine translation link: [35]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

IDF admission

I've noticed the admission quote by the BBC came from Giora Eiland and looked him up a bit.

Apparently, he noted that his statement came before any investigation and without haveing proper details into the issue.

Source: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-896228,00.html

Translation:
Eiland took upon himself the responsibility for the world's attack on Israel after the death of the Muhamad al-Durrah boy. "I said on the day it happned, that it appears that the boy was shot by the fire of IDF soldiers and I shouldn't have said it, because I did not have enough information on it. There should have been done a quick research and only after a week a statement ("to talk"). Today, after a research which took two months, I am uncertain that we shot him, but also today I don't know with certainty who's fire killed the boy"
Original:

איילנד לקח על עצמו את האחריות להתנפלות העולם על ישראל לאחר מות הילד מוחמד א-דורה. "אני אמרתי ביום שזה קרה, שככל הנראה הילד נורה מאש של חיילי צה"ל ולא הייתי צריך לומר זאת, כי לא היה לי מספיק מידע על כך. צריך היה לקיים תחקיר מהיר ורק לאחר שבוע לדבר. היום, לאחר תחקיר שארך חודשיים, אני לא בטוח שאנחנו ירינו בו, אבל גם היום אינני יודע בוודאות האש של מי הרגה את הילד".

Hope this helps the into issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, you don't expect updates to be included in this article - the whole world saw on (almost)live TV who killed him and there is no need to confuse anyone with facts. BBC say Israel did it, the age uses the "conspiracy theorists" so why bother with all the rest.... --Julia1987 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, I understand your frustration with the current state of affairs here, but the solution is not to give up, and reduce your participation to sarcastic remarks. The nice thing about the project is that it is a collaborative effort, managed through consensus. There is a pretty large contingent of editors here who believe that what you say has merit, and working together, we will eventually write this article in a NPOV way, which reflects the facts. As a constructive first step, I think Jaakobu makes a valid point, and we should incorporate this information into the article – it looks like Tundrabuggy has already done this.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, however be advised that virtually all if not all of my edits have been reverted. :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider "not NPOV" about the current version? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 changes introduced by your edit to the lead on June 1st (which Tarc has been edit warring back into the article) which have changed a long standing consensus in a direction that runs contrary to what recent events suggest. I've already described these, but I'll repeat them again, for your benefit and Tarc's.

Until June 1st, the lead stated in a neutral way "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....Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire." This consensus version had been in the article for many months, at least since the beginning of the year. The recent events - the court verdict which said that the theory that the incident was staged can't be dismissed, and that the testimony of the F2 camaraman is not credible, and the subsequent media coverage of the verdict - suggest that 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 was in the opposite direction – you rewrote the lead so as to remove the neutral wording, to state as fact (twice) that the boy was killed, and to introduce another, irrelevant POV-pushing sentence (“The killing of … other Palestinian civilians was strongly criticized by the international community”). This is simply unacceptable. If you want to change a long standing consensus, you must make a case for that change here on the Talk page, and get consensus for your new version. You have clearly not achieved such a consensus. I am reverting back to the wording that existed for months prior to your undiscussed change, and ask that neither you nor Tarc edit it back into the article unless you have consensus for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, the ironic thing is that the version you keep reverting to is one that I wrote a long time ago, though I wouldn't expect you to know that given that you've only been editing this article for two weeks and therefore won't know about the article's history or the previous discussions on this talk page. I wrote the lead as a simple summary of the article, before I was able to do a systematic survey of coverage in reliable sources earlier this year. That research (have you done any, by the way?) enabled me to determine that the conspiracy theory viewpoint is very much a view held by a small minority, and therefore as WP:UNDUE puts it, "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." Hence the recent rewrite of an unwieldy intro which puts far too much emphasis on the conspiracy theories.

Your proposals suggest that you have some major misunderstandings about what Wikipedia policy requires. That's disappointing considering you've been an editor for six months, but maybe nobody's properly explained NPOV to you before. I'll take some time tomorrow to put together a point-by-point explanation of what NPOV requires and how it applies to this article. Hopefully you, Julia and Tundrabuggy will find it of some use. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I’m going to ignore your patronizing and condescending tone. I am quite familiar with WP:NPOV and need no lessons from you. Let me address your arguments using facts and pointing you to policies you are apparently unfamiliar with. Firstly, you do not own this article, and as such, it does not matter one whit if the version I am reverting to was originally written by you, or anyone else. If it were true that you wrote that version, that would be all the more reason for you to explain, on the Talk page, why you no longer think that what you originally wrote is neutral. But of course, it is simply false that you wrote the version I am reverting to. The wording “reported to have been killed” has been in the lead since December 12, 2005, and was originally inserted, as far as I can tell, by User:Leifern, with this edit. It has survived in this form (with some minor variations here and there) for nearly two and a half years, accepted both by those who cast doubt on the veracity of the claims by France 2, as well as by those who, like you, think that You really have to scrape the barrel to find people who believe the incident was staged. The words “became an icon of the Palestinian uprising on September 30, 2000 when he was filmed crouched behind his father” have been in the article at least since September 5, 2007, when they were introduced by user Mattelle.

