Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Article length

This article, at 167KB, is very long - beyond the recommended maximum size at WP:Article size. (Very long articles are permitted when they cover a very broad subject, but this is an article about one incident - the death of a single child.) Would it be possible for some sections of this article to be split off into separate articles to reduce the length? (The 'Controversy' section, perhaps? Maybe this article could be rewritten to focus on the initial incident as reported, and a second one about the reactions to it and subsequent controversy?) Robofish (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would second Robo's sentiments. Too long. A lot of unecessary material. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The article's "readable prose" is 69k, which—according to WP:SIZERULE—suggests the article probably should be divided. At the same time, the size of the article has barely changed since it was promoted to featured article status,[2] and at that time only SlimVirgin expressed concerns about the article's length.[3] So I'm not sure the article needs to be split. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@Malik - Appreciate your comments. I'm continually disappointed by the reverence given to FA status. So many times editors have said "It was this way when the article got FA status" with the implication being that the article must have been perfect when granted FA. I wish we would abandon this thinking. From my reading of FA discussions, these strike me as attempts to weed out major issues as opposed to going over an article with a fine tooth comb. I don't think the abscence of major concern over length at FA means the article is of appropriate length. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that the featured version is perfect, but—having been through the FA process myself—I can assure you it is like "going over an article with a fine tooth comb". Part of the problem may be that during the FA process, reviewers often ask the nominator to add this and that, which can bloat the article a little.

Maybe you and Robofish are right; maybe the article is too long to read comfortably in one sitting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually already been through that FA discussion. I'd agree it's thurough, and that there are some drawn out discussions about certain aspects. At the same time though, it's not like every sentence is reviewed and agreed to by multiple editors.

Interesting observation about "bloating". I wouldn't be surprised if the FA process did have a tendency to bloat articles.

I love how you remain evasive about your own opinion Malik! You're willing to say "You might be right", but not willing to say "I think you are right/wrong". Would you allow me to harrass you for a firm opinion here? What is your gut feeling? Too long - Yes/No? NickCT (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You noticed, eh? Having re-read the article, I agree with both of you that it is on the long side. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A definitive response! How refreshing! Thanks Malik NickCT (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Take away "Featured Article"

This article, from the first sentence, reads like propaganda. It should never have been granted "Featured Article" status. Mohammed al-Durrah was just one of at least 16 Palestinians killed in the first two days of an attack by Israel on civilians under their occupation. Nobody suggests the child was rioting, so "on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" is a deliberate distortion of his situation, including material that is completely irrelevant. No Israeli citizens in Israel were killed until November (B'tselem suggests 4 killed themselves in a booby-trapped car?) so the first retaliatory murder of murder may not have been until February of the following year. By which time over 300 Palestinians had been killed. Mohammed al-Durrah deserves a much fairer article, written by neutral outsiders not by anybody involved. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal for a change, or is this just a rant? NickCT (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Take out the POV phrases "widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories" in which MaD had no part. Then take out "caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces" for which there is no evidence offered. Take out "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility within three days" which is meaningless and looks like propaganda. No person neutral in regard to parties in this incident could possibly have ended up writing a version which reads so badly. Take away the "Featured article" status, which is undeserved. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

More press distortions

I notice that some English-language sources are claiming that a French court has recently ruled that the al Durrah case was "a hoax". However, this is just more of the distortion and flat-out lying that has characterised English-language reporting of Karsenty's litigation. AFP, which is where this story came from, is reporting nothing of the sort, as a look at its coverage demonstrates. I've created a separate section for this litigation - it's separate from the still-ongoing France 2 case - sourced to the French-language reporting. We need to be careful, as with the France 2 litigation, to follow the most reliable sources on this - the French media - rather than the ludicrously distorted accounts that have been propagated by English-language sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... Ok. Do you have a suggestion for some kind of change or are you soapboxing? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have provided a link: [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your recent edit, and largely agree with it. Rereading this article, I don't understand why there is so much content about the "Philippe Karsenty litigation". This could probably be summarized and forked (if it even passes notability), especially considering the fact that this article is too long.

Additionally, I'm a little concerned by tidbits like "The court heard that the boy put his hand to his forehad and moved his leg, after the cameraman had said he was dead, and that there was no blood on the boy's shirt". This sorta misrepresents the source and facts and really ought to be removed. NickCT (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the "conspiracy theory" category

Does anyone else feel the "conspiracy theory" category here is inappropriate? It seems to me that the conspiracy theories that might exist around this event constitute WP:FRINGE. Similar to the whole "Elvis was taken by aliens" thing. Is it even worth categorizing it as a real conspiracy theory? NickCT (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure but for comparison Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin isn't in that category despite there being an entire Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories article (which is in a related category). Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arent conspiracy theories almost always fringe? // Liftarn (talk)

@Liftarn - To a certain point I agree. But some conspiracy theories are "more fringe" than others. For example, many people believe JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. Not many people believe the emergence of AIDs was a conspiracy to keep gay people down. The latter seems more "fringe" and less WP:NOTABLE than the former. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of that cat is inappropriate. I remain concerned by the weight given to Karentsky in this article. His thesis and the court battles tha ensued should be covered in a spin off article and summarized here. The main story was the boy's death and not Karentsky complaints about Charles Enderlin's reporting. Tiamut^talk 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree Tiamut. Unfortunately, when I've tried to make significant edits in the paste, there's been an army of editors cropping up shouting "It's a featured article. You can't change a featured article.". NickCT (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, moving out the conspiracy theories to their own article is something I have suggested in the past, but it has never managed to get accepted. // Liftarn (talk)

• • Like someone says above all conspiracy theories are fringe theories this is a silly argument to say that the category must go because it is fringe. Of course it is, that is what a conspiracy theory is. It should definitely stay this is a good example and helps people navigate on wikipedia. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Given this [5] an edit war is not advisable...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Modernist - Several uninvolved editors have come through now and removed the language in contention, and you continually replace it to push your POV. The previous discussion around this material ended with a slim majority to keep the material. In fact, SlimV was suggesting replacement for it when the discussion terminated. Let's finally put an end to these shinanigans, and move on. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL - Amazing what memory can do - good thing there is a complete written record...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL indeed - Like for instance this written record, where SlimV is suggesting replacement for the disputed language. Are you going to going to make vague accusations that my memory is wrong, or are you going to offer some specific challenge to what I've said? NickCT (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha :) - but then there is the whole thread - [6]...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

MoS issues

• Please convert tables from HTML syntax to Help:Table wiki-markup.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3DG, use 3 DG, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 DG.[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called The Biography, it should be changed to Biography
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. — GabeMc (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Persondata

Should the Persondata template be used in this article? (A bot just updated it here, hence I'm asking). I'm not sure of the nuances involved (ie. whether this article would be strictly defined as a "biography", and how general the Persondata usage is meant to be), so am just leaving this brief note here. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes much difference, so I have no problem if you want to remove it, though I'd wonder why bother. All it says is:

{{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. --> | NAME = Al-Durrah, Muhammad | ALTERNATIVE NAMES = | SHORT DESCRIPTION = | DATE OF BIRTH = 1988 | PLACE OF BIRTH = | DATE OF DEATH = 2000 | PLACE OF DEATH = }}

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Persondata#Using Persondata in articles about person-centered events where 2 editors suggested that it wasn't appropriate, so I've removed it. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jamal rejects Esther Shapira report

Why was this deleted, please justify: "The father of Mohammed A-Dura, Jamal, who was seriously injured in the shootout, rejected the report: "I am 100 percent certain that the Israelis were to blame," he said. "I have medical reports, X-rays and reports by eyewitnesses confirming that we came under fire from Israeli soldiers." source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/german-tv-station-mohammed-a-dura-killed-by-palestinians-1.49986 Unitrin (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@SV - Out of curiousity, in this diff your edit summary reads "we already say that". May I ask, where do we already say that? NickCT (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unitrin and Nick, the article says in several places that the father, the cameraman, and the correspondent believe the shots were fired by the Israeli soldiers. There's no need to keep re-introducing it with different quotes from different people, and he does not have medical reports and X-rays that show he was shot by Israelis; if he did the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. Adding random quotes like this makes the writing poor and repetitive, and changes the balance of the article, unless for every quote we have a quote in the other direction, which is the kind of I/P quote-farming I've tried to avoid in the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ok. Well having reread the edit in the context of the section, I think there is a larger issue here, which is that the entire Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident#Esther_Schapira_documentaries should probably be split.