Your first edit to the lead of this article, as far as I can tell, came in the beginning of this year, when both the “reported to have been killed” and the “became an icon ...when he was filmed” formulations were already well entrenched as the consensus version. So no, ChrisO, you had nothing to do with writing this version.

This establishes quite conclusively that the consensus version, which you accepted, was “reported to have been killed” – a consensus that survived in the article for over 2 and half years.

Consensus is not immutable. It may change over time. But in order for you to make a change to such a long standing consensus – you must make a case for such a change here on the Talk page. Please do so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that it was Leifern who added the "reportedly"; from my experience, he's an editor with a very strong POV on these issues. The fact is, having done the research (I ask again, have you done any?), I found that probably 99% of the reliable sources - books and media articles - agree that al-Durrah was killed. There are no reliable sources - I am not counting the handful of op-ed columns, which we cannot use for statements of fact - to support the idea that he was not killed, though a handful of sources do attribute this view to a few Internet conspiracy theorists (specifically Karsenty and Landes). There are plenty of sources which question who killed him, but the idea that he is not dead is barely represented in the reliable sources. Saying that al-Durrah was "reportedly killed" is like saying that the World Trade Center was "reportedly attacked by al-Qaida" or that Elvis is "reportedly dead". Some people believe that al-Qaida didn't attack the WTC or that Elvis is still alive, but that formulation suggests that they are mainstream viewpoints, which they are not. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you chose to turn this expose of your false claims into a personal attack on Leifern. As I am sure you realize, many people, myself included, think that you are an editor with a very strong POV on these issues. But this is beside the point. It does not matter who added this into the article – what matters is that this has been the consensus version for over 2 years, and you can’t change that without achieving a new consensus, through discussion, on the Talk page. The amount of research I’ve done is irrelevant, as is the amount of research you claim to have done –for the simple reason that personal research is not allowed on Wikipedia. As I’ve reminded you several times, claims of consensus or of “mainstream” must be sourced – we do not take ChrisO’s “research” as truth – we require a source. You need to do is find a reliable source, dated AFTER the latest court verdict, that says “the mainstream view is that Al-Durrah was killed”. Unless you do that, you can research the topic for another 10 years for all I care – but any conclusions you may reach through this original research are not allowed on this project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) I think you're misunderstanding the difference between original research and source-based research. We're not allowed to add "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" to articles. But as editors, we constantly have to make our own judgments about what material to add to articles, based on our research of published reliable sources. That means we have to judge what weight to give the material that we've found: does it represent mainstream opinion, how significant is it, etc. Not only are we allowed to do that, we're required to, in order to meet the requirements of not putting undue weight on minority/fringe viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact CM of course editors have attempted in the past to roll back the needless use of the words "allegedly", "reportedly", "supposedly" etc in respect of his death for a while. But we get reverted, which I guess does mean that there has been no consensus "for over two years" for that change - so you may be right there, in that other editors will veto any change back to the mainstream version. Often these are single purpose editors who quickly join this project and then disappear (anyone can check the edit history on this). And sorry but you have this back to front - it is not up to editors to find the words "this is the mainstream view" in a reliable source in order for this article to carry the, er, mainstream view that he is dead (whoever killed him - and as long acknowledged, this is still unclear). What people who want to push the fringe view that he is still alive as being of equal weight have to do is find alternative reliable, published sources that suggest Muhammad al-Durrah is wandering around, attending school or at work somewhere and living in Rafah, Amman, Birmingham or wherever. I am still a little bemused as to why this conversation is still going on. Editors saying "the video on youtube looks a bit dodgy", or even editors quoting and referencing a couple of bloggers or op-ed writers saying the same thing is not enough. Or even those editors alleging - as a piece of clear original, not to mention slightly muddled, research - that a court has now confirmed that he was not killed. --Nickhh (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, this version, which you wanted in the article has both of the elements I want now. It states that Al-Durrah "became an icon of the Palestinian uprising on September 30, 2000 when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a gunfight", not that he "became an icon when he was killed", it does not state that he was killed, only that his death was blamed on israel by Enderlin. And it does not make any of the pov-pushing nonsense about 'other Palestinians killed' that is being edit warred into the article by ChrisO. I am asking you a simple question: If you were ok with that version in 2007, what has heppened since then that would make us change this neutrally-worded lead into one that states as fact that he was killed? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (media, books etc) state unequivocally that he was killed. They disagree on who killed him, but not on the fact that he was killed in the first place. What's changed since 2007 is simply that someone (i.e. myself) has actually sat down and done some systematic research to identify the relative balance of the coverage. As I've said ad nauseum in this discussion, the "not killed" conspiracy theory is only even mentioned in a small percentage of the coverage, where it is invariably attributed to Internet conspiracy theorists and specifically to Landes and Karsenty. The only things published in reliable sources that directly and specifically endorses the conspiracy theory are a handful of op-ed pieces in a handful of newspapers published over the last four years. This amounts to perhaps 1%, maybe less, of the total English-language coverage alone, and Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits the use of op-eds for statements of fact. What you and the other conspiracy theory proponents on this talk page have so far failed even to acknowledge is the undue weight element of the neutral point of view policy, which specifically requires that small-minority or tiny-minority viewpoints should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. This is a non-negotiable requirement. What are you going to do about it?

Second, the description of al-Durrah becoming an "icon when he was killed" relates to the context in which he became an icon in the first place. I get the feeling, particularly when reading the conspiracy theorists' accounts, that some people think the al-Durrah case was some sort of context-free incident. Let me quote a reliable source (Naomi Sakr, Satellite Realms: Transnational Television, Globalization and the Middle East, p. 192): "In October and November 2000 alone, over 80 Palestinian children were killed. Television pictures of stone-throwing children challenging Israeli troops and of wounded children had a galvanizing effect on young people throughout the Arab world. One abiding image symbolizing the mounting Palestinian death toll was that of the shooting of a 12-year-old boy, Mohammed al-Durrah, killed by Israeli gunfire as he crouched in terror with his father behind a water barrel at a crossroad in the Gaza strip." Rightly or wrongly, the al-Durrah case achieved the prominence that it did not just because of the nature of the footage, but because it was seen (or at least was presented) as being representative of the wider issue of Israeli conduct towards the Palestinians. That's not to say that Israelis weren't suffering as well (and I'm sorry, Jaakobou, if I gave the impression that I was minimising that). But the impact of the footage had at least as much to do with the context in which it was filmed as with the actual content of the footage. That's what how our reliable sources describe it, at any rate; let's not forget what being iconic actually means ("a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy"). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Julia

Julia, I’d like to try and help you become a more productive editor. Rather than this back and forth hurling of accusations – ChrisO calling you a SPA promoting original research and you retorting that he will not be confused with facts – let’s try to see what can be improved in the article. I understand you are not happy with the current state. Do you have any specific suggestions on what can be improved? Is there a specific sentence that you want included? Is there a specific sentence you want removed or reworded? Let’s hear some concrete requests or suggestions, one by one, and we can discuss them on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made my self very clear there are sources that appear after the verdict and they represent the beset 'state of the art" in what we know about the case. There were also expert witnesses that the court accepted. This is what we as encyclopedia editors should highlight or at least give equal weight. I have made many suggestions, all were reverted. I have never promoted any "conspiracy theory". I read carefully about SPA – nothing in that policy prevents me from focusing my wikipedia attention on this article as long as I don't violate any wikipedia policy. So what exactly is wrong with being a SPA as long as the editor is trying to improve the encyclopedia by improving one article at a time – bringing this article to be current with the best published sources now available to us ?

If all that that ChrisO has against me is that I am new and SPA – he really has nothing of substance and we should restore all the edits which were based on sources published after the verdict.

If anyone has a better suggestion I am all ears – but to accept that the article will be reverted again and again by ChrisO/Tarc to what it is now – that is not getting us forward at all.--Julia1987 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)\

Julia, there is nothing wrong with being an SPA, so long as you edit within policy. Now, please read what I wrote - Do you have any specific suggestions on what can be improved? Is there a specific sentence that you want included? Is there a specific sentence you want removed or reworded? Let’s hear some concrete requests or suggestions, one by one, and we can discuss them on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

CJCurrie has (rightly in my opinion) removed the sentence “killing of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians” from the lead. ChrisO restored it with the puzzling edit summary “restored "and other Palestinian civilians", as it's what the reference specifically discusses; follow the link to the BBC story”. I say puzzling because the referenced BBC story is not at all about Al-Durrah, and does not even mention him. Perhaps ChrisO can elaborate on what made him include this irrelevant story as a source for this article, much less as a source for a disputed statement. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Context is important. It's important to bear in mind that the al-Durrah killing didn't occur in a vacuum. It occurred around the same time as the killing of a large number of other Palestinian civilians, including several other children (see [36]. One of the reasons why it attracted so much attention at the time was because it was seen by some as emblematic of Israel's approach towards the Palestinians. The killing occurred on 30 September 2000; on 2 October 2000 the Arab League demanded that those responsible for the deaths of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians be put on trial [37], and on 4 October 2000 UN Security Council members "strongly criticised what they described as Israel's excessive use of force".[38] If we omit the context - that al-Durrah was killed during a period of widespread violence and many other shootings - we're missing a key part of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I hope you're aware that Palestinians weren't the only people killed in that period. Some of my personal friends lost family also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, what you are doing here under the guise of “context” is called original research and POV-pushing. Let me make this very , every simple for you: every single source that you want to add to this article must directly related to the article topic. Referring to an Arab league call ‘for those responsible for the Palestinian deaths to be put on trial.” as aimed at “those responsible for the deaths of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians” when Al-Durrah is not mentioned is original source, which is not allowed on this project. Suggesting that a UNSC resolution, that criticized excessive use of force but does not once mention Al-durrah, was a related to Al-Durrah is is original research, which is not allowed on this project. Like NPOV, WP:OR is non-negotiable. Stop flaunting it, and stop pushing you POV into the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, doesn't this all sound like the inverse of the conversation regarding "context" on the Avigdor Lieberman article? So all of a sudden context is no longer important? Be careful what you wish for... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 14:23