SV, I'm sure you recall that there have been a number of concerns voiced about the length of this article. Perhaps this would be a good place to start paring the article down? It doesn't strike me that a documentary about the incident deserves so much space within the article.

But, whatever... I'm of the opinion that this article has a slew of issues, that aren't being taken care of because of certain issues from certain people. And, before you say it SV, I realize this article got FA status, meaning any criticism is unfounded. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The length is okay, just over 9,000 words, which is acceptable for an FA. I can look to see whether anything can be tightened, but I'm waiting for two things: first, the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in France, because it may cause certain material to become more prominent, other material less so, depending on their ruling. Or it may make no difference. And secondly I want to read Enderlin's book, but I'm waiting until it's translated into English. I could have a stab at using the French, but I'd be worried I'd miss nuances.

Both those sources could mean substantive change has to be made, so my thinking is there's no point in paring it down in advance of knowing what they say. And yes, that it's an FA means stewardship is acceptable to make sure the standard doesn't drop below FA quality. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the Esther Schapira material will be affected much by Enderlin's book or the Supreme Court decision. I agree with NickCT that most of that section should be split out into other article(s) like her own or ones on the documentaries (presumably they are notable enough to have articles?). I also think Unitrin's quote is worth including or alternatively, it is worth including more from Jamal on what happened. He is after all the only living victim of the attacks and his eyewitness testimony is certainly more notable and relevant than the third hand testimony of Esther Schapira. She's given about 100 times more space for the airing of her views in an article about an event than fundamentally changed Jamal's life, not hers. Tiamut^talk 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a couple of hundred words off the Schapira section, so it's now down to the key points she made. If someone wants to create a separate article about the documentaries, that's fine, but it doesn't affect what's needed in this article to clarify some of the other issues raised, per NPOV. Enderlin's view about the documentary is notable, as is the historian's.

I can't see what adding Jamal's view offers, especially not in a quote where he says things that are clearly false. It would be confusing and misleading to suddenly add a quote saying Jamal has medical evidence that he was shot by Israeli soldiers, when he doesn't, and no one has ever suggested he does. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

re "that it's an FA means stewardship is acceptable to make sure" - I was going to complement you on a good policy cite with "stewardship is acceptable", but then I read Wikipedia_talk:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles, which makes me seriously wonder whether you've edited policy to justify your behavior in regards to this article.

SV, you do realize that someone might construe this as you reacting to a valid criticism of WP:OWNing an article, by changing the WP:OWN policy? Do you think that's a fair observation? Does it lead you to question your motivations? Do you think you should have disclosed in the policy debate that you might have been making the change b/c you wanted to WP:OWN an article?

But regardless, I'm not going to bicker. My requests for introspection have gone unheeded in the past...

re "ust over 9,000 words, which is acceptable for an FA" - Ok. Well length is really a subjective call. I'll simply say that I and others have felt it's too long. Is there some policy governing the length of FAs outside Wikipedia:Article_size?

re "utcome of the Supreme Court decision in France..I want to read Enderlin's book, " - Duly impressed by your scholarly grasp of the subject matter. Perhaps if I felt I was as well informed on the event, I might want to own this article too.... Best, NickCT (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording added to the stewardship section was not initially suggested by me (but elsewhere), and the version that was adopted was not written by me, though I do support it because the deterioration of FAs is a perennial problem. That's why it gained consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

re "not initially suggested by me (but elsewhere)" - really? where?

re "deterioration of FAs is a perennial problem" - I partially agree. I have noted "FA rot" before. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FA rot was being discussed on one of the FA pages prior to the policy change, but Nick you'll have to discuss that elsewhere, not here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(grumble) Fine. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through it again and tighten any loose writing to make sure there's nothing we don't (arguably) need. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Slim I'm not sure you're following the issue. The section is about the German (Esther Shapira) report. Its placement in the article gives it credence/believability. Therefore, if Jamal rejects this specific/particular report, that rejection should be noted in the section. According to Haaretz: "A report broadcast Monday by German ARD television said A-Dura was shot dead by Palestinian militants", then "The father of Mohammed A-Dura, Jamal, who was seriously injured in the shootout, rejected the report:..." Unitrin (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Unitrin, there's a journalist's blog that mentions this article, and calls it "unusually well written," [7] and I'd like to keep it that way. The additions you're adding are problematic, in part because it adds nothing to the article to give a quote from Jamal about the documentary that he still thinks the Israelis did it. We already know that, and Jamal is not in a position to know who shot him, because unlike the witnesses he was at the center of the storm, not someone who was watching it. You added earlier to the article that Jamal said he had x-rays and other medical proof that the Israeli soldiers had shot him, but he doesn't. Secondly, Schapira did not conclude that Muhammad was killed by Palestinian militants, so that's just a factual error on the part of a brief news agency report with no byline—not a good source. [8] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slim, the blogger in Tel Aviv that you reference doesn't appear unbiased in the Pal/Israel issue, so that's not a very good source. Do you have any Arab/Muslim sources that calls it "unusally well written"? I'd like to see some. Can you provide me some links? Esther Shapira is not an Arab source, but a Jewish one. I guess nothing is perfect when it comes to Israel/Pal topics, but Haaretz is decent as far as fairness goes, do you disagree. I still think you are missing the point: They put his comment on the Shapira's report in direct quotes, so it should be in the article for clarity, balance and it's obviously relevant as well. Please do not delete Jamal's direct quote from a credible source newspaper again, find a way to work it in if you like. PS should we delete the part that says Shapira relied on three anonymous Israeli sources??? Wow. Tks.Unitrin (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of bias, it's a question of someone having recognized that the writing is relatively clear. This is unusual in I/P articles on WP because they're often just lists of quotes, with everyone wanting to add a quote that confirms their view of the world. I wouldn't want to see anything done to this article that took it in that direction.

The article you linked to was a brief news agency report that made a mistake. It's not a good source. Most importantly adding that quote doesn't give us any information.

Schapira spoke to three of the soldiers who were there. They weren't anonymous to her, just to us. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any Muslim/Arab sources that like this article similarly does Lisa Goldman? Can you link to some, I'd be interested to review them. Linking to a Tel Aviv based, pro-Zionist blogger is really, really weak. Regarding people confirming their views of the world, why give so much space in the article to a Jewish journalist that did this documentary then? She just suggests that Pal gunmen did it, the flipside of the Pals who suggest that Israelis did it. If you are going to showcase the report/views of a Jewish journalist to this degree, at least report on the direct quote from Jamal in Haaretz about this exact report: The father of Mohammed A-Dura, Jamal, who was seriously injured in the shootout, rejected the report: "I am 100 percent certain that the Israelis were to blame," he said. I am not convinced, and am perplexed, as to why you say Haaretz made a mistake. Are we going to say that any time Haaretz prints a direct quote from a primary source, that it's an error? I don't think you've made your case to delete sourced info. Tks.Unitrin (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you haven't watched the documentary, because she doesn't suggest that Palestinian gunmen did it. The soldiers she interviewed suggest that. She does not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs, stop wasting my time. With your quip, you might want to change Esther's article on here on wiki: "Schapira's first documentary suggested that al-Durrah may have been shot by Palestinian gunmen." Make sure you note that her documentary relied on three Israeli-Jewish IDF anonymous sources ;-). When when Haaretz puts something in quotes from a primary source, it's not a mistake unless the primary source or the newspaper retracts it, which they didn't.Unitrin (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why is it written that Muhammad al-Durrah is "reported dead" ? Why not just "dead" ?
Who else than Esther Schapira say that this body is not Muhammad's body ? It's the same face ! Why is it given to Schapira's viewpoint a so important weight in the article ? --MYAcoh (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding this topic, and unfortunately this article is currently under the ownership of someone who sympathizes with those theories. The theories range from the kid was shot by Palestinians to the kid wasn't actually shot at all to the kid was abducted by aliens.

If you're prepared for a content dispute MYAcoh, I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and remove the "reported". NickCT (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You're not a WP:SOCK are you MYAcoh? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates?

Hey,

Two quick questions

1) Are these (31.464873,34.426539) the correct coordinates of the junction?

2) Would be appropriate to add this to the article? NickCT (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Definite or probable

When did Israel "accept responsibility" for killing the boy? And did they do so unequivocally, or rather say they were "probably responsible"?