I have no idea what you are talking about, and other article which may suffer from this type of original research are not a justification for adding original research to this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment was directed more at User:Jaakobou, who passionately insisted on including in the text every possible statistic on Israeli casualties surrounding the xenophobic outbursts of one Avigdor Lieberman, arguing that the context was fundamental in understanding why Lieberman suggested the mass drowning or bombing of certain people. The same principle can be applied here: the violence surrounding the incident is fundamental to the understanding of the incident itself. This was not one lone shooting in an otherwise peaceful void, but yet another horrible incident in a cascade of almost daily slightly less horrible incidents. The whole argument that this was just a staged coup-de-theatre kind of falls apart when you consider that in that same year more than 80 children and about 300 adults were killed (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Casualties). By these figures, a kid got killed every 4-5 days, making each death an almost routine horror, yet in this case, where it got caught on tape, we're supposed to believe it was a fabrication? Who needs to stage violence with figures like that? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 14:43

I'm sorry, but you seem to have some basic problem with logic. If 80 or even 8000 other kids really were killed has absolutely no bearing on this incident and the argument that it was staged. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is off-topic and I don't feel like debating your definition/perception of logic (a close shave with Occam's razor perhaps?), but the point is: there is a very significant difference if you view this event as an isolated horrific incident or yet another especially horrific incident in a series of horrific incidents. This isn't some completely anomalous -- and thus inconceivable ("they couldn't have!") -- shooting on the outskirts of Pleasantville, but yet another Palestinian casualty of the Israeli military in the Gaza strip. The fact that this kind of thing is almost routine weighs heavily in the perception of who did what. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 15:04

Surrounding events no doubt influence the subjective perception (this is after all, Enderlin's infamous "reality of the situation" excuse), but have no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the specific incident. If your argument was (as it seems to have been) 'other kids really were killed, so this one was, too' - it is a logical fallacy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, it's a bit more subtle than that... Why go through all the criminal intent and energy necessary to stage an event that happens every 4-5 days anyway? And it's not about certainties, but, as with Occam's razor, about probabilities. Hence, given that this kind of thing happens often, it is probable that this has happened again. As for Enderlin's perception, it is no different than the "spin" that Jack and others insisted belonged to Avigdor Lieberman's making xenophobic outbursts of blood-lust. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 15:54

you are conflating logic, heuristics and probability. Logically, the fact that certain events happen frequently has absolutely no relevance to the claim that they happened in a particular instance. So your claim that "The whole argument that this was just a staged coup-de-theatre kind of falls apart when you consider that in that same year more than 80 children and about 300 adults were killed" is a logical fallacy. The probability argument is indeed what led early reports to assume that Israeli fire had killed him - but since them actual facts related to the specific incident came to light, which make the probablistic initial assumption irrelvant. As to the "why go to the trouble..." question, you might wnat to reflect on the fact that even though something may happen often, it is not easy to film. You may also reflect on the fact that even when something happens often, and is easy to film, some journalists inexplicably decide to fake and embellish. And finally, you may wnat to reflect on the fact that the Al-Durrah incident occured during the first week of the intifadah, long before those other incidents happened, and so the journalists staging this fake had no idea they was coming. Playing devil's advocate, the cynic would say that those who staged this boy's killing did so in order to get to the result they desired - many other kids being killed - but that without this hoax, those other killings would not have happened.

as aside note, let me remind you that WP:BLP applies to everyone, and on every page of wikipedia. Descibing a living person as making "xenophobic outbursts of blood-lust" is a violation of that policy, and could get you (and the project) in serious trouble. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When even a blatantly anti-Israeli newspaper like Aftenposten raises the possibility that the al-Durrah incident was a hoax, we can no longer report it as fact. As I've said many times before, this is a topic that must be treated with sensitivity. The death of a child, as well as the accusation of killing a child, is very serious business. --Leifern (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheer bollocks. Just being "anti-Israeli", as you allege, does not make this small newspaper any more authoritative on the subject. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just let that paragraph stand as a shining example of a rhetorical fallacy in the service of POV pushing. --Leifern (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that one newspaper (where's the citation anyway?) might have suggested that the incident was a hoax - probably in an op-ed column, I would guess - really doesn't make much difference, regardless of its ideological views. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of sources published over the last eight years state that al-Durrah really was killed. They dispute who killed him, but not the fact that he is dead in the first place. If a few newspapers started suggesting that the moon landings were a hoax we wouldn't rush off to amend the Apollo program article to state those unrepresentative views as fact, or even to give them any equivalence to the mainstream view. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I have learned to have very very low expectations from you, but still. Aftenposten is considered Norway's newspaper of record, although its editorial bias is clearly critical to Israel. The article in question is here: [39], where it quite appropriately raises the question in a news article. When the Atlantic Monthly makes this a centerpiece - years before the video producers had their setback in French courts - it is unreasonable to go with only one point of view. --Leifern (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have to say I don't think you've represented what the article actually says very accurately - you seem to be reading more into it than is actually there. It does not advocate the conspiracy theory; like most of the small number of other sources that have referred to the conspiracy theory, it merely describes it and attributes it to Landes and Karsenty. To quote in translation:

"But there is much that grates on this video, which was originally distributed by the French television station France 2. So much, in fact, that a number of people have alleged that the whole [video] is a well-directed lie.

Among these is Professor Richard A. Landes, who on his website "The 2nd draft" explains why he considers the video to be a product of "Pallywood" in which a scene is created in order to create sympathy for the Palestinians' cause.

The view is shared by the French journalist and media critic Philippe Karsenty, who in 2004 decided to challenge France 2."

The article then goes on to report on Karsenty's view of the case and lists "some of his arguments, according to Jyllands-Posten" [the Danish newspaper]. It doesn't endorse any of those claims. In other words, it's not much different to this International Herald-Tribune article which is already cited in the article, and it doesn't really tell us anything new that I can see. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you went to the trouble of reading the article and translating it, I'm puzzled as to how you missed the article's headline, which reads 'The video images of the Palestinian boy who died in father's arms have been one of the greatest icons of our time. But the film was probably a bluff." No attribution to anyone, just the article's conclusion - a likely hoax. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you know anything about journalism, you'll know that headlines are written by sub-editors, not an article's author. It's not uncommon for subs to exaggerate or even to miss entirely the point of an article. The text of the article does not in any way advocate the conspiracy theory. I would guess that either the sub has exaggerated the point for dramatic effect, or is (rather clumsily) paraphrasing what Karsenty et al are saying. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of this process, but it is irrelevant to the point. We have Aftenposten, claiming the video is a likley hoax. Whether this claim was made by a reporter or an editor is not relevant. If it is a mistake - the journal will correct it. Your speculation about why this was done is mildly interesting, but likewise has no bearing on the fact that a newspaper of record of Norway has declared, in it's headline for a news article that the video is a likely hoax. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Aftenposten tries to present an NPOV view, unlike well, never mind. It raises the issue whether the whole shoot is a hoax, but - properly - doesn't endorse one view or another. But if there is a legitimate question about the authenticity of the footage, then we can not accept one or the other. Someone with a POV agenda equivalent to yours but on the other side would insist on writing that al-Durrah is a fictional character portrayed by an unnamed Palestinian amateur actor. But ChrisO, would you accept mediation to resolve this in a mutually agreeable way? --Leifern (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is even-handed, but that's not the equivalent of NPOV. Newspapers have no requirement to consider undue weight and routinely treat tiny-minority viewpoints as equivalent to mainstream ones if they happen to be newsworthy - something which denialists of all kinds have exploited for years. Unlike newspapers, we do have an obligation to consider undue weight. Unfortunately our resident conspiracy theorists have repeatedly ignored this - I've raised it many times and directly challenged them to address it, but they've not responded. This isn't about whether there is a legitimate question about the authenticity of the footage; it's about whether those questioning the authenticity of the footage are anything other than a tiny minority. The vast majority of our sources state definitively that al-Durrah is dead and do not even mention the conspiracy theory. That's the essential point which our "truthers" aren't bothering to address - not surprisingly, because if they acknowledged it they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I have no objection to mediation but I very much doubt if it will get anywhere, since it requires editors to act in good faith and follow established policy. This will most likely end up in arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mediation, as well. What's the next step? Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with this edit of CM's [40] of the first paragraph of the lead which according to CanadianMonkey has been consensus for 2 years. Why do we have to change it now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

German media (and Stephanie Gutmann)

In Germany the hoax theory is not that fringy anymore. Titel Thesen Temperamente ( public TV) reported on it, Deutschlandfunk did, Focus Magazine did, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung characterized the Enderlin report as "eine der übleren Medienfälschungen der jüngeren Vergangenheit" ("one of the nastier media fakes in recent history").

And perhaps you could incorporate Stephanie Gutmann's "The Other War", too. - Regards, Konrad S., Berlin -- 217.186.193.249 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those links. I'm afraid the FAZ link doesn't work; can you provide an alternative, or maybe just send me the text if you have it? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On Earlier Consensus in the Lead

At least until April 5th 2007 and from at least May 29th 2005 Mohammed al-Dura was noted as "reportedly killed", the controversy was noted and it was not tagged as "conspiracy theory." These ideas have already been established in earlier consensus. Just did some checking of some old diffs to see. Here are some samples: [41] 12 Sept 2005 [42]

Muhammed al-Durrah (Arabic:محمد الدرة) was a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire on September 30, 2000 at the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. A French television crew (France 2) near Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip filmed the boy clutching his father as his father tried to shield him from bullets. Broadcast around the world, this event caused outrage against Israel, which was assumed to be responsible. Shortly thereafter, a number of challenges were made about the incident, including the source of the bullets and even whether the entire incident had been staged. The controversy persists to this day.

Revision as of 21:02, 12 December 2005 (edit) (undo)

[43] 5 may 2007 [44]

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces gunfire on 30 September, 2000 near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip during the first week of the al-Aqsa Intifada.