This is important, because they article says they changed their position from accepting responsibility. Which means either (a) they were fooled, and later realized this or (b) they realized they were guilty at first, but reverted to being their usual "mean and nasty" selves later.

It would help if we quoted the text of any statements of responsibility (at least in English, I mean). --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Additionally, I think the cite for the line reading "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility at first, a position they formally withdrew in September 2007", is a little weak. It cites an opinion piece. Surely there's something a little more firm out there we can point to. Is SlimVirgin going to swoop in and answer questions about her article? NickCT (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they did accept responsibility, but then withdrew it. I forget how equivocal the early language was, but they did accept it. The lead is not the place for that detail. It's dealt with in the section about Israel's response. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed al-Dura's father wins slander case against Israeli orthopedic surgeon in French court

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mohammed-al-dura-s-father-wins-slander-case-against-israeli-in-french-court-1.359038 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dms77 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Limitless nature of Israel's brutality"

SlimVirgin restored this phrase after I removed it some weeks ago. The phrase strikes me as totally WP:OR - what evidence is there that Palestinians collectively believe that Israelis exercise "limitless brutality" against them - indeed, what evidence could there be for such a claim? Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass,

Provoking others on sensitive articles within the scope of the WP:ARBPIA (per "indeed, what evidence could there be for such a claim?") is poor form. The prism text a great way for presenting both views in NPOV fashion. That said, if you have other suggestions for presenting the blood-libel vs. evil Zionists perspectives in the lead -- you can list it down here for community review. I promise to support your suggestion if it has higher encyclopaedic merit than the current version.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, gratuitous comments on contributor are sanctionable in this topic area, so I strongly suggest you avoid making them. In regards to your question, if you have a look at the diff in question, you will see my preferred wording in the version before SV's edit. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't collaborate with you if you're going to follow up generally offensive commentary (per "indeed...") with more drama (per "gratuitous comments..."). When you decide you're truly interested in content promotion rather than flaming the wiki-forums, let me know and I will be more than happy to lend a hand. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not your job to take offence on behalf of other users. If Slim has a problem with my comments she is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, and I'll be perfectly happy to modify them accordingly. You on the other hand, have chosen to make a bad faith interpretation of comments which were not even addressed to you, and to use that interpretation to attack my sincerity and goodwill instead of addressing the issue at hand. Your responses are, as usual, a textbook example of gratuitous unpleasantness and name-calling. You've managed to stay out of trouble in recent times by simply staying away from the project, but as soon as you return it's back to business as usual. I appeal to you to desist from your bad faith assumptions and start making a positive contribution, your current attitude is just plain unhelpful. Gatoclass (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass,

Calm down. I took personal offense from the suggestive language in your initial comment and thought it would be a good idea to nudge you away from such poor form in this highly sensitive topic area. Also, notice that I followed my initial comment with an extension of good faith (per "I promise to support your suggestion...").

That said, I also consider it bad form for the one with the most recent block log activity to throw weight around and sling mud into the wiki-pond (per "name-calling" and "business as usual") and this has caused me to notify you that I cannot collaborate with you if this is continued. Like I said, when you decide you're truly interested in content promotion here -- let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith, I ran a quick search for something similar in phrasing to the one used and came up with this as the second link which shows that there is some credence to the current phrasing.

• [9] - "became for many a potent symbol of Israeli brutality. In the Muslim world the image appeared..."

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, there was an extended discussion a while back over the entire "For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of ...... Jews with child sacrifice". I thought the entire thing was irrelevant and suggested it be removed. An extensive debate ensued, and the usual I/P POV warriors showed up and stymied and productive discussion.

Furthermore, though I appreciate SV's work as both an editor and admin, and though I acknowledge her expertise on the subject matter covered in this article, I respectfully maintain that in my opinion she's owning this page. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Palestinians" anywhere near the phrase "potent symbol of Israeli brutality". Do you, Jaakobou? And why is it that all Palestinians are said (by the Wikipedia article) to share the same view, while only "sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities" have a common viewpoint? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for helping to clarify the point I was trying (apparently not very successfully) to make Malik. Yes, I think it's obviously problematic to assign an overly specific viewpoint ("limitless brutality") to an entire community. More to the point, we don't have a source to confirm this, and are highly unlikely to find an adequate source for such claims.

My second concern is the phrase confirmed their view. Does it make sense to suggest that after fifty years of conflict and military occupation, Palestinians were still somehow unsure of Israel's readiness to resort to brute force against them, and needed this image to confirm their experience? It makes no sense to me at all.

On the other hand, there is no question that the image in question, per the text SV replaced, "became an iconic example of Israeli brutality" for Palestinians and the Muslim world at large - two Arab countries even made a postage stamp out of it. We should stick to statements that can be readily supported by reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) Malik, you have a point. In this conflict the terms Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim are often interchangeable and there is a fairly generic view of Arab world-view in media while Israelis are perceived as more pluralist and less one-track society. I still feel you're talking semantics here rather than content and the main detractor to making progress is more the tone used in this page than anything else.

(b) Gatoclass, you are doing a double take. On one hand you object that something is ascribed as a general Palestinian perspective, and immediately within the same paragraph, you do that yourself (per "Palestinians were still somehow unsure of Israel's readiness to resort to brute force against them"). This is also very insensitive language considering Israeli experience in the conflict and I already nudged you to avoid provocative phrasings.

(c) moving forward, I'd be intersted in reviewing previous discussions on this issue as well as a few relevant sources if anyone is interested in picking up the glove.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So now I'm being "insensitive" and "provocative", while Malik is acting as a "detractor" from the "tone" of debate. You really are determined to personalize this discussion aren't you? Since you are apparently unable to participate in it without commenting on contributor in post after post, perhaps as an alternative you can supply a reason why I shouldn't take you to WP:AE over this thread? Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral party, I'm just going to throw my opinion in here. First of all, I don't think there is any need for anyone to go to AE over this. It's a content disagreement that got out of hand. Now, as a third party:

• First of all, I agree with Jaakobou that Gatoclass' original comment could have been worded in a less provocative way. However, I also think Jaakobou overreacted and took offense more readily than perhaps he should have. Right now the discussion is focused mainly on who's being ruder, while it should be about the content.
• In terms of the statement itself: I am inclined to agree with Gatoclass that the statement does sound POV. However, Jaakobou seems to be ready and willing to provide sources where Palestinians use that strong phrasing. Perhaps a better statement would be "This footage confirmed the view of some Palestinians that the Israeli brutality was near limitless, while for sections..."
• The above would need a reference that matched almost exactly the phrasing in the article. We can't interpret what a Palestinian journalist or author was trying to say.
• Lastly, please try to keep comments constructive and on topic. Pointless personal attacks will benefit no one, and unfortunately someone could easily end up with a silly block given the sensitive nature of this article.

Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel the current phrasing is very good considering the general perspectives by both sides but I do acknowledge that sources tend to be a little messy on this one. I'd like to see what is the general perspective about MacMed's suggestion before I comment further. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article was described by a journalist as "unusually well-written," [10] and that was the paragraph that was quoted. Given that it's not common for WP articles to be described that way, and certainly not in the I/P area—and given that it was promoted with these words—I see no reason to change it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that I found myself in conflict with Gatoclass on Talk:Lara Logan, and now he arrives at an FA I've written wanting to change the lead, in his first post ever to this talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we weren't in any sort of substantial conflict at Lara Logan until after I opened this thread. In fact, we seemed to be having a productive discussion there. It was just a few hours after I opened this thread that you opened a new discussion at Lara Logan accusing me of making comments at that page that were "inappropriate and offensive". So if the charge is one of harassment, it might just as readily be made in the other direction. However, I am more than willing to AGF that your abrupt change in attitude at Lara Logan was purely coincidental, and I trust in relation to this thread that you will extend me the same courtesy.

In that regard, I should also add that, while I'm surprised to find I have apparently not posted to this talk page before, as I was sure I had done so, there is no question I have had a longstanding interest in this page, albeit a minor one. I contributed a couple of comments to the FAC discussion about this article, way back in January 2010. The article's history page also shows that I have made several edits to this article. Indeed, as I made clear in my opening comment above, the edit Slim reverted that I complained about, was one of mine. So there can be no suggestion that I had no prior interest in this page until falling afoul of Slim's opinion at LL.

Having said that, there seems to be a perception here amongst one or two users that my initial comment in this thread was perhaps a little blunt, or at least, open to misinterpretation. Admittedly, I was feeling irritated when I made it, because I thought the edit Slim reverted was a good one. The comment was an attempt to express my bewilderment at the restoration of a phrase I felt was plainly problematic. But I concede I could have expressed my concerns a little better.

In relation to Slim's other point, the journalist's article does not endorse that particular paragraph as "unusually well written", she is referring to the article as a whole, and indeed I think there can be no doubt that the article is unusually well written - at least by comparison to the average Wikipedia article, which is what the journalist appears to be comparing it to. But even if the reporter had endorsed that particular paragraph, that would still only be the opinion of one individual, and it would be quite inappropriate to treat it as somehow sancrosanct. Slim's comment that she "see[s] no need to change" a piece of text because of a general endorsement from a non-Wikipedian is simply not in accordance with the philosophy of this project. Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence you want to change was quoted by the journalist who said the article was unusually well-written; she wouldn't have cited a poorly written sentence to illustrate that point. In addition, this was the version of the lead that was endorsed at FA, so it's not just one person's opinion.

As for the timing, I don't want to labor the point, but it did seem that you were transporting a dispute from one article to another. You've been involved since March in a dispute at Talk: Lara Logan. I began commenting there on May 3. You responded in opposition to me on May 4. [11] You made a comment I found somewhat offensive on May 6. [12] I suggested a compromise on May 7 at 09:18. [13] At 09:57 you posted here, an FA you knew I'd written, suggesting we change the lead. [14] I'm willing to AGF, but I have to tell you this is the kind of thing that makes people not want to write FAs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are misreading the journalist's comments. She is not quoting that block of text to illustrate the quality of the prose. She is simply quoting it as a means of introducing the subject she wants to write about. But again, as I pointed out earlier, even if she had been quoting it as an illustration, it would still only be one person's opinion, no better from the POV of this project than yours, mine, or somebody else's. Content here is decided by consensus, not by what some journalist on a website somewhere happens to like.

In relation to the other matter - yes, I made a comment you found offensive on May 6, but you didn't tell me you found it offensive until 1:01 on May 8[15] - 16 hours after I initiated this thread.[16] Up until that point, we appeared, at least from my POV, to be collaborating without any drama - indeed, the last post I made to you before you decided to take offence at an earlier post was to thank you for taking some of my concerns onboard, while simply noting that I also agreed with some of the criticisms. It makes little sense to propose, as you are apparently doing here, that at that point I would suddenly decide, 24 hours later, to start harassing you because you responded positively to some of the concerns I had raised. And again, if I had any interest in doing so, I could probably make a better case that you decided to harass me at Lara Logan in retaliation for my post here. But quite frankly, I'm sure neither charge would be taken seriously at DR. I don't think it's too much to ask for you to AGF in these circumstances. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Few comments -

1) Come on guys and gals. Let's just all get along and try remember that our goal here is to provide useful information to our readers. No one is stalking or harassing anyone.

2) SV, you've used the "It's got FA status, so it must be right" argument before. Apparently you've developed a novel "A journalist liked it, so it must right" argument. Recognize that no one is saying this article doesn't deserve FA or that the journalist in question is wrong. The debate is only with a particular section of the article. The couple lines in question have caused months of debate, multiple removals/reverts, and add next to nothing to the article. What's you're motivation in fighting so hard for them? What do you feel they add to the article? Hopefully, after you and I had a chance to work together productively in the past, you'll believe if you say I'm not attempting to criticize you personally, and you'll forgive me if I say your defense of this wording seems hyper-defensive and intransigent..... It need not be so... Let's be open, receptive, and cooperative to better the project! (he says in a naively idealistic tone)

3) I want restate that my position is that the lines in question should simply be deleted, buried, forgotten. Rewording would be lipstick on a pig. NickCT (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree. The text perfectly explains the views of people -- whether it is "evil occupying Jews" or "mythological blood libel!" view -- to the common reader who would not understand it otherwise. It brings great encyclopaedic quality to the article and the suggestion that it should be deleted, and forgive my personal tone, hints to a lack of understanding towards the historic value of this event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I disagree with your deletion proposal Nick. It seems to me that it's not UNDUE to include some commentary in the intro about what has obviously become an iconic image. There is after all a section devoted to the subject in the article, and intros are supposed to summarize article contents. And I can't see much wrong with the rest of the paragraph. It's that one sentence that stands out to me, every time I read the intro I'm struck again by its awkwardness (confirmed their view) and presumptuousness (its assertion that all Palestinians subscribe to precisely the same view, e.g. that they are subject to "limitless" brutality). So it seems obvious to me that it needs to be refactored, preferably in a way that more closely reflects what available sources have actually had to say about the image. Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

re "forgive my personal tone" - Forgiven.

re "historic value of this event" & "some commentary" "become an iconic image" - Ok. Let me draw a parallel. The September 11 attacks were "iconic" and of "historical" value. Check out that lead. Is there anything that reads "for most Americans, it scared their pants off"? No. I think my main concern is that these sentences are, as Gato says, "commentary". I hate commentary. Not encyclopedic, and likely not in-line with WP:NOTOPINION.

re "one sentence that stands out to me" - I dislike the whole "blood libel" thing as well. Gato, as I'd mentioned earlier, these sentences led to some extended debate about a year back. There's some history here it might be worth being aware of...... As I mentioned to SlimV, given the extended debate over these lines, do they really add anything to the article that would warrant keeping them? NickCT (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass,

I understand your concern, but I feel you are wrong about the way the sentence should be read. It is perfectly clear to any reasonable reader that the text does not narrate the opinion of each and every single Palestinian but rather that it describes a general perception. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that this is not a general Palestinian perception and that your concern is just about the rigid and overly literal reading of the words 'for Palestinians...' in the text.

Nick,

The 9.11 attacks doesn't really require an explanation on perceptive differences on how people view the incident. In that sense, the comparison with this article doesn't work and this article does need an explanatory paragraph.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1) re "doesn't really require an explanation...this article does need" - Unsupported POV comment.

2) How about Atack of pear harbor - No "For Americans it was upsetting, for Japanese it kicked rear".

3) Rather than dismissing my parallels all day, as not being exact matches to Al-Durrah, do you think you can offer something which does have this kind of commentary in it? NickCT (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that the attack on Pearl Harbor / World Trade Center happened. You really shouldn't work on this article if you don't see a clear difference between "side a is happy vs side b is unhappy" and "side a says real and horrible event vs. side b says horrible staged event". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is too long and focusing on small details of the campaign. I would rather move some parts of it in the text. More importantly a first section showing the chronology of the events, as it is described in the french article (which is much better than its english starred-counterpart BTW) is necessary to have a global understanding of what happened and the birth of controversy itself. I will propose soon something about that here before inclusion.

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I object to your additions. Spelling mistakes, poor wording, references in french, this is a featured article and the lede should be left alone. This is a controversial article as well and any major changes should meet with agreement here first. I am reverting your recent addition, because I find it to be objectionable for the reasons I have just described...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your objections: it is a paragraph that relies on very good sources. You can't suppress it just because the sources are in french. Another editor said the spelling is much better. If it is about spelling, then help me correct it but don't suppress it. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 13:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We clearly have differing opinions, This is a featured article and your additions in my opinion do not improve the article...Modernist (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about opinion, it's about sources. You'll have to work a little bit harder to justify this. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 13:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth - Featured articles generally have - 4 paragraphs max in the lede. If your additions are worthwhile then write them correctly, hopefully with sources available in english and add it to the article to the main body text...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I contest the pertinence of the intro. Nowhere it is written that good references should be in english only in wp articles. Moreover I've changed the spelling and another contributor told me that now it's understandable. So I still don't see your points: you just said that "we don't have the same opinion", which seems unsufficient to me to justify your revert. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Read this WP:Featured and this Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - Dozens of editors review, edit, change, and work on featured articles, they have to be well written, understandable and pass high standards. I strongly object to your changes...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You still don't say why you object: is it just the spelling? In that case, it will be fixed easily. Unless you clearly says why you object about the sources given (except the fact they are in french, which is not an argument), I'll re-introduce. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

TwoHorned, please don't re-introduce (i.e., edit war) over the paragraph in question. Let's discuss it and reach a consensus.

Modernist, I think the paragraph raises some interesting points. I'm not sure whether it belongs in the lede, though. I think the question of French sources is, or ought to be, a non-issue.

All in all, I'd like to have more than three opinions on the matter. Nearly 175 editors watch this page. I hope some of them will join the discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, all is about this: the en:wp on Al-Durrah doesn't mention the latest studies and sources that clearly designate the controversy as a campaign with political motives initiated by few people. This seems to be sufficiently important and well sourced to be mentionned in an intro. I don't see any justifications for the reverts of Modernist except saying "I disagree", without mentionning why. Since it is about sources, the revert must be justified in a better way than a mere opinion disagreement. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Malik, my objection is primarily that is does not belong in the lede, for various technical and other reasons, and I would prefer the information be added to the main body text - if it is new information then perhaps it can have a new section heading; while I would prefer the sources to be in english I'll pass on my objection to the french...Modernist (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you at last reveal to us these famous "other reasons" you're mentionning since the beginining without never mentionning them ? Because, if it is just "technical" (?) then your revert is poorly justified. And I disagree completely with what you are saying: if many newly valuable and independant sourced data indicate that all the affair reduces to political propaganda, then it is a major element that must be in the intro. Instead, I see the intro focusing on secondary elements that should not be in the lead. And the article as a whole revolves too much on partisan, outdated and non-academical sources than originate primarily from the proponents of the "staged version". - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the last time - I have added my objections. Featured articles generally have 4 lede paragraphs - you want to add a fifth - I strongly object. Featured articles generally achieve consensus concerning material added to them by dozens of editors especially to the lede - you are just unilaterally adding your material and I object. Featured articles generally have a good writing style, readable, legible, and yours barely passes for english so I object. Featured articles generally include sources that english readers can read - and yours are in french...Modernist (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

From your last sentence - very revealing - it looks as you you simply WP:IDON'TLIKE the article and you want to change its meaning, in spite of its featured article status, I object to that as well...Modernist (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't propose to put a 5 paragraphs lead, I propose to stick with 4 as one paragraph is not up to be in the lead, and should be moved elsewhere (why focusing in the intro on the Tom Savia affair while it has been contested and is not at all central ?). I am coming here with sources, which is not your case. I say that the article as a whole is very badly sourced, with almost only non academic, unreliable, partisan sources. About the french, you said above: "while I would prefer the sources to be in english I'll pass on my objection to the french..." so you are contradicting yourself. And congratulations for your mention of WP:IDON'TLIKE: you're a chief in rhetoric, launching on my side what you are doing since the beginning, frankly, I would never dare acting like this... - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, a little less bickering. Why not post impartial messages at WT:ISRAEL and WT:PALESTINE inviting members of those WikiProjects to join the discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

About the French sources. Are they newer than the English sources? Do they take into account new developments? We prefer English sources, but we don't exclude sources just because they are French. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are newer, do take into account new developments and are serious. Below is the paragraph I wanted to add in the intro, with its refs. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides the event itself, a controversy surfaced shortly after the killing of Muhammad al-Durah: initiated and supported by a few people in France (Gérard Huber, Stéphane Juffa, then Philippe Karsenty, Luc Rosenzweig), the contention has become over time a multifaceted disceptation described by french magazine Mediapart as "a sophisticated machine" with "many iterations" and several legal twists. It is described in various ways as a "campaign" with political and ideological motives, and backed by radical pro-israeli political influences. The controversy took place in two steps: first in challenging the origin of the bullets that killed Muhammad al-Durrah, then in the allegation of a whole staging with false ambulancies and actors.

The article in its present state gives the largest part to the proponents of the "staging" theory, with outdated and poor sources. For instance, the mention of journalists Daniel Leconte et Jeambar is presented in a false manner: they never accredited the theory of "staging". It really looks like the article has been written by Philippe Karsenty himself. I am also really surprised that nowhere is mentionned the new book of Charles Enderlin on the affair, "Un enfant est mort" ("A child is dead"), published in 2010. Its absence in a featured article on the subject is simply not understandable. I proposed to add it, but someone erased it soon after. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on what we have now, if we only consider the lead alone, it seems to give equal prominence to both the "real" and "staged" theories, and states that there is no consensus over what is true. That is an important thing that I believe needs to be preserved.

Now, it may be possible to work in what you have written above in a section within the article body if it is something like this...

X describes the Durrah controversy as "manufactured" and said that a "few people in Y created it"

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem is precisely that the new sources say that it is not possible to give equal prominence to both the "real" and "staged" theories. These sources say that the "staged" version is a campain emanating from very few actively political groups. One of the sources even says that "99% of journalists and specialists in France give heir credit to Enderlin's version". Mediapart article even writes that despite Karsenty's effrots to give his theory the appearance of seriousness, by accumulating disparate uncorrelated facts and forgeries, it dos not stand one second under scrutiny. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do the new sources come from the same media groups, or do their papers actively take the same political positions? Are there other papers in France and/or other countries with differing positions that come to the same conclusion?

This incident involves groups in multiple countries, so just because a new collection of French papers in 2011 argue that X position is invalid doesn't necessarily mean that is the consensus, because we still have to take into account positions in Israel, Palestine, the United States (The Atlantic had an oped about it back in 2003), and other countries.

If this was a domestic French issue, there was little coverage abroad, and those papers were owned by different groups and had different political ideologies, then I would be happy to say "yeah, that is the consensus"

If you can prove that these papers have differing political ideologies and different ownership, you could say something like "As of 2011 newspapers in France agree that XXXXX"

Also... even if the articles themselves are new, are their conclusions based on new revelations and/or new evidence that was uncovered?

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole controversy is now known in many countries, but it did appeared first in France. More precisely, the chronology is the following:

1- A few days after the killing (on October 19, 2000 precisely) Nahum Shahaf and Yossef Duriel (the latter being a Likud hardliner and the former contested the responsibility of Ygal Amir in Rabin's assasination) take contact with general Tom Savia to contest the origin of the bullets: they say that it was the palestinians who killed the boy. Their "investigation" is then sidelined by General Shaul Mofaz who declares it unofficial. CBS in the US then produces a report that points the total absence of seriousness of Shahaf's investigation.

2- During 2001, Shahaf and Duriel, with the help of a small extremist french website owned by Stéphane Juffa and based in the village of Metula in Israel, then propagate the theory of "staging": the whole scenery commented by Enderlin was "staged": the ambulancies are false, the palestinians are actors, and Muhammad al-Durrah is still alive, Shahaf even says that he saw him in a small market in Gaza.

3- One of the website correspondants in Paris, Gérard Huber, propagates Shahaf's theory in France by publishing a book, which appeared in January 2003 ("Contre-expertise d'une mise en scene") ("Counter expertise of a staging").

4- In the same time, i.e. in 2002, another correspondant of the same website, french journalist Luc Rosenzweig, also propagates the "staged" version of the website. That version is also exposited at that time by a german journalist, E. Shapira. According to reference Médias (H. Deguine's article in my list above), Huber's book is more or less a copy of Shapira's documentary.

5- In 2003, french businessman Philippe Karsenty, takes again the data of Stéphane Juffa's web site, and diffuses it with the help of his political support in France. He also takes contact with few people in the US (Richard Landes, Nidra Poller etc.) and starts the diffusion in the US. At that time, Fallows article appears in the US.

6- Philippe Karsenty engages in strong political lobbying in the US for propagating his version, with the help of political support in Israel. In the same time Philippe Karsenty obtains from french president N. Sarkozy the firing of Sarkozy's collaborator, David Martinon, who was advocating against the "staged" version to N. Sarkozy. F. Bonnet writes in the cited reference above: " l’affaire Al-Durrah est bien le support d’une machine de guerre politique." ("the al-Durrah affair is clearly the support of a political war machine").

7- In 2008, the same french web site, with the help of an israeli surgeon, allegates that Mohammed al-Durrah's father, Jamal al-Durrah, lied about the injuries he got from the firing in september 2000. That other theory is then propagated by few journalits in France. But these journalists, along with the israeli surgeon, are sued in a legal case for defamation and are formaly condemned in 2011 by a court in Paris (on April 29, 2011 precisely).

8 - In 2010, Enderlin writes his book "Un enfant est mort" ("A child is dead"). The book triggers new articles from journalists in France, in particular the Mediapart article cited above, which again give a global account on the affair, insisting on the the fact that the whole controversy is a campain started by few people.

The present article is missing serious references, taking mostly US articles that echoed Karsenty's version. It focuses on Karsenty's version that aims at presenting that there are "two versions" of equal importance: this is false. Most newer serious sources say that the "staged" version is minor. To answer your interrogation above, the new sources, some of which are academic (Confluences Méditerrannée) are unrelated each other, they do not represent a small point of view or the point of view of a lobby. The intro should reflect that. Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally someone has done the research required to debunk the prominence of what is essentially a conspiracy theory presented in our supposed FA article as a legitimate position, when in fact it is not. Thank you TwoHorned for your in-depth explanation of its genesis. I found it very illuminating.

This article needs a radical rewrite. Starting with the intro is as good a place as any. If I may Two Horned, I'd like to correct the spelling and do a bit of a copy edit, so that the paragraph reads as follows:

Shortly after the killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, a few people in France (Gérard Huber, Stéphane Juffa, then Philippe Karsenty, Luc Rosenzweig) initiated and supported what has been characterized as a "campaign" that began by casting doubt on whose bullets killed Muhammad al-Durrah, and culminated in allegations that the entire incident was staged using fake ambulances and actors. Described by French magazine Mediapart as "a sophisticated machine" with "many iterations", it has involved several court cases. Underpinned by political and ideological motives,, it is backed by radical pro-Israeli political actors..

I'm sure it can be refined further, but I agree that the inclusion of this information in theintro is a first step towards correcting the glaring POV and UNDUE issues in this article. I tried to raise these issues previously, during and after the FA push, but did not manage to have any success. I hope this time will be different. Thanks again ror your hard work. Tiamut^talk 18:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, English is not my native language, if someone could help me on the spelling, that would be very helpful. Your corrections in the proposed paragraph are very good indeed. Again, I have to say that the article, in its present state, essentially advocates the theory propagated by these few people. The main characteristic of Juffa and Karsenty's presentation, which is reproduced in the article, is that they never address the question of chronology of the events, to produce a global effect of "confusion". But the chronology is necessary to understand the whole affair. The wp:fr article insists on chronology, because the most serious sources on this affair are now french. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

the most serious sources on this affair are now french? says who? 71.204.165.25 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the English sources, while older, are also respected. For instance The Atlantic for instance is a very high-brow publication.

I think what we should do is consider editing the body of the article first. It's not appropriate, IMO, to put new stuff in the lead right away. Add the new info to the body, and after seeing how the flow of the article changes, work on the lead from there.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Do you want me to propose the changes of the body in this talk page first ? I think the exposition of the genesis of the affair is of primary importance, and it is not in the article in its present form. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created this page in my space for the work under way, to ease the work of editing, discussion, to correct the spelling, and to avoid overcharging this article's talk page. Once everyone agree on the contents, will be moved in the main article. Everyone interested please go there (in particular in the talk page for discussions). Will be uptated in the hours to come. Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 13:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to speak in general terms, it does seem something has to be mentioned in the text before inserted in the lead. More particularly, this seems to be one of several doubting accounts [challenges to the original account] and not the most high profile [as far as WP:RS covering their challenges], so a sentence at most, if that, would be warranted in the lead. CarolMooreDC 14:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important that this article maintains its neutral point of view and presents both sides; particularly in the intro. If additional information is warranted via new sources then that text should be added to the main body; in a separate section...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is not giving equal weigh to two views when admissible sources describe one view as minor and partial. The present article is not neutral in fact. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned}

Currently the article is neutral; however you appear to be in favor of changing that to your WP:POV...Modernist (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it may help for you to address the substance of TwoHorn's arguments. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please behave a little bit in a more positive manner and go to my "work under way 1" talk page and article, where your comments on my propositions (which you haven't read yet, though already speaking of my pov) are welcome. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am getting to work on the copyediting, but the first thing I noticed in the proposed lead was

"initiated and supported what has been characterized as a "campaign"[...]"

Because it's controversial, it is best to say who characterizes it as such in every place, including the lead. Was it just French journalists? Or were they also French left-leaning journalists?

The authors of the articles are fr:Dominique Vidal and fr:Guillaume Weill-Raynal

Maybe something like "French left-leaning journalists say that Karsenty engaged in a deliberate campaign to propagate his point of view" or something to that effect.

In the citation (within the <ref> </ref>) it may help to include a quotation of the French language material used to support the conclusions stated in the English sentence.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So far I only found one slight copyedit error.

I get the impression from User:TwoHorned/work under way 1 that TwoHorned believes that the majority of reliable sources say that Muhammad al-Durra was at minimum "likely" to have been killed, while the article currently states that it is simply disputed and there is no consensus

IMO, while French sources may be used, I do not believe that they take any more precedence than sources of other countries (Israel, USA, Palestine, etc.). I still prefer the general approach that the current article takes. A group of prominent French journalists (or even, say, the majority) may believe that al-Durrah was not staged, and that Karsenty's campaign is not genuine, but I do not get the impression that anything significant. In order to say that there is a consensus that "Israeli bullets likely caused Muhammad Durrah's death" then there has to be a worldwide consensus.

Remember that the French court approved the appeal in favor of Karsenty after watching the footage, so even in France there seems to be significant doubts about the initial account. If Karsenty had been prosecuted, and his appeal was unsuccessful, and a consensus formed in Israel, France, and other countries that Israeli bullets at minimum had Durrah killed, then I think that the substance of the article would be in favor of saying that Israeli bullets killed Durrah

I do think what TwoHorned found is valuable - We could say "XX journalists from France say that Karsenty is leading a misleading campaign" or something like that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm just at the beginning, I will re-introduce the majority of english sources of the present article. Karsenty's appeal is currently being re-examined by the highest legal court in France, and one must not forget also the legal case about al-Durrah's father in 2011, which is not favorable to Karsenty's position. Also, the present article is missing the "red hankerchief" affair for instance. You are right about the worldwide consensus, but let's not forget that the core of legal case and affair started in France, which explains why some french sources give more details. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

dr yehuda david wins case against muhammad al-durah's father in french supreme court

anyone want to do something with this info? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190320,00.html Soosim (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Yehuda David didn't "win". He was relaxed of the charges, while two other people are still convicted. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

February 28, 2012: French Supreme Court Decision

On February 28, 2012, the french Supreme Court has given a long awaited decision: Ph. Karsenty appeal is cancelled by the Supreme Court, see [17]. As a consequence, Ph. Karsenty will be judged for defamation. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting link in English [18]. Sounds inconclusive yet again...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you find it "interesting": your link is an article by Nidra Poller, a strong supporter of Karsenty. No need to say the pill is hard to swallow for these people. But she forgot to mention the most important thing, as usual: the fact that the Supreme Court did break Karsenty's appeal. That Karsenty will be re-judged is by strict application of french law. Yet Karsenty's appeal is really broken. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually politics aside - I don't read French and since its in English I was able to get a better sense of what you are saying...Modernist (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Translator... you know, that old friend... - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the Supreme Court rules against Karsenty, this obviously means the video can't be a fake, because as we all know, the Palestinians, and their non-existent free press, never fake or lie about various incidents for propaganda purposes, do they? Yeah, sure thing. And the Jenin Massacre actually happened. And the widely-seen video of supposedly "dead" Palestinians jumping off of stretchers when they thought the cameras were no longer rolling was actually made by the Jews to discredit the Palestinians, right? And the photos of "dead" bodies amongst the rubble of destroyed buildings, with the same supposedly "dead" people showing up in later photographs, weren't fake either, were they? Seriously, the notion that a ruling of the French Supreme Court all of sudden means that the IDF is indisputably responsible for the "death" of al-Dura is a fuc*ing joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.176 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood Libel as an Arab Perspective violates NPOV

The lengthy discussion about blood libel in 2010 (see archive) did not resolve how in the world the killing of Muhammed Al Dura "proves" the ancient accusation of blood libel against Jews according to the "Arab perspective". The article as it is currently written conflates an anti-Semitic perspective with "the Arab perspective," a provocatively worded phrase (as evidenced by the lengthy debate) itself. The article is taking an Israeli accusation -- that anger over Al Dura's killing is akin to blood libel conspiracies -- and replacing it with "the Arab perspective". It seems that the Palestinian perspective was anger over the killing of Al Dura and other children during the intifada, and anything further than that is simply an anti-Semitic extrapolation or an Israeli claim of racism. Why is the "Arab perspective" being conflated with the anti-Semitic perspective? Is that not an NPOV violation? The original article by James Fallows suggests that this myth was the "harshest version" of the case from the Arab side. Taking an admittedly extreme view and conflating it with "the Arab perspective" seems like a violation of NPOV:undue weight.

A more appropriate paragraph might read:

Like other battle images, the authenticity of the footage was questioned precisely because it was so potent.[80] From the Israeli perspective, the world's willingness to accept it at face value was an example of antisemitism, mirroring blood libel canards. [122] Indeed, some reporters found that the blood libel myth revived among extreme elements of Palestinian society [121]. French philosopher Pierre-Andre Taguieff compared the situation to the Dreyfus affair in 1894, when a French-Jewish army captain in Paris was found guilty of treason based on a forgery, but this time with Philippe Karsenty, Israel, and the Jewish people in Dreyfus's place.[123]

From the Palestinian perspective, on the other hand, al-Durrah was held up as a symbol and martyr of the Intifada, and the willingness of Israeli forces to use excessive force against Palestinian youths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.107.173 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, forgive my ignorance on this matter, but am I permitted to make the relevant edits if there are no responses? I attempted to do so previously but was told to take it to this talk page. Nobody has responded, it seems that this page isn't getting the sort of traffic it used to receive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.107.173 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You can always be bold. However, I wouldn't support those changes. Frankly, I think that entire paragraph should just be removed. This article is too long, and that paragraph is blatant editorializing. It's completely unnecessary. NickCT (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

tag-teaming, edit-warring, and other noble behaviour

So now we have this removal of long-standing material without a word said on the talk page, first by "new" account Crystallite and then by Activism1234 (with neither saying a word on the talk page). Why exactly should Mofaz's view of the "investigation" not be included. How is a single sentence on the IDF's Chief of the General Staff saying that this was a personal request by an officer and not an IDF initiated report UNDUE? Or is tag-teaming and edit-warring without discussion the new strategy here? nableezy - 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you want to discuss? Your accusation that I'm tag-teaming?? Because why in the world would I have such an article on my watchlist, right... Why would you have every single obscure settlement in your watchlist either? --Activism1234 15:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I say hounding? No, didnt think so. I want to discuss what two users who removed long standing material have failed to even mention on the talk page, that being what the Chief of General Staff said about the "investigation" having been requested personally by a general and not by the IDF. nableezy - 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I mentioned anything about houding either. I had this on my watchlist, I saw an edit, I checked it out, made an edit, explained in summary box. --Activism1234 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably look up the meaning of tag-teaming. nableezy - 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, it's interesting to note that you consider tag-teaming and edit-warring to be "noble" behavior. --Activism1234 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is that you still havent been able to detect the presence of sarcasm. Would you like to get to the point where you explain your tag-teamed, edit-warring revert? Long-standing material was removed from the article, and neither person who has removed has yet justified its removal. Please do so. nableezy - 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Explained it all in summary box. Very perturbed at your insistence on accusing me of tag-teaming and edit-warring. It's not tag-teaming to see an article in your watchlist get edited and check it out, and it's not edit-warring to make a single edit to it. I explained this above, and you insist on calling me that. I don't expect for you to listen to the rest I say or have a civil conversation if you're going to still call me that. Very offended. --Activism1234 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, what you explained in the edit box would account for the removal of the word "sidelined". Not the blanket removal of what Mofaz said. And yes, re-reverting to remove long-standing material without discussion is edit-warring. Sorry you dont like the label, but if you do not want it applied to you then dont do it. nableezy - 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in the rest of my summary box as well, rather than cherry picking quotes. --Activism1234 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, you made an unsubstantiated claim that it was UNDUE to include a single line from Mofaz. Im asking you to explain that here. A recent AE case was closed saying that users are expected to explain their reverts on the talk page. If you continue to refuse to do so, well, we can see what happens next. nableezy - 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't twist the AE. It wasn't mandated, it was supported. I don't really see how much further you can explain this other than the fact that inserting what Mofaz said into the lead about the initial investigation, the fact it wasn't a private one, is WP:UNDUE. It doesn't make that much of a difference in notability to be put in the lead. This is the comment by one person, speaking about what type of investigation it was - not that he "sidelined" it or said it was bad. Then there's also the longer, more used investigation by France. --Activism1234 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read the source? The source clearly says that Mofaz said this about the Shahaf investigation, not any internal IDF investigation. And this one person was the IDF's Chief of General Staff, he would have a pretty good idea what the IDF requested. And notability specifically does not cover the content of articles, so that disposes of the final objection. So, because you had no consensus for your change, and because you have been unable to actually provide a valid policy-backed rationale for it, I will be restoring Mofaz's comments on the Shahaf "investigation". nableezy - 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Once again, my hand just had a spasm and typed those words which formed coherent sentences. Of course I read it. I also never said anything about some other internal IDF investigation... --Activism1234 00:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the vies of Mofaz? y they important enough to be stuck in lead about a investigation. report what sources say not unconnected people. This is a question of WP:DUECrystalfile (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The French supreme court quashed the appeal decision on the France 2 - Karsenty case

Change made in the article, comment deleted from the talk page.Jlbruyelle (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Observation

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somebody on a social networking site said; "I don't get pictures like this,wth is there someone taking a picture BUT NOT HELPING", to which I replied; Maybe it occurred to them that there were bullets flying around, but they didn't know from where. Nobody could actually tell whether or not the child and his father had been shot. The father, though, knew that he himself was hurt and quite obviously heard and felt a bullet enter his child, too. Something tells me that few Palestinian protesters are going to be carrying a gun at all, let alone one which can injure somebody in this fashion. This is a "Class A" cover-up to the purpose of hiding, not the fact that these unarmed people were shot or indeed killed, but rather the type of ammunition which was used. Israel even admitted responsibility at first but then, in my opinion, realised that footage exists which clearly shows that a certain type of penetration occurred. Then they decided to censor the matter in any way possible, and so they blamed an enemy which mostly likely does not even have access to that kind of weaponry. Take a good read of this article, if you will: Stopping power "Bullets can indirectly disrupt the central nervous system by damaging the cardiovascular system so that it can no longer provide enough oxygen to the brain to sustain consciousness. This can be the result of bleeding from a perforation of a large blood vessel or blood-bearing organ, or the result of damage to the lungs or airway. If blood flow is completely cut off from the brain, a human still has enough oxygenated blood in their brain for 10–15 seconds of wilful action, though with rapidly decreasing effectiveness as the victim begins to lose consciousness." Can anybody else clearly see a red patch on the child's clothes to his abdomen in the below-linked video at around the three-minute mark? I can. There was no open, heavy bleeding because the bullet hit an organ and the resulting shock caused a haemorrhage away from the site of impact. His blood simply simply stopped circulating. With a shocked abdominal organ, no blood pressure and thus no oxygen circulating, the poor boy was doomed. http://video.ak.fbcdn.net/hvideo-ak-prn1/v/724908_10151503244510638_1898309745_n.mp4?oh=ac018a4d79b6cc2fcfed83fa2f79e69c&oe=512F0D6D&__gda__=1362036392_6a3d7ebbce61a21bebe63b98a7fbdd9a There is definitely something off with the angles here, though. They were taking cover against a specific direction in general, but they were hit from another. Whoever fired quite blatantly had a clear line-of-sight to both targets. Whoever this was, used burst mode. Whatever it was, had a Hydra-Shok round. Wherever they were, they were close enough yet hidden. That child took a hit to the stomach with something which caused hydrostatic shock. This child was holding his head because it was fucking hemorrhaging; both he and his father knew it only too well. That is why the old man said that his child was dying, because he was. The video then cut out as the cameraman realised that something very serious had just happened; he was simply no longer interested in shooting a video when a child had just been shot by a soldier and was quite obviously in a lot of trouble. Further reading; http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf Mere Mortal (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Further... "The respective positions of the main contingents of Israeli and Palestinian soldiers is irrelevant. I do agree that the direction of the fire contradicted the cover which these unfortunate souls took, but that does not identify the faction of the shooter. There may actually have been incoming fire from the Israeli position which did not hit either the concrete drum or the civilians. At the same time, fire came from another angle, too. I don't believe for a moment that the suspect bullets came from the Israeli outpost because if it did, the father would likely have been hit in the head and this was clearly not the case. I'm going to speculate that a handgun was used, possibly a Magnum or a similar weapon also capable of using an ACP round as well as burst-fire mode. That's not to say it was indeed ACP, as other rounds can also make use of the Hydra-Shok technology, such as the parabellum. Handguns are a concealed weapon, generally speaking. I'm not suggesting that the shooter did not have a primary rifle, although we could be talking about a sub-machine gun, such as the MP5, again in burst mode. However, I suspect that the shooter was covert and if so, he would unlikely have been carrying a visible weapon which might identify his conflicting allegiance. Thus, he may well have had a gun matching what the Palestinian forces were using, not that I can find any information about their typical load-outs, as well as his concealed secondary. I am speculating that this back-up weapon was indeed used. Else the shooter simply did not have a typical primary weapon. The way I see it is that the child was the unfortunate victim of a clear assassination attempt against his father. Somebody, somewhere, moved to the Palestinian positions dressed in civilian clothing, with the intention of executing that man. He didn't want to shoot them in the head because this would have left an almighty mess and thus it would have been even more clear that a specific weapon and charge had been used. Consider this, if you have little knowledge of guns (to be fair, I don't really); have you ever played the original Resident Evil on the Playstation? Didn't you just love blasting the head off a zombie with your Magnum? That's what could have happened to those people if it hit them in the head. Maybe not at that kind of range, but nonetheless the risk was there and it would have looked very, very suspicious if that had happened. Thus, the sniper took aim to their abdomens as he knew precisely what the effects would be. He was trained and he executed his shot almost perfectly. I say almost because I do reckon the father was the target, yet he apparently survived. Whether or not the child was an intended victim will likely never be known, but the shooter blatantly had very little regard for him either way. The father took a bullet too, but it's difficult to say as to how much damage it did. Assuming he survived, it likely missed vital organs and arteries. As for the child, it did hit an organ and the resulting shock wave caused a catastrophic haemorrhage in his brain. And that is the principle of Hydra-Shok. It would be interesting if somebody could do some analysis of the key footage so as to ascertain the probable recoil of the weapon used. Due to the dust, it's very difficult to see where the bullets were going. If they rise, this indicates that the weapon was rising as it fired. Handguns have much less recoil than a sub-machine gun or assault rifle, so there could be some telling facts to be gleaned in this respect. One thing that the video does seem to be clear about is that the victims did not jolt upon impact, to me this is good evidence to work with regarding the manner in which the weapon was fired and in how it hit its targets." Mere Mortal (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - URL to original report

This link in the infobox...

Original France 2 report

...was originally leading to a 404. It has since been updated and seemingly points to the relevant source now. However, the video on that page is not loading; it is returning an error in French.

Mere Mortal (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The page has a place-holder that says (in several languages) "Player under maintenance, please try again later." I wish there were an alternative, but I'm not aware of one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 125 embeds a copy of the original report hosted by Dailymotion. The URL of the video is http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbl5r2_le-reportage-de-charles-enderlin-ob_news. I added it as an alternate link until France 2 has fixed their server.

— Jlbruyelle (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Front page/TFA

This would be a riveting article to appear on the front page as a TFA. Do you all think this is even possible, or is the subject matter too contentious?--Chimino (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I know this is late response, but I'd guess it's going to be "too contentious". I'd personally support a TFA though! NickCT (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit and update

This FA hasn't been maintained for a few years, so I've posted a copy-edited and updated version. There were lots of dead links, all fixed, I believe; a few dead links weren't in the Internet Archive, so I removed or re-sourced that material. I've tidied the citation style and moved the long refs into the text, instead of having separate sections: one section is easier to maintain.

I restored some text and sources that had gone missing, and moved the Schapira material out of its own sections and into the rest of the article, where appropriate, to reduce length and repetition. I also updated the text with latest developments, tidied the writing and removed some clutter, and reduced the FR section. And I added some free images and tidied the others. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a big WP:FRINGE issue with the article.

The hypothesis that al-Durrah would not have been killed by a bullet shot from Israeli soldiers is given too much weight. That's of course difficult to evaluate how to give the due weight in cases such as this one but the lead points out too much time the 'doubt' thesis. Among most scholars are journalists, there is no doubt. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That isn't a fringe position. The fringe position is that it was staged. The lead gives three sentences to that position (from "Other commentators" to "international investigation"), including one from al-Durrah and Enderlin. It has always been difficult to know how to handle it because it's covered by a lot of RS, and several RS support it, so we can't ignore it. But nothing in the article suggests that it has mainstream support. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malik, I removed the alt text because at Wikimania a few years ago people who use screen readers complained about it. From then on we were asked to supply only brief text, one word or so, to stop the screen reader from reading out the file name. That's why I add "photograph" or "map" nowadays. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for refreshing the article, SarahSV. I just restored the alternative text for images in the article. The use of alt text is an on-again/off-again featured article criterion, plus alt text makes the images more accessible to users with text readers, so it's important that alt text be meaningful. "A man with black hair wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt crouches behind a wall and a white concrete cylinder. With his right hand, he is grasping the arm of a young boy, also with black hair, who is crouching on the ground behind him. The boy is wearing blue jeans, brown sandals, and a blue and white top. His right hand is holding onto the man's t-shirt. He looks as though he is crying. Behind them, the wall is made up of concrete blocks. The man's head is slightly down, and he is looking to his left." is much more helpful than "photograph". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Having never used a text reader, I can't say they're wrong. I only know what Wikipedia's guidelines say to do, and that is to include meaningful alt text. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The FA criteria briefly required alt text, because one editor who liked it persuaded us to start using it. But there were lots of complaints from editors. Then someone from the Wikimedia Foundation told us that at Wikimania people using screenreaders had complained about it. They don't want to have to wade through those words, so they asked us to stop doing it. Given that we were doing it for them, but they were finding it a nuisance, the requirement was removed from the FA criteria in 2010. But it's apparently still good to add one word to stop the file names from being read out. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in some of the details. Why am I not surprised that guidelines are being disseminated by WMF staff at Wikimedia instead of being discussed on the guidelines' talk pages? Feel free to undo my changes if you think that's appropriate. And if you think the guidance in WP:ALT is wrong, please change it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik. I think I'll go in and remove it again at some point, because it means we have some with and others without alt text. WP:ALT isn't a guideline anymore, and looking at some recent FACs, they don't add it. In fact, I think I'll stop adding my one-word alt, because it seems that no one is doing that either. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, I do insist. The idea that al-Dura would not have been killed by Israeli soldiers is fringe and given too much weight in the lead. This idea comes from Karsenty/shapira who claims it may not have been and then who claimed they had not and from the Israeli inquiry that claimed it cannot be determined. The article supports that thesis whereas nor Karsenty nor Shapira can be considered reliable or neutral. Other commentators give weight to the idea he was killed by Israeli soldiers.

The lead today sounds like a conspiracy theory: nobody knows how al-Dura was killed and nobody knows who planned 9/11. That's not in compliance with WP:NPoV per WP:UNDUE. The title as well is not neutral. This was not an incident. A children died. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. A majority of modern coverage of the event notes the controversy. There are genuine concerns. It is, due to the laws of physics, highly unlikely that the israelis from their position fired lethal shots.Contrary to your belief that a majority hold the simplistic view that the boy was killed by Israeli forces because a voiceover said it.... they don't.... hold it. That position is antiquated. The middle ground is that it was a tragic accident regardless of who fired the shots, and children should not suffer through armed conflicts for which both sides are at fault. Historians will recognize the power the image had in the Arab world and the world in general,like it says, it's a battle flag. Muhammad al-Dura is the Sunni's Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn, the quintessential innocent victim. It is still used for this symbolism- An example of this is a brilliant cartoon [19] comparing al-Durrah to Syrian children.The fringe position is that the entire event was staged by the PA to help Arafat fuel the Intifada. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 and Monochrome Monitor: - It pretty clearly is WP:FRINGE, and that should be obvious solely from the nature of the claim itself. Everyone seems to agree that folks were being shot at. Everyone seems to agree that the kid ended up with bullets in him. It seems a little extraordinary to argue that someone other than the folks shooting at them were responsible for the shootings. Sorta similar to claiming that some of the Kent State Shooting victims were killed by someone other than the national guard. It would be a pretty extraordinary claim, that would probably need a pretty high level of evidence to be credible.

Unfortunately this page has a long history of WP:OWNERSHIP by folks who have probably partially lost their grip with reality on IP issues (or just issues in general). The only way we're going to get this de-fringified is if we got a lot of neutral eyes on it. Unfortunately, given the obscure nature of the topic, I think it would be difficult to get much decent input. Tragedy of these commons really...... Pages of this nature tend to attract fringiness.

re "A majority of modern coverage of the event notes the controversy." - Don't get the point here. A majority of modern coverage surrounding the JFK assassination note alternative theories. That doesn't mean they ain't fringe.... NickCT (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)