So the point is, for years it was perfectly acceptable to withhold judgment on the validity of the accusations but now after an appeals court rules that the authenticity of the Enderlin report is in doubt, it suddenly becomes time to insist that this view is a fringe theory or conspiracy view and insist that the child had been killed. </shake head> Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What you just documented is that under the banner of "wikipedia policy" wikipedia has become more and more extreme while the main stream press and the courts have started to lift the veil from the propaganda and expose the truth. When a person like ChrisO can intimidate other editors there is no doubt why the value of the encyclopedia as a neutral source declines. --Julia1987 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what both of you are saying is flawed for two reasons. 1) I and others have attempted to take out the words "allegedly" etc in the past but have been reverted (see my post above). 2) Just because a certain phrasing has more or less languished in an article for a long time does not mean it's correct, or represents a "consensus" view. It might be convenient for one or two editors who prefer the wording in question to assert that, but it could just mean no-one else has even noticed it's there. Take a look around - there's a lot of cr#p in this encyclopedia and a lot of it has been here for a long time. To repeat my point - where is your reliable source that claims he is still alive, has evidence from those involved in the hoax and subsequent cover-up and gives details about where he is living and what he is doing now? Not just a source of some sort which vaguely asserts that he might be alive because according to them, the video that is available looks a bit iffy. --Nickhh (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. In (1) you suggest there wasn't consensus becuase you noticed the wording, didn't like it, and tried to change it. In (2) You suggest there wasn't consensus becuase 'no-one else has even noticed it's there', Since (1) is true - per the diffs you produced, let's dispense with the nonsensical claim #2. As to claim #1: I am happy with the wording you wanted when you attempted to change the consensus at the time. Please address my question: why are you not happy with it today, seeing you were ok with it last year? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, as I keep asking people here, read others' posts properly. I was making a very general point about content in Wikipedia, as made clear by my words "an article" .. "it could just mean" etc. That is, I was trying to suggest one general reason as to why poor content might remain in articles here (others include articles being owned by POV pushers, conspiracy theorists etc). It is only "nonsensical" if you choose not to understand the point being made. As to your question, I don't recall ever being "happy" with any version that gave prominence to conspiracy theories. The fact that I might not have tried to change every single phrase I disagreed with in previous versions or debate them on the talk page 24 hours a day doesn't mean I thought they were good or accurate pieces of writing. How on earth can you make that assumption on my behalf? And now, will you do the courtesy of answering my point about what reliable sources you are going to present with the specific information about al-Durrah's current whereabouts? --Nickhh (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because some material is in an article for an extended period of time, that does not mean that it is correct or meets our policy requirements. The "information" that John Seigenthaler, Sr. was involved in the Kennedy assassinations remained in that article for five months before it became a public controversy. It didn't become any truer or more compliant with policy merely because it had remained uncorrected for so long. In an encyclopedia with 2.4 million articles, it's inevitable that some will include uncorrected inaccurate and POV statements for extended periods of time. But it's our responsibility as editors to correct such statements when we find them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a woefully poor analogy. In the John Seigenthaler, Sr. case, the wrong information was kept in the article because nobody noticed it. In our case, the different proposals ("killed", "reported to have been killed", "murdered", "allegedly killed") were very clearly noticed, debated for weeks by muliple editors, until a version that people were happy with was arrived at, and survived in the article for 2 years. It is the very definition of consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that editors noticed it; they just didn't challenge it. Be that as it may, in the case of this article we had a situation where editors may or may not have reached a consensus, but unfortunately it was one which violated NPOV. We have a very clear standard in the second paragraph of WP:NPOV that the policy cannot be superseded by editors' consensus". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, false. They did challenge it, and offered alternatives, including "murdered" or "was killed" - but the compromise consensus that had survived for two years until you POV-pushing edit of 5 days ago was "became an icon when he was filmed ...and reported to have been killed". Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy Q and A

I've mentioned Wikipedia's policy requirements many times already in this discussion, but I thought editors would find it useful to have an overview in one place of what policy requires and how it relates to this article. I've emphasised the key points.

Neutral point of view

• "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (ref. WP:NPOV)

• "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. 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." (ref. WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view).

We cannot tell our readers that any viewpoint in the al-Durrah case is "the truth". Your personal opinion of what happened isn't relevant to what goes in the article. Note also the emphasis on significant published viewpoints. This brings me on to the next point:

Undue weight

• "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. ... 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. ... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." (ref. WP:NPOV#Undue weight)

My own research of reliably published sources (books, journals and media) has found that:

1) the overwhelming majority of sources state definitively that al-Durrah was killed on September 30, 2000; 2) there is widespread disagreement and/or uncertainty over who killed him; 3) a small number of sources report on a conspiracy theory circulated by Internet activists, attributing it specifically to Richard Landes and Philippe Karsenty; 4) a very small number of sources, almost all op-eds published by a handful of conservative newspapers, express support for the conspiracy theory.

From this, it's clear that the overwhelming majority view is that al-Durrah is dead; there is no clear majority view on who killed him; and the view that he is not dead is supported only by a tiny minority of sources.

NPOV's undue weight provision therefore requires us (this is not optional) to prioritise the overwhelming-majority point of view that al-Durrah was killed - just as we do the overwhelming-majority POVs that Elvis is dead, that the Apollo astronauts really did land on the moon, that evolution is an established scientific fact, etc. We can certainly mention the opposing POVs but because they are small- or tiny-minority POVs, we cannot give them undue weight.

Original research

• "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." (ref. WP:NOR)

It's not our job as editors to determine who killed al-Durrah or even whether he's dead in the first place. You may have an opinion on the subject, but articles have to reflect what significant published sources say, not your own opinions.

Source-based research

• "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research"', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. (ref. WP:NPOV#Sources)

Don't confuse original research with source-based research. We constantly have to make our judgments about what material to add to articles, based on our research of published reliable sources. That means we have to judge what weight to give the material that we've found: does it represent mainstream opinion, how significant is it, etc.

Consensus

• "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. (ref. WP:NPOV)

Some editors have argued that because a certain form of words has been in the article for some time it enjoys "consensus". Whether or not this is true (personally I don't think it is), it's irrelevant - if an aspect of an article fails NPOV, it has to be fixed regardless of any previous consensus. If a tiny-minority POV is being given undue weight in violation of NPOV, that needs to be resolved.

Reliable sourcing

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... [S]elf-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." (ref. WP:V).

We need to be particularly careful about sourcing in this case, due to the large amount of material that has been published by unreliable sources (personal websites, blogs etc).

Biographies of living persons

• "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. ... Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." (refs. WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Criticism and praise)

This is especially important in this case, where libel actions have been brought against some of the conspiracy theorists. We can report the allegations made by Karsenty et al against France 2 but we must not take sides or present the conspiracy theorists' views as fact. We must also avoid giving the minority view disproportionate attention. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But each of these issues are nuanced. For example, saying "reportedly killed" does not say that he was killed or not killed...it merely expresses that there is some doubt. And in fact using the concept "reportedly" has a certain value since Enderlin (who reported it to the world) was not a witness to the event. In light of the release of the raw footage, which shows Al-Dura moving (in what looks like "peeking" under his arm)after we are told that he is dead, "reportedly" seems to hedge our bets. We do not have a body and DNA tests to make a determination one way or the other. We don't even have bullets. We have no forensics or autopsy. All we have by way of forensics is the film and what the film shows.

I just wanted to add this from the policy on WP:TALK

WP:TALK The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

There does seem to be some significant disagreement on this page as to what the policy requirements are. One man's mainstream seems to be another man's fringe theory. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "reportedly killed" is twofold. First, it implies that there's a significant disagreement over whether he was killed. This simply isn't the case, as the overwhelming majority of sources state unequivocally that he was killed. They dispute who killed him but not the basic fact of his death. Second, it's inaccurate. Nobody has reported that he wasn't killed - all we have is speculation to that effect from a small number of sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The verdict did not rule on whether Karsenty's conspiracy theory was correct, and we are required to consider the totality of our sources, which in this case agrees almost unaminously that al-Durrah is dead but disagrees on who killed him. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very, very relevant. The court case marks the first time that crucial pieces of evidence- the 27 minutes of unedited rushes - were made available for public scrutiny. Prior to the case, France 2 had (for reasons that are now obvious) refused to let the public view them. All those present in the courtroom who saw the rushes concluded they consist entirely of staged scenes. That led the court to rule, without saying Karsenty is correct, that his theory can't be dismissed. I ask you again: What percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for acknowledging at last that the court didn't endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory. The court didn't rule at all on the conspiracy theory; it said merely that the views of the witnesses could not be dismissed and there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the reporting. That is as far as it went. But we already know that there are legitimate questions about Enderlin's conclusions, since the Israeli army has itself disputed them. Needless to say, the conspiracy theory advocates are trying to inflate this into some sort of endorsement of Karsenty's views. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never said the court endorsed Karsenty's views. I explicitly said so several times, but it looks like you weren't paying attention. As I wrote, had the court endorsed Karsenty's views, this article would be due for a much wider rewrite than the neutral change I want restored to the lead. Had the court endorsed Karsenty's views, we'd rename the article Al-Durrah Hoax, and describe how F2 worked to engineer and then cover-up this hoax. The experts who testified in this case testified that the rushes contain fakes, exclusively, and that the video does not show the boy is dead- and the court ruled that their thesis, that the event was staged, can't be dismissed. Now please answer the question, which I have asked three times: what percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? You are under the impression that the court case didn't change anything, so if you are right, post-court case sources should have the same percentage of sources that say this. Let's see the numbers.Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question has no relevance whatsoever, perhaps that is why it goes unanswered. See: WP:RECENTISM. The belief that the whole thing was a hoax and.or that the boy is really not dead is, at this point in time, a minority, fringe point-of-view. If you wish to challenge that notion, that's your right, but you need to have evidence and sources to back it up. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do so, and thus this point-of-view remains on the periphery of the incident. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again: WP:RECENTISM is a personal essay. It has no more standing in this policy-based debate than the personal opinion of any single editor. The notion that we should ignore or downplay new evidence as it becomes available, through court cases or investigations, because it is “recent” is too ludicrous to warrant a response. And you have cause and effect backwards: I am trying to maintain a version that has been in the article for more than two years. The onus is on those trying to change that long-standing consensus to prove that, today, after the rushes were available for public scrutiny, the overwhelming majority of sources definitely say he was killed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What new evidence? Have you actually presented anything that is not mentioned in the article that is not your original research/synthesis? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to change consensus, so I don't have to present anything new, those who want to chanege the consensus do. That said, there has been a considerbale number of new sources that have been introduced: A Norwegian news reprot headlined "this is probably a bluff". An Haaretz news article headlined "cours supports the claim that this is a hoax". Several German TV and radio broadcasts and interviews which use the term "alleged killing". Note that I am not advocating we make any of these claims - I am just trying to maintain the consensus version that has been in the article for over 2 years, which says the boy became an icon when he was filmed crouching, and reported to have been killed by the IDF". This is neutrally worded, sourced and factual. What is the original research/synthesis that you think I am trying to introduce? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "overwhelming majority of sources" already say that he was killed. What previous versions have said was "reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces gunfire"; namely, that it wasn't certain if the Israelis were the ones that killed him or not, as initially reported. The doubt was on who was responsible. What you and the SPA's have been trying to do have it read "he was reported to have been killed in an exchange of gunfire", which when phrased in that manner, cast doubt on whether the boy was killed at all. The latter is what is the fringe POV, which is entirely unacceptable for the article. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So here's the problem: you don't really understand what I'm trying to do. On June 1st, before ChrisO's edit, the lead read as follows:

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.

. This formulation, including the sentence you want (" Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire"), is exactly the one I want. This is a formulation that has been in the article for well over two years, and I'm not looking to have it changed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the spectacularly mistaken notion that I want "Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire" in there? I was merely reflecting what older versions stated. What I find preferable is the reality of of the prevailing opinion of the incident; "when he was killed in an exchange of gunfire". No "reported" weasel words. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The formulation "was reported" is obviously intended to distance the reader from the mainstream view. We wouldn't say that "it was reported" that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon or that "it was reported" that Elvis was dead. There are minority viewpoints to the contrary, but we don't give them a false equivalence with the overwhelming-majority view. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thnaks for acknowledging (finally!) that older versions stated what I want stated, and that it is you who wishes to change a long standing consensus. Please make a case for why this long standing consesnus should change, below: Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated this above. NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Answer (to Moreschi): I think I know what the issue here is.
In general, there's been no proof to validate that Muhammad al-Durrah - the boy Talal has reported to have been intentionally targeted for 45 minutes by Israeli soldiers - is indeed dead.

1. No bullets, no autopsy - perhaps a few pictures of low quality.
2. The validity of Talal's claims are weak at best.
3. The boy's father, Jamal, who's been immortalized on film using the term "Nazi Zionist entity", was also called out by an Israeli medical doctor for lying, using scars from 1994 (inflicted by a Palestinian gang) to claim they were a result of that day in 2000. Why would he do that?

While the media has not reported "the boy is alive", there is certainly doubt about the level of exaggeration in this event - and there is absolutely no doubt that at least some exaggeration/manipulation did occur.
Suggestion for compromise: The main issue with al-Durrah is "who killed him", not whether he was killed, that's not even important -- not to the Arab side or the Israeli side. Instead of declaring that the boy is dead, focus on Talal's report that the boy was intentionally targeted for 45 minutes and killed by the Israelis rather than focusing on the 'dead/alive' issue which has no content for either side of the debate. I don't believe there's enough sources supporting the "he was possibly not killed" perspective that. At best, it could be listed as "apparent death (attributed to Israeli forces)" for the weak Palestinian sources, both of whom caught exaggerating to some extent. A reasonable compromise here would be to write something in the spirit of, "Talal reported that... resulting in the boy becoming an icon for anti-Israel and anti-US militancy". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Jaakobou, I think you're forgetting the no original research principle. It's not our job to determine proof or truth. WP:NPOV states this clearly: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. 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." The question of whether or not there is "proof" is interesting as an abstract discussion but it doesn't have a bearing on how we present the article. We have to describe the mainstream views (pro and con) and mention the minority conspiracy theory viewpoint (without giving it undue weight, which is an issue at the moment) - but we cannot endorse either mainstream viewpoint or state that there is more "proof" on one side than another. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Question: I'm not really following this discussion for every word, but I'd appreciate a link to where Karsenty says the boy is alive. Would help assess the veracity of his claim. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrator intervention requested

The behaviour of several of the editors on this talk page and article leads me to believe that they are repeatedly and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Specifically, using it for advocacy or propaganda and refusing to comply with the neutral point of view requirement to fairly represent the weight of authority for each viewpoint and not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators. This is a clear violation of the principles set out in a previous Arbitration Committee ruling. I've therefore requested input from uninvolved administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration needed on new ruling against France 2

There is very little discussion on the new ruling against France 2. I see only one sentence dedicated to that happening. I would add the information myself if the article wasn't locked.

In addition, there should be at least some mention on the fact that no popular media has covered the ruling, specifically the AP, France 2, or BBC. Considering the importance of the event (and the influence the "shooting" has caused), a lack of coverage seems very suspicious.

thanks!

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )