Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

RfC on statement in the lead

Is the statement currently in the lead, that "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged", sufficiently sourced (and properly worded based on those sources) to not violate WP:AWW or WP:UNDUE? Previous discussion on the topic can be reviewed here. ← George ^[talk] 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And the massive number of sources supporting this can be found here. IronDuke 05:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead must include notable controversies, and given the mainstream coverage the hoax allegations have had (Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, and similar), it's fine to summarize them in one sentence like that. It would only be if it were more marginal that you'd want to give details (Researcher A writing in Marginal Newspaper X said that ...), but then if it were that marginal, it might not belong in the lead at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the vague, weaselly wording of the existing statement. Thus far, as no one has been able to give me a list of who the "number of researchers and commentators" that claim this was a hoax are (despite my repeated requests), I've only been able to find five or six people among your sources who actually claim to have reviewed the evidence and concluded that it was a hoax. Compare that to, say, the Holocaust article. Surely there are even many more articles discussing Holocaust deniers than people who claim that this event was a hoax, so why then does the Holocaust article not mention such people in the lead? That article doesn't even mention Holocaust denial in the body, relegating it to the See Also section. Do you think a statement like "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the Holocaust was staged" would be appropriate, if cited to a couple articles describing such people? I certainly don't. ← George ^[talk] 06:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no comparable mainstream coverage of Holocaust denial, such as in this lead, for example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when do op-ed's count as reliable sources for anything other than the author's personal opinion? All I read is that the author thinks that the French judge finding that Philippe Karsenty was not guilty of defamation against France 2 for calling their broadcast a hoax was "of great significance". He then draws the conclusion, based on the French court's ruling, that the event "may have been a hoax". I'm not sure how one jumps from an accused party being found innocent of defamation to the accuser being guilty of what they were accused of, but that's exactly why we avoid using op-ed's for anything but the author's opinion. ← George ^[talk] 06:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As SV implies, no reputable scholar or newspaper takes the idea of Holocaust denial seriously, unlike this particular theory, which is given serious, respectful attention by same. IronDuke 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources in the Western world maybe, but such is the systematic bias of Wikipedia. Hopefully we'll be able to get the outside input of editors not already involved with this article (which was, of course, the reason for filing an RfC). I don't even disagree with it being in the lead (aside from the fact that majority of the lead is already about the event, and not about the boy) - I only find that it's worded in a very misleading way. ← George ^[talk] 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you prefer to see it worded, George? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on who makes the claim that it was a hoax, which is why I've repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) requested such a list. The terminology "A number of researchers and commentators" has several issues. First, saying "A number of people say that weasel words are great!" is even worse than saying "Some people say that weasel words are great!", because the term "a number of..." is often used to imply that "a (surprisingly large) number of...". Second, how many people who claim this are researchers (a researcher being someone who actually examines available evidence), and how many are commentators? Third, who actually claims that this was all a hoax, and that the boy was never killed, versus how many claim that the boy was really killed, but by Palestinian gunfire instead of Israeli gunfire? There's a significant difference between those two views. So far I've found two Israelis (working for the IDF), two German reporters (producing a documentary), a French author, and a French member of a media watchdog group who have claimed that this may have all been a hoax. Finally, which commentators have said that they agree with said researchers? Akerman... and who? I'm not even sure that the "commentators" are worth mentioning. Why not just stick to people who actually researched the case themselves instead of the people who reported on them? ← George ^[talk] 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

George, could you read the sources, and suggest an alternative sentence that would satisfy your concerns? Then we can decide which of the two is more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the links are dead, and I ignored those I don't consider to be reliable sources (as an aside, I would highly suggest separating actually articles from editorials in that list), but here's what I've come up with based on those sources: "Two Israeli scientists who examined the scene, and several reporters who reviewed video footage of the shooting, raised the possibility that the incident may have been staged. This has since become the official stance of the Israeli government." Thoughts? ← George ^[talk] 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this differ substantially from the current, "A number of researchers and commentators ..."? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• It distinguishes between the researchers who examined the scene, and those who only watched the video footage.
• I've changed "a number of", which I find vague and weaselly, to "several". If you think it's more accurate to say "two German reporters, a French author, and and a member of a French media watchdog group" instead of "several", I'm open to that as well, but it seemed quite long to me.
• I've expanded it to add that it's also the view of Israel (per your source quoting the chairman of the Israeli GPO). It wasn't in there before, but I think it's significant (more so than the handful of researchers).
• I've dropped the explicit reference to "commentators". It's vague, and hard to verify; distinguishing between commentators who make the claim them self, and those who identify it as the claim of the researchers is difficult.

I think that mostly covers my changes... ← George ^[talk] 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your first point, that would be OR and not entirely accurate (did the scientists examine the scene?). But OR in any event, because you're implying that one group had access to the right information and the other didn't, whereas in fact access to the video might be enough to determine that something wasn't right, in the view of those who looked at it. You'd need a source making clear what you're saying, in other words.
• "A number of" means the same as "several," in my view.
• Has any Israeli administration taken a position?

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• According to the source cited in the article: "[IDF General Samia] commissioned [physicist Nahum Shahaf] and an engineer, Yosef Duriel, to work on a second IDF investigation of the case... Shahaf took one trip to examine the crossroads, clad in body armor and escorted by Israeli soldiers. Then, at a location near Beersheba, Shahaf, Duriel, and others set up models of the barrel, the wall, and the IDF shooting position, in order to re-enact the crucial events." I'm not sure how you want to word it exactly, but their investigation was distinctly different (not necessarily better or worse) than that of the German & French reporters. I didn't mean to imply anything, other than that the two groups investigated in different ways, which is something worth mentioning.
• If "a number of" means the same as "several", would you mind if I change the current article to say that "Several researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged"? That's at least a step in the right direction for this statement.
• My addition of this statement was based on your source, which states: "The September 2000 death of Palestinian child Mohammed Al-Dura in the Gaza Strip was staged by a Gaza cameraman, Government Press Office (GPO) Director Daniel Seaman said yesterday... in an official letter, representing the Prime Minister's Office".

I've updated my proposal based on your concerns. How about: "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, raised the possibility that the incident may have been staged. This has since become the official stance of the Israeli government." ← George ^[talk] 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have no objection to those changes, except you should check the Israeli govt issue with other sources, as one comment from a press officer may not be quite enough. Perhaps they've commented again since then. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think of that proposal. ChrisO is having trouble posting, but left a message on my talk page saying that "the Israeli government disclaimed its own spokesman's claims about the case, saying that he was only expressing his personal opinion", so the second sentence will probably have to be kept out unless we can find reliable sources for it (which I haven't been able to, outside of that one Haaretz article). ← George ^[talk] 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a grammatical point: "raised the possibility that the issue may have been staged," is close to saying they raised the possibility of the possibility; "raised the possibility that the issue was staged" would be better. Or if you feel that sounds more definitive, "suggested that the incident may have been staged." But if you prefer your version, I'm fine with that too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Combined with ChrisO's suggestion to remove the second statement, we have: "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, suggested that the incident may have been staged." ← George ^[talk] 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, as others have weighed in on this issue (who did not necessarily, say, visit the scene), I think the current proposal would be misleading. IronDuke 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to people other than Schapira, Huber, and Karsenty? If so who, and what analysis did they perform? ← George ^[talk] 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's more who studied the subject and gave a note that the event could have been staged. e.g. Modechai Kedar and Richard Landes. Still, Israel has not made it an official stance. In short, I'm displeased with the (no offense intended) grocery list feeling of the suggestion to count the people. In fact, the numbers may change on a weekly basis and slowly inflate the lead further and further... 2 researchers, 14 academics, 3 documentarists, 17 media analysts, 4 right-wing activists, 1 wizard and a goat... I hope my perspective is clear.

Waem regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My only concern here is with finding a wording that matches the sources. Let me give you an example: say I give you a hundred sources that all cite the same person as saying something. How would Wikipedia report on that? We would state it as that one person's opinion. What if half of those sources talked about one person, and the other half discussed another person who said the same thing? Wikipedia would say that it was the opinion of those two people. What if each of the hundred sources cited a different person? Then Wikipedia could easily use terms like 'many' to describe those people.

My goal here is not to make a list, it's to pin down the vague statement in the lead and clarify it, which is why I requested a list of who made the claim that this was staged in the first place. If it was many researchers, we could say many; if it was few, we could say a few. But nobody would offer up such a list, so I had to go digging through the sources myself. I found a couple Israeli researchers who reenacted the events, who in turn convinced a few other people that this was a hoax (namely, the German film makers and one or both of the Frenchmen). Had I found a wide variety of different groups in the sources making the claim, I would have pushed for a broader wording. But I didn't.

Now, regarding Modechai Kedar and Richard Landes, what are the sources for them having this view? You're correct regarding Israel's official stance, which is why I've dropped that from my latest proposal. I'm really hoping we can get the outside input of some editors not involved in this discussion though, or the whole RfC will prove useless. ← George ^[talk] 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the way yout put it, George, as I think it may illustrate where our disagreement lies. If a hundred commentators all shout "Amen" to the research of one person, provided the commentators are notweworthy in their own right, we would regard the research as having, say, wide approval. Not everyone who supports the research has to be an expert in the field for their opinion to count. (And you were given a list, George, a long one...) IronDuke 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with it. The sources provided are reliable and WP:lede request a brief mention any legit controversy. Richard (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and providing an outside opinion Richard. Is anyone opposed to me leaving the currently wording and sources, and just changing the "A number of" to "Several", per the discussion with SlimVirgin above? ← George ^[talk] 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the earlier phrasing of "A few" but I wouldn't mind to hear other perspectives here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

two of the sources used to support that sentence in the lead only suggest the possibility that aldura wasnt actually dead. the story in the atlantic is the only one of the three that mentions the "staged" theory, and this is qualified with, "A handful of Israeli and foreign commentators have taken up Shahaf's cause." it is described as "his cause" and noted that nearly everyone (including the german documentarians that worked with him) rejects it. the views of one private citizen "obsessed" with proving his theory seem undue here, especially since (as the atlantic described it) "The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day."

my personal opinion is that this is undue weight for the lead, but if its going to be there, then it needs to be qualified with a quote from a serious news outlet mentioning the "obvious"ness of its status as a fringe conspiracy theory.untwirl(talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You've captured the very essence of my comment above. Initially, Shapira, believed that the boy was probably accidentally shot by Palestinians and they simply believed that the Israelis shot him. However, in more recent articles, she mentions that a face recognition expert told her that the boy in the video and the "dead al-dura" picture they showed her at the morgue were two different children, leading her to suspect that it is possible that the entire event was staged. More examples of scholars who believe the event was staged are Mordechai Kedar, who completely believes it, and Richard Landes, who believes in the possibility. These are not crusaders for Shahaf and neither are several other notables. I figure a large amount of the recent reporting reflect on the possibility that there's some staging in the event and, as, such this is notable enough for a carefully phrased one liner.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What about replacing "A number of" with "A handful of", per untwirl's quote? ← George ^[talk] 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good George, I would personally support that. Richard (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on "a handful," because it makes it sound like a tiny number, whereas we don't actually know how many people argue this now. "Several" or "a number of" sounds less definitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

SV beat me to it. IronDuke 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

neither the jpost or bild article suggest that the event was staged, and they are used to support that sentence. if the atlantic is the only source used that actually references the statement then we shouldn't assume that there are any more than they say. they state that "shahak's cause"(a private citizen and inventor "obsessed" with proving his theory - not "researcher") was taken up by a handful of "israeli and foreign commentators." if there are other sources to support this statement, please add them, as i am only referring to the three cites used in the lead to support that sentence. untwirl(talk) 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

also, if this is a "tiny minority fringe view" it doesn't belong in the lead at all. if it is used, it should be disclaimed as a conspiracy theory. untwirl(talk) 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the accusations about the event being staged be put in a controversey section, if at all. The article that is referencing this accusation just came out a few days ago and the documentary has not been widely screened. Until there is some more public information about the accusations, it should not be in the lead, if in the article at all. This is about a child killed in a gun battle and is a sensitive matter whether doubted or not. It just does not belong in the lead of the article. This is a matter of true until proven false. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"neither the jpost or bild article suggest that the event was staged" is a powerful argument against inclusion of this in the lead, if it were true. The Jpost piece refers to "the alleged death" of MaD. Bild says "Biometric analysis supports the claim – the boy who was pictured with the father and the child who was buried have different faces." Yes, both sources are from this year. If we eliminated sources because they offered the most curent information, many WP articles would look very different, and by "different" I mean "wrong." IronDuke 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

suggesting that the boy may not have died is not the same as suggesting that the entire event was staged. untwirl(talk) 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one is saying "the entire event" was staged. Obviously, a skirmish did happen. But what's been alleged is fraud, that MaD was not killed. It's been a while since I researched all this; is there someone out there suggesting that MaD and his father were actually caught in the crossfire, possibly wounded, but then faked the boy's ultimate death? IronDuke 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke wrote "Well, no one is saying 'the entire event' was staged." Umm... the sentence we're discussing in this RfC states that "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged". Those who have made such claims fall into a few different groups - those who think the whole thing was staged, those who think that the boy was killed by Palestinians (intentionally or accidentally), and exploited for propaganda purposes, those who think that the boy was just wounded (either by Palestinians or Israelis) and that he isn't really dead, and that his burial was staged. Each of these views has one or two proponents, while almost none on them agree on exactly what they think happened. ← George ^[talk] 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you read what I wrote in context? IronDuke 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine said that the sources didn't support the current wording of the statement in the lead. You said that the sources say that the death was "alleged". untwirl said that saying that someone was alleged to have died does not mean that the "entire event was staged". You said that nobody says the "entire event was staged". I reminded you that the statement in the lead says that some people claim that the "entire incident was staged". If nobody claims such, why are we saying so in the lead? ← George ^[talk] 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This conversation turned into a petty, off-topic squabble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the point has been made, but i will reiterate - the purpose of this rfc was a line claiming that "A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged." that is the statement that is being challenged and an attempt is being made to reword it. ironduke, if you don't understand the issue you should really read the section header and initial comment before responding with, "Well, no one is saying "the entire event" was staged." if you concede that point, then concede it and collaborate on more accurate wording. untwirl(talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't make it past: "ironduke, if you don't understand the issue." If you'd care to rephrase or refactor, I'll be able to get to the end of, and reply to, your post. IronDuke 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) four days later and that's the best you got? whether you reply or not is your own business; your erroneous statements have been thoroughly refuted. untwirl(talk) 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) "Refuted?" It would appear not. But you can continue to substitute insult for argument; it won't effect consensus any, though it may make you feel better. IronDuke 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent) umm ... where is the insult? "if you don't understand the issue" is so offensive that you couldn't read on without stopping for a little weep? hardly. since you agree that "no one is saying "the entire event" was staged," it seems we are all in consensus here and we can remove that sentence from the lead. untwirl(talk) 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Hmmm... you insist you aren't insulting me, and prove it by insulting me again. (Didn't get past "weep," FYI). Maybe you should stop posting here until you can do so without taunts. IronDuke 03:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) once again, where is the insult? implying someone may not understand the issue at hand (in light of their responses) is an insult? the word "weep" is now an insult? i'm not insulting you, and i don't believe you feel insulted. this is called stonewalling, kids. untwirl(talk) 04:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You refer to me as "stopping for a little weep," but don't see the insult? I can imagine few good faith observers who would credit your statement. I think if you focus on content, and not contributors, you'll do just fine. IronDuke 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) i can't believe i am explaining this, but my tongue in cheek remark conveyed disbelief that you would weep over such a thing. i actually believe you are probably far too well-adjusted to cry because someone on wikipedia implied you didn't understand an issue. you seem to have no problem using sarcasm, i gave you credit for being able to sense it as well. why waste everyone's time with this sidetrack when there was no insult to begin with? why wait four days to reply with, 'i couldn't read past the part where you implied i might not understand the issue"? once again, off-topic stonewalling because you don't want to admit that you inadvertently refuted your own argument. you said, ""Well, no one is saying "the entire event" was staged." good. we all agree. i like george's suggestion: "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, suggested that the incident may have been staged." untwirl(talk) 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) First, thank you for writing an insult-free post, one that I can respond to in full. I was afraid things were going to keep going on in that vein. That your previous insult contained an element of hyperbole (that I was actually weeping) does not, in fact, make it sarcasm. It’s still just an insult. Again, this is very, very obvious – it was meant to be. I don’t think Wikipedia is served when that sort of nastiness is tolerated. Unfortunately, there is very little I can do to have you “punished,” assuming I were inclined to do so, which I’m not. I have only one option there, and that’s to ignore you. And that’s not something I want to do at all, I want to address what you said, which I am now able to do. When I write “no one is saying the entire event was staged,” I was suggesting that no one was saying that the Palestinians and the Israelis got together to fake a gun battle in which no one was killed. I thought that was clear, as well, but apologies if it was not. (I suppose it’s also possible that the son was actually wounded, but did not die: thus, the “entire” event would not have been staged as it relates to father and son, but I don’t know if anyone is making that claim or suggestion.) I’d certainly be happy to change the lead to suggest that a number of researchers etc. have raised the possibility that MaD’s death was a “hoax.” Does that work better for you? IronDuke 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) sorry, didnt make it past hyperbole. try again. untwirl(talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Apologies. "Hyperbole" is a figure of speech, in which what is purported to be true is exaggerated for effect. You may finish the rest of my post at your leisure! IronDuke 02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. According to the sources cited, the Israeli physicist hired by the IDF does make the claim that the entire thing was staged. That doesn't mean that the Palestinians and the Israelis colluded to stage it, it means that he thinks that there were no Israelis shooting (at all, or at least in that direction), and that the Palestinians made up the event and filmed it. Others believe that he was shot but not killed, and that the funeral was staged, while still others believe he was shot (and possibly killed), but by Palestinian gunfire. IronDuke - do you have a counterproposal to "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who analyzed video footage of the shooting, suggested that the incident may have been staged."? The term "hoax" would be inappropriate, as a hoax is usually meant as a joke. ← George ^[talk] 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I've made a couple serious comments above and it feels as though you missed them. To reiterate, I disagree with the suggested rephrasing because the level of staging that each notable persona is claiming is not unequivocal as most of them only came out with a strong statement that the possibility exists rather than say that "this is how it happened". All the staged footage from the Netzarim junction certainly gives rise to this assertion but I'm positive that we should not "grocery list" each of the people who made a statement in the lead and the level of staging that they asserted. Shahaf, btw, only raised the suggestion that we're talking about two boysbut did not say it as a "this is how it happened". Most researchers though agreed that Israel could not have shot the boy from the angle suggested by the cameraman. Also, I haven't seen any explanation to his claim that Israelis shot at the boy "in cold blood" for 45 minutes in contrast to the 1 minute and 6 seconds of shooting hehad footage of. Anyways, getting back to the point - the list (i.e. "two Israeli") is a bad idea. We have academics and state officials and news reporters andmedia analystsand lobbyists and many more with input.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, I think you've made some fair points. Do you have a counterproposal? I'm looking to reach a consensus, not vote between two different versions, so I'm of course open to suggestions. I believe that Shahaf, based on current sources cited, has made the claim that the entire event was staged - not just that there were two different boys:

"Almost as soon as the second IDF investigation was under way, Israeli commentators started questioning its legitimacy and Israeli government officials distanced themselves from its findings. 'It is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation,' the liberal newspaper Ha'aretz said in an editorial six weeks after the shooting. The newspaper claimed that Shahaf and Duriel were motivated not by a need for dispassionate inquiry but by the belief that Palestinians had staged the whole shooting... 'The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation—almost a pirate endeavor—on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying,' Ha'aretz said."

"A handful of Israeli and foreign commentators have taken up Shahaf's cause. A Web site called masada2000.org says of the IDF's initial apology, "They acknowledged guilt, for never in their collective minds would any one of them have imagined a scenario whereby Mohammed al-Dura might have been murdered by his own people ... a cruel plot staged and executed by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a television cameraman!" Amnon Lord, writing for the magazine Makor Rishon, referred to a German documentary directed by Esther Schapira that was "based on Shahaf's own decisive conclusion" and that determined "that Muhammad Al-Dura was not killed by IDF gunfire at Netzarim junction." "Rather," Lord continued, "the Palestinians, in cooperation with foreign journalists and the UN, arranged a well-staged production of his death." In March of this year a French writer, Gérard Huber, published a book called Contre expertise d'une mise en scène (roughly, Re-evaluation of a Re-enactment). It, too, argues that the entire event was staged. In an e-mail message to me Huber said that before knowing of Shahaf's studies he had been aware that "the images of little Mohammed were part of the large war of images between Palestinians and Israelis." But until meeting Shahaf, he said, "I had not imagined that it involved a fiction"—a view he now shares. "

"For the handful of people collecting evidence of a staged event, the truth is also clear, even if the proof is not in hand. I saw Nahum Shahaf lose his good humor only when I asked him what he thought explained the odd timing of the boy's funeral, or the contradictions in eyewitness reports, or the other loose ends in the case. "I don't 'think,' I know!" he said several times. "I am a physicist. I work from the evidence." Schapira had collaborated with him for the German documentary and then produced a film advancing the "minimum" version of his case, showing that the shots did not, could not have, come from the IDF outpost. She disappointed him by not embracing the maximum version—the all-encompassing hoax—and counseled him not to talk about a staged event unless he could produce a living boy or a cooperative eyewitness."

Essentially the source currently cited in the article makes the claim that this was a (questionable) IDF investigation led by two Israeli scientists, who re-enacted the events, who were joined by a very small group of supporters (masada2000.org, Amnon Lord, and Gérard Huber, who at best had access to video footage, and Schapira, who was collaborating with Shahaf but rejected his "all-encompassing" version of events. You wrote that "we have academics and state officials and news reporters and media analysts and lobbyists and many more with input". Can you identify any of them by name? Someone had proposed changing "A number of" to "A handful of", which is the wording used in the second paragraph above from the source. I'm not entirely opposed to that, since that's what the source says at least. ← George ^[talk] 18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus to change the wording, nor do I see significantly new arguments being advanced. IronDuke 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some general agreement that it should be changed, just no agreement yet on what to change it to. Do you have any suggestions that those who dislike the current wording might consider? ← George ^[talk] 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that general agreement. You appear to be suggesting various ways of minimizing the decription of how many view the incident as fraudulent is some way, and I don't see support for that. IronDuke 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I'm not sure if IronDuke was correct in his assesment of your wishes on the paragraph but I'll give this issue some thought for a day-two and try to think of a linguistic change that might satisfy everybody. Shahaf, btw, is not the only investigator and the report made out by the IDF, criticized or not, was signed by some other respectable figures. Obviously, for those who want to attack Israel, its easy to attack Shahaf who's strongly opinionated towards the possibility of a large scale fraud. The level of it, as interpreted by the source you cite, seems innaccurate by the sources I've gone over - even if he were disappointed that others wern't taking matters further in their interpretations of how far fetched the conspiracy could be. Anyways, if you have other suggestions that don't turn the lead into a "grocery" list I'd be willingto give them thought on top of trying to come up with a suggestion that will satisfy your concerns regarding the lackonic version we have on now. I'm not sure there's something wrong with this version and SlimVirgin and IronDuke seem to think this as well, but I will give it some serious thought.

p.s. thank you for boldening the importantparts of the text you cited.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More proposals are always welcome Jaakobou, as they can only help the consensus-building process. Who else signed the report you mentioned? I'm not opposed to changing "A number of" to "A few", something you proposed earlier, though I think I prefer "Several" to "A few" (as I think "A few" is too narrow, which, despite IronDuke's claim, is not my intention). But please keep us apprised of any suggestions you come up with. ← George ^[talk] 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to recap and see where those who have weighed in stand:

• George - prefers "Several" to "A number of", prefers listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly, open to relegating the statement to a controversies section rather than the lead
• IronDuke - opposed to any changes proposed thus far
• SlimVirgin - open to changing "A number of" to "Several", open to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly, opposed to changing "A number of" to "A handful of"
• Jaakobou - prefers "A few" to "A number of", opposed to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly
• Richard - open to changing "A number of" to "A handful of"
• untwirl - opposed to including the statement in the lead, open to listing the individuals who make the claim explicitly
• Elmmapleoakpine - opposed to including the statement in the lead

As far as I can tell, four editors are open to changing the term "A number of" to something else, three editors are open to explicitly listing who makes the claim, three editors are open to removing the statement from the lead entirely (moving it to a controversies section), and only one editor opposes making any changes at all. Did I miss anyone? ← George ^[talk] 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has rewritten the lead (and done a good job, in my opinion). I think we should review and think over his changes for a few days and see if this discussion is still necessary. ← George ^[talk] 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable right now (although The boy quickly became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel. needs to sourced, that will be easy to find a source for). Thanks to SV for taking a stab at resolving this. Perhaps we can have some kind of re-vote or re-debate about this current version? The Squicks (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I'd like to change it from

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

to

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy initially reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

Thoughts? IronDuke 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

completely unnecessary. "reported to have been killed" is accurate and neutral. untwirl(talk) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So "initially" would be inaccurate? IronDuke 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It takes things a step further. "Reported to have been killed" is already a step too far for some. That wording was the compromise position. Adding "initially" implies that things have definitely changed substantively since the initial report, but that wouldn't be true. They have changed somewhat, but not substantively. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't think anything has changed substatively since the initial reporting? IronDuke 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as much as your proposed change would imply. As I see it:

1. "MD was a Palestinian boy killed by gunfire," implies "no reliable source is saying or implying otherwise."
2. "MD was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire," implies "all we can say for sure is that this was reported, because questions have been raised that reliable sources have taken seriously."
3. "MD was a Palestinian boy initially reported to have been killed by gunfire," implies "the initial report is now regarded as wrong, and it has been, or is in the process of being, corrected by reliable sources."

In my view, 1 and 3 are wrong; 2 is correct. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me which RS's still maintain MD was killed by Israeli fire? IronDuke 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether Israeli or Palestinian gunfire is not the point, as you know. Why do you want to add the word "initially," when "was reported" is perfectly accurate and neutral? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I confess I'm confused now. Of course it's the point. If the current thinking is that the IDF did not shoot him, then the thinking has changed since the initial reports, when it seemed obvious it was the IDF. No? IronDuke 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the current view of a few people in the world (as we were discussing in the discussion above). It's not the current thinking of most people, which is what your change would imply. ← George ^[talk] 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so your contention is that most people believe the Israelis shot MD? Is there an up to date source for that? (BTW, just to be clear: if it was the case that the Israelis did not shoot MD, it wouldn't therefore automatically follow that the event was staged.)IronDuke 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the event as the boy being shot by the IDF. ← George ^[talk] 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How recent? IronDuke 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

From 2001 to 2009, give or take. ← George ^[talk] 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ID, you didn't answer my question. Why do you want to add the word "initially," when "was reported" is perfectly accurate and neutral? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought the answer was clear; because adding "initially" would make it more accurate. Or at least, I think it would, willing to be convinced otherwise. IronDuke 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the suggestion since we already do have some type of qualifier. There is room, however, to make some sort of listing on how news-sources describe the events in recent reports. I'd suggest a constraint to the year 2009 with a soft review on 2008 sources as well. Also, if anyone has any idea on where I could watch the second film by Schapira, that would be appreciated.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We could have something like

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy killed by gunfire, initially reported as from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada.

// Liftarn (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Liftarn,

Its nice to see suggestions made but I don't think you've been following the input on this incident. I suggest you make a review on some of the more recent publication to get a grasp on where your suggestion is incorrect. For starters, the use of a source from October 2000 is of little help. Try publications from 2009 please.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rumor Mill Note: I heared a rumor that Israeli Channel 1 will be broadcasting the second documentary upon the 9th anniversary to the incident. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I've rewritten the lead because it was too long and too wordy (as is the rest of the article), and I incorporated George's suggestion. Below are the old and new side by side. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Old	New	New 2
Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. Initially, Israel accepted the reports and apologized, saying that IDF bullets had "apparently" killed al-Durrah. However, later investigations by the Israeli Army and an independent French ballistics expert, Jean-Claude Schlinger, stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy, but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the entire incident was staged. The original reports stemmed from footage recorded by a Palestinian cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, filming for the French public television network France 2. The footage shows al-Durrah and his father taking cover from crossfire behind a concrete cylinder, then apparently being shot. The scenes were broadcast with a voice-over from Charles Enderlin, the channel's bureau chief in Israel, who was not present during the incident; he told viewers that the father and son had been the "target of fire coming from the Israeli position." France 2 made three minutes of the tape available without charge to other television stations, and the scenes were aired around the world. The boy quickly became an iconic martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel. Three days later, the Israeli army chief of operations said an internal investigation showed that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers"; he issued an apology, expressing sorrow and calling the incident "heartrending"; at the same time accusing the Palestinians of the "cynical use" of children in the conflict. Further investigations were later reported by the chief of operations who now noted the incident as "a very reasonable possibility" that al-Durrah had been hit by Palestinian bullets, and expressed "great doubt" over Israeli responsibility. In 2002, an investigative report by the ARD German television edited by Esther Schapira also said there was a "high probability" that the Israelis were not responsible. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for certain who might have fired the shots, although Enderlin stands by his original report. The controversy was furthered when commentators began challenging Enderlin's reporting, asking why the France 2 footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and why no forensic evidence was available. Denis Jeambar, a former editor of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, a documentary producer, were given access to France 2's raw footage in 2004, and later wrote in Le Figaro: "At the time when Charles Enderlin presented the boy as dead, he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers." Other commentators — including Daniel Seaman, the Israeli government's chief press officer — have gone further in their criticism, alleging that the entire incident was staged with the knowledge of the cameraman. In 2004, France 2 sued Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog, after he called the incident a "hoax". France 2 won the initial defamation case, the court ruling that Karsenty had "seriously failed to meet the requirements expected of an information professional." In May 2008, that judgment was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence" and had "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." France 2 has said it will appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court. In July 2008, the French Jewish umbrella group, CRIF, called on the government to initiate a probe of the authenticity of the original report. The status of such a probe is as yet unclear.	Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. Al-Durrah's father, Jamal, was injured during the same shooting. The incident was recorded by Talal Abu Rama, a Palestinian cameraman filming for France 2, the French public television network, and broadcast with a voice-over from Charles Enderlin, the network's bureau chief in Israel. Enderlin, who was not present during the incident, told viewers that al-Durrah and his father had been the "target of fire coming from the Israeli position." Israel initially accepted responsibility and apologized, but later investigations by the Israeli Army, an independent French ballistics expert, and a German television documentary, suggested that the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for certain who fired the shots, although Enderlin stands by his original report. The controversy deepened when commentators asked why the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and why no forensic evidence was available. Denis Jeambar, a former editor of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, who saw the raw footage, wrote in Le Figaro that Enderlin could not have known that the boy was dead at the time of the broadcast. Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events, and several reporters who watched the footage, suggested that the incident may have been staged. In 2004, France 2 sued Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog, for calling it a hoax. France 2 won its case, but the judgment was set aside in 2008 by the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence" and had "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." France 2 said it would appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.	Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988–September 30, 2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy who quickly became an icon in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel following reports that he had been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The initial report was questioned and investigations by the Israeli Army and an independent French ballistics expert stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy, but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the report was staged and one commentator became the focal point of a libel lawsuit. The incident was recorded by Talal Abu Rahma, a local Palestinian cameraman filming for France 2, the French public television network, and broadcast with a voice-over from Charles Enderlin, the network's bureau chief in Israel. The footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from crossfire behind a concrete cylinder with the boy slumping over, apparently hit by gunfire. Enderlin, who was not present during the incident, told viewers that the boy and his father had been the "target of fire coming from the Israeli position." Following the report, Israel accepted responsibility and apologized. However, later investigations by the Israeli Army, an independent French ballistics expert, and a German television documentary Three bullets and a dead child, suggested that the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets. Another German documentary, Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit was also released in 2009, where the incident and the staging allegations were further investigated. In 2004, France 2 sued Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog and one of the critics of the report, for calling it a hoax. Initially, France 2 won its case but lost in the appeal in 2008, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence" and had "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." France 2 said it would appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court. Enderlin stands by his original report, albeit France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots.

My initial reactions to this change are positive. It looks more concise, accurate, and neutral to me. Good job. ← George ^[talk] 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also added the date of death at the beginning, as I just noticed we were saying 2000, but not giving the date.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One additional thought - you may want to include the statement "The boy quickly became an iconic martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel." from the original (or some variation thereof), possibly at the end of the first paragraph. I think it's noteworthy and gets quite a bit of coverage in the body of the article (with the stamps and such). ← George ^[talk] 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Slim. I don't have much strength to go deeply into the changes right now and I don't want to overly step on your toes either (we've had a bit of a run in a little while ago). However, there's some clear issues with the recent changes such as a missplled name of the Palestinian reporter, as well as a possibly false claim in the first paragraph in regards to the father being injured in the reported altercation. This has been heavily disputed by many sources of repute. Another clear problem is the use of Suzzanne Goldenberg's article to back up "facts" since, best I'm aware, she is simply repeating the info she got from the Palestinians. If more issues arise, it might be better to rework your version (which I'm sure has some valuable improvements) into the original in smaller bits rather than as a large edit.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of the name. Who are the "many sources of repute" that have "heavily disputed" that the father was injured? We could reword this similar to the first sentence and say that the father was reported to have been injured, if it is as heavily disputed as the boy's death. ← George ^[talk] 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was reported that an Israeli doctor treated the father, in 1996 (if my memory serves me right), for axe injuries inflicted by a Palestinian gang and that the father later pointed at these scars as if they were caused by IDF bullets. This, in my opinion, is of higher repute than, for example, the claims that this might not be the same boy as the one shown in the morgue image of the first documentary (who the heck trusts biometric analysts?). Anyways, I've seen the docotor (Yehuda, I believe) in multiple electronic as well as television news articles and he is a reputable character, treating both Jews and Arabs on a daily basis. I have no argument/objection against your rephrase suggestion though. I would actually tag the boy and his father together into the same "reportedly injured/killed by IDF bullets" line.

p.s. (offtopic) in regards to your assesment on my preffered version of the text, I didn't have any preference between "few" and "numerous" and anything similar. My objection was to the listing-in-the-lead suggestion. Apologies for not having the time to follow up on everything here diligently. I've had a few other pressing matters as well as a few problematic editors putting sticks in the wheels of proper consensus building by playing juvinile IP/tag-team games.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Jaakobou, that's not what happened; I don't think the doctor is a remotely credible character. The doctor came forward, years after the shootings, to claim that the scars on the father's body were not bullet wounds and therefore he couldn't have been shot. What's left out from that account by the conspiracy theorists and irresponsible journalists is the fact - widely reported at the time of the shooting - that the father went through multiple operations in a Jordanian military hospital, to which he was evacuated after the shooting, to remove bullets and repair some of the injuries he suffered. Such operations would of course have produced surgical scars. If the father was indeed injured by a Palestinian gang - an assertion sourced solely to the doctor, which nobody appears to have tried to verify independently - then it is quite possible that some of his wounds are from that incident. But it has been used by the conspiracy theorists to assert that all of his wounds are from that incident and that he suffered none from the shooting. This, of course, would require the Jordanian government and military to be complicit in the supposed conspiracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

All due respect to Jordanian doctors in comparison with Israeli ones, you have missed some of the info in this case. There's issues that caused for more than wiki-editors speculations and we have a respectable(?) documentarist come out and change her mind as to the validity of the initially reported story and there's a few academics involved and some media analysts and reporters as well (I'd hate to get into a personal wiki-debate on the supposed facts as we interpret them). Anyways, you know I believed the father completely until I noticed (in a 3rd time I was watching it) he used the term "Zionist entity" in an interview in the first documentary. Anyways 2, I think that your "concerns" about the Israeli doctor are quite unfair and, to be frank, a bit of a conspiracy theory in itself. I don't believe that there's any reliable source raising such concerns about him, unlike the suspect cameraman. Btw, I'm curious if you've had a chance to view the latest documentary by Schapira?

p.s. on the issue, there'd been enough speculation on the event that we can't write that the father was injured in the reported altercation. That gives a false air that we know the facts when the facts are disputed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Schapira, sadly, has irresponsibly let herself be led by the nose by conspiracy nuts. We should not be in the business of promoting bad journalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an online version of this film in English? Or at the very least a transcript of it from a reputable source? ← George ^[talk] 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a subtitled version - try YouTube. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

If you have sources for your, seemingly, exceptional allegations towards the doctor (and his hospital department?) and documentarist (and the people working with her on both documentaries?) and the other "nuts", I'm open to review them. Otherwise, I suggest you keep this fringe theory to public forums. Currently, it sounds like a psychologically-based wild stretch of events (i.e. with nothing to go on but a hunch) and the usage of "nuts" as a descriptive to some fairly respectable and living people is not the right way to approach making an encyclopedic article.

George,

Are you interested in the older film or the new one. I couldn't find the new one but I might be able to get you a copy of the older one.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I'm truly, truly shocked. I just watched one of the films (I didn't realize there were two; not sure if it was the older or the newer), and the so-called "journalism" contained therein was simply atrocious. The video doesn't support the claims in the least - if anything it reveals a fundamentally flawed IDF investigation. I'm not sure if I can support the inclusion of this material in the lead in any form after seeing the video of their "investigation". Debating what to do next... ← George ^[talk] 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I have to say that this is a new approach to Wikipedia. To be honest, I feel the same about almost every article coming out of The Guardian in relation to Israel (some people dub it "al-Guardian" -- a reference to the pro-Mukawama al-Jazeera -- for its repetition of Palestinian narratives and ignoring of Israeli perspectives). I'm still interested in hearing why this is dubbed an "investigation" (quote on quote) but I don't believe personal interpretations (mine included) of the film or the other sources matter.

On another note,

I've noticed that the entire note that the incident is suspect as staged (to some degree) was delegated to the fourth paragraph when it's quite a notable issue and should be mentioned earlier than that. I'm also quite unhappy with the current fourth paragraph with its over-listing of details. I'll probably make a rewrite attempt merging the old version with the new and making it shorter and less detailed. Better if we leave that for the body of the article.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attempt a rewrite, because your rewrites in the past have been somewhat problematic. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirgin,

I'm sorry for suggesting this, but perhaps a more collegiate approach would benefit the discussion. You didn't see me assuming bad faith despite our old run-in and the errors in your recent suggested rewrite here. In fact, I tried to handle this in a delicate fashion so as to avoid giving rise for old bad blood. While I think you've made an honest attempt and gave a good effort it feels as though you missed (and, in a way, trampled on) the very worries that were raised above. Both the listing issue as well as the first paragraph making clear that there are recent developments that makethe initial report suspect. I say, lets not discuss things like angry mastodons and I ask of you to try and work on this with me so we can get it to long lasting encyclopedic levels and, with any luck, even to GA levels. I'm sure you, at the very least, agree that having a wrong name on the lead is a bad way to start. Yes?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my issue with the "investigation" (and why I use the term loosely), is that the video of Shahaf's re-enactment, which purports to show how IDF bullets could not have caused the bullet holes in the barrel, clearly shows that the "comparable" concrete barrel they were shooting at is completely different than the original. The impenetrable barrel they're shooting at is substantially taller, wider, and thicker - the difference is and stark and measurable. The intellectually insulting part is you can see the edge of another, smaller concrete barrel, one of approximately the correct dimensions, hiding behind the wall, not being test fired upon in the "re-enactment". Not on video, anyways. There are really so many problems throughout this video. I can't believe no reliable sources have torn it apart. I guess it probably didn't receive enough attention for reliable sources to have done any in depth, critical review of the material being presented. ← George ^[talk] 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

General note:

OK. Let's assumin George is correct about the size of the barrel and shahaf (and everybody else who signed on that report) used a larger, bulkier sized barrel to make a false analysis. Now, we still need explanations to why the cameraman said the Israelis shot at them (boy and father) in cold blood for 45 minutes and he only came up with 1 minute and 6 seconds of "raw" footage. Also, we need explanation to why that Palestinian was filming a molotov coctail holding kid who was one second running holding this bottle and the other second 6 guys were bringing him into an ambulance (see: "Pallywood")- that scene can'tbe reassuring about the level of honesty inhis reporting. To be honest, I don't care that much about the version of the truth each and every one of us can claim to hold/explain. What matters for the purpose of this article discussion is that there is not a slew of reliable sources suggesting the Israeli doctor is a liar or that the German documentarist is not reliable. Personally, I would take the word of a surgical doctor who treats both Jews and Arabs over the word of a stinger cameraman, regardless of that cameraman's origins - others, I'm sure, would take the wordof anyone over that of an Israeli, even if he's a race-blind doctor. It doesn't matter that, for the sake of this argument, we've already seen dead bodies come to life and clean toys caught in the middle of dusty rubble. On topic, I request that people here avoid making smears against anyone involved in this initial report and the later investigations and only report on what reliable sources say. We can't get this article to good levels if people start concocting their own conspiracy theory and try to promote it... there's enough of that going on blogs and that's where it should stay. Aside a single comment, we already have collegiate atmosphere which is a nice start, but its note nough if everyone takes an incivil tone with what reliable sources say. I know this is a controversial subject, but let's stay focused on the purpose of this project.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So I must have a seen a different documentary than you did. In the video I saw, there was no Israeli doctor being interviewed, nor any mention of one. There was in fact the opposite - they said that the Palestinians specifically would not let the father be moved to Israel for treatment, and insisted that his wounds be treated in Jordan. They identified a slew of bullet wounds he was treated for in Jordan, said additional bullets were removed from his body in Jordan, and showed pictures of him in a Jordanian hospital, bandaged and bloodied.

The real issue on this is one of notability. In general, fringe conspiracy theories are not covered by reliable sources, so finding reliable sources that dissect or refute them can be difficult, if not impossible. Unfortunately, several of the things claimed in the documentary I saw were akin to Adnan Hajj's faked photo. In the same way that even a non-expert looking at that photo can see that it was manipulated, some of the things shown or claimed in the documentary are so obviously flawed that I'm not sure any honest, unbiased party that reviews the claims can believe them.

Another issue is just the pure lack of journalist integrity shown in the video. For instance, let's say I'm interviewing a person named Jack. In my interview, I ask Jack if he likes children, and Jack responds that yes, he loves children. Great. Now say I go and make a documentary on Jack. I put ominous music in the background, play a clip of Jack saying "I love children", freeze the image of Jack halfway through the video, when he's making some weird face, then have a narrator in a deep, spooky voice say something like "Why does Jack love children so much? Is Jack a pedophile? Can he be trusted around your children?" That's not good journalism; that's tabloid journalism. A journalist is someone who relays information "while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased".

I haven't decided what to do yet. The current introduction likely has to be modified. If you read the section of the article on the IDF investigation, the majority of the material in there is actually disputing the conclusions as those of unprofessional conspiracy theorists, citing reliable sources as well as Israeli government officials who label the investigation "bizarre... amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional" and "biased from the start". If the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's content, the current lead fails to properly summarize this section. I would suggest everyone take the time to read this section itself before taking another crack at summarizing it (I'd be quite interested in how SlimVirgin would summarize this section in a lead, as he seems to write in a fairly neutral manner). There was also some information in the documentary not present in this article that should be added, like the fact that the general who hired Shahaf and Duriel to conduction an investigation is the same general who was responsible for the Israeli base accused of shooting the boy - a clear conflict of interests. ← George ^[talk] 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

George,

I'm sorry but non of the recent reports I've seen in 2009 treat the Israeli investigation in this way and, in fact, most sources I've seen discuss the recent raised concerns with a little more respect. It's not a perfect report and certainly, Shahaf is an easy to attack target, but this doesn't change that there's still clear errors and a bit of a shift of direction from the new material in the newly suggested lead and I still don't see anything in the direction of sources claiming the docotor is a liar or that the documentarist and her team are (as you seem to suggest) cheap propagandists.

I'm again hearing this new theory (from you) that I just don't see -- not in the first film or in any reliable sources. If you have anything reliable on this, I'd be happy to take this point with full seriousness, but for now it just seems like a blank argument. If anything, that documentary is of fairly high quality among the articles I've seen made on this topic. The woman interviewed the mother, the father, the cameraman, the police chief, the Palestinian doctor in charge, soldiers from the outpost and many more -- the only people who were put to question were the ones who appear to be blatently lying. i.e. the cameraman who says he keeps secrets (WTF?!). I haven't seen the father being made out as a liar until, later, an Israeli doctor said that the wounds he showed as supposedly coming from Israeli bullets (the father used the word "Zionists") were actually serious inuries that he treated a few years before the Netzarim junction incident. The doctor is consiered reliable until further notice and the documentarist remains a respectable one until further notice. The investigation's critics should have their say as well but they don't seem to have major notability - best I'm aware. Find me reliable sources and all these new theories could be treated with respect, until then, I request to remind people that Wikipedia is not a forum to raise theoris.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, how many cinder blocks tall would you say the cement barrel in this image is? And how many cinder blocks off the ground are the heads of the two people? And where is the interview with this doctor? I still haven't seen or read about it...

On the topic of the fourth paragraph, in smacks a bit too much of recentism, and not enough of summarization of the issue. It also fails to provide any information on the sources that counter the claims made, or identify those that have labelled them "conspiracy theories". ← George ^talk 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know what exactly that image you just gave is supposed to be and its absolutely besides the point (as is any point I raise about the father using the word "Zionists" to describe Israelis after working in Israelfor many years). You just can't raise theories without reliable sources to back this. I don't know what you call recentism, but the new rewrite attempt goes to the other side of the scale (i.e. anachronism), giving undue credence to reports from 2000 that have been thourughly challanged -- with little success at first but this changed after a courthouse demanded of France 2 to produce their raw material. That was a clear turning point, IMHO, in how the media treated this story and this can't be delegated to the fourth paragraph, certainly not when just a few days ago an editor suggested we should clarify the recent changes issue further by adding 'initially' to the sentence in the first paragraph. I felt that was overkill at the time, but the recent change is just as bad. Anyways, I currently fail to see the big improvement in the new version and it most certainly isnt a neutral representation on this event and all the mess surroundingit. Anyways, I will review it a bit more before making changes. Maybe in the meantime, some of the raised concerns could be restored and discussed with suggestions... that would certainl be helpful.

p.s. I've seen multiple interviews with the doctor and one of them, from before the "raw" footage (1 minute and 6 seconds of the boy and father when the cameraman claimed they were shot at "in cold blood for 45 mintues") was shown and Karsenty was aquitted, can be found here and they include a differnt size barrel than the one in the picture you link to.[1]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is from the video of Shahaf's original "re-enactment", which purports to show that Israeli bullets could not have killed the boy or injured the father. There were bullet holes through the cement barrel at the scene, and the Israeli claim was that Israeli M-16s were not powerful enough to put holes in cement barrels. To illustrate this point, they re-enacted the scene, but, as can clearly be seen in the video, they used a much larger, thicker cement barrel in their tests. (Oddly, they claimed they couldn't find any AK-47's to test against the barrels.) I'm not raising any "theories" - I'm not saying that they were "cheap propagandists" (to use your words), and I'm not saying they were "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional" or "biased from the start" (to use the words of Israeli officials and Haaretz). I'm saying, however, that I have a very hard time considering their "investigation" as a reliable source for anything, when it is was so clearly flawed.

The fourth paragraph fails on a number of points. First, it does not properly summarize the Israeli investigation section of the article. 80% of that section is critical of the Israeli investigation, and yet the criticism of it isn't mentioned. Second, the majority of the paragraph is dealing with the French ruling, giving a fairly minor point too much weight in the lead. You do understand that the French court did not rule that it was a hoax, eh? They ruled that Karsenty's claims were not defamation. Defamation is when you claim something as true when it is actually false. All the French court was saying is that there wasn't conclusive proof that Karsenty's claims were false - not that they were true, and not that it wasn't a conspiracy theory - just that Karsenty had a right to express his opinion.

Thanks for the link. I don't have time to review it now, but I hope to later today. ← George ^talk 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
I know all the current details with the court thing. I thought it was clear from my phrasing above. I don't know the details of ths image you gave and, as hard as it is to accept, that is the nature of sources in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Some sources make us cringe when we know/feel that they neglegt a large chunk of the story. CNN, for example repeated allegations of hidden mass graves during the Battle of Jenin... and the mediacompletely neglected the issue of terror in the center of Israeli towns, the worst in the history of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, and focused on bogus massacre allegations. Back to al-Durrah, reports of this story from the past couple years are different than those from October 2000 and this should be reflected in the lead.
Side note, I'm not sure that criticism of the investigation should be as largely notable as you suggest they currently are. I don't care somuch to go into this at this very instance since it is more important to go into the generics. I'll try to review this in context and see ifmy perspective changes to resemble yours more.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)+c 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wentahead with reintroducing the issues raised about the lead and shortened the not very notable details of the initial inspection into the raw footage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tought/concern: I'm wondering on fellow perspectives on whether or not Daniel Pearl should be mentioned in the lead. It seems like a fairly noteworthy issue regardless of whether webelieve or disbelieve the investigators. Btw, Geroge, I wentover a couple sources and, while you raise concerns with the tests run by Shahaf, we have an independent expert running his own investigation so I hope we can drop this debate.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've partially reverted you. I can tell your edits were made in good faith, but I disagree with several of them for a variety of reasons. Can we discuss them in a more detailed, granular nature here? ← George ^talk 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got around to watching the video you posted earlier. I didn't realize it was only two minutes long - I would have watched it earlier. So it's interesting that the doctor says he treated Jamal al-Dura in 1994, and that was the cause of the scars on his arms and legs, but it doesn't explain the (more massive) stomach wounds described elsewhere. ← George ^talk 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The second documentary goes into further detail on the scars. The movie raises the suspiscion that he was attacked by the Gang for being a suspected collaborator and cites a bullet-wound in the butt of Jamal as a common trade-mark for such humiliation attacks. Btw, the tape only showed one stomach wound so I'm not certain you are exactly accurate with how you cite the source you've read.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going on what Schapira's documentary said (I'm still unclear if it's the first or second). In it, she states that he was hit by several bullets, in the arm, abdomen, and leg. It would still be nice if someone found a copy of this other documentary. ← George ^talk 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy of the first one in English, so I'm assuming that is the one you're addressing.The secondone is in German and I've had the chance to see a subtitled version of it... I will let you know if I see a copy of it somewhere accesible. Anyways, that is the one that should be used for discussing the scars since it really elaborates on them, unlike the first documentary. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an accessible copy of the second would be great for verifiability. ← George ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

The previous dicussion was getting long to open. I've reinserted some stuff since I wasn't that happy with the errors that sat on the page for a while now (since SlimVirgin made her edit) but we could, for the sake of argument, move it backtothelongstanding version priortothat edit and then discuss my suggested changes. Feel free to elaborate on your concerns here.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we can be clear what happened (to readers who are not following this closely)=

'''Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah''' (1988–September 30, 2000) {{langx|ar|محمد جمال الدرة}}) was a [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] boy reported killed by [[Israel Defense Forces]] (IDF) gunfire during a clash between the IDF and [[Palestinian Security Forces]] at the [[Netzarim (settlement)#Netzarim Junction|Netzarim junction]] in the [[Gaza Strip]] on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the [[Second Intifada]].<ref name=Goldenberg>Goldenberg, Suzanne. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,376639,00.html "Making of a martyr"], ''The Guardian'', October 3, 2000.</ref> The boy quickly became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

In the lead was then changed to=

'''Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah''' (1988–September 30, 2000) {{langx|ar|محمد جمال الدرة}}) was a [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] boy who became an icon in the [[Arab world]] and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel following reports that he had been killed by gunfire from the [[Israel Defense Forces]] (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and [[Palestinian Security Forces]] at the [[Netzarim (settlement)#Netzarim Junction|Netzarim junction]] in the [[Gaza Strip]] on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the [[Second Intifada]].<ref name=Shapira2>Shapira, Esther. ''Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit'', ARD television, 2009.</ref> The initial report was questioned and several investigations stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy, but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the report was staged by the cameraman and one commentator became the focal point of a libel lawsuit.

Which is currently what is in the article right now. The Squicks (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'd appreciate it if Slim would check the cited source as well as other recent sources and not mass revert. Certainly, the revert on the "After a few minutes" text,[2] a clear error, is not helpful for conductive discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) + diff 04:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with "after a few minutes"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for responding to a question with a question, but have you seen the footage? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

J, no games, just tell me what's wrong with a few minutes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I fail too see why the wording is something worth arguing about in the first place. A different wording such as In the video, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire. would be a reasonable compromise, wouldn't it? (But I don't why something so minor is at issue at the first place, whatevers...) The Squicks (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just confused why SlimVirgin keeps reinserting factual errors into the text and reverts me when its clear she hasn't taken the time to really go over the information. In response to the question raised by SlimVirgin, the boy takes less than 20 seconds -- which is considerably less than 'a few minutes' -- of footage to slump over and the entire footage of him and the father amounts to approximately 1 minute and 5 seconds so even if you argue the point in time where he slumps over - its fairly clear that 'a few minutes' is not an option. Also, there are two large and serious documentaries in the references of the version where the "conspiracy theory" isnotable. Multiple sources, such as the removed BBC ref (titled: "Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage"[3]) also exist on the topic that make the staging allegation notable enough to appear in the first paragraph. Without a doubt, this is not a fringe conspiracy theory when Charles Enderlin states himself that he didn't see the boy's death and that the boy moved after he pronounced himdead to the world and that he knows staged images are coming out of from the hired Palestinian stingers. When several independent and notable people say the buried boy is not the same as the one reported by France 2, then there is enough material to mention that its not just a report anymore. I'm actually quite upset at how quickly my rephrase was reverted to clearly errorneous versions without even an attempt to discuss the matter. I've been more than hospitable to a prolonged stay of errors for the sake of a collaborative spirit. I've also used sources for support of the change to the first half of the first paragraph, but this was ignored. SlimVirgin, could you please allow for the fixes to be reintroduced and discuss your concerns and misunderstandings towards my changes. I promise to explain everything and be collaborative to the point of taking things out and waiting until we can get consensus.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) +wl 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) fix 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to SlimVirgin: Is Talal not a Gaza local? Is he from the West Bank or perhaps another country? Why is this, among others, being removed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this earlier as well. What is a "local Palestinian"? We don't write that he was shot by "local Israelis" or something, so I'm not sure what it adds. ← George ^talk 07:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question Does "After a few moments, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire" seem like an acceptable compromise wording? I personally would prefer it. The Squicks (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its better than the clearly wrong "a few minutes" but I'm not sure that 10 seconds should be equated with a few moments. How about "after several seconds" or just what I initially suggested (i.e. with the boy slumping over) instead? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "After a few moments". It's more neutrally vague, and neither of the other terms suggested ("After a few minutes", "After several second") is particularly accurate. ← George ^talk 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest and tell me how many seconds you think it is. Let me know if you count more than 30. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say more than 10, and less than 30. I would define it as more than "several seconds" and less than "a few minutes". ← George ^talk 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm unhappy with 'several moments' since it implies a time span longer than one minute where this is clearly less than that. I'm not sold on several seconds either and was quite happy with my initial rephrase of 'slumping over' which suggests the boy wasn't slumped to begin with but didn't take a considerable timespan (about 10-15 seconds if you ask me) to be slumped over. Thoughts/suggestions? I just thought of "a short moment" as a more accurate descriptive. Its not that bad IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the wording is "a few moments", not "several moments" (a few is less than several, in general). "A few moments" sounds to me like 6-20 seconds (when someone says "just a moment" they might say "just a couple seconds" or "just a few seconds", so a few moments is some multiple of that in seconds). "A short moment" sounds like even less time... like a split second or something. ← George ^talk 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

George's thoughts

To add to the discussion, I have a couple thoughts on SlimVirgin's version (the current version as of my writing this):

• The sentence "The controversy deepened because the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death." This claim sounds like something that has to be cited to who said it: "Person X said the footage did not show the actual shooting, and Person Y said the footage did not the moment of the boy's death." I don't think we can state either as unequivocal truth.
• In the third paragraph we state "later investigations by the Israeli Army... suggested the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets." In the fourth paragraph we write that "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events suggested the incident may have been staged." There's a bit of a disconnect here: the two scientists in the fourth paragraph were the ones who conducted the Israeli army investigation mentioned in the third paragraph. I don't think we should mention them twice, though I could see including one statement or the other.
• I would like to see a short, simple mention of the criticism and controversy of the Israeli army investigation performed by those two Israeli scientists, based on the plethora of sources in that section of this article. Something like inserting the word "controversial" would probably be sufficient. Depending which of the two sentences that I mentioned earlier we use, either "...a later, controversial investigation by the Israeli Army..." or "Two Israeli scientists who re-enacted the events suggested, controversially, that the incident may have been staged."
• Should we mention that it was two German television documentaries? The problem is that they were made by the same person - maybe state it something like "two television documentaries by a German journalist"? I'm open to suggestions.

← George ^talk 07:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We say in the first reference to an Israeli army investigation that they concluded the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets. We say in the second reference to it that they concluded it may have been a hoax. If there was only one Israeli army investigation, which is correct? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the course of events surrounding this investigation (and the investigators), based on the sources used in the article:

1. Yosef Duriel, an Israeli engineer, writes an article in Haaretz criticizing the IDF for not saying that the Palestinians had used al-Durrah as a human shield.
2. General Samia says that the shooting could have been committed by an Israeli soldier returning fire from the Palestinians.
3. Nahum Shahaf, the Israeli inventor, sees the video, notices an "apparent anomaly", and contacts General Samia about doing an investigation.
4. Shahaf also contacts Duriel, after reading his article, and proposes they work together on the investigation for General Samia.
5. General Samia commissions Shahaf and Duriel to perform the investigation. Some groups criticize the move and choice of investigators.
6. Duriel does an interview where he says that the investigation would prove that the Palestinians had deliberately shot the al-Durrahs as propaganda. Samia fires Duriel for his comments.
7. The investiation is concluded. The investigation makes no claims about it being a hoax, but officially concludes that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs.
8. Quite a few papers and government officials criticize the investigation and its conclusion. Duriel sues a man that sent a letter, critical of the investigation, to the editor of Haaretz. He loses the case. The Israeli judge rules that that investigation was "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional".
9. Shahaf later comes to believe, separate from the official investigation he had worked on, that the entire event was a hoax.
10. Shahaf collaborates with German journalist Esther Schapira on her documentary. He's "disappointed" that she only advances the "minimum" version of his case (that the Palestinians may have shot them).

I think that pretty much sums it up. The two Israeli scientists worked on a controversial IDF investigation that concluded that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs. Both believe, independent of the conclusions of the investigation itself, that the whole thing was staged by the Palestinians as propaganda. ← George ^talk 09:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Was this a formal IDF investigation, or was this the informal one? I had always understood there were two. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

I'm mostly speculating here, but I think that Shahaf was dissappointed in regards to the second documentary and not in regards to the first. As for the not seeing the boy being shot, that is mentioned in the Three Bullets and a Dead Child documentary where the scene is noted to blur out at the supposed moment of impact. As for showing the moment of death, everyone agrees on that one actually - including Charles Enderlin, but possibly not the cameraman - as the boy moves after he reports "the boy is dead" and Enderlin addmitted to this saying that you don't see the boy as dead in the report. As for the 'two scientists' text - it is inherently incorrect and is one of the problems with Slim's version that I've raised. I'm not sure why we're argueing over that version in the section that I was hoping would be dedicated to my own suggested changes. As for the criticism of the Israeli investigation suggestion - I'm not sure its that notable for the lead section, considering there were other investigations made by, for example, the biometrics expert and the ballistics expert who conducted his own investigation. In regards to the documentaries, they are two different stories. The first comes to the general conclution that its more likely that the boy was shot by Palestinian bullets and suggests the cameraman is inconsistent and that the rest of the evidence against Israeli fault is scarse. The second one looks further into the allegations and supports the note that one boy was killed closer to 10am and brought to the hospital with an injured ambulance driver (according to the Palestinian doctor interviewed). This boy was shown in the funeral footage of "Muhammad" at around 4:30pm (after autopsy etc.) while Muhammad's report was recorded at 3:30pm and includes many discrepancies. The second documentary also cites that images of an unidentified boy were found being brought to the hospital and that he could be Muhammad, but there is no way of knowing since there is no name and/or time qualifier in the shot. A side note is, that the second movie shows the Israeli officer who initially apologized for the death, make a 180deg, saying that the most likely option is that the report was staged completely with the less likely option being that Palestinians shot Muhammad at the intersection and the almost impossible option, following the evidencepresented inthe film, is that the soldiers in the outpost shot him. The movie itself closes with the note that its possible that its possible that two boys were shot.

I'd really appreciate itifwetry and focuse on my proposed changes rather than new suggestions when Slimhas reverted to the new version that still has some factual errors and has changed the previous balance of the text.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't mean to derail your discussion. SlimVirgin's version was the latest version when I saw your message about starting this discussion, so I thought this was just a general discussion of the lead. I'm breaking this off into a new section, and will reply later. ← George ^talk 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• So I can agree to including that the video doesn't show the boy dying (per Enderlin's admission), but the other part either needs to be specifically cited, or the wording needs to be changed. The current wording states that "the footage did not show the actual shooting", which can imply that the video showed a fake, or staged shooting. It can't be stated as fact the way it is.
• The IDF investigation by Shahaf and Duriel was the controversial one, and that's the only one I mentioned labelling as "controversial" in the lead. The other investigations or documentaries listed don't need to be labelled as controversial.
• While I can understand that the two documentaries covered different angles, they were done by the same person. Since a lead acts a summary, there's no reason to go into any great detail on them individually here.

← George ^talk 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused about the IDF. You say that the Shahaf/IDF investigation was the controversial one. Was there another IDF one, a non-controversial one? Also, the bit about the shooting -- we're simply saying that the footage does not show him being shot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. "By Tuesday, October 3, all doubt seemed to have been removed. After a hurried internal investigation the IDF concluded that its troops were probably to blame." This was the only other IDF investigation mentioned. It correlates to the beginning of the sentence in the lead that says that "Israel [initially] accepted responsibility...". The IDF investigation later in that sentence, the one conducted by the two Israeli scientists, was the one that was heavily criticized.

Regarding the shooting statement wording, what about changing it to something like "the footage did not conclusively show the bullets impacting the al-Durrahs", or something similar. I think we can all agree that the video showed some shooting, regardless of if the bullets can be seen to hit the al-Durrahs - clearly something is making holes in the wall and causing the puffs of smoke ever time a bullet hits the wall or the ground. It's incorrect to say that the video doesn't "show the actual shooting", when what we mean to say is that the video doesn't show the bullets hitting the boy or his father. ← George ^talk 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That suggestion seems ok to me. btw, what source reported on a hurried investiagtion? Best I'm aware, Israel took the report for granted and apologized for killing the boy (while attacking the abuse of children) based on the repute of Charles Enderlin as a respectable reporter. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly piece cited in the article. ← George ^talk 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Local cameraman

To help focus the dicussion, I'm breaking this minor discussion point into a sub-section.

In response to George:
Adding that Rahma is a local from Gaza puts his controversial report into a relevant context. His affiliation with the Gaza Strip rather than the West Bank or East Jerusalem has some encyclopedic value. esp. to people who study the conflict and are curious to know if he's orignally from Lebanon, Egypt, Jerusalem, Jenin, Nablus, Jericho or any other place. To further clarify the encyclopdic value of this (the comparison with Israeli reporters) - it is obvious that when a reporter is noted as Israeli, that he is from Israel. However, if a reporter gives a controversial report and the reported event has reportedly occurred in his own neighborhood, then it is encyclopedic to add the word 'local' to his adjectives. If, for the sake of making another example, a reporter revealed that a certain public official was dealing drugs - and he so happened to live in the same neighborhood as that public official, then I would consider this encyclopedic for the relevant section in the article about said public official. I hope this clarifies the issue and my perspective on it. Let me know if we can agree on adding this or that you have further concerns about the value of this one word.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I believe your suggestion is made in good faith, I think using "local Palestinian" is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as nuanced biased. What does local mean? Local to the neighborhood? Local to Gaza? ...to the Palestinian territories? ...the Middle East? To answer your question: if a reporter that lived right next door to the mayor of a town reported that the mayor was dealing drugs, no, I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article on the mayor. However, since I think your intention is just to make it clear that Rahma was from Gaza, why not just change the wording to "a Gaza cameraman"? It's accurate, less ambiguous, and I don't think anyone would take it the wrong way. ← George ^talk 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly changed this to "a Gaza cameraman". If others disagree with this wording, feel free to revert. ← George ^talk 10:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The general idea of using "Gaza" is fine with me but his nationality is still relevant so I'm not entirely pleased with the change made. I wouldn't mind it if it were 'Palestinian cameraman from Gaza' but it seems awefully long for the simple affiliation. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Palestinian cameraman from Gaza" is overly long, but I'm not opposed to it if you prefer it. I only thought of "Gaza cameraman" after searching reliable sources to verify that Rahma was from Gaza, and noticed some of them use the term. ← George ^talk 10:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have a little pickle here since "Palestinian cameraman from Gaza" is a tad long and "local Palestinian cameraman" has a hint of suggestion to it albeit, I hope we can agree that its not a very large one unless you're already thinking ill of him (such is the case with some people every time a reporting body is noted as 'Israeli', btw). Personally, I prefer the shorter version but I can see where either version might not last long term. Thoughts/suggestions? Maybe we can put a linguistics/other RfC here to see how a wider and less content-involved audience feels about this mini-debate. This might help create a longer lasting version asanyone who argues will be notified that multiple uninvolved others have weighed in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) +clarify 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An RfC isn't a bad idea, though I would wait until we get some more input from editors here first. Btw, what would a "Gaza cameraman" be if not Palestinian? Didn't all the Israeli settlers leave some years ago? Are there Egyptians living in Gaza or something? ← George ^talk 11:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(A) Not everyone in Gaza is Palestinian - esp. reporters. (b) The report was made in 2000, prior to the 2005 disengagement - and prior to the Hamas takeover (and the Alan Johnston incident), which means far more foreigners than there are today. Hope this clears the issue :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most logical thing to do is to write Gazan Palestinian? The Squicks (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza cameraman" seems like the best choice here. i don't think it is "relevant", as jaakabou says, to throw "Palestinian" in there, unless we are trying to infer that by being palestinian he is automatically more likely to be doing something crooked or underhanded. If he were from israel we would just say israeli, not jewish israeli. charles enderlin isn't prefaced with "french israeli." untwirl(talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an inferment. It's a factual statement that identifies someone. Calling someone a "French Israeli" would not bring up any issues to anyone either, as far as I can tell.

"Gazan Palestianian camerman" is quite the tongue twister. Given that Israeli settlers lived in the area at the time, I'd say we should stick with the original "Palestinian cameraman" in the lead. Jaakobou's original case was that this may be important to "people who study the conflict and are curious" where he was from. Well, we describe him in the body of the article as "a freelance photographer and correspondent for France 2 and CNN, who lives in the Gaza Strip". If someone is so interested in studying the conflict, I'm sure they can read past the second paragraph of the article to find out. It's just not necessary in the lead, which is, after all, just a summary. ← George ^talk 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about we try and use "freelance Palestinain cameraman"? I guess its almost as clear that he's from Gaza as using the word 'local'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Neutral, accurate; easy to read. ← George ^talk 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Argument breakdown - pt 1 - global icon for the Mukawama

Following a screening of the new documentary, I believe that the most notable issue about al-Durrah ishis becoming an icon. He's not notable for being shot as there's plenty of those and he's not notable for the criticism of the initial report. His notability derives from his icon for martyrdom status. This is supported by the second documentary and I'm fairly sure that its supported by a numberof recent sources. Would appreciate an agreement on placing this in the manner I suggested on in asimilarmannerthat gives what I believe to be the proper weight.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all disagree with including this in the first paragraph (in fact, I think I was the one who suggested to SlimVirgin to include it in their version), but I don't agree with where you put it. The current version (SlimVirgin's version, more or less) is two sentences long - the first says the boy was shot, the second says he became an icon. Your proposal says essentially the same thing, but in one, really long sentence (which may be a run on), and in backwards order. I just think that having them in this order, in two separate sentences is easier to read, and makes more sense because it's very chronological. ← George ^talk 10:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to how you/we/RS define the boy. Is MaD a boy who was reportedly shot (X), or is MaD an icon in the Arab world (Y). The first sentence should define this (X or Y) and follow up with the reason/s he is notable as such (X or Y). This is actually a big step forward for the article in defining the subject properly, something which for an unknown reason was missing. Let me know if I'm making sense to you here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'm thinking the problemhere lies mostly with my overly long sentence than with the actual content change. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the length made the statement difficult to read. I'd say he was an icon for Palestinians (or Arabs), but only in death. He was not iconified during his life, nor for what he did while alive. I think that makes his death more prominent. Contrast that with someone who was iconified following their death. Take your pick - Elvis, Jesus, a September 11th firefighter, Michael Jackson. They were all iconified to some extent following their death, but not because they died (or not just because of death, in the case of Jesus or the 9/11 firefighter). They were iconified following death for what people think of what they did during their lives (Elvis & Michael Jackson created popular music, the firefighter tried to save people; Jesus performed miracles). This boy was distinctly different, as the only reason he became an icon was for how he died, not for what he did leading up to that death. ← George ^talk 12:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as you said, is that his only claim to fame is his death rather than his life's work. Allow me to try a rewrite to my previous overly-single-sentenced attempt... Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous version

Rewite 1

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988–September 30, 2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy who became an icon in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel following reports that he had been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a clash between the IDF and Palestinian Security Forces at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The initial report was questioned and several investigations stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy, but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have suggested the possibility that the report was staged by the cameraman and one commentator became the focal point of a libel lawsuit.

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988–September 30, 2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy who became an icon in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel following reports that he had been killed by gunfire from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The report was captured by a freelance Palestinian cameraman at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip and was questioned by several investigations which stated that Israeli gunfire could not have killed the boy but that it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets". A number of researchers and commentators have also noted that the information in regards to his reported death was lacking important details and suggested the possibility that the report was staged by the cameraman. One commentator became the focal point of a libel lawsuit which is currently appealed at the French high-court following his acquittal.

Hope this is seen as an improvement, I also tried to mention what SlimVirgin noted as important. i.e. the lack of clear evidence of his death. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s. its not "great" and I wouldn't mind some copy-editing on it. Hopefully each point stays in its general location on the text which seems like a fair make on positioning by notability. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s. 2. there is roomto shorten it furtherand makeit less detailed still. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I just don't see any value added by this rewrite, over the current version. My point was that you're focusing on his iconic status when that's not what made him important - his death is the only thing that made him an icon. This is different than the other icons I mentioned, as it was their lives that made them icons, and thus their iconic status might be their primary importance. The boys most important event was simply that he died - even those who don't view him as an icon acknowledge that his death was important in some way. His iconhood is purely secondary. ← George ^talk 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, and again, no offense intended, but I find both of your versions to be heavily lopsided, granting significant undue weight to extreme minority opinions. ← George ^talk 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You and ChrisO decided its extreme minority. BBC, JPOST and others reported on it as if its a legitimate opinion. So where do we go from here in deciding on whether you and ChrisO are right or that BBC and the others are?

p.s. I'm only talking on the points that have received significant coverage in reliable sources.

p.p.s. I'm actually rethinking the location of the iconography situation. I hear your point and am in the process of reconsidering.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you refresh my (poor) memory and list those sources for review? ← George ^talk 03:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a chunk of them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed; the only BBC article on that page discusses the French court case, and the only JPost article is about the ADL suggesting an independent investigation of the France 2 report. Neither articles treats the hoax allegations as "a legitimate opinion". ← George ^talk 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I gave you a link to a list of reliable publishers reporting on the opinion that the event may have been staged. That it was well published, means that it is notable. Sources on the page include The Daily Telegraph, International Herald Tribune, The Jerusalem Post, Atlantic Monthly, The National Post, Los Angeles Times, and others. Forget the legitimacy of the opinion issue and note just that it is a notable POV.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Two issues

We're in danger of conflating two issues, and it's important to keep them separate. The first is currently not mentioned at all in the lead, and yet it's arguably the more important of the two:

1. Unfortunate journalism, and no forensic investigation

The bit that was removed from the lead: "The controversy deepened when commentators asked why the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and why no forensic evidence was available. Denis Jeambar, a former editor of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, who saw the raw footage, wrote in Le Figaro that Enderlin could not have known that the boy was dead at the time of the broadcast."

The issue here is that this was an unfortunate piece of journalism, and odd behavior from both the Palestinian and Israeli side. For example, a hand is placed over the camera at a crucial point. The footage trails away. Parts of it went missing. Enderlin says the boy was killed before he could possibly have known it. He said the boy was targeted by the Israeli, when there was no way for him to establish that, or even hold an opinion at that point, given that it had just happened and he wasn't there. Then when questioned about the footage not showing the death, he says it was cut to leave out the boy's death throes. But then other French journalists gained access to it, and there were no death throes.

In addition to that, neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian authorities conducted a forensic examination, and the Israelis demolished the wall the bullets had been shot into. That leaves people with no way of knowing what happened, and in particular no way of knowing which side fired the crucial shots.

In general, I agree that this should be in the lead somehow. I was feeling that it was "too much detail" in the lead with the names of people and the way it was inserted, and considered the phrasing about "and other critics", next to Karsenty to include this. I agree with this point that this should be in the lead, just that it could somehow be shortened to leave the reader to go into the body of the article to get the smaller specifics. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Conspiracy theory, hoax

The confusion of the above has led to a conspiracy theory that the entire thing was a hoax -- either staged entirely from start to finish, or where advantage was taken of a genuine situation to make it look worse than it was -- though it's more of a series of questions than a theory, because no one has explained how e.g. the Jordanians were persuaded to go along with it, whether the boy is actually dead, who the dead boy in the post-mortem pictures is ,and so on. But this is true of a lot of conspiracies -- those who spread them do nothing but ask provocative questions, with no serious attempt made to answer them.

I hate the comparison to other conspiracy theories. Here we have an Israeli docotor making a statment contradicting the father as well as the Jordanian hospital notes. We have the sole eye witness among the Palestinian reporters at the scene involved in other, clearly staged, images from the same location. We have him give conflicting testimonies. And the dead boy we saw at the funeral got to the morgue at 10am when the shooting was at 3pm. We can't ascertain how much effort was put into finding the answers to the questions raised by these discrepencies and it isn't our place to do that either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it the least bit unsettling that the source for every single point you just made is from a documentary made by one person? We don't have much to verify most of this on (no, someone reporting that the documentary said something is not independent verification). From personal experience, these claims are quite similar in scope to those made surrounding the Kennedy assassination. ← George ^talk 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Our lead focuses on the wrong criticism

The criticism that our lead focuses on is (2), the fabulous, conspiracy option with the odd sources, rather than on (1), the perfectly legitimate criticism with the respectable sources (senior French journalists). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "senior French journalists", it's perhaps worth noting that Enderlin was awarded the Legion d'honneur - France's highest civilian award - last month. [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead should focus on giving a general opener for the rest of the article IMHO. Per MOS. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that leads are supposed to be both and opener and a summary of an article. But I think we're in agreement on this. ← George ^talk 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Commentary vs reporting

It's very misleading to speak, as Jaakobou does, of "reports" about the al-Durrah case from 2009. There has been almost no new reporting on the case in years, with the exception of the Karsenty trial (which was badly misreported in the English-language press). What there has been is a considerable quantity of very poor-quality commentary in the right-wing media based on speculation and innuendo - the "blood libel" that George complains of. Virtually the only people still banging the drum about this case, at least in the Western media, are right-wing hacks using the case as a club to bash those favourite targets, the media, the French and the Arabs. This distinction isn't an academic one; we make a clear distinction between opinion and statements of fact in WP:RS and treat those things differently in articles. The essential facts of the case have not changed in the last nine years. The only thing that has changed substantively in that time is the willingness of some on the political right to endorse loony conspiracy theories, such as Obama's birth certificate, "death panels", FEMA concentration camps or whatever. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the idea that Israeli/Jewish sources are inherently wrong to be not just offensive, but bigoted and prejudiced as well (I would feel the same way if you replaced that with the words "Arab sources"). WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid arguement for removing or adding material either. The Squicks (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, did you mean to write that somewhere else? I just read what ChrisO wrote, and I don't see him ever saying (or even implying) that either Israeli or Jewish sources were "inherently wrong", or even mentioning them period. He's suggesting caution to not cite opinions as reported facts, and in that regard he's entirely correct. ← George ^talk 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate George. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I can tell, ChrisO is complaining about "poor-quality commentary in the right-wing media", "Western media", and "right-wing hacks". I don't see any of that as targeted at Jews or Israeli... ← George ^talk 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to talk in the third person here about an editor I mostly respect. ChrisO is experianced enough to know when he's crossed the line and he should be experianced enough to take a step back when this is requested of him. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

The facts of this case have changed during thecourse of the past 9 years. Not everyone who noticed is an Arabopheobic drummer.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts have not changed. Al-Durrah is as dead now as he was 9 years ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

I wasn't aware that you are so much in the dark about all the developments that have changed through the years. Here's a few examples of things that have changed in the facts of this case during the past 9 years:

• In 2000, Talal claimed to have 27 minutes of tape and now that number changed to 18.
• In 2000, he said he has 6 minutes dedicated to the boy and father and now that number changed to 1 minute.
• In 2000 there was only one dead boy and now there's 2 boys, one of them is known to be dead but he's also noted to not be the same boy as the one in the report.

I hope things have clarified now but let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit too much into these numbers.

• Abu Rahma never said he had 27 minutes of tape, nor did he say he gave 27 minutes of tape to France 2. He said "I spent approximately 27 minutes photographing the incident." He gave 18 minutes of video to France 2.
• The question Schapira asked him was specifically was "How long did you film them, sitting there?", to which he replied "Well, maybe about 6 minutes. You would be surprised, you know, everybody, 6 minutes, it's easy for him, but he doesn't know this 6 minutes. This 6 minutes I took it in 45 minutes shooting at the boy." She didn't ask how long the film was, nor how long the film he gave France 2 was - she asked how long he filmed them while sitting there.
• Well, there were alleged to be two dead boys by Schapira, based on her expert's biometric analysis. Two young boys of the same age both being shot a dozen time in the same place an hour apart seems like an exceptional claim to me, but I'm not expert on the matter.

← George ^talk 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By "exceptional claim" I think you mean "lunatic fringe theory". It's a claim that is wholly unsupported by any other source or evidence - no better than 9/11 trutherism. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

To be honest, I think you need to take a break from the page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think you need to start applying some common sense to this issue. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Schapira is putting forward a claim that would require there to be a second dead 12-year-old boy, whose identity is completely unknown, whose death has never been reported elsewhere, and with a remarkable resemblance to al-Durrah, to have been substituted for the real al-Durrah who was somehow hidden or smuggled out of Gaza and has never resurfaced in nine years, while the Palestinian and Jordanian authorities conspired to fake the father's wounds and hospital treatment in Amman while the Israeli government either never worked out what had happened or was itself part of the conspiracy since it's never endorsed the conspiracy claims. Three governments and hundreds if not thousands of individuals would have been implicated and they would all have had to keep quiet for nine years. If anything, the conspiracy theory here is more complicated than that put forward by the 9/11 truthers. It's rather an indictment of the quality of journalism on the Arab-Israeli conflict that an apparently respectable journalist can put forward such lunacy and not find herself marginalised as a promoter of whackjob conspiracy theorists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't share your interpretation as to the biometrics expert and the ballistics expert. Both btw, are considered reliable in the court of law. I would suggest that you try and catch a version of the second documentary but it seems as though you've already decided what The Truth™ is. From my own review of the presented evidence, it seems quite likely that the boy who was brought to the hospital at 10am is not Al Durrah who was reportedly shot at 3pm. As fot a striking resemblance - all you have is two boys with dark hair and toned skintone - that covers about half the child population in Gaza. Btw, the biometrics guy said the funeral boy is older than the one reportedly shot by the IDF in Netzarim. Now, I just don't know how to make you stop with the "whackjob" descriptives but its lost all charm and I request that you stop.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said below, it's an extreme minority claim and does not belong in Wikipedia, period. I will remove any attempts to add it. On a personal note, I'm sorry to see that you appear to have bought into the conspiracy theory; I thought you had more sense than that. I note that you've not bothered to comment on the implications of the claim you're presenting. Conspiracy theorists make a habit of making claims about individual elements of their theories while ignoring the big picture and refusing to answer questions about it. I've seen exactly the same behaviour from those peddling conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate, the moon landings, 9/11, climate change and the Holocaust. It seems to be part of the standard conspiracy theorist rhetorical bag of tricks. I'd advise you not to fall for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

George,

I'll have to re-review the second documentary. Anyways, the biometrics expert stated that there is no doubt that there were two boys (he pointed out some examination evidence) and there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm. Also, the Palestinian doctor said that the boy was admitted at 10am along with an injured ambulance driver and not with Jamal, al-Durrah's father. Basically, there's also several more reasons to believe that there were two boys. I agree that this is an exceptional claim, but we have a couple serious investigators supporting this in various reports in wiki-reliable sources. I'll try and find a copy of the second documentary so you can see all the relatively new input... I thought it was a ridiculous claim a while back whenthe only person supporting it was Shahaf, but apparently, things have changed. Anyways, I'm pretty certain you're incorrect about the exact phrasing the Palestinian cameraman used, but I can't be 100% prior to a checkup. Will keep you posted.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two boys, since this an exceptional claim that isn't widely reported, it can be included but it has to be specifically sourced - "A German biometrics expert... concluded that the boy shown in the video being buried was not Muhammed al-Durrah" - something to that effect. And feel free to double check my quotes. I wrote them while listening to the documentary play in the background, but I may have mistyped something, and Abu Rahma's English was quite terrible. I don't think I mistyped anything, but the more people who review my transcription the better. ← George ^talk 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be included. It's a classic example of a red flag claim. As our policy states, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. An unsourced, uncorroborated claim in a single conspiracy-laden "documentary" is not remotely an exceptional source. Including it would be giving undue weight to a nutty conspiracy theory. As WP:NPOV#Undue weight says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." A viewpoint held by a single "German biometrics expert" with no indication of any wider support and no other sourcing falls squarely into this category. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, I agree with ChrisO that its not that notable in reports and should not be in the lead. At least not the lead I think the article should have, which is supposed to be a summary of the issue rather than a list of people and what they suggested. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It should not be in the article, not just the lead. The policy I quoted applies throughout, not just in leads. I will remove this claim if anyone tries to add it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, are you going to remove the name of the ballistics expert who said this as well? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While ChrisO did not say this, it is a relevant topic that we should careful about use of overly promotional language such as "reports", "reported", "report", and so on. As per WP:WTA, more netural terms such as "articles", "stated", "article" or things like that are preferable.

As per the rules on sources, whether or not to include notable opinions (and which opinions to cite) is an editorial decision by users working things out and trying to achieve consensus. This is best thought of as a case-by-case determination. To claim that WP policy says that opinions cannot be mentioned anywhere is not accurate. The Squicks (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reports" etc is not "promotional". It's mentioned in WP:WTA only in the context of an "unreliable source such as a political action committee, a government press agency, or a spoof news source, that may be inappropriate." If one is talking about a mainstream news organisation's original reporting - not commentary - then "reports" is entirely appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We're dealing here with reliable sources that for an unknown reason, you're paining in badlight while reliable sources have not rejected them and reported their concerns without prejudice. Let me know if I misunderstood you or missed something. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone identify more specifically which sources you are all discussing? As far as I can tell, ChrisO is talking about right-wing oped pieces in the Western media, saying (correctly) that they aren't reliable sources. I'm not sure what the rest of you are talking about though. ← George ^talk 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not so much that they're not reliable sources, more that we have to treat them for what they are - statements of the columnist's personal opinion rather than statements of fact. Generally we prioritise factual reporting above opinionating. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right - opinion pieces are only reliable as sources for stating what someone's opinion on a subject is, not for stating something as fact. ← George ^talk 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with that. Opinion pieces are usually more opinion than fact in these controversial instances. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Three changes to the shooting section

I made three changes to The shooting section which Jaakobou revert (in good faith), that I'd like to discuss:

• I changed "According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes" to "On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father." I think it's more readable, and neutral.
• I changed "Abu Rahma was also interviewed for a German documentary, in which he stated to have 6 minutes of raw footage from 45 minutes in which Israeli shooting towards them had occurred" to "He was later interviewed by Esther Schapira for her documentary, Three bullets and a dead child, in which he said he had filmed 6 minutes of the 45 minute shooting while hidden behind a minibus." In this case I was just trying to clean up the English (this is the third sentence in a row using the word also), and specific (citing the name of the documentary).
• I changed "Also, an October 1 BBC news report said the gunfight lasted for 20 minutes, and the following day it stated that France 2 had a 45 minute film" to "The day after the shooting, BBC news reported that the gunfight lasted for 20 minutes." The source cited for the second part of this statement never says that France 2 had 45 minutes of film. I also moved this statement up to the correct place chronologically (it was written the day after the shooting, yet is listed after Abu Rahma's statements, which occurred later).

Thoughts? ← George ^talk 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For point one, it appears as if the central point of the initial wording (that Rahma stated that the Israeli fired at the people for a full 45 minutes continuously) has been lost in the changes. The Squicks (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, because I don't see mention of Israelis firing at them continuously for 45 minutes in the source cited. The source says "the incident... took place for 45 minutes" and "Shooting lasted for 45 minutes", but it doesn't say that only the Israelis were shooting during that time, and it doesn't say continuously. Do you have a different view on what the source says? ← George ^talk 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the source seems quite plain to me. There was a 45-minute gun battle with shots fired on both sides, during some of which time shots were fired towards the al-Durrahs. You're correct to note what the source does not say. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

Could you do us a favor and link the source. To be honest, I remember two segments discussingthe shooting, and one of them was an allegation that the Israelis shot at the boy and father intentionally and in cold blood for 45 minutes after 5 minutes of interchanging shots in both directions. I don't recall the word continuously though.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're at least partially correct on this. The source can be found here. It says there was 5 minutes of firing back and forth between the Israelis and Palestinians, and 45 minutes of "intermittent" firing at the al-Durrahs and the Palestinian outposts, and that from the direction the shots were coming from (and based on the sound of the gunfire) the only logical conclusion he could draw was that they were coming from the Israeli position, and that they were firing at the al-Durrahs intentionally.

If you compare your wording and my wording, the difference is that the heart of your sentences states that the "intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes", when what he actually described was "intermittent" fire directed at both the al-Durrahs and the Palestinian outposts. ← George ^talk 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion thus far has surrounded the first bullet point above. Is there any objection to the other two changes I listed? ← George ^talk 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The second source on the BBC didn't say 45? If it didn't then I have no problem with the change... albeit, I'm not sure that the BBC is all that important here. Was this in the lead? If it were, I would suggest we remove their name. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't mention it. I suspect some editor misinterpreted what the source does say, which is similar to what most sources say... 45 minutes of fighting, and a video provided to France 2 (though not necessarily 45 minutes long, which was the editors mistake). And this was in the "The shooting" section, not the lead. ← George ^talk 02:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the second and third change I proposed weren't controversial, so I've gone ahead and implemented them. Jaakobou - what are your thoughts on my first change? Haven't heard back from you for a while, so not sure where you stand. ← George ^talk 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any discussion on the first point lately, and I don't see any particular objection to it when there was discussion, I've boldly changed it. This should make the sentence more neutral, and avoid problematic phrasing. ← George ^talk 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it pertinent to his testimony that he's the source for "cold blood". I'm sorry if I missed you here for a bit, but ChrisO has made a substantial change to the page that I disagreed with and it was more important on my 'to discuss'/'fix' list. May I ask for the importance/value in the change you've inserted? Would you mind pasting both versions here? I'll do my best to see this one through in a timely manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Your version:

According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes.

My version:

On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father.

The differences:

• I've added the date of the affidavit.
• The wording "According to [his initial statement]" can be misleading, as it can imply that he later changed his stance. He didn't, though the hint is subtle.
• I've removed the word "alleging", which is a word to avoid.
• I've broken up the one, overly long and complicated sentence into two shorter, more readable sentences. The grammatical structure of your sentence actually implies that he alleged intentional Israeli shooting while filming, which, I suspect, isn't what you intended.

The original version doesn't mention "cold blood", so I'm not sure what you're referring to on that. This is mostly an English grammar change, while making the statement more precise. ← George ^talk 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

The source - [5] - has the words "in cold blood" twice so its more than just a Grammar change. I agree with the Grammar changes, just not with the content change.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting an all, but as I said, I didn't remove the words "in cold blood" because they were not in the original version of the text to begin with. I don't oppose the inclusion of the term, which would give the following statement: On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the 45 minute-long gun battle. He also testified that he believed that Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father, and killed the boy "in cold blood". ← George ^talk 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its in the source twice, so your assertion requires an explnation.

p.s. Talal doesn't portray a "45 minute-long gun battle", but rather 5 minutes of exchange of fire with 45 minutes of the Israelis intentionally shooting at the boy in cold blood. It this is how the key witness portrayed it, we shouldn't water it down.

How about this:

• On October 3, 2000, Abu Rahma signed an affidavit stating that he had filmed 27 minutes of the incident, which took place for 45 minutes. He also testified that he believed the Israeli forces had intentionally shot at the boy and his father, and killed the boy "in cold blood".

Let me know, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about being in the source twice - the term "cold blood", a term I don't oppose and a term which wasn't in your original wording? Regardless, I think your rewrite is a good one. As a side note, I've read that he later recanted this testimony. If true, we may need to re-evaluate this statement. ← George ^talk 17:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To finish off this discussion, I've changed this wording per Jaakobou's suggestion. ← George ^talk 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My rewrite

So I thought I would take a stab at rewriting the lead myself:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988–September 30, 2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة) was a Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) gunfire during a clash between IDF and Palestinian Security Forces at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, in the early days of the Second Intifada. The boy became a martyr in the Arab world and a symbol of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

Several photographers were at the Netzarim junction during the incident, but the shots fired at the al-Durrahs were only caught on film by Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman filming for the French television network France 2. The footage shows Muhammad al-Durrah and his father, Jamal, seeking cover from the crossfire behind a concrete cylinder. After a few moments, the boy slumps over, apparently hit by gunfire. Journalists at the scene said the the shots appeared to come from the Israeli position.

Israel accepted responsibility and apologized, but a controversial subsequent IDF investigation suggested that the boy may have been hit by Palestinian bullets.

Aside from some minor cleanup here and there, I've stripped it down to what I think are the essential points of the article. I've kept in the more "official" theory put forward by the IDF investigation, and left out the more fringe conspiracy theories put forth by various individuals. These more fringe conspiracy theories may find a home in the body of the article, but, after reviewing policy, I'm more inclined to not include them in the lead. The French 2 court case was also given way too much space relative to its importance and coverage, so I would leave that to the body of the article as well. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Enderlin did not break the story. There were eyewitnesses there from several news agencies. AP was the first to report the shooting (though it got al-Durrah's name wrong), several hours before Enderlin. The very first report on the affair was from the Chinese news agency Xinhua, while the gun battle was still ongoing. I've found no evidence to suggest that Enderlin's words (as opposed to the footage) were rebroadcast outside France; other early reports followed AP's line, including the misspelling of al-Durrah's name, not Enderlin's. The reason why the conspiracy theorists focus on Enderlin is not because his reporting was any different from anyone else's - it wasn't - but because his cameraman shot the iconic pictures. The idea seems to be to discredit the reporter and so discredit the pictures. Of course, this requires the conspiracy theorists to pretend that Enderlin was the only one who reported the story and to ignore all of the rest of the coverage. Your lead, while good, falls into the trap of focusing on Enderlin - which is what the conspiracy theorists want - while overlooking the supporting coverage. If I recall correctly, eyewitnesses from at least four news agencies stated unequivocally that the shots fired at the al-Durrahs came from the Israeli position. I think we should seek to reflect what was actually reported on the day, not simply reflect the framing that the conspiracy theorists have created. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the sources to support that? If we can find the sources that either (a) broke the story before Enderlin, or (b) reported on the incident independent of him, then yes, I could definitely see a rewrite of this. Specifically, the last sentence of the second paragraph would need to be reworked, though the first sentence of the second paragraph may still work. ← George ^talk 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, as it happens - I downloaded from Lexis-Nexis and Factiva literally every article between 2000 and 2008 that mentions or relates to the al-Durrah case. I'll see if I can construct a rough timeline of the coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be the entire new lead? What happened to the independent investigators? Why is the IDFs initial apology taking up such a prominent role while all the developments which occurred after 2001 remain missing? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I'm trying to draw a line, between more popular, "official" investigations, and what ChrisO has argued are fringe conspiracy theories. I'd say that the IDF investigation (the one conducted by the two Israeli scientists) that I mention here was more "official", and reported on more than the wilder conspiracy theories, so probably okay to mention here. I don't think every possible theory every individual's "investigation" comes up with (aka, conspiracy theories) should be in the lead, however. I'm undecided if I oppose the inclusion of those more conspiratorial theories in the body of the article (ChrisO's stance), but I definitely don't think they belong in the lead. ← George ^talk 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough sources below ChrisO. I've changed this sentence based on what you wrote. Let me know your thoughts. ← George ^talk 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coverage timeline

Here's a rough timeline of when various reports were filed on Saturday 30 September 2000, the day of the shooting. This data comes from Lexis-Nexis and represents a snapshot of how the story developed during the day. Most of the reports have a GMT (UTC) timestamp associated; for convenience's sake, I've also added the time in Israeli time (UTC+2). A few of the reports I've listed below do not have a timestamp attached, but it's possible to reconstruct when they were filed as they are sandwiched between reports that do have timestamps (the reports are indexed chronologically by filing order). Enderlin's report is not included in the Lexis-Nexis database; I've added it to the timeline but have listed it in italics. None of the subsequent coverage even mentions Enderlin, who does not appear in the coverage until November 2000, nearly 2 months later. The France 2 TV pictures were (obviously) rebroadcast on many other networks but it would have been distributed without his voiceover - TV networks distribute footage, not commentary.

UTC	UTC+2	Agency	Report
ca. 10:00	ca. 12:00	Xinhua	Israeli and Palestinian soldiers exchanged fire near the Jewish settlements of Netzarim and Khafer-Darum in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, the second day of widespread clashes between the Palestinians and Israeli soldiers. The crossfire took place at about 11:30 a.m. local time (0930 GMT). However, no report of the casualties on both sides is available so far.
ca. 10:00	ca. 12:00	AFP	Three Palestinian policemen were shot dead by Israeli troops during a shootout at the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip Saturday, bringing to nine the total number of Palestinians dead during the day, a Palestinian security official said.
10:35	12:35	Associated Press	Israeli troops battling several gunmen and thousands of rock-throwing Palestinians opened fire Saturday, killing 12 Palestinians in the bloodiest clashes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1996. More than 500 Palestinians were injured, the Palestinian health minister said. Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen. In Netzarim, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura and his father, Jamal, were caught in the cross fire. The boy screamed in panic as bullets hit a wall just inches above their heads. At one point, the father raised his head above the metal barrel that served as their cover and shook his finger, as if to admonish those firing at him. Moments later, Mohammed slumped to the ground, fatally hit, and the father, gravely wounded, lost consciousness.
ca. 10:35	ca. 12:35	AFP	Fifteen Palestinians died and 523 were injured in clashes with the Israeli army Saturday, Palestinian health minister Riad al-Zaanun told reporters here. Earlier, security official Saeb al-Ajaz said five people, including three policemen, had been killed in a shootout at the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip, but Zaanun said the correct number was three, of which only one was a policeman.
13:37	15:37	Associated Press	At the Netzarim junction, a Palestinian fired shots at an Israeli army outpost from behind a red truck. Soldiers returned fire, and several Palestinians took cover on the ground, covering their heads with their hands, their faces pressed on the asphalt. One Palestinian man screamed in pain when he was shot in the knee. Paramedics ran into the line of fire to drag him to safety. Shifa Hospital in Gaza City reported three dead - a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver.
14:31	16:31	Israel TV via BBC Monitoring	Violent disturbances are continuing in many places in the territories. In the Netzarim junction shots were fired at an IDF outpost, and shooting was also reported in the west Rafah roadblock. There are no reports on casualties. The IDF soldiers returned fire.
ca. 17:00	ca. 19:00	Associated Press	In Netzarim, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura and his father, Jamal, were caught in the cross fire. The boy screamed in panic as bullets hit a wall just inches above their heads. At one point, the father raised his head above the metal barrel that served as their cover and shook his finger, as if to admonish those firing at him. Moments later, Mohammed slumped to the ground, fatally hit, and the father, gravely wounded, lost consciousness.
17:25	19:25	Reuters	Twelve-year-old Rami al-Durra died in his father's arms on Saturday, caught in the crossfire of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces. Reporters watched helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip. Rami crouched weeping behind his father, who tried in vain to shield him with his arms and body. At one point, the father raised his head and wagged his finger, as if to scold. Some time later, both were shot and Rami slumped into his father's lap. Rami died, while his father survived badly wounded. An ambulance driver, who braved the fierce shooting to try to rescue them, also died.
18:00	20:00	France 2	Enderlin report and footage is broadcast on France 2.
18:56	20:56	BBC Monitoring	The Israel Defence Force [IDF] has sent reinforcements to the West Bank and Gaza, as well as deploying tanks and assault helicopters, Israel TV reported on Saturday night. "Tanks have been deployed on the outskirts of Nablus and assault helicopters hovered over the Netzarim junction. During today's [Saturday] riots in Netzarim, the IDF soldiers fired antitank missiles in the direction of a Palestinian police position from which fire was directed at them," the TV said.
19:00	21:00	Associated Press	Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen. In Netzarim, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura and his father, Jamal, were caught in the cross fire. The boy screamed in panic as bullets hit a wall just inches above their heads. At one point, the father raised his head above the metal barrel that served as their cover and shook his finger, as if to admonish those firing at him. Moments later, Mohammed slumped to the ground, fatally hit, and the father, gravely wounded, lost consciousness.
21:42	23:42	Associated Press	Caught in Israeli-Palestinian cross fire, a father and son clung together behind a metal barrel, barely visible in the smoke, as shots flew overhead. "The child, the child!" the father yelled, helplessly waving his arm in the air. The boy screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches over their heads. Seconds later, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura was fatally struck in the abdomen. He loosened his grip on his father and slumped over. Seriously wounded, the father, Jamal, shook with convulsions, rolled his eyes skyward and lost consciousness. He was hospitalized in Gaza and was expected to recover, family members said Saturday. An ambulance driver was killed trying to rescue them, and a Palestinian police officer also died in the clash.

A condensed timeline of the day's events would look something like this:

• 09:30 UTC / 11:30 UTC+2 - clashes at Netzarim occur. (Xinhua)
• circa 10:00 UTC / 12:00 UTC+2 - Palestinian security official Saeb al-Ajaz tells reporters that five people, including three policemen, were killed at Netzarim. (AFP)
• 10:35 UTC / 12:35 UTC+2 - Palestinian health minister Riad al-Zaanun tells reporters that three people, including one policemen, were killed at Netzarim. First eyewitness report of the shooting of al-Durrah. (AP, AFP)
• 13:37 UTC / 15:37 UTC+2 - Shifa hospital in Gaza City reports three dead - a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver. (AP)
• 17:25 UTC / 19:25 UTC+2 - Second eyewitness report of al-Durrah shooting. The name is misspelled as "Rami"; other media outlets subsequently use the same misspelling. (Reuters)
• 19:00 UTC / 21:00 UTC+2 - France 2 broadcasts al-Durrah shooting footage.
• 21:42 UTC / 23:42 UTC+2 - Jamal al-Durrah reported hospitalised in Gaza, said by family members to be expected to recover. (AP)

The Xinhua report stated that fighting had been taking place around 11:30 local time. At around 12:00, a Palestinian security official reported five deaths. This was corrected shortly afterwards by the Palestinian health minister, who stated that three had been killed. Al-Durrah's death was first reported by name at 12:35 by an eyewitness reporter. The main hospital in Gaza City was reported an hour later to have confirmed the three deaths, including al-Durrah (though not by name). A second eyewitness reporter with a different news agency filed a report of al-Durrah's death at 19:25. France 2's famous footage was not broadcast until 21:00, but was then rebroadcast around the world.

The tenor of the coverage over the following days is interesting. The press was initially uncertain about assigning responsibility for the shooting of al-Durrah. The Guardian's Middle East editor, Brian Whittaker, wrote a commentary about this on 5 October:

It is now clear that Mohammed was shot by the Israelis, probably deliberately (and anyone who still doubts that should read the detailed article, Making of a martyr, by my colleague, Suzanne Goldenberg. But on Saturday, as the British Sunday papers went to press, the facts were still unclear.

The first report of Mohammed's killing came from the American agency, Associated Press, just before 6pm last Saturday. Unedited, the relevant part said: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the crossfire. The boy, Rami Aldura, and his father, were crouched behind a metal barrel, trying to seek cover and pleading for a ceasefire. The father held his hand protectively over the boy, who was screaming with fear, only to see his son fatally shot in the stomach."

A few minutes later, Reuters circulated a report which said: "In Netzarim, 12-year-old Rami Aldura and his father Jamal were caught in the crossfire."

Both reports got the boy's name partly wrong and both mentioned "crossfire". As the picture of what really happened became clearer, "caught in the crossfire" began to look like an Israeli-inspired phrase to deflect blame, but I suspect that is not how it actually arose.

The Israeli army's first explanation was that Mohammed was a stone-thrower who had been pulled back by his father which in their eyes presumably made it perfectly all right to shoot him dead.

More usually, "crossfire" is inserted into stories by journalists who are not sure who was at fault. The trouble is that it implies that nobody in particular was at fault. It would be much better to say something like: "It was not immediately clear who fired the fatal shots" but professional pride sometimes stops journalists admitting their ignorance.

It would be wrong, however, to imagine that journalists don't think about these things before rushing into print. A colleague working on a Sunday newspaper tells me there was a discussion in the office about where the shots that killed Mohammed might have come from.

Although the first impression was that he had been shot from in front, the holes in the wall behind him indicated to some people in the office that he might have been hit by bullets passing through the wall from behind.

Of course, after the IDF admitted that its soldiers had probably shot al-Durrah, the debate over responsibility became somewhat academic - at least until the issue was reopened by the subsequent "investigation" which cleared the IDF of blame. But it's worth noting that there is no indication whatsover in the coverage that Enderlin's attribution of blame was even reported outside France. According to the judgement in 2006 of the French court which found Philippe Karsenty guilty of libelling Enderlin and France 2, "many journalists ... were present at the scene, notably ... Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News, all of whom claim the shots were fired from the Israeli side." With multiple eyewitnesses from multiple agencies all attributing the fatal shots to the IDF position, there would have been no need for anyone to rely on Enderlin's words alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at some basic issues:

• 'Muhammad' is so darn close to 'Rami' that I often make that mistake myself.
• The ballistics expert's credibility (not Shahaf), the biometrics guy or the Israeli doctor for that matter. Bad liars all of them. Freelance photographer in Gaza... honest guy.
• Two boys dying in Gaza on the same day... preposterous right?
• The "Zionists" (as the father of the boy put it ever so elegantly) did it.
• Freelance cameraman don't fake stories... that never happened in the history of photojournalism... esp. not in Gaza.
• Israeli soldiers shot at the boy intentionally for 45 minutes and then kept on shooting to prevent the ambulances from evacuating him. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

p.s. I'm being sarcastic. We really need to stop with the original research. A smear campaign against material we might not like is just not what we should do here. I would love to tear Goldenberg apart but this is not what we should be doing here.

p.p.s. wasn't the 2006 verdict successfully appealed against?

p.p.p.s. ChrisO,have you seen the second documentary?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts regarding your points:

• I actually remember reading an explanation for the confusion in one of the sources. One of them stated something along the lines of Mohammad was his first name, and Rami was his middle or nickname. That seems entirely feasible, in a region where there's say, more than one person named Mohammed.
• I don't think anyone has to be classified as a liar or honest. People can and do make mistakes. A ballistics expert watching a video, a biometric expert watching a video, and an Israeli doctor commenting on leg and arm wounds shown in a video (neglecting to explain the stomach wounds) certainly do not overrule the five journalists ChrisO mentioned who were actually there, on the scene.
• Two boys the same age with multiple, similar gun shot wounds to the stomach dying on the same day? Well yeah, it's kind of preposterous. Impossible? No, but so unlikely that you would need numerous exceptional sources to support it, and since we don't have a single source mentioning another boy the same age being shot in the same way... yeeeah.
• Please don't try for a sympathy vote. If a Palestinian complained about "Zionists" after his son got killed, I wouldn't be super surprised. But even if he's racist, that doesn't prove your case.
• Doesn't matter what happens in other cases, only what reliable sources say about this case, and this journalist.
• Reasonable..? No. Possible? Yes.

The verdict was successfully appealed. The court didn't say that the Israelis didn't shoot the boy, they just said there wasn't enough evidence to silence someone who claims that it was a hoax. I really wish I could see the second documentary. It seems to have you very convinced, which surprises me, given how lackluster the first was. ← George ^talk 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the second documentary? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the second documentary is called "Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit".

George,

I am in complete disagreement with how the events of 2001, as reported in reliable media are presented. I also disagree with the level of argument on this page, where we're supposedly debating what could and what couldn't have happened as if we are the investigators ourselves. For example, I haven't seen any place saying that both boys were shot in the same places... so I'm not following where did that one come from exactly(?) as well as why am I even supposed to reply to (or shall we say "defend against") this argument if it wasn't published anywhere?

With respect, you can't decide that one "controversial investigation" (read: criticized by a few people, some of them changed their minds later) matters while the others (the ones reported on in reliable media) are not.

I also don't understand why the claim (read: excuse?) that Rami was Muhammad's nickname has any more merit than the assertion/report/claim that the boy in the funeral (at 5pm) is the same boy who arrived at the hospital at 10am while the boy who was filmed by Talal was reportedly shot at 3pm and is another boy. Is it not possible that the hospital was confused? That because they had good images of one boy, they immediately connected them to another to sell the story (it's not the first time that would happen).

Anyways, this isn't even relevant for how we should be conducting the article constructing. What matters is notability in the press - and you need to reinsert the after-2001 material, which was published in reliable sources, into any rewrite suggestion. If you disagree that it was reported upon, that is a different case, but I don't believe that this is the case.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I do believe that this was a thread about the timeline of sources, and that you were the one who brought up the boy's name, the relative credibility of different experts, preposterously unlikely coincidences, motives of people who use the term "zionist", "fake stories" by journalists, and how reasonable it is to believe someone intentionally killing a 12-year-old boy. If I feel that I can help answer some question for you, or clear up some misunderstanding you have of what reliable sources say, then I'll do so. Regarding the boy's name, I was merely trying to explain what I had read about why there was a confusion with the names. You seem confused on the issue, so I conveyed what I had read to you. Apologies if my explanation offended you.

So the second boy didn't have a bullet wound to the stomach? Did he have any bullet wounds? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who had seen this secondary documentary, so you would know best. I assumed that if two boys are so easily mistaken for each other, then surely they would at least have similar wounds, but maybe not...

One investigation was conducted by the Israeli army, officially, regardless of how criticized it was, and involved a re-enactment. The others were done by individuals who watched a video. This is the same distinction we discussed over a week ago. I'm not sure who you're referring to as having changed their mindafter criticizing the investigation, and I'd love to see the sources for it, but I'm still waiting for the sources that say another twelve-year-old boy was shot on the same day. Or did the documentary stop after they decided that the faces didn't match, and not delve into who the mystery boy was?

Can you provide the source that says the boy was shot at 3pm? All of ChrisO's listed sources appear to indicate he would have been shot sometime before 10am. Do you have any sources beyond this film you watched?

Ok, let me try to clear this up. What reliable sources have published these theories, and how did they report them? I would prefer a list of links to articles that we can review, not vague claims that they exist. ChrisO has made the point that some of the more exceptional claims being made require exceptional sources, and I agree with him, and you seem very convinced that they exist, so please provide us with them. ← George ^talk 06:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for the 3 pm time seems to be that the hospital announced/certified al-Durrah's death around this time (see the report of 15:37 local time). However, there's no doubt whatsoever that he was shot before 10:35 am, as that was the time of the first report specifically naming him. (Obviously his death could not have been reported before it happened.) As for the "Rami" name, this (misnomer? nickname?) is sourced to the Palestinian health minister Riyadh al-Zanoun's press conference of around 10:30 am. The Reuters report of 19:35 local time quotes him saying: "Bassam al-Bilbeisi, the ambulance driver went to save the boy, Rami al-Durra, who was 12 years old. But he was shot at, the boy was shot at as well. Bassam and the boy Rami were both killed." The first AP report uses the name "Mohammed", the next one switches to "Rami", then both agencies switch back to using "Mohammed" consistently. Later Reuters reports also switch to using "Mohammed". A small number of early follow-up reports in other news outlets also use "Rami" (evidently following the early AP and Reuters reports) but the majority use "Mohammed" from the start.

Now let's deal with Jaakobou's objections, which frankly appear to rely more on innuendo and supposition than any objective review of the known facts:

• Yes, the father uses the term "Zionists". So what? I gather it's a pretty common term in the area.
• Analyses years later from fringe analysts positing some kind of huge complicated conspiracy theory do not - cannot - override contemporary eyewitness accounts. Jaakobou is acting like a 9/11 truther here, arguing that the eyewitnesses who saw planes hitting the WTC must have been wrong because later analysis proves the planes were really missiles or holograms or something.
• Only one boy has ever been reported to have been killed in Gaza on 30 September 2000. There is no source whatsoever for a second boy, of the same age and similar appearance. All of the reports of the day's violence speak of three deaths - a policeman, al-Durrah and the ambulance driver who tried to rescue al-Durrah.
• "Freelance cameraman don't fake stories" is just a smear - effectively saying "all Palestinian cameramen are liars". It's like saying "Presidents of Israel don't rape women" to make the case that all Presidents of Israel are rapists.
• There's no original research going on here (except maybe by Jaakobou, who seems to be firmly convinced of the conspiracy theory). Source-based research of the kind which I've listed above is what we are supposed to do.
• Yes, the verdict of the French court in 2006 was overturned. Its findings of fact were not. The appeal succeeded on a legal technicality - i.e. whether Karsenty had an adequate defence under the French press law - not because the basic facts were in dispute. The first court took the view that Karsenty's defence was inadequate and convicted him. The second court took the opposite view. We'll have to wait and see which way the re-appeal goes (I suspect Enderlin will probably win it). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My time is limited for the next couple days but you just need to run a search from 2006 and onward and see what comes up. I'll help the gathering process as soon as I have the chance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. What you find is a small number of columnists for a small number of newspapers - principally the (formerly) Conrad Black-owned National Post of Canada and Jerusalem Post of Israel - promoting increasingly lurid conspiracy theories. It's just op-ed bloviation. There is very little actual reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually started to search for articles in the range Jaakobou suggested, but stopped on this one, titled Rattling the Cage: Al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks. It's an op-ed, but an interesting read anyways. I'm a bit busy as well, so I'll leave the sourcing of these claims to Jaakobou, when he finds more time. ← George ^talk 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou, you wrote above that, "Anyways, the biometrics expert stated that there is no doubt that there were two boys (he pointed out some examination evidence) and there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm." Who has said that Muhammad al-Durrah was shot at 3 pm?

Also, I have to object to some of the changes that have been made to this article. Under the "incident as reported" header, which started life as "as initially reported," we include analysis, which clearly isn't as initially reported. I would like to revert to a much earlier version of this section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The 3pm claim actually appears to come from Enderlin, who evidently got the timings wrong. Here's the transcript of his report in the original French, from the 2008 Karsenty appeal judgement (which you can find in translation here): « 15 heures, tout vient de basculer au carrefour de Netzarim, dans la bande de Gaza. Les Palestiniens ont tiré à balles réelles, les Israéliens ripostent. Ambulanciers, journalistes, simples passants sont pris entre deux feux. Ici, Jamal et son fils Mohammed sont la cible de tirs venus des positions israéliennes. Mohammed a 12 ans, son père tente de le protéger. Il fait des signes (…) Mais une nouvelle rafale. Mohammed est mort et son père grièvement blessé. Un policier palestinien et un ambulancier ont également perdu la vie au cours de cette bataille. » Incidentally, note that Enderlin does not attribute blame in the report - he says that the al-Durrahs are under fire from the Israeli position, but he does not say that the fatal shots - "une nouvelle rafale" - came from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO, is it possible that Enderlin did not get the timing wrong? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No other source says the incident happened in mid-afternoon. Since we have sources filed in the morning that explicitly state the time of the shooting, it's clear that Enderlin is wrong. The first reports by AFP and AP about al-Durrah's death were filed hours before the erroneous time given by Enderlin. There's no indication that Enderlin's mistake about the timing influenced any of the English-language reporting; he isn't cited by any reports and the 3pm time he stated isn't even mentioned in any English-language sources prior to a September 2005 article in Commentary magazine in which it is attributed to Enderlin. Followup reporting in English-language outlets, such as this eyewitness report in The Guardian, speaks explicitly of "Saturday morning". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So the 3pm is mentioned in several sources and you believe it to be an honest mistake since earlier reports exist that include a decription of the same scene. Is this correct? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to make this out to be some sort of disagreement between sources, that's not the case. The only source that said 3pm was Enderlin, in French. No other report in any of the languages I surveyed - English, French, German, Italian and Spanish - gives this time. The only sources that state 3pm subsequently are ones quoting and criticising Enderlin. That time is attributed to what he said in his report. All of the other contemporary reports that give a time state the time as Saturday morning. Besides which, please apply a bit of common sense - al-Durrah's death could hardly have been reported before it had happened. The timeline is quite clear, as I've set out above. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you're wondering why Enderlin made this mistake (and yes, I do consider it an honest mistake) I note that the hospital in Gaza may have announced or certified the boy's death around 3pm - note the report of 15:37 in the timeline. We can't know for sure why Enderlin got the time wrong but the death of al-Durrah had certainly been announced officially, by name, by the Palestinian health minister by, at the very latest, 12:30 local time. He may not have been aware of the earlier reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like too much speculation/assumption. As there are other sources reporting from earlier times, we should list "several sources reported that" with a citation, and also note what Enderlin stated. Seems fair? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to highlight what Enderlin stated? No other source appears to have picked up his timing. Every source that mentions a time speaks of Saturday morning, with Xinhua giving the exact time. What purpose is served by highlighting Enderlin? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Talal Abu Rahma said the fighting started at noon. Schapira's documentary states that the al-Durrah were forced to get out of a taxi by police at the junction while heading home at noon (the police were keeping the road clear for ambulances), and that "the shooting begins at midday, suddenly and without warning - on this, all sides agree." ← George ^talk 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source based note, George. ChrisO, Would you mind adding a short text to the citation that at least 5 news agencies witnessed the incident so that people reading it would be able to see it immediately? Anyways, to answer the question, the issue with Enderlin has been reviewed so it does bare some notability. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. ChrisO, I believe that the court appeal received more notability than the initial conviction. Could you please change the phrasing to accommodate this? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the statements that George mentions is that they are not contemporary. Every single contemporary source we have - on the day itself, and in the days immediately afterwards, all speak very specifically of Saturday morning. Xinhua even gives the exact time. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the shooting could not have happened at noon because the first reports of it were filed in the morning. You can't report an event before it happens!

Jaakobou, I'm not sure what you mean by "notability". Both the conviction and appeal are notable. The current wording gives neither more prominence than the other - it simply states the sequence of events (conviction, successful appeal, unconcluded re-appeal). If you can suggest an alternative wording here on the talk page then please do. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well,

• The appeal was reported on in multiple reliable sources and is more "contemporary" than the initial judgment. It also received more exposure since suddenly, France 2 was ordered to release the secretive raw footage. The current phrasing gives more weight to the initial conviction. I will rephrase it per one of the sources I've seen a couple days ago.
• Your assertion that, "we know for a fact that the shooting could not have happened at noon" is incorrect. If you have a source for this, I'd be most inclined to quote that source but we can't leave out the sources that say something different. If Enderlin stated something else, it should be noted in the text.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't evade the issue. If the shooting happened at noon why do we have sources filed in the morning describing it? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I don't consider this speculation process to be a helpful exercise and would appreciate a more source-based approach. Anything I would reply here that is not backed by a source would be speculation and original research, much like your assertion about what "we know for a fact". I can repeat what was proposed in reliable sources, which is that "At around 3:00 P.M. Mohammed al-Dura and his father make their first appearance on film."[6] As far as I'm concerned, there could have been more than a single shooting incident with injured people at the Netzarim junction but I don't know these things for facts and, I don't consider this speculation process to be a helpful exercise.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, we are not going to get anywhere if you choose to simply ignore the contemporary reports. The only contemporary reporter to give a time of 3pm is Enderlin. Fallows says of the time: "The time can be judged by later comments from the father and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of shadows in the footage" - in other words, he is speculating, and he clearly has no specific information on when the shooting happened. We know for a fact that al-Durrah was killed before 10:35 UTC because that is when the first report specifically stating his death was filed. Every contemporary report that gives a time specifically states Saturday morning. Those are documented facts. I don't propose to continue this fruitless conversation any further if you continue to ignore them. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

It seems to me that you are adding Fallows to the list of sources you deem to be unreliable. How do you suppose I should respond to your repeated assertions on what "we know for a fact"?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Small note/concern

I don't see any mention of a minibus in the used source.[7] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should change the source to cite the documentary itself. From the documentary: "Everybody runs for cover, including Talal Abu Rahma. Suddenly, from nowhere, a minibus approaches. Talal and several children attempt to find cover behind it." That would be the brown square labelled "Car" in this diagram. ← George ^talk 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewording to reduce undue weight

As I said earlier, we need to avoid undue weight on Enderlin. His report was not distributed internationally - none of the contemporary coverage in English references it - and focusing on him omits the critical point that the shooting was witnessed and reported on by multiple journalists, not just Enderlin. I've reworded the lead to make this clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you come up the the note that his report was not distributed internationally? I believe he was the only one with video footage and that this footage was broadcast internationally. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing two things. The footage by Rahma was distributed internationally. The report by Enderlin was not - don't forget that it was in French. "Footage" has a very specific meaning (see Wikipedia's footage article). It's conventionally distributed just with the pictures and natural audio, perhaps being lightly edited to get rid of junk shots. TV stations then re-edit the footage and dub a commentary to create a package for broadcast. In this specific instance, numerous reports cite the footage shot by France 2 but make no mention whatsoever of the accompanying commentary by Enderlin. I've not come across any evidence that it was ever distributed outside France. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we know if the news outlets received the video as is or if they got it with the added input that the IDF was at fault? It matters if they reported IDF blame based on Abu Rahma. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the coverage for the first couple of days after the shooting, it doesn't actually attribute blame - it speaks only of "crossfire" (this contemporary commentary from The Guardian discusses the issue of blame-attribution). An AFP report of October 1, 2000 says that "The film does not show who fired, but the shots seem to come from the Israeli position." It's not until October 3 that the media starts talking specifically of "Israeli bullets". But if you read Enderlin's report carefully (I posted the transcript in the original French further up the page), he doesn't attribute blame either - he says that they are being shot at from the Israeli position, but he does not say that the fatal bullets came from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying from the direction of the Israeli position seems to be of exact value as saying the Israelis shot him to me. I can't make any assertions by looking at the coverage since much of it is in the lexis-nexis system and it would also be a bit of original research. I'm interested in understanding if the news outlets received the video as is or if they got it with the added input that the IDF was assumed to be at fault. It matters if they reported IDF blame (or directionality) based on Abu Rahma. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. You're trying to draw a direct line between Enderlin's report and the tenor of the subsequent international reporting. To do that, you have to demonstrate that Enderlin's report was distributed outside France. We know that Rahma's footage was distributed, because we have sources saying that. What is your source for saying that Enderlin's report was also distributed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a direct line that he sent them the video and that this, "result[ed] in it being aired worldwide".[8][9] There is no reliable-source line that their report was not based on what the cameraman told the press. Is there?

p.s. please avoid the "you're trying" theme. If you're unclear on something, ask me to provide a source(s) or to clarify.

p.p.s. based on the second source, I would appreciate a rephrase to the "accepted responsibility and apologized" part.

With resepect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first source (which is an op-ed from a notoriously unreliable columnist, btw) states that France 2 "helpfully sent various news agencies three minutes of the footage of this incident" and explicitly contrasts this with the 55 seconds that was transmitted. Your second source speaks vaguely of France 2 distributing "the story" without saying what was actually distributed. Neither source says that Enderlin's report was distributed. Again, as I said, you need to find a source that explicitly states that Enderlin's words were redistributed. Precision is important here. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We're kinda over this thread, but I figured it would merit mention that the 3 minutes sent included the guy who's supposedly shot in his right leg next to the jeep. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

It appears that this report has no clear relation with Al-Durrah. Unless one is provided, then this source should be removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting by other agencies

As far as I know, only French television reported on the specific Al_Durrah shooting (as opposed to the general violent conflicts of the day) - and this is what the article says later on . ChrisO, can you provide the links to these other 5 agencies reporting? Millmoss (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Millmoss, thanks for your contributions. Please have a look at the detailed summary I posted at #Coverage timeline above. The death of al-Durrah was reported by Reuters and Associated Press several hours before Antenne 2 aired its report. Journalists from both of those agencies were present, saw the incident and filed their own reports on it. The other news organisations aren't reflected in the archives I used (Lexis-Nexis and Factiva), but their journalists' presence at the scene is attested in the judgement of the French court that found Philippe Karsenty guilty of libel in 2006. The judgement says (in English translation): "many journalists ... were present at the scene, notably ... Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News." -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Where can one find the French court's judgment? Millmoss (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a copy here. I'm still trying to track down the French original. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Millmoss (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the text says that, "As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma". There seems to be a misunderstanding between being present at the scene of the boy and father being shot at and the scene of who was firing bullets that day. If we don't separate this into the two, then this source is contradicting itself within the course of two adjacent paragraphs. Do we have other sources saying that the journalists were witnessing the same scene?

p.s. according to the second German documentary, there was a 5000 signature "testimony" of people attesting to the good character of Enderlin.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Netzarim Junction before the shooting

I found a picture on Flickr of the Israeli outpost at Netzarim Junction in January 2000 - see [10]. I'll ask the contributor if we could use the image on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What was distributed by France 2?

I've asked a media contact to do an archive search to find out exactly what France 2 distributed to the international media concerning the al-Durrah shooting. News agencies (for obvious reasons) keep extensive indexes of what they record or receive, so that reporters and researchers can go back to the archives and find whatever footage or reports they happen to be looking for. I'm hopeful that the France 2 distribution will have been catalogued with a reasonably detailed description. I'll post an update when (if) I get any answers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that they released a few minutes of video? ← George ^talk 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But Jaakobou is insisting that France 2 distributed Charles Enderlin's report (in French, remember). This would be a highly unusual thing to do - standard practice is to distribute footage without any voiceover, for the receiving news agency to re-edit and re-dub with its own commentary. Another reason to doubt that they did this is that no other contemporary reports even mention Enderlin's report, let alone cite it. The footage is certainly heavily discussed but Enderlin's reportage is completely absent from the record. I'm aiming to find out whether or not France 2's distribution included Enderlin's report or was merely undubbed footage. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that France 2 released the video with Enderlin's voice over (versus just releasing the video without commentary), or is this just a wild-goose chase? ← George ^talk 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change what I said. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My media contact has come through with the goods. Here is the description from the database entry for the France 2 footage, which was catalogued on October 1st, 2000. The description was written by the person who catalogued the entry for the media organisation in question, not by France 2:

NATURAL SOUND FTG. VS ISRAELI TROOPS FIRING ON PALESTINIANS / PALESTINIAN FATHER AND YOUNG SON ATTEMPTING TO SHIELD THEMSELVES FROM GUNFIRE / FATHER AND SON CRYING / ISRAELI SOLDIERS SHOOTING FATHER AND SON / SON AND FATHER LAYING ON PAVEMENT W/ GUN WOUNDS / SON LATER DIES.

The first line describes the soundtrack - "natural sound footage", i.e. no voice-over. "VS" means "view shot". In other words, it's an entirely standard distribution of raw footage "as is" without anything else recorded on top of it. Unfortunately we can't use this in the article as it's non-attributable, but hopefully it will help to inform this talk page.

And in answer to George's question, no, there is no evidence that Enderlin's report was distributed outside France. I've made that point - repeatedly - to Jaakobou. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your data doesn't suggest that the video wasn't transferred with the cameraman's story. In fact "ISRAELI TROOPS FIRING ON PALESTINIANS" seems to echo his version of the events. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Could I ask a favour, please, that citation templates not be added to this article, per CITE? They can make the text considerably harder to edit for flow, and the writing tends to suffer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses

Hi George, you added that the incident -- by which I take it you mean the shooting -- was witnessed by cameramen or journalists from ABC News, Associated Press, EPA, and Reuters, as well as France 2, and you cited the decision in the Karsenty case -- Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris. Can you say exactly what was said? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have just read the above, and I can't see who added this to the lead, but it may not have been George. I think we need to be careful here. We shouldn't take material from a primary source (the decision), unless it's very clear. In this case, although some cameramen from the above may have been in the area, they appear not to have witnessed the incident (the shooting), because they'd have filmed it if they had. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I didn't add that. I think ChrisO did, based on the court decision. He linked to an English translation of it a couple discussions up if I recall correctly... ← George ^talk 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he linked to an English translation here. Not sure where it's from, but it may be helpful as a guide to what that document says. ← George ^talk 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read it. First, this is one person's interpretation/summary of what was said in court. Secondly, it doesn't say any journalists were present, but photographers. Third, it doesn't say they witnessed the shooting, at least not unambiguously. I suggest we stick to secondary sources for this article, except where we can all agree that the primary sources are very clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's "one person's interpretation/summary"; it's a straight translation of an original document issued by the court. Second, photographers are journalists, and not all of those journalists present were photographers; it says specifically: "France 2 reported this statement throughout a report by Charles Enderlin ... in support of which was cited the written testimony of many journalists who were present at the scene." Third, it's clear that they did witness the shooting - don't forget that both AP and Reuters filed their own independent eyewitness reports of the shooting hours before Enderlin broadcast the footage (see the timeline I posted above). I'll quote the Reuters report for you, filed by one Ahmed Jadallah: "Reporters watched helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The document says:

... "It is more probable that [Mohamed Al Dura] was killed by the Palestinians than by the Israelis." France 2 reported this statement throughout a report by Charles Enderlin, broadcast the same day, in which he nevertheless emphasized the inconsistencies of these conclusions with the “evidence collected at the scene,” in support of which was cited the written testimony of many journalists who were present at the scene, notably that of Nouredine Saber, a photographer with EPA (Agence Europeenne de la Photo) and formerly a photographer with AFP; Moussa Hatem, an Associated Press photographer, Suhaib Salemin, photographer with the Reuters agency, and Sami Ziara, director of production at ABC News, all of whom claim the shots were fired from the Israeli side.

1. It doesn't say they witnessed the shooting.

2. These are photographers and cameramen, not journalists. This has been the problem throughout the case. In broadcast journalism, you go out with a cameraman and a reporter (or researcher, correspondent, producer). You don't send cameramen out alone. This is done overseas to save money, and this kind of situation is one of the consequences.

3. We really shouldn't be using primary sources, such as court transcripts, unless we can all agree that there's no ambiguity about what they're saying. This is one person's translation of a primary source, and it's not entirely clear what's meant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs on (1). It says that they described the shots as being fired from the Israeli position - they are clearly eyewitnesses. We know that at least the AP and Reuters journalists saw the shooting, because they filed their own eyewitness accounts of it.

On (2), you really need to check what the description of a journalist applies to. A journalist is simply someone who works in the news gathering business. Cameramen and photographers most certainly are journalists (have you never heard of photojournalism or video journalism?). Seriously, ask someone who works in the media whether a cameraman or a photographer is a journalist. Better still, ask an actual cameraman or photographer. Also, I have to take issue with your assertion that they "appear not to have witnessed the incident (the shooting), because they'd have filmed it if they had." That's pure speculation. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, Reuters did film the part of gun battle (and even the al-Durrahs behind their barrel) though not the shooting itself, from a different angle. There are any number of reasons why they might not have filmed the actual shooting but I would have thought the most obvious is that it was too dangerous. You don't point a camera at soldiers who are firing in your direction unless you want to get shot. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(3) I would agree with you in the case of most primary sources but not in the case of legal judgements. They are extremely useful for background information as they provide details that have been documented to the highest standards in a court of law. The particular information cited in this instance - that multiple journalists were present - is not contested and is not opinion; it's a simple statement of undisputed fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, there's a danger of OR here. How do we know that the Reuters and AP reports were eyewitness accounts, for example? And given that you and I disagree about the meaning of the judgment in itself suggests it's not unambiguous. I really think we need to stick to secondary sources, except for basic facts about which there's no dispute. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear what is in dispute here, are you disputing that multiple reporters witnessed the incident? Because that is precisely what the Reuters report states. Second, what makes you think that the Reuters and AP reports are not eyewitness accounts? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to show me which reports you mean, then I can answer. I'll think they're eyewitness reports if they say that's what they are, in other words. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are the first mentions from AP and Reuters (Israel is GMT + 3):

1. Karin Laub, AP, 10:35 GMT: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen ... In Netzarim, 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura and his father, Jamal, were caught in the cross fire. The boy screamed in panic as bullets hit a wall just inches above their heads. At one point, the father raised his head above the metal barrel that served as their cover and shook his finger, as if to admonish those firing at him. Moments later, Mohammed slumped to the ground, fatally hit, and the father, gravely wounded, lost consciousness."

Not clear it's an eyewitness account.

2. AP, 13:57 GMT: "Shifa Hospital in Gaza City reported three dead - a 12-year-old boy, a Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver."

Not an eyewitness account.

3. Ahmed Jadallah, Reuters, 17:25 GMT: "Twelve-year-old Rami al-Durra died in his father's arms on Saturday, caught in the crossfire of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

"Reporters watched helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip.

"Rami crouched weeping behind his father, who tried in vain to shield him with his arms and body. At one point, the father raised his head and wagged his finger, as if to scold.

"Some time later, both were shot and Rami slumped into his father's lap. Rami died, while his father survived badly wounded. An ambulance driver, who braved the fierce shooting to try to rescue them, also died.

"Bassam al-Bilbeisi, the ambulance driver went to save the boy, Rami al-Durra, who was 12 years old. But he was shot at, the boy was shot at as well. Bassam and the boy Rami were both killed," Palestinian Health Minister Riyadh al-Zanoun said."

Almost certainly not an eyewitness account by this time. And none of them say he was hit by bullets from the Israeli position. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the issue of house style. Traditionally agency journalists do not put themselves at the scene of reports, using the first person ("I saw..."), but describe events in the third person - sometimes even describing themselves in the third person ("Sources told the Associated Press"...). AP used to - I don't know if it still does - promote a doctrine which was compared to Star Trek's Prime Directive, of observing and reporting but not participating in events. I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that the agencies' reporters did witness the incident, since we know (from Reuters) that "Reporters watched helplessly" as it unfolded, and we have detailed reports that were filed, in the case of AP, probably not much more than an hour after the shooting happened.

Regarding the use of the court decision, I suggest taking the following approach. Reuters is a reliable source for the primary fact that multiple journalists saw the al-Durrahs behind cover and under fire. The court decision provides supplementary detail on which journalists were present at the scene. We should therefore cite that for the supplementary detail about the individual journalists' identities and employers, but use Reuters for the primary fact of the journalists' presence. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added another source to the text which supports that there was only one journalist eye-witness.

• <ref name=JRosenthal>[http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=312 France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech], by John Rosenthal, WPR.</ref>

I have no objection if anyone is interested in removing the ref name="decision-19-octobre",but I feel that they support each other.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing

Jaakobou, this is the English Wikipedia, and the English needs to be good, or at least grammatically correct. Please suggest changes on talk, and someone can add them for you if they're properly sourced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't restore the citation templates. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit

This was Jaakobou's suggestion for the lead:

After riots in the West Bank on September 29, reporters had assembeled at the Netzarim junction the following day, expecting for the protests to expand to the Gaza Strip hot spot. The video sequence from the report was filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for Antenne 2, the only journalist eyewitness at the scene.

I disagree with it, so I won't be reinstating it. There's no firm evidence that Abu Rama was the only cameraman present—in fact, there's evidence that he wasn't—just as there's no firm evidence that others actually witnessed the shooting. Both of these positions are guesswork, so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a change to look at the JRosenthal source? I notice that its missing from your copy paste, but I did insert it to the text.[11] Would you mind reading it and then, if you agree that it says, "It would turn out that Charles Enderlin had not been at Netzarim that day and that his narration had been based on the account given by France2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma: the sole known witness of the events."[12] self-reverting. I also repeat my above note (22:25, 30 September 2009) that the primary source says As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma". Anyways, the secondary source should be good enough to resolve this issue. This is repeated on numerous other sources, including both documentaries by Schapira.

p.s. I know my English isn't perfect, but I'm not sure where the problem was/is. I'd appreciate a mini-explanation. You can write it on my user page so it doesn't get in the way of the content discussions here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Assembled is mis-spelled; expecting for isn't right; hot spot is poor; the video sequence wasn't really filmed, the incident was, and why say video sequence; and he wasn't the only cameraman on the scene. Also, in general, it's a little confusing as written. I'm willing to add your material to the article if I don't disagree with it, if you post it here first. But we need to keep the writing clean. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirign,

Would you mind looking at the content section of my comment?

Thanks, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think the Rosenthal article is an authoritative one. And "of the events" is ambiguous. Clearly, the France 2 cameraman wasn't the sole witness "of the events," though he may have been the sole witness to the shooting. Some precision is needed here, and an end to POV pushing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rosenthal source is used combined with the other one. I tried "the only journalist eyewitness to the event" because the Rosenthal source used "the sole known witness of the events" and you already raised concerns with the other phrasing -- i.e. "the only journalist present at the scene" -- that was used by the other source. I have no qualms with rephrasing "events" to "shooting" per your recent suggestion.

p.s. I think everyone on the page is sincere and just wants to get it right. What's missing is more listening and sticking to what reliable sources say without adding personal interpretations to them. This is why we suddenly had a version that mis-attributed the eye-witnessing issue. I only tried to rectify this issue, which you saw as a problem as well.[13]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that multiple journalists were at the junction that day. Jaakobou's favorite source, Schapira's documentary, actually highlights that there were four of five cameramen there, showing them on film, one after another, as a way to question why Abu Rahma was the only one to capture the shooting of the al-Durrahs on film. It even shows a cameraman crouching right behind the al-Durrahs next to the barrel. Any source that claims that no other journalists were present at the scene is either being misinterpreted or flat out wrong. Likewise, Abu Rahma wasn't the only one to catch the al-Durrahs on film (another cameraman caught them just on the edge of his frame), but he was the only one to catch them being shot on film. The only issue is whether any of the other journalists witnessed the shooting without filming it. If there are reliable sources that say this, it should be included, though I'm not clear if such sources exist. ← George ^talk 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a point, but George put it too well. Clearly, there may only have been one reporter who witnessed the event (the child's death) but we know [for a fact] that multiple reporters were present at the scene (the overall Israeli-Palestinian gunfight). The Squicks (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says about 20 cameramen and photographers and says the only one to witness the shooting of the boy and father is Talal. This is repeated in a few other sources. No one of the 20 is reported to have witnessed the shooting as it was happening but Talal did show his video to them before he sent it out..that's where he got the name Rami al-Durrah, which he decided to change to Muhammad al-Durrah. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,
Do you have any issues with the first part, that is referenced to the Schapira documentary. Where it is noted that cameramen assembled at the junction, expecting the riots to expand to the hot-spot? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CITE

I'mnot following what part of CITE you're interested in pointing out SlimV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The part that says not to add citation templates without consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a note that I shouldn't change the existing citation format. Is this what you were referring to? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

\fixed typo -- 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I need an answer here, please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts

(moved from SV's talk page)

Heyo SlimVirgin,
You've recently reverted my edit,[14] which corrected an issue of false information that was recently inserted into the article (per "was witnessed by journalists and photographers from at least five agencies"),[15] and then moved on to argue in favor of my edit.[16] My edit, it seems you have missed it, included an extra citation to support the removal of the recently introduced change (see ref name=JRosenthal[17]) and, as such, it would feel as though you've chosen to revert my edit without looking into its merits.
I would appreciate it if you could, in the future, argue in favor of my edits without reverting them.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit uncomfortable that you ignored this message and reverted again. Still, I replied to you and hope that we can work this thing out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When you've been told the writing is poor and the information inaccurate, why do you feel it's okay to revert three times, or even once? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that WP:IDONTHEARYOU provides the explanation, SlimVirgin. Unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of blind reverts, Jaakobou, please don't blind revert en masse without rejoining the discussion on talk that I invited you to. I don't favor your poorly worded version of one of the statements you changed in your bulk revert, and the reverting without discussion is getting tedious. ← George ^talk 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the purpose of this copy paste from SlimVirgin's page. It seems like an effort to get a few people to make personal attacks. No one is addressing the content that I've mentioned and that it was pasted here, for the sole purpose of making incorrect personal attacks, is poor form. As to the content changes, I've been listening to everyone here and my English is not so horrible that reliable sources (and text) should be removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

France 2 appeal

Do we have a source that they lodged an appeal and that the case is ongoing? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, France 2's application for cassation (not an appeal, strictly speaking; it doesn't quite map onto the Anglo-Saxon legal system) is stated in several May 2008 French news reports. They apparently did it as soon as the verdict came in. For example AP's report of 21 May 2008, "Affaire Mohammed al-Doura: le directeur de Media Rating relaxé en appel", states: "La chaîne publique [France 2], qui a dit dans un communiqué ne pas partager cette appréciation du triubnal [sic], a décidé de se pourvoir en cassation." A May 2009 article attributed to Karsenty complains that "France 2 s’est pourvue en cassation et la profession s’est mobilisée, mais en faveur de Charles Enderlin." [18] There is no indication that the case has yet been heard by the Court of Cassation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "ongoing" seems a bit unhelpful to me. Isn't there articles out there in the French media that give more detail (e.g. What dockets the Court of Cassation has in the near future and when exactly this case would come up)? The Squicks (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've come across. Perhaps the court has a schedule on its own website somewhere, but I've not looked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. It seems clear that the case is indeed pending. In that interview, I think Karsenty said something about the decision being expected this autumn. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, it'll be pretty soon. No doubt we'll see an influx of ranting POV-pushing newbies on the day, just as we did when the last decision was released in 2008. Can't wait... :/ -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there probably is a schedule there somewhere, but good luck to anyone trying to find it. But that's fine, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. Thanks to Chris) regardless. The Squicks (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickie mediation

Alright, I've talked to Jaak and ChrisO over IRC on this matter, as best as I can understand. Here's the problem:

• There are sources that were written contemporaneous to the incident. They put the time of exchange ~12pm, local time
• There are sources that were written after. They put the time after ~12pm, local time
• The discrepancy between them is generally "the morning of" (contemporary) and "the noon/afternoon of" (later reporting)
• This causes the timelines to veer.

Am I correct so far? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

More or less. But it's not so much "later reporting" as op-eds by various people, usually with a decidedly overt ideological slant. Contemporary reporting in English of the time of the shooting is unanimous about it happening on Saturday morning. As I pointed out in the timeline above, it was first reported at 10:35 am local time by AP. Clearly it could not have been reported in the morning if it happened in the afternoon - that is physically impossible, and I'm pretty sure they don't have time machines in the Gaza Strip. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that these events were said to have taken place at noon local time (which is 10am UTC time, which may be the source of confusion). I think all sources agree on that time, with the exception of Enderlin, who reported the event as occurring at 3pm (it's unclear to me why he reported this time). Abu Rahma said that there was fighting (Palestinians throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and Israelis responding with tear gas and rubber bullets) from 7am until noon, when the shooting with live rounds started. ← George ^talk 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry George, you're correct. The difference between UTC timestamps on the reports and local time is indeed confusing. I note that the Xinhua report listed in my summary timeline above puts the time of the crossfire at 11:30 am. That's close enough to noon. All of the subsequent contemporary reports that state a time - with the exception of Enderlin (in French, not distributed outside France as far as anyone has been able to show) - clearly state "Saturday morning"; that still fits with Xinhua's reported time. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the discrepancy. I wish to freeze this discussion from becoming too threaded, so I can get everyone's input independent of someone else's. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Like, who died and make me king?

Sorry Xavexgoem, I don't mean to overthread your discussion, but I don't know that there is any discrepancy between the bullet points you've listed. To the best of my knowledge, fighting (in the way of throwing rocks and rubber bullets in response) begins at 7am, and goes until about noon. At noon, someone fires lives rounds, and there's an exchange of gunfire that lasts about 45 minutes. During that 45 minutes, the al-Durrahs are shot, and Muhammad al-Durrah is killed. So yes, there was fighting in the morning, there was a shooting around noon, and the boy was shot shortly thereafter (or within 45 minutes of the shooting starting). Depending on what "incident" any specific source is talking about, any of the things you listed could be correct. If the "incident" is the general fighting, that started in the morning. If the "incident" was the eruption of gunfire, that was around noon. If the "incident" was specifically the boy being shot, that was also around noon, or very shortly after noon (within 45 minutes of the shooting starting). I don't see any discrepancies in that timeline. ← George ^talk 22:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Also with apologies to Xavexgoem.) I think the issue here is what we do about the sources that claim the shooting happened at 3pm, which appears to have become a theme among those promoting conspiracy theories about the incident. The TV documentary that Jaakobou likes to quote apparently focuses on this time (I've not seen it myself). Jaakobou himself has said above on this talk page, "there was also a clear time differential where the first boy, the one we saw at the funeral, arrived at the hospital at 10am while Al-Durrah was reportedly shot at around 3pm." I don't think he's told us specifically where he got this time from, though. I'd be interested to know. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, he got this from Enderlin, whose reporting is at the heart of the controversy, and who claims the shooting happened at 3. I wouldn't call Enderlin someone "promoting conspiracy theories about the incident". Millmoss (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where he got it from, so I think it would be useful if he could say. I will point out, though, that Enderlin's mistaken timing was not repeated by any other contemporary source. As far as I have been able to find from Lexis-Nexis searches, it was not even mentioned in published media sources in any language until it was cited in an opinion piece in 2005. Conspiracy theorists seem to have latched onto it subsequently as further ammunition in their campaign to discredit Enderlin. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it would be useful if Jaakobu could confirm this, I'm just saying is not a big mystery, since we all know Enderlin says this, and his reporting is at the heart of the controversy. I don't think we can say Enderlin was "mistaken" regarding the timing - he has never corrected this, as far as I know, and his critics claim the 3 PM event he reported on was a staged event (distinct from an earlier shooting, during which another boy might have been killed). Millmoss (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey ChrisO,

• Do we have a source saying (a) Enderlin got the time wrong, and\or (b) that there was only one shooting incident throughout that day? I don't consider these to be known facts.
• Here's a couple sources saying 3pm:
  • Schapira's 2nd documentary gives the following notes:
    • About 20 cameramen and photographers were there that day and that the situation escalated and live ammunition was used in the afternoon. The time for the live bullets is given as 2pm. The specific time for al-Durrah given is 3:30pm whereas a Palestinian doctor, Tawil, says he admitted a dead boy and an ambulance driver at about 10 am. The film says at this time, the boy and father were not yet at the scene. The father and son were picked up together and the arrival of a boy, who was later notified to the doctor as Muhammad, without the father suggests (to the film-makers) that there was probably a mix-up. The time in which the pathologist finishes is about 4pm, in which the boy is photographed with the name Muhammad next to him. This boy, is noted by the facial recognition expert, Kurt Kindermann, to be a different boy than the one in the video, who is the son of Jamal.
    • Talal is noted as the only one to shoot the scene, and for a single minute. Talal says he filmed the "famous scene" for "6 minutes in 45 minutes of shooting the boy". Talal is noted as the only eye witness to confirm the report. He says that when he showed his footage to the other reporters, one of them recognized Jamal and told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah. He says he decided to change it to Muhammad.
    • Landes is noted as one of the few people who saw the original footage and he says it was full of staged scenes and once he told this to Enderlin, Enderlin said that they always do that and its part of their culture but they couldn't get a fake like 'al-durrah' past him because they are not that good. Enderlin is pictured saying that its not staging but rather playing for the camera and says that everyone, including ARD (the newsgroup behind the documentary) report with such images.
    • The Jordanian hospital, which treated the father of the boy, has its papers criticized by the Israeli doctor, Yehuda, for a number of seemingly impossible observations and it has a glaring error in the date of admittance, which is a few days before Jamal Muhammad Ahmad Durrah (the father) crossed the Israel-Jordan border.
  • James Fallows, The Atlantic
    • "At around 3:00 P.M. Mohammed al-Dura and his father make their first appearance on film. The time can be judged by later comments from the father and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of shadows in the footage. Despite the number of cameras that were running that day, Mohammed and Jamal al-Dura appear in the footage of only one cameraman—Talal Abu-Rahma, a Palestinian working for France 2."
    • I also saw a few people on other reliable sources who echoed James Fallows, crediting him for saying the same thing. i.e. it would seem they consider him reliable enough.

Talal is the only cameraman "eyewitness" to capture the scene (according to multiple sources) and that scene is not continuous in the supposedly raw footage that is on youtube.

I hope this answers most of the recent queries made towards me. and I further hope that we can get reliably published material on the page (like JRosenthal) without reverting to factually incorrect versions.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If your quoted time of 10am from Schapira's second documentary is accurate, then the documentary itself is completely wrong. A Wall Street Journal piece from 2004 by Stephane Juffa, editor in chief of MENA (an Israeli group seeking to disprove Enderlin's report), quoted "Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil" as testifying that the "Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 pm". ← George ^talk 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The times "about 10am" and "before 1pm" are within the same time frame. This is what the doctor himself says about the time in which the boy he saw arrived. So I disagree that "the documentary itself is completely wrong". Maybe the doctor wasn't accurate on both times - but it doesn't look like a huge error that I'd call him "completely wrong". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source for the "about 10am" claim, besides Schapira's documentary (or those who reprinted her claims)? Her documentary didn't come out until 2009, so surely there are sources before that that make the same claim... ← George ^talk 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have lexis-nexis approach and google seems to only give me articles from the past month. Anyways, the doctor is saying this -- i.e. about 10 am -- to the camera and continues to say that in the same minute also came the injured ambulance driver so there's no ambiguity here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see the verifiability issues with this, when nobody else has seen this documentary. It's even more problematic because no other source makes the same claim prior to the documentary (making it the likely original source), and the quote is in direct conflict with another source from 2004 that cites the very same person as saying something completely different. Have you had any lucky finding a copy of this documentary on the internet, or do you have a copy on your local computer that you could share with other editors? ← George ^talk 14:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy on my computer but I found the 10am thing here. Can you link to the 2004 source please?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the documentary, George, and I can confirm that the doctor does say a boy was brought in at 10 (or maybe 10:30, I forget which, but I can check if it matters). There's a copy on YouTube. I'll post it shortly if it's still there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is part one of five parts. It's the second Shapira documentary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He definitely says something about 10am, though I'm unclear what (as the German announcer starts talking over him after that, and I don't speak German). Does anyone here speak German?

Jaakobou - the mention of 1pm comes from Stephane Juffa of the Israeli Metula News Agency (MENA), writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Europe on November 29, 2004: "We have the testimonies of Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil, two Palestinian doctors of the Gaza Shifa hospital who said Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 p.m." It's been reprinted by several pro-Israel groups, and you can read it here for instance. Oddly enough, this was one of the pillars of the 'hoax' conspiracy theories back then - that the boy was brought in at 1pm, while Enderlin said 3pm, therefore it must have been a hoax. Apparently this has now changed to 10am. What I'm more interested in, than the op-ed itself, is that the author says there was testimony made to this effect. I'd be interested if we can find that original testimony. ← George ^talk 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 10am is indeed "before 1 p.m." and he's also on record for saying 'about 10am' so I believe this matter, that there's a discrepancy between Enderlin and Tawil should be fairly settled and mentioned in the article. Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy isn't between Enderlin and Tawil. The discrepancy is between Enderlin and everyone else. I believe that's the point that ChrisO was making with long list of reliable sources - essentially everyone agrees on the time, except Enderlin, who reported that the event happened at 3pm. Should his mistake be mentioned in the article? Possibly, depending on how it's framed. ← George ^talk 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

← This is why I added the bullet points. There are sources -- contemporary at the time -- that say X happened at time Y. Some time later, it was written that it happened at time Z, after the time Y reported by contemporary (i.e., as it happened) sources. How is this possible? How can we write an article that ignores an as it happened timeline? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

I've boldfaced the sources I've posted above in regards to the 3pm question. The discrepancy is not just between Enderlin and everyone else as there are others "on his side" with this point.

Xavegoam,

The difference between 'as it happened' and the later sources is based on synthesis of the sources and the assumption that there was only one skirmish at the intersection when, in fact, there were skirmishes there throughout the day. I've asked for reliable sources to the assumption that Enderlin made a mistake or the other assumption, that there was only one skirmish. I'd be surprised if one would come up.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what are the sources you're speaking of? I'm not sure where to look. ← George ^talk 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually worse than that, Xavexgoem. There are sources published before time Z that report the incident. I shouldn't need to point out that it's physically impossible for an event to be reported before it's happened. I've pointed this out several times to Jaakobou but he has persistently ignored it. So how about it, Jaakobou? Are you going to deal with the physical impossibility of what you're proposing or just continue to ignore it? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, this is the point I'm confused about. I'm still confused; it's an actual impossibility. Although it would be best if you were a bit less snarky so we can figure this out :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC) and yes, I know we all "have it figured out", but look where that's gotten us, right? :-p

It's not that complicated. Those trying to promote conspiracy theories focus on minor mistakes made in the minutes and hours after the incident, to divert attention away from the glaring realities of the case. It's the same thing as these theorists focusing on the boy initially reported to be named "Rami", as part of some big conspiracy. ← George ^talk 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

Search this thread for the words "Here's a couple sources saying 3pm" to see a couple sources.

ChrisO,

Which sources "published [the name al-Durrah] before time Z? From the sources above, I can spot one reference by "Associated Press" that is stamped 12:35 (UTC+2) with all others coming after the time-stamp given by Fallows, Enderlin, and the documentary. Is there a live link to this article? Was this published in an online source, which are often changed when stories develop, or a printed source?

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither online nor printed; it's in Lexis-Nexis, which captures the raw output of its contributor newswires. The timestamp is the time that the story was filed on the AP newswire - in other words it was filed at 12:35 local time. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

That is an interesting explanation about how Lexis-Nexis works, but that and the timestamp examination seems like an awful lot of original research. It is not up to you or me to interpret timestamps and then claim they contradict reliable secondary sources, and then discount those sources (I listed a couple of them here)

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An op-ed and a television documentary, both of which mention (and sometimes criticize) Enderlin, aren't reliable sources for independently verifying anything factual about the timing of this incident. ← George ^talk 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there is no original research involved. The timestamp is part of the filed story - just as much as the date or the headline or the article text. You can't pick and mix which bits you want to take notice of and which you want to ignore. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

If I were to go to Lexis-Nexis, how would I find this information on how they acquire their news sources. Where on Lexis-Nexis does it state that they capture the raw output of its contributor newswires.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what LexisNexis is - an archiver of articles and legal documents. I'm not really sure how one could honestly question their timestamps - it's probably the most trusted such service in the world, used by lawyers, academics, and researchers everywhere. ← George ^talk 03:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a question of the validity of LexisNexis or its source, but of the relevance of the timestamp. We can all agree that sometimes articles are filed, are given a timestamp, and then are expanded as events progress. So the timestamp may not refer to the final article available on LexisNexis - the question is whether LexisNexis discusses the nature of the timestamps and how they can be used. I imagine they might not, since few lawyers and academics will use that level of detail in their work; even so, a question worth asking when the timestamp is being used as evidence on the same level as the rest of the article's content. Nathan ^T 03:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou's claim, as far as I can tell, would require the timestamp to have been changed to an earlier time. I'm unaware of anyone, anywhere, ever changing timestamps to earlier times when they are "expanded as events progress". This whole thing strikes me as yet another preposterous goose chase. ← George ^talk 04:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an accurate analysis of the question. When an article is originally filed, its given a timestamp. But the original version of the article as filed, and the complete version later available, are not necessarily identical (or even similar). So the explanation of how the timestamps are noted, and how the articles are received, is relevant - it would help to know if the current article and the original filed piece are similar or not. Nathan ^T 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the discussions leading up to this, which have gotten badly sidetracked. On that day one person, Charles Enderlin, reported that the boy died at 3pm. The doctors at the hospital that admitted the boy said he died before 1pm. Conspiracy theorists latch on to this as proof of a hoax, claiming that the discrepancy exists because there were two boys, and the one who died before 1pm was not the same boy that was shot at the junction at 3pm, ignoring the fact that other sources reported his death prior to Charles Enderlin's report that listed the time as 3pm. ChrisO has been pointing out that other sources give times before 1pm for the boy being shot, citing the AP source in question, archived by LexisNexis, and timestamped at 12:35pm (matching the hospital's timeline), that mentioned the boy being shot and killed. Jaakobou is asking if this timestamp could have somehow been changed from 3pm to 12:35pm by LexisNexis - not whether LexisNexis changed the timestamp to a later time as part of some update to the article, but whether they may have changed it to an earlier time as part of some cover up. I find the whole line of questioning preposterous. ← George ^talk 04:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read the earlier discussion and I understand (having read up) the debate over the times. But I think this should be a simple question to answer. No one alleges that LexisNexis would have actually pre-dated the piece., only that the timestamp on the article may refer to an earlier version of the piece that might not include all the details in the currently available article. So the narrow question I'd like to see ChrisO address is if he can point to the LexisNexis page that describes how the timestamps work (such that he can state they are received in real-time from source newsires and timestamped with the time of receipt), and if there is a possibility that the timestamp refers to an earlier version of the article with different material. On a separate note, I think the discussion on this page could benefit from a change in tone. Cracks about preposterous goosehunts and the existence of time machines aren't really helpful to bringing the discussion to a resolution; it makes the issue personal on both sides, and encourages people to dig in. Nathan ^T 04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is no other article put up to this scrutiny? Can you prove that the timestamp listed next to any article, from any source, is accurate? What if ChrisO doesn't have a source for how LexisNexis timestamps the articles in their database? Do we then jump on the original research bandwagon and ignore the time listed for any sources from LexisNexis? I've done a side-by-side comparison between the article on LexisNexis with the original article published October 1, 2000 - they both state, in the exact same words: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen." I see no evidence whatsoever that the piece was amended.

More importantly, why does it matter? We have other sources that also say the event happened at noon - the cameraman who recorded the video, for instance. Why are those being ignore and the timestamp for a single article being highlighted? What is it supposed to prove? What you see as wisecracks I see as the regrettable, but inevitable, response to tedious editing. ← George ^talk 06:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simple, really - if there isn't a LexisNexis explanation of the timestamp and how its established, then its irrelevant. Only the actual text of the article is usable as a source, then, either for the article or for the debate here. Nathan ^T 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Timestamps

Nathan, your comments about the timestamp are completely wrong. It's a one-shot deal. There is no "updating" of a single item. If a story is updated, it's refiled with a new timestamp - the original story remains in the database. One of the frustrations of using Lexis-Nexis that there are often multiple copies of the same story, one after the other, each one slightly different as words are added or removed or corrections are made. You might find half a dozen versions of the same story filed at different times. There's no "definitive" version - in fact, the earlier versions might actually provide more information than later ones. Each report has its own serial number. The 12:35 AP report and the later reports have different serials, headlines, lengths and attributions. Nothing has been "updated" - new reports have been filed in sequence:

Twelve killed in Israeli-Palestinian clashes; worst violence in four years aprs000020010804dw9u00tty By KARIN LAUB Associated Press Writer 1064 Words 30 September 2000 10:35 GMT Associated Press Newswires

12 Palestinians Killed in Clashes asp0000020010804dw9u029rr By KARIN LAUB Associated Press Writer 1055 Words 30 September 2000 Associated Press Online circa. 18:00

12-year-old boy among dead in Israeli-Palestinian cross fire aprs000020010804dw9u00vxh By NAJIB ABU JOBEIN Associated Press Writer 466 Words 30 September 2000 21:42 GMT Associated Press Newswires

As I said, the timestamp is as much a part of the story as any other part. You can't selectively ignore parts of the story that don't fit into your preferred narrative. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I understand your tone at all, particularly your assumption that I have a "preferred narrative" and am ignoring conflicting parts of the story. How can I be completely wrong when I was only asking a question? As I mentioned to George above, certain types of comments are just not helpful for any sort of discussion. Thank you for mostly answering my question. Nathan ^T 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what I'm hearing:

• All the sources for the articles are pre-dating the events after-the-fact
• All the aggregators, like LexisNexis, are pre-dating the events after-the-fact
• All the sources, and all the aggregators, have roughly the same timestamps, and report the events as being around the same time.

Why would they do this? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Xavexgoem,

There's currently only one article which is, seemingly, pre-dating the events. ChrisO has cited this one AP article from Lexis-Nexis as argument that Enderlin, Fallows, and Schapira are wrong when they report the al-Durrah incident was at around 3pm. That article, which mentions al-Durrah by name, is stamped 12:35pm (UTC+2) while, according to the 3 mentioned, the boy and father were shot at around 3pm. If this is indeed how the article was reported at that actual time (i.e. with the boy's name and at a clearly earlier time), then we have a major error repeated by 3 different sources and the article can't report what they said without taking the AP article into serious consideration. ChrisO has moved on to rewrite changes into the article based on his assumption that the 3 sources are incorrect but it seems like quite a premature assumption since a time-stamp doesn't quite solidify this argument when its quite possible that AP updated the article as more information was available. This should be a simple question to answer -- whether we know for a fact that the AP/Lexis-Nexis time stamp does not refer to an earlier version of the article with different material.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But the coverage timeline up above mentions many wire sources that appear to substantiate the AP. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The coverage timeline section has only one source that mentions al-Durrah prior to 3pm and that is AP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Two AFP reports of before 3pm also describe the number of fatalities at Netzarim as three people (initially five), including a policeman (initially the three fatalities were wrongly identified as all being policemen). Later reports identify the three fatalities as a policeman, al-Durrah and the ambulance driver who tried to rescue him. In addition, all the contemporary articles which identify the time speak unanimously of "Saturday morning". No contemporary report other than Enderlin says 3pm. Fallows obviously has no idea what the contemporary reports state and speculates wildly that it can be "judged by the length of shadows in the footage". Who knows where Schapira has got it from. So, in summary, your sources are (1) the only contemporary report which gives a different time from all the others; (2) speculation from a journalist three years later; (3) a conspiracy theory TV documentary nine years later. That is pathetically inadequate sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So Jaakobou, you're saying that Charles Enderlin's narrative (and two non-reliable sources repeating his statement) outweighs the affidavit of the journalist who filmed the incident, the testimony of the two doctors who confirmed the boy's death at the hospital, and the AP article ChrisO cited? I just want to be sure I'm not misinterpreting your position on the subject. ← George ^talk 11:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo George,

• Both James Fallows and Esther Schapira are reliable sources. SlimVirign expressed this sentiment as well towards the documentary,[19] but you are free to file an WP:RSN to get further community input. I also consider Enderlin to be wiki-reliable so long as there's no contradicting sources, in which case he should be attributed by name.
• The cameraman's (Abu-Rahma) affidavit, I just now noticed, doesn't fully agree with either version (affidavit suggests that AP couldn't have reported the story before 1pm, which they did, according to the timestamp) and the doctor, Tawil, didn't know the name of the boy he admitted at 10am, and the two AFP reports could well be referring to this 10am boy who, according to Kurt Kindermann (the biometrics expert), is not Muhammad al-Durrah, and according to multiple reliable sources, hasn't arrived at the junction yet.. but we're digressing here.
• If sources conflict, we can give that information to the reader somehow. The problem here is that a single timestamp is supposedly the (sole) smoking gun to tag 3 reliable sources as unreliable. I believe the most relevant issue is that "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your ... conclusions."

ChrisO,

I understand your explanation and concerns but...

If there isn't a LexisNexis explanation of the timestamp and how its established, then its still mostly irrelevant and a personal conclusion that is notable only to you.

On that same note, if there isn't a source that makes it clear that there was only one skirmish, then to assume this and synthesize sources, to come to the conclusion that reliable sources are mistaken, is wrong as well.

To conclude that James Fallows, Esther Shapira, and Charles Enderlin are wrong is also not right.

At this point, where it seems no other source gave the boy's name prior to 3pm and we still can't make original conclusions and discard multiple reliable sources based on this single time-stamp.

p.s. You've also concluded that "three fatalities were wrongly identified" when the first AP article speaks of 'Twelve killed'. A few reliable secondary sources to all these conclusions are in order if you want to pursue them further.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this very simply: the timestamp is part of the story, just as the headline, date, byline are. You are not willing to deal with anything that contradicts your fixed POV. I am not willing to waste any further time on you. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have just spent a good while searching LexisNexis News, what ChrisO is claiming gave him these timestamps. NONE of the articles I pulled have timestamps. NONE. I have two versions of an article titled "Twelve killed in second day of clashes; worst violence in four years" (one 1013 words, one 1043 words), an article titled "12 Palestinians Killed in Clashes" (1047 words). None have timestamps. The only things with timestamps that even mention this story by Laub are two AP News Digests, one timestamped 0000 GMT September 30, another 0600 GMT September 30. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a place to search by the ID, aprs000020010804dw9u00tty? That's the one, titled "Twelve killed in Israeli-Palestinian clashes; worst violence in four years", that ChrisO identified as being timestamped at 10:35, and is listed at 1064 words. ← George ^talk 03:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I searched for that idea because Jaakobou gave it to me, no hits (there was no "ID" field I could find, but that search term returned nothing). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So this is the article that ChrisO sent me (apologies for the formatting):

Twelve killed in Israeli-Palestinian clashes; worst violence in four years aprs000020010804dw9u00tty By KARIN LAUB Associated Press Writer 1064 Words 30 September 2000 10:35 GMT Associated Press Newswires English Copyright 2000. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli troops battling several gunmen and thousands of rock-throwing Palestinians opened fire Saturday, killing 12 Palestinians in the bloodiest clashes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1996. More than 500 Palestinians were injured, the Palestinian health minister said. .... Urgent AP Photos GAZ103, JRL120, JRL115, JRL131''

← George ^talk 03:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• And here is the article I found on Lexis Nexis news that has that title and is the closest to that length (this is 1043 words). File is small enough you can use the free DL. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

Playing devil's advocate here briefly, I wonder if the timestamp is relevant at all. The point is this: a doctor has said on-camera that he admitted a young boy, Boy A, who had been shot at around 10 am; his injuries were very serious, and visibly so, and he died. There are pre-noon, or pre-1 am, stories about people being shot, including a boy, from Reuters and AP. Endlerin then said Mohammad al-Durrah was shot at 3 pm. So the question is: did Enderlin simply make a mistake? Or were there two incidents, Boy A at around 10 am and Mohammad al-Durrah in the afternoon? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The doctor said this in 2009. In his earlier testimony, he and another doctor said "before 1 p.m.". Likewise, we have the testimony of Abu Rahma giving a time between noon and 12:45pm, and the AP source timestamped at 12:35pm. We have two minor outliers. There's no reason to focus on either except to promote conspiracies. Jumping to the conclusion that because the times don't match up exactly there must have been two boys is even more problematic - nobody has ever identified who the second, mystery boy, was. One can't simply cite minor errors in the time of death reports and the opinion of one German biometrics expert (reviewing the same video evidence you or I have seen) as evidence for the existence of another human being, of the same age, shot in the same place, on the same day, who was never reported dead or even missing. Keep in mind WP:FRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas... if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various 'What Wikipedia is not' rules come into play." ← George ^talk 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

George, two points: (1) do you have a source showing that the same doctor previously only said, "before 1 p.m."? (2) Documentaries are as reliable as any other form of journalism, no matter what anyone on the RS noticeboard says. The policy is WP:V. Documentaries go through some rigorous checks if they are purchased or produced by reputable networks. I can't remember where the Shapira documentary was first broadcast, but I think it was one of the mainstream German channels, and an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine suggests it wasn't ignored. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're overlooking the undue weight policy. George is absolutely correct. This is a claim that appears to have been made by no other source, and it posits a version of events which is not only not covered by other sources, it's actively contradicted by all the contemporary sources. There is no way that this claim belongs in the article - it's utterly fringe (literally a minority of one). It has no notability whatsoever: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not", as WP:UNDUE says. Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting every wacky conspiracy theory that comes along. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The first comes from the editor in chief of the Israeli MENA writing in the Wall Street Journal Europe in 2004. It's an op-ed, so unreliable for the article itself, but it makes it clear that the doctor's 10am time was neither the only time he gave, nor the original time: "We have the testimonies of Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil, two Palestinian doctors of the Gaza Shifa hospital who said Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 p.m."[20]

If I post this documentary to the noticeboard, and it's found to be an unreliable source for anything other than direct citations and statements of opinion, would that change your mind? ← George ^talk 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 1 pm source; these articles can be used so long there's in-text attribution. As for the documentary, I will respect the answer so long as the people replying understand the policies, WP:V and to a lesser extent WP:NOR. I can tell you that there is no difference in theory (as far as policy is concerned) between an article in a newspaper and a documentary. The latter, in fact, is likely to be more in-depth and detailed simply because people usually spend more time and money on them. As for the Shapira documentary in particular, I don't know how to judge its reliablity, because I know nothing about her, or the reception it got, and nor will anyone at the RS noticeboard. Perhaps there's someone on the German Wikipedia who could help us determine this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the quality of documentaries varies, just as with other source. I seem to remember seeing a Discovery documentary suggesting that aliens built the pyramids... I think it's fair to say that those types documentaries are not up to the caliber of journalistic newspaper articles? In this case, I can't find anything that indicates that this documentary was copy edited or fact-checked by anyone other than Schapira herself, making it akin to a self-published work. I also view the content highlighted and verbiage used to be heavily biased, as an attempt to prove a controversial case rather than neutrally investigate an event, which also makes me lean more towards considering this the video equivalent of an op-ed. Those are two red flags against considering it a reliable source for anything other than statements of opinion or straight quotations. Again, I'm not saying it can't be used at all, I just don't see a reason to trust the "facts" presented therein, any more than those from other, wackier documentaries. I think that you've hit on a key point too - verifiability. If there are things in the documentary we can independently verify, they can be (better) sourced to the articles that verify them. If there are specific quotes, we can use them, provided they're properly cited (and translated). But statement like "the Israelis could not have fired the fatal shots" (paraphrasing the conclusion of her first documentary) cannot be stated as facts, only as Schapira's opinion. ← George ^talk 00:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou -

• Fallows piece in The Atlantic Montly is an op-ed. That's what The Atlantic Montly publishes - pieces of commentary. Per your own words above, op-ed's are not reliable sources for anything other than the author's opinion. The reliable sources noticeboard concurs on this. It's currently used as a source in the article for facts. It should be replaced with better sources, especially if any of the things cited to it is likely to be challenged.
• Schapira's documentaries have very little to no chance of passing a reliable sources check on the noticeboard. There are other documentaries[21][22] discussed, and the general consensus is: (a) if the documentary is particularly good, and not refuted by other sources, it may be useable as a reliable source (this one isn't), (b) documentaries looking at one side of any story are opinion pieces, only useful for stating someone's opinion, and (c) direct quotes from interviews from said documentaries may be useable. Again and again on the reliable sources noticeboard, the issue of verifiability comes up - if what a documentary says is true, then it should be possible to cite it to better, reliable sources.
• Abu Rahma's affidavit says the shooting started at noon, and lasted 45 minutes. The AP report says the boy was shot at 12:35pm. I don't see the disconnect at all.
• We have one statement from one of the doctors, 9 years after the incident, that says it was at 10am. We have the testimonies of two doctors, including the same one who said 10am in 2009, saying "before 1 p.m.", presumably much closer to when the event actually occurred. Neither of these agree with Enderlin's 3pm.

There are effectively two outliers here. They may warrant some mention, but they are not (and should not be) the focus of the article, unless your goal is to write a conspiracy theory. First, Enderlin says 3pm, while almost everyone else says 12-1pm. Second, one of the two doctors says 10am, while, again, the very same doctor (and another) testified earlier that it was "before 1 p.m.", and again, almost all sources agree with this timeline. I see no reason to focus on either outlier except as an attempt to promote a conspiracy. ← George ^talk 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this mediation down. "Loose Change" did not turn 9/11 into an article about a conspiracy. The implications here are doing precisely that, and tearing a hole in the space-time continuum. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses

I'm interested in changing the text "The violence at the Netzarim junction was witnessed by journalists and photographers..." since it implies that (a) we need witnesses for something that no one disputes, (b) that they also witnessed the al-durrahs being killed, which is unsupported by multiple reliable sources.
Here's a couple of these sources:

• <ref name="decision-19-octobre">Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, no. 0433823049<br>"As for France 2, at no time did the reports broadcast afterward by the station hide the fact that the only journalist present at the scene was Talal Abu Rahma"</ref>
• <ref name=JRosenthal>[http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=312 France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech], by John Rosenthal, WPR.<br>"It would turn out that Charles Enderlin had not been at Netzarim that day and that his narration had been based on the account given by France2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma: the sole known witness of the events."</ref>
• <ref name=WSJ>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121183757337520921.html] <br>"The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible"</ref>

I would like to add some note that "After riots in the [[West Bank]] on September 29, reporters had assembled at the [[Netzarim junction]] the following day, expecting for the protests to expand to the [[Gaza Strip]] hot spot.<ref name=Schapira2/>". I'd appreciate any citation relevant corrections as well as grammar suggestions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

- self-reminder: [23]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your last change (not right now, at least), but we have to be extremely careful here. Schapira's documentary, the video equivalent of an op-ed, shouldn't be used as a source for anything except (a) Schapira's opinion, or (b) direct quotes taken from interviews with people. Anything beyond that will require additional, more reliable sources. ← George ^talk 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it for precisely those reasons (plus the fact that it's badly worded). Jaakobou's change removed the key fact that there were multiple journalists at the junction, and also wrongly stated that the al-Durrahs were only filmed/photographed by one cameraman. In fact, they also appeared in footage shot by Reuters. Several news articles describe this - the clearest description I've found comes from a September 2005 article in Commentary by Nedra Poller which, although generally tendentious, does at least describe what the Reuters footage shows: "In one section of Reuters footage we see the man and the boy crouched behind the upended culvert as a jeep drives slowly up the road." There is also apparently footage from AP. It does appear to be true to say that Rahma was the only journalist to record the shooting itself but it is simply not accurate to say that he was the only journalist on the scene, since we not have only have contemporary reports, we have contemporary footage as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I'm not happy about the changes you're making, in terms of the writing, the content, and the sources.

Someone (I believe J but I'm not sure), added this: "Abu Rahma stated in an interview that he showed his footage to the other cameramen and one of them told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah, which he decided to switch to Muhammad al-Durrah." What does this mean "decided to switch to"? Also, if we use Shapira as a sole source, we need in-text attribution and translation of the key material. It's a foreign-language film about a contentious issue, which raises verifiability issues, and it's not clear any sources outside a small circle are relying on it, so we need to flag it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I've been reviewing the reliable sources noticeboard, and television documentaries (like those produced by Schapira) are never acceptable as reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their creators, in the exact same way opinion pieces aren't reliable sources. They simply lack editorial oversight. Any factual content in the article that is referenced to one of these documentaries needs to have its references improved. ← George ^talk 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see documentaries as any different from newspapers, George, and often a lot better because more in-depth. The issue for me is that non-German speakers will have difficulty determining what was said, and that it's expressing a tiny-minority, and somewhat convoluted, position. But I don't see the documentary format as problematic in and of itself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I don't know what purpose is served by this focus on the boy's name. A couple of sources (not Enderlin, significantly, and not the first AP report) initially stated the boy's name as Rami. By the end of the day of the shooting they were all reporting it as Muhammad. So what? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. Those trying to promote conspiracy theories focus on minor mistakes made in the minutes and hours after the incident, to divert attention away from the glaring realities of the case. It's the same thing as these theorists focusing on Enderlin's statement that the death occurred at 3pm, as part of some big conspiracy. ← George ^talk 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what the conspiracy theorists are trying to do. I just don't see what concern it is of ours. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's all that much disagreement here. What people are talking about in terms of witnesses is that there's only the one to the MaD incident itself, not witnesses to the general violence, or to the presence of father and son. Do I have that right? IronDuke 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Query: I'm not following the assertion that, "Jaakobou's change removed the key fact that there were multiple journalists at the junction," (by ChrisO). The text was:

• [24] - After riots in the [[West Bank]] on September 29, reporters had assembled at the [[Netzarim junction]] the following day, expecting for the protests to expand to the [[Gaza Strip]] hot spot.<ref name=Schapira2/>

According to the same source, there were about 20 cameramen and photographers in the Junction that day (as I've pointed above). Grammar changes/suggestions, as well as rephrase suggestions -- that include the note about the West Bank, and that Netzarim is a known hot-spot -- are always appreciated but this text is of clear encyclopedic value to the article.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as I reread the section in question, it appears highly misleading to me, and very much out of place in the WP:LEAD. The way it is presently written, a casual reader could easily be under the impression that multiple journalists witnessed a shooting of the al-Durrahs. But AFAIK, no one is suggesting this. I think that sentence could be removed entirely, as it is irrelevant to this article -- it might have a place in a Violence at Netzarim Junction article, although not a prominent one. Thoughts? IronDuke 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think a good mediating version would include my text about many reporters being there, and it should be followed by a clarification (with sources) that the only journalist eye-witness was Talal Abu-Rahma. I'm willing to consider other alternatives for the phrasing on the second half but right now we're having a bit of a debate about the value of a single time-stamp against 3 reliable sources and one semi-reliable affidavit (that suggests the boy's name was only known after 1pm and not as early as the controversial time-stamp. We also seem to have some disagreement between what is fact and what is opinion on the Schapira source, but I don't believe the 3pm issue falls in that category. ChrisO, the doncumentary mentions that there were about 20 cameramen assembled at the junction. Would you be pleased with that information in the lead as a replacement to the non-germane grocery list of 5 news broadcasters? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose a change to the way this is worded in general, but it need to be better sourced. ← George ^talk 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the change since its long overdue to change the phrasing that suggests other cameramen witnessed the shooting of al-Durrah when that's not what the used source say. I've also added critical time and placement notes. For now we have the documentary source, which isn't bad as well as the BBC source. I will work for a few to see if I can add a couple extra sources. As a side note, I don't believe the word 'martyr' is neutral. Some call him an icon of hatred and dub the incident a blood libel - but neither is an encyclopedic style - certainly not for the lead. Any synonym of 'stimulator' would work for me btw, I believe the source uses the word 'galvanized' [Arab anger]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated several times before, I strongly oppose the use of this television documentary as a reliable source for facts; it's only useful as a source for opinion and the specific quotes from interviews. However, I'll give you some time to replace it with reliable sources instead of straight reverting.

I'm on the fence on the 'martyr' term. It's a term used among reliable sources, and likely the most common term used among sources from the Arab world (which call almost anyone killed like this a martyr), but I can see how those in the western world could confuse it for a religious martyr.

"Catalyst" is a better term than "stimulator", though the statement still isn't correct. The boy didn't create "Arab anger and international criticism " - his death did. That's a key distinction that your edit fails to mention. ← George ^talk 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we really need an RSN post so that we can get this thing out of the way. SlimVirign and I seem to agree that the documentary is reliable and I note that it is a far deeper investigation than any 500 or even an 1000 word article provides. I'm talking about the parts where facts are reported -- such as that 20 reporters had assembled at the junction -- not about opinions. If there are conflicting sources, then certainly we need to provide a full POV - but no one argues that there weren't reporters and protesters at the junction. Anyways, I think you should consider this deeply and, if unconvinced, an WP:RSN seems like the proper venue to pursue this - if you want, I will open one. I'm still going to try and place other sources where possible - though I'd appreciate it if you could point out a few things where you feel the information seems incorrect and requires further sourcing.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Filed. Yes, I don't think that is can be used as a source of facts, regardless of if the facts it cites are accurate or not. If there is an op-ed that states facts accurately, we would still replace it with a reliable source for those facts. I view this case no differently.

I'll hold off on commenting further on the substance and structure of your edits until this issue gets resolved, as I don't see any need to muck up the discussion. ← George ^talk 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's hold off on implementing these edits until we can resolve the RSN issues. The page isn't being heavily edited, and I don't see any need to be hasty and forgo consensus. ← George ^talk 12:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, since the documentary is all in German, if it does end up passing an RSN check, how are we going to verify that it says what editors cite it as saying? It may be worth requesting a non-involved party transcribe and translate the video, or at the very least the key parts of it. ← George ^talk

I agree, George. Given that the "documentary" promotes an extreme and novel viewpoint, it would not be appropriate to use it as a source for facts. It would be like using a Holocaust-denial documentary as a source for facts about the Holocaust - a state of affairs that I'm sure Jaakobou would dislike. Frankly, I see this attempt to use it as a source in the article as being a way of legitimising it in preparation for including its conspiracy claims, which I absolutely will not agree to. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The only novelty was the edit ChrisO made, which asserted that we have multiple witnesses and that other news media reported the scene on their own and that the name of the network wasn't France 2. The documentary was heavily reported on and I request that you accept the RSN consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose changing ChrisO's edits - I oppose the ones you made, especially those that cite this documentary as the sole, unconfirmed source. No consensus has been reached yet at RSN, with both the case and discussion still open, and the vote essentially 2-1-1. If the source is found to be reliable, then a translation of this source will be necessary so we can verify that it says what you claim it says. You should probably start messaging some of the editors more fluent in German to write translations of the excepts you're citing. ← George ^talk 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameraman changing the name of the boy on his own initiative

I've recently made the following addition:

• [25] - Abu Rahma stated in an interview that he showed his footage to the other cameramen and one of them told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah, which he decided to switch to Muhammad al-Durrah.<ref name=Schapira2/>

Upon review, it seems the English could be improved. Here's a suggestion replacement:

• In an interview given to a Germen documentary, Abu Rahma stated that he showed his footage to the other cameramen and one of them told him the boy's name was Rami al-Durrah. Abu Rahma noted that he decided to report the boys name as Muhammad al-Durrah.

Would this be acceptable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Undue weight on an issue of no significance whatsoever. Your wording is also factually misleading in that it implies the boy's naming is sourced solely to Rahma. Multiple reports, none of them sourced to Rahma, named him as Muhammad well before Enderlin's report was broadcast.

Now, when are you going to answer the question I keep putting to you? [26] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

It is certainly of interest to know how the cameraman says he found out the name of the boy. I don't know what multiple sources give his name, but I have no objection to noting this input into the article. I do have a slight theory that the AP updated articles without updating the time-stamp. This would explain Rahma's version of what happened - but it's original research so I have no intention of pushing this theory into the article without a wide consensus on talk.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it of interest? I still don't see why you think it's relevant. Why the focus on the cameraman? Since almost every other source uses "Muhammad" rather than "Rami" consistently, why is the cameraman's use of this name so exceptional that it has to be mentioned? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Jaakobou, this sentence sounds silly. It strongly implies that Abu Rahma fabricated the boys name, picking it at random out of thin air - something we have no proof of. ← George ^talk 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

J, that can't be what the documentary says. You're telling us the cameraman said he was told the name was Rami, and for no reason decided to call the boy Muhammad? Look, this is OR. We're supposed to report the views of reliable sources, not investigate what time report X went out at, and who decided to switch names for no reason. The reason we're getting confused is that J is picking out a factoid here and a factoid there. That's not the way to write an article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How's your Germen, SlimVirgin? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good enough for this. Can you tell me which part of the documentary this is in, and what time if possible? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure SlimVirign,

He's mentioning the Rami thing on the 4th segment. here, at about 6:40. SlimVirgin, would you mind setting a good example to others and rephrasing yourself above to not assume bad faith and pov pushing on my part?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm taking a look now. Just a quick point: Shapira is saying the general shooting began at 14:00 hours. Where does she get that from? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. She interviewed a lot of relevant people though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, would you tell me what you hear the voiceover or cameraman say from 6:39 until 6:53? Not necessarily word for word, but the basic gist. I'm having trouble understanding the crucial few words where he explains, and unfortunately they speak in German over his English. They translate him as saying he changed the whole Nachrichtenlager, the news something (at 6:46). That's the bit I don't get. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot at the bottom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an interview with Shapira in the Frankfurter Allgemeine (which solves our problem of needing a reliable secondary source that discusses this), in which she says:

Question: "Wer ist also das tote Kind, das im Krankenhaus obduziert und anschließend beerdigt wurde?"

Shapira: "Es spricht viel dafür, es Mohammeds Cousin Rahmi war. Jedenfalls wurde dieser Name vom Krankenhaus als erstes genannt und der Journalist, den der Kameramann befragte, erzählte, dass dieser Junge morgens an einer anderen Stelle erschossen wurde. Ob dieser Rahmi tatsächlich Mohammeds Cousin war, wissen wir nicht. Wir wissen aber, dass es einen Cousin dieses Namens gab. Ob er noch lebt, konnten wir nicht in Erfahrung bringen. Wir wissen auch nicht, wer diesen Jungen getötet hat. Aber es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass es Israelis waren, denn selbst die palästinensische Seite erklärte, dass die Israelis erst mittags schossen. Er könnte Opfer von „friendly fire“ geworden sein. Aber das ist Spekulation." [27]

Here she mentions the journalist -- I think the cameraman called him Sami -- who first said it was Mohammad al-Durrah who had been shot. But what she's saying above is not what I understood from the documentary. I think we need to find an email address for her, and ask for a transcript, which might include what the interviewees are actually saying. I was a bit concerned about some of the translations where you can hear the interviewees speak. "A small boy" was translated into "a child" in German. A "big man" was translated into a "strong man." These changes made no difference, but it raises the question as to why anything is being changed at all, and whether, at some point, it did make a difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I don't much like the idea of writing to Schapira for clarification. That feels too much like original research, and I doubt that any reply could be used as a source. It also seems like yet another wild goose chase to me. The bottom line here is that the documentary is a fringe work promoting a fringe conspiracy theory that aims to discredit at least three living persons, one of whom has shown a willingness to sue over such claims. The whole topic is a BLP nightmare - we need to drastically reduce the amount of conspiracy theorising in this article, not go even further down the rabbit hole. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that asking her to clarify would be the kind of OR we couldn't use, but I was thinking only of asking for a transcript, because it might contain the English-language responses of the cameraman, which they currently speak over in German. Using what he himself said to camera would solve the BLP problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the transcript be unverifiable as well, though, since we don't have the original soundtrack? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts are reliable sources, in that anyone can buy them, just as you can a book. In addition, in this case, the way the cameraman's words are spoken over, you can almost still hear what he's saying. Once you'd read the transcript, you'd be able to decipher them, I think, so the tape would confirm the veracity of the transcript. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, would you mind setting a good example to others and rephrasing yourself above to not assume bad faith and pov pushing on my part? I assume that you can agree, now, that Abu Rahma does say that he changed the name. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

J, could you answer my question above first? That'll give me an idea why you made the edit about "switching" names. I'll repost the question here: would you tell me what you hear the voiceover or cameraman say from 6:39 until 6:53? Not necessarily word for word, but the basic gist. I'm having trouble understanding the crucial few words where he explains, and unfortunately they speak in German over his English. They translate him as saying he changed the whole Nachrichtenlager, the news something (at 6:46). That's the bit I don't get. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dropping by per a request from Jaakobou. He's asked me to translate a bit of voiceover from the documentary. I know nothing about the surrounding issue (either the news event itself or the editorial dispute regarding this page), but apparently SlimVirgin is interested in a translation of that passage too. So here's the voiceover from 6:30 to 6:51:

"He screamed, 'That is Muhammad al-Durrah; that is Jamal al-Durrah! I am married to his sister.' In that blink of an eye they gave the name of that boy." [Pause, then continuing over the English-speaking interviewee]: "Rami al-Durrah." [The diction is a little hard to make out on the next phrase; seems to be "As I then one's matrial have overplayed,] have I changed all the news reports: we make out Rami Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah."

My German has grown rusty over the years because there's so little actual need for it in California. So here's hoping that's of some assistance. Durova³²⁰ 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova, that's helpful, not least because it confirms it's not just me having a problem with it. I think the material bit is something like (from memory), "As I viewed or listened to the background material," or words to that effect. One thing concerns me though. Jaakobou said he had used this as a source for making an edit about the cameraman deciding to "switch" the names. I'm wondering how he could do that if he doesn't understand German and had to ask you to translate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what his level of understanding is; he seemed to have a fairly good idea what was here when he first contacted me. Best to ask him that. Although to speak in general terms, if he's familiar with Yiddish (which isn't that much of a stretch) there's a good chance he could catch the gist of German. I've caught the gist of Yiddish radio broadcasts through loanwords and cognates. Durova³²⁰ 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could be it. It's just that this is so very unclear. I'm going to try to find a transcript, because it'll be easier to understand written down, hopefully. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad the editor turned down the English interview to the point where it was no longer audible, then we wouldn't have to rely on the German translation. Durova³²⁰ 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and these are quite crucial words, too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not that focused on the Rami/Muhammad issue as I am in telling that he showed his footage to the other reporters and then got the name from one of them, who's married to a sister of Jamal (Muhammad's father). Anyways, the name change sequence goes something like:

• After I showed them my footage, one of them shouted he's married to the sister of Jamal al-Durrah and told us the boy's name is Rami al-Durrah. When I transferred the tape, I changed the news story. We started to name him not Rami but Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah.

I don't have a transcript but I have seen a version with English subtitles and remember large chunks of it. I'm pretty sure it will come out on the web sometime in the near future.. I hear Israeli channel 1 is playing it this October so is could be really soon.

As for the name change. It's a bit non-germane to the discussion for us to research why they do this, but I'll assume that they figured the name 'Muhammad' would sell better in the Arab world than 'Rami'. In the Arab media, the "truth" is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video, I think on the 2nd draft website, where an Arab reporter is showen to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told "the truth" without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination. Anyways, Enderlin accuses ARD of using, much like he did, shots where the Palestinians play for the camera... so I guess these low journalistic standards exist in western media as well.

SlimVirgin,

I'm not the person who made the time-stamp examination and I can't say that I'm happy to work in an environment where ChrisO keeps accusing the sources I bring as misrepresenting his conclusions (read: "factually misleading"), George keeps suggesting I'm saying things that I am definitely not saying - and you, who seem to support my concerns, treating me on this thread like I made something up. Maybe my memory isn't perfect and maybe the subtitles that I've seen weren't accurate 100%, but the suggestion of bad faith is what bothers me. Are there any other questions that I need to answer before you can set a good example for the others and rephrase your above comment about multiple factoids and bad faith?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The translation above is not what he says. Where did you get this, as a matter of interest? It says that the person (I believe the journalist, Samir), who was married to Jamal's sister confirmed that it was Jamal and Muhammad. The boy had been named Rami by someone, but this journalist shouted no, it is Jamal and Mohammad al-Durrah. The next part is the bit that's unclear, but it sounds as though the cameraman is saying that, when he heard this, he corrected the name. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou wrote "George keeps suggesting I'm saying things that I am definitely not saying". Can you elaborate? I'm only human, and could have attributed the claims of others to you by mistake, but if you don't point them out how am I to know?

Jaakobou wrote "I'll assume that they figured the name 'Muhammad' would sell better in the Arab world than 'Rami'. In the Arab media, the "truth" is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video, I think on the 2nd draft website, where an Arab reporter is showen to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told "the truth" without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination." Wow, haven't heard such racist comments on a Wikipedia talk page in a while. Kudos to you for not trying to hide your bias at least. ← George ^talk 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about that commment too, especially when the cameraman has explained why he changed it. It's admittedly unclear what he's saying word for word, but to paraphrase it, he's saying, "There was initially a mistake about the name, but a family member shouted over that it's Mohammad and Jamal, so we corrected it." There's no suggestion that he switched the names for no reason. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

I apologize if I offended your feelings with my reply to the question made by SlimVirign. Perhaps it would have been better to ignore it since it is just original research into why Abu-Rahma would change the boy's name.

In general though, the issue of The Truth in Arab media is very complex. Just recently I've seen a brilliant documentary made by two Arab-Israelis from Yafo about the very same issue. They go around making up funny stories about buildings and discuss about the truth and in the same time, they dedicated the film to the Jenin "massacre", which was a Palestinian fabricated news story. I also saw an interview with the director of this film, who agreed with the interviewer when asked if its fake stories but he also said that it wasn't intentional to dedicate the film to Jenin. He said that to them - saying that there was a massacre in Jenin is the truth and that they didn't intend to suggest that it might not be with their film (which is made up stories). Anyways, here's a link to it. In the reference of Jenin - Muhammad Bakri admitted to a courthouse that he was only trying to tell the story when he spliced an image of an Israeli tank into the film in a way that suggested the tank drove over bodies (there was no such recorded instance that we know of). I also recommend a BBC Panorama documentary called "Faith, Hate and Charity". Anyways, I will try to avoid any discussion about Arab media in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future as to not offend anyone.

SlimVirign, I can only report what I rememver from the version I've seen. Btw, do we know why the name Rami was mentioned? Maybe that is the name of the boy who was brought into the hospital at 10am. That's what the Documentary suggests as a posibility.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't know where Rami came from, but it's quite normal in news reporting for there to be initial confusion. Not everyone who files an agency report was actually there to witness what happened, and it's all done very fast, so there is hearsay, there are misunderstandings, and it can take a few hours or even days before there's clarity. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm really not into making the article into a speculation piece but we do have a serious problem with the recent changes by ChrisO - where he decided against several reliable sources to write that there's multiple journalist witnesses to the shooting of the boy. We've had that version stuck into the article a few days ago and I'm quite displeased that we can't get some mild consensus to replace it with something that doesn't include original research and privately made conclusions.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't offend me personally, but yes, labeling someone a liar because of their race is never a good idea. ← George ^talk 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that someone was a liar because of their race. I did say that Arab media have a different cultural perspective on storytelling, which is a researched cultural observation. In fact, the same Charles Enderlin we're discussing here said the same thing to Landes -- to paraphrase, he said: "it's their culture" -- and he repeats similar words to Schapira.

I'm hoping you can accept my apology as I had neither intentions of offending you or anyone else, nor intentions on commenting on race, but rather on a known cultural observation in regards to media.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly accept your apology, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, I worry you might not actually understand why the comment was offensive if you can't see the racism inherent to it. You effectively said that journalists who are Arab ignore facts in order to embellish their reports - that shows an inherent prejudice against reports from some people, based solely on their race. You described an Arab reporter as lying "without any semblance of emotion". I know you're familiar with antisemitism, so I'm sure you can recognize the dehumanizing aspects of such a statement. Maybe it would clearer to you if you tried replacing the term Arab with Israeli in your original statement, and see how antisemitic the statement sounds. At any rate, it's not a big deal, just be aware that we all have personal biases that we need to work on. ← George ^talk 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

This time, you got what I said right. You wrongly assumed, however, that I meant to say that they embellish the reports because of their Arab race - this would indeed be a racist statement and I said nothing of the sort and don't hold such perspectives. Regarding the issue of prejudice in reports, I'm sure that there's nothing controversial or racist in saying that reports from the Arab world about Israel are mostly exaggerated. If you disagree with this, you must be putting your head in the sand - as an 'independent' observer said about Livni when she gave her version of what was going on between Israel and Hamas. I don't believe there is a similar norm, of Butu's extent, in mainstream Israeli press,btw.

Anyways, this is not a race-specific issue but more of a cultural norm between two nations in conflict. For example, there's nothing controversial in saying that American press was on many occasions somewhat over-the-top in regards to the Soviet Union in their attempts to hammer out Communism - even today, there's some residue from the old days in both US and Russian reportings.

Still, maybe the novelty here is that I suggested that people who are part of the culture, honestly believe that they are merely reporting the truth. Maybe it's a huge secret of the media but Enderlin, for example, considers staged images to be a norm among all the agencies reporting from Gaza. He tells Schapira that everyone, including ARD (her network), use images in which the Palestinians are playing for the camera.

Anyways, I couldn't find that video I've seen. But I've been fortunate enough to find one of the Israeli reports I've seen on Israeli TV located on the 2nddraft website (part 1, and 2). Shahaf, btw, gives 3pm as a time-stamp, but in his respect, I agree that people have raised concerns about him. I just remembered, watching the first part, that there was some strange speculation about what the 2 symbol - this one is mentioned by Stephen Jufa from MENA. He says people close to Abu-Rahma (Mekoravim - translated as 'sources'), and they (according to him) smilingly said it is a victory sign. Sounds unbelievable but it would explain why they figured the event to be a hoax if it is truly what they were told.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, discovering such bias among editors is so very disappointing. Anyways, if you're not able to see the racism inherent in stereotyping people like this, that's fine, but kindly don't repeat it here. ← George ^talk 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

I understand how stereotyping sometimes leads to racism, if that's what worrying you. I don't know where your own prejudice towards the content of this article (per misguided comparison to the Holocaust[28]) is helping us if you take it to places where you keep mis-reading my comments and read some hidden bad faith agenda into them. I repeat my explanation, that I was not stereotyping people but rather mentioning a commonly known phenomena in the Arab press that's got nothing to do with race. I request that you review WP:COOL please and avoid making future comments about me. Comment on content, not on contributors.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So we have finally reached the principle that underlies this conspiracy theory, as I expected we would: all Arabs are liars, therefore the Arabs are lying about this incident. Glad that's now out in the open. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We were trying to make out the issue of how the name of the boy reached the news and the discussion has suddenly turned into a farce following a note I've made to SlimVirign that the Palestinian cameraman may have enhanced the story a bit, which fits a generic Arab press storytelling culture that is not even handed when it comes to Israel. Here's a few samples from yesterday to support this "conspiracy theory" -- in case it is not clear, the amount of false info in both articles is staggering:

• Will Israel fall in five years?, Al Arabiya.
• Israel eyes Al-Aqsa, Al-Ahram.

p.s. ChrisO, you stated earlier that you believe the Israeli doctor was utterly unreliable and susequentially recieved several notes to calm things down.[29][30] I would appreciate it if you do just that.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to discussion

SlimVigrin, I'm understanding that there might be some difference between the English subtitles I've seen and your translation on the text so maybe we should hold off until an official verifiable version of the text appears. Are we in agreement that fellow reporters gave him the name after he showed them his footage? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any mention of him showing the video to fellow reporters, nor mention of any such reporters giving him the name after seeing a video, in either Durova or SlimVirgin's translations above. All I saw was mention of someone shouting that they were Mohammad and Jamal al-Durrah. Did I miss something? ← George ^talk 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for help from someone on the German Wikipedia. I don't know whether my German is at fault, or Shapira's voiceover is unclear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone had mentioned e-mailing Schapira. That's not a bad idea if we can find her email address. Theoretically these tapes should exist in English somewhere (since the interview was done in English, not German), so maybe there's an English transcript - or at least a German transcript so that someone can translate it more easily. I wonder why her first documentary was done in English and the second in German. Maybe they both exist in both, and we just haven't found the English version or the second yet? ← George ^talk 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe her first was in German too. There's a version of the first with an English voiceover, which isn't Shapira, and in fact it does the film no service. I'm looking for an email address for her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I only saw the first in English (which is what I had searched for), but it would make sense if it was originally in German. The nice thing about the English version was that they didn't have to talk over the interviews, so it was easy to hear what the people they were interviewing (in English) actually said. ← George ^talk 16:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! SlimVirgin asked me for an accurate translation of the words from 6:17 minutes to 7:04. I try to be as accurate as possible. Please ask if something is not clear. First the German words:

GERMAN SPEAKER: Vater und Sohn koennen zu diesem Zeitpunkt auch noch nicht im Krankenhaus angekommen sein. Trotzdem gibt es dort bereits ein totes Kind. Er zeigt den Journalisten kurz was er gedreht hat.

INTERPRETER (Talal Abu Rahme): Er schrie, dass es Muhammad al-Durrah war, dass es Jamal al-Durrah war. Ich bin mit seiner Schwester verheiratet. In dem Augenblick haben sie den Namen des Jungen durchgegeben. Rami (sp?) al Durrah. Als ich dann mein Material ueberspielt habe, habe ich die ganze Nachrichtenlage geaendert. Wir machten aus Rami, Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah.

GERMAN SPEAKER: So wurde also aus Rami, Muhammed. Was wir 2002 fuer eine schlichte Namensverwechslung hielten, koennte die Loesung des Raetsels sein.

This translates to (comments in parantheses):

GERMAN SPEAKER: At that point in time, father and son could not have arrived in the hospital. Nevertheless there was already a dead child in the hospital. He shows the journalists briefly what he had shot (as in "shoot a movie").

INTERPRETER (Talal Abu Rahme): He screemed, saying that it was Muhammad al-Durrah, that it was Jamal al-Durrah. I am married to his sister. At that moment they (possibly hospital staff is meant here?) announced the name of the boy: "Rami (sp?) al Durrah". When I later transferred my shoot (film), I changed the whole news situation. We changed "Rami" for Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah.

GERMAN SPEAKER: That's how Rami became Muhammed. That's what in 2002 we thought was a mere mistake in names, could be the solution to the riddle.

Hope it helps. bamse (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help bamse. Is it possible to identify who "He" is (from "He screemed")? Maybe something from before 6:17 minutes in the movie can help? ← George ^talk 19:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"He" is likely "Samir" (sp?), a journalist. However I cannot be 100% sure. Around 5:50 to 6:00, Talal Abu Rahme, says that he managed to get to the Palestinians where he met "Samir, a journalist". Talal Abu Rahme asks Samir how many people had been killed. Samir says that three people: the ambulance driver, the jeep driver and a boy. They (possibly Samir and Talal Abu Rahme) called to the hospital. The hospital said that three people had come: ambulance driver, the jeep driver and a boy. In this scene from 5:50 to 6:00, Talal Abu Rahme refers to Samir as "he". bamse (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, Bamse, thank you. So my understanding is that Abu Rahma is trying to get confirmation of the death. He asks around. People tell him, three dead, including a boy. At some point, the boy is named as Rami. (That bit remains unclear.) Abu Rahma shows his footage to another journalist, Samir. Samir shouts that it's Mohammad and Jamal. He knows this because he's married to Jamal's sister. On hearing this, Abu Rahma changes the information attached to the footage to read "Muhammad," because his primary source (Samir) has corrected the name. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirign,

In general it sounds plausible that the 10am boy was accidentally thought to be the 3pm boy and after Sami recognized the father, everyone assumed Rami was Muhammad al-Durrah.

p.s. I have to say that it's not entirely conclusive though, since the father's full name (as seen in timestamp 0.43 of the same video -- part 4 of 5) is Jamal Muhammad Ahmad Durrah. It (your understanding of the source) still makes more sense than anything else.

Cheers for getting a specialist translator. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting (no, not really), but it still seems to be quite irrelevant given that every source from 1st October 2000 onwards - including the boy's own family in interviews - consistently call him "Muhammad". Where are we going with this? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that SlimVirgin's interpretation seems probable, but I think ChrisO has a point too. We now know that someone named Samir told him the boy's name. I'm not entirely sure what that adds to the article. ← George ^talk 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Antenne 2

It appears that the change from 'France 2' to 'Antenne 2' is notonly unsupported by any of the sources, but is also a factual error. Best I can tell, the name change occurred prior to the al-Durrah event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It looks like the name officially changed in 1992. ← George ^talk 10:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Article holdups

Is there anything in the recent additions that seems like an exceptional claim or error and would require multiple reliable sources? I trust we can all agree that On September 30, reporters had assembled at the Netzarim junction, expecting the protests that broke out in the West Bank a day before to expand to the Gaza Strip hot spot.[5]
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source (in English) that confirms this? Obviously there were reporters there, but I have no idea if they had arrived there in advance, expecting violence and protests to break out (as your wording suggests), or if they arrived after the violence broke out. ← George ^talk 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded this statement, based on what I think are your issues with it: The violence at the Netzarim junction was filmed by several photographers from different news agencies. Of them, Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for France 2, was the only one to capture the shots fired at the al-Durrahs on film. It's not perfect, but hopefully it's a step forward. ← George ^talk 15:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence and basis for claims?

I'm new to this article (and fairly new to editing wikipedia), I noticed the dispute in the RS Noticeboard. Sorry if I'm rehashing something that's already been addressed. Were the bullets recovered from the boy? Were they from a 7.62x39 cartridge, 7.62x51, 5.56x45 or what? Was there any attempt made to verify their apparent origin as would usually be done in a case like this (like in a police shootout where a bystander had died)? How did the witnesses observe where the bullets came from?

Why isn't a documentary a good source for a counter-claim to perhaps questionable or not thoroughly supported eyewitness accounts? It seems to be a notable, mainstream and well-researched point of view. Seems like both views deserve equal credibility in the absence of some kind of convincing solid evidence. I don't know if you've ever seen a bullet fly but they are very hard to see unless you're looking directly in the direction they came from. If the video doesn't show Israelis firing the shot, the cameraman certainly didn't see where it came from. How clearly do the other eyewitnesses believe they saw the exact gunfire that caused the death? Just my two cents. Fixentries (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! Let me try to answer your questions, as best I can:

• No, the bullets weren't recovered from the boy. He was Muslim, and Muslims often refuse to have autopsies done on their dead for religious reasons.
• No bullets were recovered from the scene. The Palestinian police said they didn't collect any bullets from the wall behind the boy because they considered it to be an open and shut case (given where the shots came from). And the Israeli army bulldozed the wall before any bullets could be recovered.
• The only attempt to verify the origin of the shots was made by an Israeli physicist, Shahaf, doing a re-enactment. He concluded that the Israelis couldn't have possibly fired the shot because their M-16s weren't powerful enough to puts holes in the concrete pipe the boy & father were hiding behind. His investigation and conclusions were heavily criticized and widely panned as "amateurish" and biased, in Israel and around the world.
• Schapira's first documentary (did you get a chance to watch either?) essentially relied on Shahaf's re-enactment for its conclusions (ignoring the heavy criticism of said re-enactment) - Israeli M-16s can't shoot through concrete, therefore Israelis couldn't have done it, therefore the Palestinians must have shot him. Her second documentary goes farther, citing a biometrics expert who watched the video of the shooting and a video of the boy's funeral, and concluded that the boy being buried didn't have the same face as the one who was being shot at, and citing a doctor who said the dead boy was brought in at 10am, while the French reporter who commented on the video said the boy died at 3pm (although the majority of sources give his death as around noon). The Palestinians firing the killer shot, plus different faces on the boy (according to the biometrics expert), plus different times of death must mean there were two different boys, and hence the idea of a Palestinian conspiracy was born.
• Nobody saw the bullets, just the holes they put in the wall, the concrete cylinder, the boy, and his father. However, if you look at the diagram in the article, there are basically two buildings at opposite corners of the junction - one is the Israeli base, and the other the Palestinian police station. The boy & father were along the front wall of the Palestinian police station, which the Israelis were shooting at. Hence, eyewitnesses reported that the shots came from the Israeli position (the direction opposite where they were crouching). ← George ^talk 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed summary. Here's an scientific/engineering article[31] on how far the SS109 (M855 to the US - the round usually used in an M16) can penetrate in concrete. It's a $30 article so I haven't viewed the contents but it might be useful to this article. I have a book around somewhere that discusses that as well. If they were using the SS109 and not a regular FMJ round, my impression is that some concrete penetration is possible. I'm not sure of the thickness/depth it is capable of. Hope that helps and I'll try to dig up that book or a reliable online source that's free. Fixentries (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, if you can find that out it would be an interesting piece of information, though we can't do much with it due to WP:OR restrictions. I would have to review the documentary, but I think they said the cement cylinders were 8cm thick. The implied allegation was that if Israeli M-16s couldn't shoot through it then it must have been the Palestinian AK-47s to have done it. Unfortunately (or conveniently, depending on one's perspective, thought the way this was measured was suspect), the Israeli army couldn't find an AK-47s to test against the same concrete cylinder as part of that investigation (I'm not drawing my own conclusion on that - they actually state in the documentary that they couldn't find one). It also doesn't explain why the bullet that didn't hit the cylinder (which obviously didn't cover their whole bodies, as can be seen in the video still frames in the article) weren't potentially lethal, but that's another issue. ← George ^talk 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fixentries, just a word of caution: adding material from that book would violate our no original research policy, one of our core content policies, unless it specifically mentions this case. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a 7.62x39 has less penetration than an SS109. Would it really be OR to offer a documented counterclaim to specific claims made? For example if we can find a good source that says the 7.62x39 has less penetration in concrete and they are saying it has more? Of course if they found that their rifles can't penetrate the object in question, that's probably good enough and very hard to argue with. Fixentries (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At most you can say something like "According to X, M-16 rounds of calibre Y (are or are not) able to penetrate concrete Z cm thick." Anything more would be OR. ← George ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit more to this than the above summary. For one, the claim that Israeli fire was not responsible is based, as far as I know, more on angles then penetration: The claim is that there is not direct line of sight from the Israeli position to the al-Duras, since the concrete cylinder is in the way. There is also an argument that the round holes in the wall are incompatible with bullets fired from an angle, and that they suggest the source was located near the camera. Schahaf is not the only one to have studied the ballistic aspects, similar conclusions were reached by an independent French ballistic expert, who testified at the defamation trial. Slim Virgin is correct with regards to the use of the reference mentioned. We can't conduct our own research on penetration capabilities of different ammo to reach conclusion about the claims made by others. Millmoss (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for explaining WP:OR. Fixentries (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is partly true. The investigation says that the angle of the Israeli line of sight is 42.4 degrees. IDF General Samia says that based on that angle of attack, there would be "a place with a size of 74cm and 96cm behind this cylinder, I... I can't say plenty of room, but enough place to the father and his son to be hiding from the IDF position." Let's illustrate just how large that is. Imagine a box one cubic meter in size. Now, slice it in half diagonally, and put half of a 1m tall, 1m wide barrel inside it. The amount of room left over is the amount of room that would have been blocked by the barrel. No one says that it was impossible to shoot them from the angle the Israelis were firing at, just that General Samira says he thinks there would be enough room for them to hide behind the barrel (for the record, I couldn't fit just myself in the area he describes in the documentary).

The part about the holes isn't quite true. They say that the smoke generated by a bullet, fired from the angle the Israelis were shooting from, hitting the wall didn't match the smoke shown in the original video (I saw the side-by-side myself and couldn't really tell the difference, but I'm no expert). In the first documentary they actually claim that the Palestinians were shooting from a sharper angle (less than 42.4 degrees), which conflicts with their conclusions based on the smoke evidence. I don't understand the second documentary (only available in German) enough to say if that documentary claims that the bullets came from the cameraman's position or not, though I haven't heard that claim, and it certainly wasn't the claim from the first documentary. ← George ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about the round holes is true - it is a point made by numerous sources, including, for example, Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly: "The bullet marks that appear so ominously in the wall seconds before the fatal volley are round. Their shape is significant because of what it indicates about the angle of the gunfire.". You are incorrect in stating that "No one says that it was impossible to shoot them from the angle the Israelis were firing at". A French ballistic expert testified at the defamation trial that "If Jamal [the boy's father] and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position." Millmoss (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to re-watch the documentary. In it, Schapira says that the shape of the holes indicate that the bullets must have been fired from an angle greater than 40 degrees. She also says that the Israeli line of site is measured at 42.4 degrees (42.4, for the record, is greater than 40). The French ballistics expert definitely says that the bullets could not have come from Israeli positions, but doesn't discuss the shape of the holes. I don't consider Fallows op-ed in the Atlantic Monthly a reliable source, but if you have a reliable source that says that the shape of the holes correlates to bullets being fired from the cameraman's position, I'd be interested to read it. Schapira's documentary (the first one at least) doesn't say that. ← George ^talk 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fallows is a reliable source, and it is not an op-ed. Schapira's documentary is far form the only source on this, there are many others. Millmoss (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly publishes commentary pieces and editorials. Its website is formatted as a blog: James Fallows. It's reliable for opinions and direct quotes. ← George ^talk 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The website format (which is not a blog format, btw) is a red herring - the Fallows article appeared in the print version, as well. The Atlantic publishes many types of content, from poetry ans short stories to news articles. The particular piece by Fallows was a Feature Article in the "Foreign Affairs" section. It is not an OpEd, and is a reliable source. Millmoss (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be described as straight-up reporting, though. Fallows does do some factual reporting in the article but a lot of it focuses on his personal opinions and impressions of the disputed footage. It seems to be a conflation of factual reporting and op-ed style personal analysis. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic website describes it as a blog, saying: "His latest writings can be found on the James Fallows blog." That said, I'm unclear if the article being cited is from the print version or the online blog (which is a key differentiator). It doesn't look like the article itself says which it's from - what makes you think that this was a printed feature article? ← George ^talk 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. I found this page, listing the contents of the printed version of the June 2003 edition of The Atlantic Monthly. Now we just have the issue of two sources disagreeing - Esther Schapira's documentary saying the reenactment concluded that the bullets must have come from an angle greater than 40 degrees, while the Fallows piece says that the same investigators concluded that the bullets must have come from head on (90 degrees). ← George ^talk 06:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't read the entire thread, but I would like to correct an above statement and clarify that the reason given by the coroner for him not checking the boy was that he already believed he knew who killed him. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Source? Curious if it's something I can confirm, or if it's from the German documentary. Also, it was mentioned (in the Fallows piece above I believe?) that the family wouldn't support exhuming the body for an autopsy for religious reasons. ← George ^talk 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in the first documentary along with the note that it was called a 'protest day' (repeated multiple times), where the Palestinian Authority would not only call a strike but would call on them to protest. It is also mentioned there that the cameramen were at the junction prior to the protesters. Talal Abu Rahme is saying on 7:20 that, "from 7 o'clock until afternoon it was only throwing stones, throwing cocktail molotov and the army answer by rubber bullets and tear gas." According to Schapira, al-Durrah had breakfast at home at 10am - this is said over images of the mother making a meal, leaving the understanding that the mother told this to Schapira. 11am is the time given for the Al-Durrah's crossing the junction first time on their way to the car auction (later they will come back the same way). It is noted Talal Abu Rahme had to hurry in order to feed his video to Jerusalem at 4:30pm. The footage is noted to have reached the studio in Jerusalem at about 6 o'clock. Anyways, as for the coroner fellow, he first appears on camera at about 24:30. Betwen 24:30 and 25:40 you get the doctor's version partly from the doctor's mouth and partly through the narrator of the film.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of your reply is off the topic of your statement that coroner didn't perform an autopsy because "he knew who killed him." Rather than getting off topic here, I reviewed the video from 24:30 to 25:40 (feel free to bring up the other points in the appropriate discussion sections, or new ones if warranted). The doctor never says that his assumption of Israeli responsibility is the reason he didn't perform an autopsy. The doctor shows pictures of and describes the wounds, the narrator say an autopsy is not performed, then the doctor says he believed that the wounds were caused by the Israelis. The doctor never says the reason he didn't perform an autopsy was because "he knew" who killed the boy. He makes no correlation between not performing the autopsy and the belief that the Israelis shot him. One could infer that that is what the narrator means to imply, but that's one one of the problems with video sources, especially ones so laced with tabloid journalism—we can't accept as fact what we think they're implying. ← George ^talk 07:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with your assessment of the source but its really not that important to get into that here since I was only addressing your assumption above.

p.s. I would like to recommend that you notice the style of the documentary. i.e. narrator gives a question and lets others answer why it is the way the narrator explains it.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's that very style that concerns me. In some cases, such as this one, the narrator doesn't ask the person they're interviewing the question directly. They ask the viewer the question. This is what someone does when they're trying to make a point rather than do an impartial investigation. They didn't ask the doctor "Why didn't you perform an autopsy", to which he indeed may have replied "Because I know the Israelis did it". Instead they ask the viewer why he didn't perform an autopsy, then show a clip of him saying that he thought the Israelis probably shot the boy. It implies that that was the reason he didn't perform an autopsy, without him ever saying that. It's a classic method used to misquote someone by taking their comments out of context. You're correct that it's not very important though, since it's not a disagreement about the content of the article itself. ← George ^talk 09:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the video and just want to offer a few comments. Hope it's not seen as OR, just trying to help editors with the interpretation of the sources. It's a little confusing to watch because it's not clear how/why the video was edited the way it was. It seems like this angle is not clearly visible from the Israeli position and if they saw anything it was a person making furtive moments behind the concrete object (was it filled with sand?) - could be an honest mistake but that's editorializing of course and I apologize for introducing that if it is going to cause an argument. You can hear the gunfire that appears to hit them - hasn't anyone done an acoustic analysis of it? It does sound like a full auto 5.56 to me but I don't think this would be hard for an expert to examine. On the other hand, what sound like AK-47s to me can be seen hitting the road in front of the cameraman and it's not guaranteed that the Palestinians don't have AK-74s (a 5.45 caliber gun), or captured or imported M16s, or other 5.56 caliber guns. Also my impression of what the gunfire sounds like is of course not reliable at all, we need experts who have analyzed this. One thing is that it's clearly a full auto. I don't know what the Israelis use, but usually an M16 or M4 is 3-round-burst only. That was like 8 shots. Anyway, the acoustic signature of it and how many rounds per minute it was should be easy to verify for an expert. Even if it did match a gun the Israelis used, it sounds like it's coming from the right of the cameraman - again it calls for an expert, to do a 3d simulation of the acoustics and see what makes the best sense. I haven't looked at the other material related to this article but I'd be concerned if the sources didn't look at the sound of the gunfire in detail. Fixentries (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Laura King story

We have this -- King, Laura. Associated Press, October 1, 2000 -- being used as a source in the lead, with no headline and no place of publication. Does anyone know what it said? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I would guess it's this article, but I don't see it as being particularly relevant to the sentence (or article). It's about Palestinian anger over the U.S. watering down a UN resolution, then abstaining in the vote, and U.S. inaction in general. ← George ^talk 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, George, I removed it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry George, that's wrong. The story you quoted is by the same journalist on the same day but is not what's being cited in the article. The story in question is "Palestinian child's final terrified moments captured on camera", by Laura King, 1 October 2000. It reports an interview with al-Durrah's mother and injured father as well as reactions from other Israeli and Palestinian figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Citation in article didn't have an article title associated with it, and I didn't think to check if the same author had published multiple pieces that day. ← George ^talk 21:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

capture the shots

"Capture the shots" seems like a bad phrasing to capture both the initial reports and the later questioning of that report. Here's my phrasing and the current one that seems a little off.

Version A:

• On September 30, reporters had assembled at the [[Netzarim junction]], expecting the protests that broke out in the [[West Bank]] a day before to expand to the [[Gaza Strip]] hot spot.<ref name=Schapira2>Shapira, Esther. ''Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit'' (''The Child, the Death, and the Truth), ARD television, 2009</ref> The Palestinian Authority had declared a 'protest day' and many men and children had gathered to throw stones at the IDF outpost, which sits next to the junction.<ref name=Schapira/> The violence escalated and Palestinian Police and other Palestinian gunmen exchanged fire with the Israeli outpost. The al-Durrahs arrived at the junction on their way back from a car auction and got caught in the scene. From the photographers at the junction, Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for France 2, was the only one to capture the al-Durrah event on film.

VersionB:

• The [[Palestinian Authority]] had declared the day a general strike. Protesters had gathered to throw stones at an IDF outpost at the [[Netzarim junction]], and cameramen from several news agencies were filming them. Jamal al-Durrah and his son, Muhammad, had arrived at the junction on their way back from a car auction and got caught up in the events.<ref name=Orme/> The violence escalated and shots were fired from the Israeli and Palestinian positions. Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for France 2, was the only one to capture the shots fired at the al-Durrahs.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1026340.stm "When Peace Died"], BBC News, November 17, 2000.</ref>

I believe version A is more elaborate as well as more fluent and engaging. It was reverted due to the opening of the RSN, but it would seem that we now have a fairly clear consensus that the source can be used for undisputed facts and needs attribution when there's conflicting versions. This one seems to have some support from the 'Orme' source in version B. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with the phrasing in Version A, and Version B is more readable in general. Do you have perhaps a proposal for a smaller change? Your initial comment was that you didn't like the phrase "capture the shots" in Version B - how about a proposal to change those three words to something else. After we achieve consensus on that, then we can move to the next part you feel is badly phrased. ← George ^talk 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been having factual inaccuracies inserted into the article a few times too many with content removed. I have to insist here on a copy-edit from the informative and more fluent version. i.e. version A includes input on how the people call the events as well as a chronological notation of the reporters assembling at the junction because of the expected escalation from the West Bank. Version B forgets this fairly relevant information on top of the problematic phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More fluent? Not so much. It uses some odd terminology like "protest day" and is ambiguous at points. And why favor a questionable German TV documentary over more solid sources for statements that aren't too dissimilar? And what problematic phrasing are you referring to? "capture the shots" still? What is your counterproposal to this wording? "capture the... event on film"? What does that add? It certainly makes the sentence less clear, and pretty much everyone agrees that shots were being fired at them (they just disagree who fired said shots), so I'm not sure that I see the advantage. ← George ^talk 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For starters, that source is not questionable. Secondly, it is by far more elaborate than the other, though I have nothing against using the other to back up the documentary. Lastly, there's a huge difference in content here but I am currently working on a rephrase that removes all the clutter from the lead and focus on the main notable aspects of the article. Please don't revert blindly and raise your concerns where you see something removed that you think is valuable. If there are copy-editing concerns, please don't use it as an excuse to remove a more elaborate and what should be a better balanced version.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not questionable? The reliable sources noticeboard would seem to disagree with you. Since when is "elaborate" considered a merit to the quality of a source? This isn't a sculpture or some type of artwork, it's an encyclopedia entry. You're correct that what you're proposing is a huge change in content, which is why I advised you to make smaller edits, one-by-one, achieving consensus as you go, as they're less likely to be reverted en masse. I almost never revert blindly, reviewing the diffs to see exactly what was changed and keeping changes I see as beneficial (such as your recent typo correction), but I will raise my concerns whenever I see cases of original research, poor sourcing, POV-pushing, bad grammar or difficult to read English, or any one of a number of other issues. I don't need an "excuse" to revert anything that violates Wikipedia policies, or is detrimental to the quality of articles. ← George ^talk 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have been reading a different RSN since the one you opened about this source was pretty clear. I made a structural edit and admitted some relevant time line changes. I'd be interested in actual relevant concerns on what you feel is undue weight rather than a generic claim. The automatic revert is something I've had enough of.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not unfamiliar with controversial topics and contentious disputes on articles. My "generic claim" is based on the size of your edit, and the problems with it (as itemizedby SlimVirgin below). I'll advise, yet again, that the best way to resolve our disagreements is not to try to rewrite the entire lead in one go (or even an entire paragraph), but to identified the single, specific phrase or sentence that you feel is the worst, and propose an alternative; come to some resolution on that, then move on to the next problematic phrase, rinse and repeat. ← George ^talk 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All agree

I've recently made a considerable change to the lead's structure, removing some undue details about the court case as well as clarify time-line issues. A generic "all agree" note about why content should be deleted seems a bit generic and requires clarification.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jaakobou, please don't keep trying to insert your lead. It doesn't flow so well, and there are numerous problems e.g. that he became a symbol in the very first sentence; the Gaza "hot spot" tabloidese; the problems with tenses (e.g. was killed, where it should be had been); using Shapira as a source without in-text attribution contrary to everything that was said on the RN noticeboard; emphasizing Palestinian freelance twice, one in the text and repeating it in the cutline; and several other things. And again, some of the writing doesn't flow well. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with pretty much everything SlimVirgin listed. I went through and tried to pick out changes to keep, but, quite honestly, I couldn't find anything that improved the article. ← George ^talk 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think that SlimVirgin's edit summary was a statement that the consensus is against the edits you continually try to inject into the lead. ← George ^talk 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well SlimVirign,

Let's try to deal with this on a point-by-point basis then. Please give a reply to the following points/queries:

1) Are we in agreement that WP:LEAD suggests that the first paragraph, or should I say, the first line should make note on why the subject of the article is notable?

2) Are we in agreement that cameramen assembled at the junction because it is a place for clashes with the IDF outpost?

3) Are we in agreement that the RSN considered the second documentary as a reliable source when others are not contradicting it?

4) Are we in agreement that the PA calls for Palestinians to protest when they call their 'protest day' strikes?

5) Are we in agreement that mention of a couple people who think the boy is alive is undue in the lead?

Let me know, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not SlimVirgin, but I'll give some of my thoughts:

1. Yes. His death was the most notable thing about him.
2. Nope. Or rather, I'm not in specific disagreement, but I haven't seen what supports your phrasing that they gathered there the day before.
3. Nope. You're confusing other sources contradicting it with other editors disputing it. It's reliable for attributed citations and quotations, as well as for material that isn't disputed and isn't likely to be disputed.
4. No. I don't disagree with the point here, but I do disagree with the way you phrased it in your edit.
5. Yes. I don't think that either version mentions them.

← George ^talk 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussed here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

J, I really don't appreciate this time sink. Brief answers: (1) he is notable for his death; he became an icon because of his death. He is not notable because he's an icon, because that would be close to saying he's notable because he's notable. (2) No, we should stick to what the mainstream sources say. (3) No, needs in-text attribution; if others say the same thing, use the others. (4) The sources I read called it a strike. (5) Don't understand this point.

You overlooked the point about the writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

replied here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To George

I'm not SlimVirgin, but I'll give some of my thoughts:

1. Yes. His death was the most notable thing about him.
2. Nope. Or rather, I'm not in specific disagreement, but I haven't seen what supports your phrasing that they gathered there the day before.
3. Nope. You're confusing other sources contradicting it with other editors disputing it. It's reliable for attributed citations and quotations, as well as for material that isn't disputed and isn't likely to be disputed.
4. No. I don't disagree with the point here, but I do disagree with the way you phrased it in your edit.
5. Yes. I don't think that either version mentions them.

← George ^talk 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well,

(a) Are we in agreement that there's a few hundred dead Palestinian children that don't have an article in their name?

(b) Where did you read that "they gathered there the day before"??? (the day before would be the 29th)

(c) I'll quote you in the future on "material that isn't disputed and isn't likely to be disputed." since this is what I used it for. (there's no question here)

(d) How would you suggest we phrase the PA's protest day then? Please note that the word 'strike' omits info and as such, is misleading.

(e) The version you support SlimVirgin in readmitting has "or that it remains unclear whether the boy died" which seems to be a suggestion that the boy might be alive.

(f) It seems that you've (b) misread my version and (e) misread the current version. Would you now agree that,

• (2) cameramen assembled at the junction because it is a place for clashes with the IDF outpost?
• (5) mention of the perspective that the boy might be alive is undue in the lead?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) Yup. The difference is how he died. I suspect being pinned behind a barrel by gunfire for 45 minutes isn't the most common way to die, even for a Palestinian child, which makes his death more notable than the others.

(b) Ah, my mistake. You wrote that they had gathered prior to the protests. I'd have to see what supports that (versus them arriving after the protests began).

(c) By all means, as long as you understand that I'm talking about editors disputing the information, not only other sources disputing it. For instance, I suspect that your point above (that the cameramen assembled prior to the protests starting) is questionable, so I dispute it, so it needs better sourcing.

(d) I don't have any problems with the way it's currently worded. What info does the word strike omit?

(e) I don't oppose removing the statement "or that it remains unclear whether the boy died". However, I think that your rewording that "Several independent researchers and commentators have supported the Israeli finding while a few supported Karsenti's suggestion on the possibility that the incident's footage was staged." is even more undue weight.

(f) I still need a proper source for (2) (per my reply to (b) and (c)), and I'm okay with removing the undue weight from (5) (per my reply (e)). ← George ^talk 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) Are we in agreement that the version SlimVirign reinserted makes no mention in the WP:LEAD#first sentence on why his death is notable?

(b+c) Why do you read that that the cameramen assembled prior to the protests starting? Do you see the word "before the protesters" inside the text? Its not there. The text only says that they knew where to go. Everyone agrees on this point. Both Israeli and Palestinian.

(d) There is a difference between a PA strike and between an organized protest/riot. Yes? Any common reader would appreciate the value of this context.

(e) How would you suggest then, we make note of all the independent investigations in a single one liner? There's a LOT more text reinserted in SlimVirgin's "undue weight" on top of the suggestion that the boy is alive and you're actually supporting this version(?!) over a one liner.

(f) It seems that you're still (b) misreading info into my version and (e) missing the volume of the 'staged' text in the current version. Would you now agree that,

• (2) cameramen assembled at the junction because it is a place for clashes with the IDF outpost? (there's no time reference here)
• (5) expanded mention of the perspectives that suggest the boy might be alive is undue in the lead?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) Nope. The reason he was notable is because of his death; that is mentioned.

(b+c) You wrote: "reporters had assembled... expecting the protests that broke out... a day before to expand". Expecting something to expand generally means that it hasn't expanded yet.

(d) I'm not sure I follow. A strike is a specific type of protest. A riot is not an organized form of protest.

(e) In reviewing your changes here, I don't see much difference in terms of length or coverage, but there are several wording issues with your version - wording issues that change the meanings of sentences into things that aren't true. Take the first sentence, for instance, "The Israeli army... concluded... that the boy could not have been hit by Israeli bullets." This is just blatantly false. The investigation concluded this; the Israeli army itself refused to take any official stance on the matter.

(f) Again, see my (b+c) and (e). I don't view your version as having any less undue weight than what is there, while having other issues that the current version doesn't have. ← George ^talk 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

We can't resolve disputes if you adhere to circular logic. We've already asserted that (a) there's a few hundred dead Palestinian children that don't have an article in their name and that "The difference is how he died." Now you ignore these agreements and state that "The reason he was notable is because of his death", leading me back to the initial statement we already agreed upon. Please reconsider the questions and the answers since I'd hate to continue in circular arguments where we can actually move forward with a little collaboration.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly simple, and there's nothing circular about it. Someone's death involves things beyond the mere fact that they are dead, including how and why they died, and who killed them. Those things make al-Durrah more notable than the others you mentioned. I figured that that would be obvious, but maybe something is being lost in translation. ← George ^talk 01:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to take this from the direction of what we might agree on again. I believe we're in agreement that there's no special need in naming the differnt names of French courthouses in the lead. Is this accepted? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more or less agnostic on the issue of naming the French courthouses. In general, I would only name the countries highest court explicitly. I don't even know if this was appealed to France's highest court or not, so I generally don't care about the courthouse names one way or the other. ← George ^talk 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, George, the Cour de cassation is indeed France's highest court. See Court of Cassation (France). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then at least that court is probably worth mentioning. In the US, for example, you would mention if a case is being appealed to the Supreme Court, because that means something special - namely that the verdict cannot be appealed, and the ruling will set a precedent for future rulings. ← George ^talk 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin

J, I really don't appreciate this time sink. Brief answers: (1) he is notable for his death; he became an icon because of his death. He is not notable because he's an icon, because that would be close to saying he's notable because he's notable. (2) No, we should stick to what the mainstream sources say. (3) No, needs in-text attribution; if others say the same thing, use the others. (4) The sources I read called it a strike. (5) Don't understand this point.

You overlooked the point about the writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well,

(1) Are we in agreement about WP:LEAD and that he's not an icon just because he died but because his reported death was unique?

(2) Are you saying that reliable sources do not say that cameramen assembled at the junction(?!?).

(3) Are we in agreement that the RSN considered the second documentary as a reliable source when others are not contradicting it? (please respond to this)

(4) Are we in agreement that if the PA called people to protest and the mother of the boy called it a 'protest day' and there are reliable sources who dub it a protest day, so that it is not a mere strike but rather an organized day of protest?

(5) Are we in agreement that the opinion that the boy might be alive did not gain much consensus or publicity (unlike the generic theory that the scene was staged)?

p.s. I apologize for taking up your time when trying to fix the errors you and ChrisO introduced. I'm really sorry that I consider the suggestion that the boy is alive to be a bit undue for the lead and thinking that your version gave too much details on the names of French courthouses but these seem like important things that should be addressed.

p.p.s. minor writing issues could be corrected once we can agree on fixing up the content.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

J, if your aim here is to drive me crazy, you're being singularly successful. :)

(1) I don't know, and I don't see that it matters. The lead sentence is fine as written. (2) The current sentence about the cameramen is fine; why change it? And we don't need Schapira as a source for it. (3) I don't recall that. I recall people suggesting in-text attribution, which is what we should do anyway, regardless of that advice. (4) Fine, so please post a source here on talk that calls it "protest day." (5) Yes, and the lead is fine as written in that regard. (6) The writing issues weren't minor. The lead needs to flow well and be free of grammatical errors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead gives undue weight for attacks on Israel (which were short lived and were not first paragraph worthy) as well as too much detail into the different courthouse names (who cares?). It also uses a heavily biased source in Goldenberg and a BLOG(?!) for somewhat unimportant additions that are poorly connected to the text. It is far from perfect and I see many places for improvements, both in adding interesting context as well as in shortening undue input for unofficial investigations as well as claims by the controversial cameraman. Please answer the questions:

(1) Is the boy an icon just because he died or because his reported death was unique? (how many other reports have you seen of Israelis [allegedly] targeting an unarmed boy for 45 minutes).

(2) What is wrong by adding the context, per reliable sources, that cameramen assembled at the known hot spot? Are we in agreement that cameramen assembled at the junction because it is a place for clashes with the IDF outpost? This is stated by Talal himself as well as multiple other sources.

(3) current version has this comment as a main theme:

• From what I can see, this documentary is a reliable source. However, it should not be the only source on an issue where what happened is disputed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment—it seems that this is a fine source: it is mainstream, because it was produced and broadcast on a mainstream network, and shares a view that, while controversial, is not fringe in any way and has been advanced by a number of notable individuals who are not extremists. It is also reliable, based on Schapira's other work, indicating that she has done serious research. I cannot find any strong argument against this source. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova. A respectable documentary filmmaker, who produced a documentary that was aired on a mainstream German TV station is a reliable source. Other issues, such as due weight, can be discussed on the article's talk page. Millmoss (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've imported material about Esther Schapira from the German Wikipedia and added it to her article. I didn't realize that she's the politics and society editor at the German public television network, the Hessischer Rundfunk. I had assumed these were independent documentaries broadcast by them, but if they were actually produced by the network, as now seems to be the case, they definitely count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see these comments as suggesting that the source can be used for basic, uncontested, non-exceptional claims. I have no problem with using extra sources where something is considered exceptional but it would seem that this was the general tone of the RSN. i.e. as long as it is not exceptional, the source can be used without special concern. Do you agree that this was the general tone from the RSN? i.e. that it could be used as a standard reliable source?

(4) Both narrator and the mother call it 'protest day' between 8:25 and 9:10 and the narrator repeats the term numerous times. I'm not insisting on the term 'protest day' but I do believe it fully captures the "organized day of protest" concept. The word 'strike' (supported by your source), however, doesn't quite capture this context which is of encyclopedic value. Do you believe it is an exceptional claim that the mother is making?

(5) I believe the current phrasing ("The film does not show who fired the shots, but Abu Rahma and the father said the gunfire came from the Israeli position. ... later investigations by X and an independent Y, and Z, suggested the al-Durrahs may have been hit by Palestinian bullets, or that it remains unclear whether the boy died.") just makes the main point supported by investigators (that Israeli bullets probably didn't kill the boy) disappear in the deranged and somewhat unnoticeable suggestion that the boy might be alive. Schapira's documentaries don't make a point like this at all, only a few like Shahaf truly stick to suggesting this assertion. This phrasing most definitely needs to be changed and reduced to the main argument and a short one liner in regards to the numerous staging theories.

(6) Let's first agree on fixing the content (Seems important) and then work out way to perfect the grammar.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about Schapira. The documentaries are reliable sources, but they need in-text attribution, and there is no need to use them for material that isn't contentious. Use someone else instead. I also don't agree about the writing. It needs to be good, as does the content, because the latter depends on the former; if the article's badly written, it will make a poor impression on the reader no matter how interesting the content might otherwise have been. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fully willing to collaborate on making the writing satisfactory but the article does need some attempts at getting the information to a high quality. Collaboration depends on you trying to help me out just as I took the time to explain to you that the cameraman's name is Rahama rather than revert your initial edit. We seem to agree in general on what's important for the article and how we should treat sourced content, but you're holding the lead of this article from moving forward to a stable version when you insist on reverting back to a version that uses a blog for a source and gives out names of French courthouses in the lead. Would you mind reviewing my version and working with it rather than rejecting it off the bat?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign, are you willing to reconsider the issue of how the day of protesting is described? I'm very much open to phrasing suggestions that explain the situation (to be frank, 'strike' doesn't really explain what the mother is describing). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

There's a lot of repetition in the article, and it's too long, so over the next few days, I'll be going through it removing any fluff and anything that's repeated, and trying to impose a tighter structure on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can resolve the current dispute prior to creating new ones? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I started trying to fix this back in 2006-2007, and had to stop because of the POV pushing back and forth. I'd like to continue now, because it needs to be readable, and it currently isn't. There's no point in having your views represented, J, if the article is so meandering that no one can get through it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can do for today. I've cut out a lot of the repetition, and in a few places, I restored some wording from earlier versions that were clearer. It looked as though people had been editing it without reading it; for example, material that was explained in one paragraph was then re-introduced in the next, as though it had never been mentioned. The article was 104 kilobytes, and is now down to 78 kilobytes. I'll continue tidying it over the next few days. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed it as far as the 'Controversy' section (not included) and made a few corrections and notes. Overall a fair effort. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I've restored to the lead that the voiceover was Enderlin's, that he said the shots came from the Israeli position, and that he wasn't present. These are crucial issues, and they belong in the lead.

I also removed that two Israeli scientists said or showed it was a hoax. One said it, and was fired from the investigation. We currently simply say, "Israel accepted responsibility and apologized, but later investigations by the Israeli army and an independent French ballistics expert, and two German television documentaries by Esther Shapira, suggested either that the al-Durrahs may have been hit by Palestinian bullets, or that it remains unclear whether the boy died. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Safety notes

I'll write down a few stuff that seems important for later reference:

• I regained consciousness in the ambulance and felt the body of my son. It was cold."<ref name="Kalman">Kalman, Matthew. "Caught in the crossfire of hate". ''[[Daily Mail]]'', [[October 3]] [[2000]]</ref> - Relevance - al-Durrah's were apparently taken together in the ambulance - this is contradicted by the doctor who examined the boy who camein at 10am. I can't recall how Talal Abu-Rahma reported this.
• I saw "pronounced dead on arrival" or some similar variation twice.
• I saw "[cameraman] denied making this statement" or some similar variation three times.
• Low battery note is missing the battery replacement claim made on the second documentary.
• 'Israeli soldiers' story' section missing interviews from the first documentary.

Will add more above if there's something to add. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 11:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 11:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

More junk edits

Jaakobou still seems to be ignoring everyone's advice and pushing on with ill-advised and overtly POV-pushing edits. I've reverted the latest batch because they are all but unsalvageable and the explanations given in the edit summaries are, frankly, just plain stupid. For instance:

• [32] Labelling a Jordanian source as "dubious" (apparently based on the "Arabs are congenital liars" racist meme we saw earlier in this discussion).
• [33] Deleting a source because Jaakobou doesn't like what it says.
• [34] Frivolously deleting an Arabic placename.
• [35] Deleting a reliably reported statement because Jaakobou thinks it's "bogus".

Seriously, Jaakobou, your editing on this article is atrocious. You are continually pushing your own POV, deleting sources that say things you don't agree with and offering completely frivolous reasons for your edits. If you continue in this vein I will support any bid to have you excluded from I-P articles under the arbitration enforcement regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I never said that Arabs are congenital liars and I never said anything like it. Putting quotation marks without a diff creates the false impression that I actually wrote those words. If this occurs again I will file formal civility complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to allow some review on one of the edits here to see if it could be salvaged. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bit of time to cool off and thought it might be appropriate time to respond to some of the concerns and edits ChrisO has raised. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the first diff, I noted that the text itself is dubious since I recall the cameraman saying the boy and father waited "at least 17 minutes" after the shots had ended before they were evacuated. The number 45 is often noted in reference to the time span he asserts the boy and father were intentionally shot at and not to the time they waited to be evacuated. I did ask a question that could be misunderstood, if one is likely to assume bad faith, about use of Jordanian sources for this controversial topic and the main motivation for this error was the error in content.
• In the second link I had removed the source we've been discussing as problematic use of a primary source. I have nothing special against Associated Press but we've already asserted above that there is a problem with citing a time stamp that is clashing with multiple other reliable sources when we can't assert that the article was not updated after the initial time-stamp was given.[36]
• In the third diff we have a baseless assertion that the junction is called Shohada junction in Arabic. This is improbable considering the name means "martyr's junction" which is already taken by 150 places that have the same nickname. If there's a source that says this is an official name, then I would have no problem with this content but I do recall it being nicknamed the martyrs' junction.
• In the fourth diff, there is a melodramatic note that the boy supposedly said. The same text is noted in opposite direction (i.e. the father saying this to the boy) in another source and there's several melodramatic phrases used in some of the sources that have no place in an encyclopedia. e.g. that the boy, according to his mother, asked her if he'd become a martyr if he dies at the junction just 3 days prior to his death and that he liked fires and riots (according to the mother).

I'm fairly certain that these edits were in line with wikipedia's purpose but I'm open to discuss them.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the third point, from the Los Angeles Times: "Many Palestinians call Netzarim the 'martyrs' junction' -- in tribute to the scores of Palestinians who have died there in clashes with Israeli troops."[37] ← George ^talk 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks George for supporting my point that its a nickname rather than an official name. Is there anything you'd like to add about the other issues noted in these edits? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if it's an official name or a nickname. Both can be used, but it doesn't add much to the article in this case. I won't revert people adding it, nor people removing it.

For your first point, I'd need to see the source that says "at least 17 minutes", and the source that says 45 minutes to make some determination. I haven't reviewed either, so I have no opinion on it.

I disagree with your second point that "we've already asserted above that there is a problem with citing a time stamp that is clashing with multiple other reliable sources when we can't assert that the article was not updated after the initial time-stamp was given". I would agree that you asserted that, but I don't believe there was any consensus (at all) towards that end, and I agree with ChrisO's revert of that change.

Regarding the fourth point, the quotation is clearly attributed. It would be much better if it was directly attributable though, something like: "The father later told Matt Rees that Muhammad's dying words were 'Don't worry, Daddy, the ambulance will come and rescue us.'" I'm paraphrasing here; I wouldn't actually write that, but the point is that it's better if attributed directly to the father rather than Matt Rees. ← George ^talk 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it's a nickname or an official name? The place clearly has two names, a Hebrew one and an Arabic one, so it would be POV to exclude one because a partisan of one side (i.e. you) doesn't like it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

A) Do you have a reliable source that it is officially called "martyr's junction"?

B) Is there anything else you'd like to respond to? Are you still objecting all these changes? Do elaborate on the content.

C) I've opened the time-stamp issue for further community observations.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, however much you disagree with eachother, there is simply no excuse for calling someone stupid or implying that they are racist. It's a mantra that you can repeat if you want - focus on the content, not the contributor. This is obviously more difficult in some circumstances than in others, but I see nothing on this page or in the history of the article to suggest that a civil discussion should be impossible or even difficult. So, please dispense with the insults and the threats. In AE threads, few come out smelling like roses. Nathan ^T 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what Jaakobou is doing here. George comments further up the page that Jaakobou has "said that journalists who are Arab ignore facts in order to embellish their reports" and rightly says that such an attitude "shows an inherent prejudice against reports from some people, based solely on their race." Jaakobou himself refers to a supposed "generic Arab press storytelling culture". The bottom line is Jaakobou has tried to label Arab sources are as "dubious" solely because they are Arab sources. That is absolutely unacceptable conduct, a gross violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:V. Would you agree with an Arab editor trying to label Israeli sources as "dubious" because he thinks Jews have a "generic press storytelling culture"? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "generic press storytelling culture" even means, let alone whether it accurately represents Jews, Arabs or aliens from Aquarius. My point was fairly simple - it does no good, to you or Jaakobou or the resolution of this dispute, to make inflammatory accusations or insults. It doesn't contribute to any progress, and reflects poorly on you should this end up climbing the ladder of dispute resolution. If you believe a comment made by someone else incorporates prejudice, say so forthrightly and politely and move on to the part of the discussion you can actually do something about. Nathan ^T 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur. When Jaakobou made his statements, I let him know that I felt they sounded racist. He apologized but disagreed, and I filed a Wikiquette alert, as a sanity check. I didn't mention Jaakobou by name, but asked if editors thought that I was correct in interpreting his statements as racist. They did, and one of them even guessed that it was Jaakobou who made the statement (apparently a case of one's reputation preceding them). Other editors suggested I file a notice at WP:AE, but I didn't feel the need to take the issue any further. That said, both Jaakobou and ChrisO need to watch their comments and incivility, as I think either could be reported at WP:AE at any time. ← George ^talk 00:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the advice, both of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Schapira section

I've removed more repetition and unnecessary or repeated sources, fixed some material that didn't quite say what the sources said, and tightened the writing, removing unnecessary quotes and so on. It's now down to 68 kilobytes. [38] I've also been combining refs so we don't have multiple footnotes after sentences, so we're down to 85 footnotes, rather than the previous 145. Some more trimming wouldn't go amiss.

Regarding the Schapira section, here, I suggest we build it up by briefly describing the key points she makes in her documentaries and explaining how these differ from the initial reporting. This is better than having her material scattered throughout the article as though she's not a contentious source, because she is, even if a reliable one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How notable really are Schapira's documentaries? Bear in mind that as far as I'm aware they've never been broadcast outside Germany. Are we at risk of putting undue weight on them? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to judge how notable they are. I'm going to ask around on the German Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulldozing of the wall

George requested a source for the (claimed) reason why the IDF bulldozed the bullet-marked wall where the al-Durrahs took shelter. It's in the cited source: "The army destroyed most of the physical evidence at the site soon after the incident. In a site-clearing operation it said was needed to remove hiding places for snipers, the army razed the wall that it says contained bullet holes indicating that the boy and his father were fired on by fellow Palestinians." -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, didn't notice that it was in the source from the next sentence. Should the source be cited individually for both sentences (style question)? ← George ^talk 01:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering how hotly every jot and tittle of this article is disputed, that would probably be a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Effect on the family

We have a section about the effects on the family that is sourced to an unlinked article, Pearson, Bryan. "Death of Mohammed al-Durra haunts Palestinian children". Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2000:

"The shooting was reported to have had a profound effect on the family ... According to Muhammad Mukhamier, a clinical psychologist who was involved in counseling Muhammad's brothers and sisters, the family was severely traumatized by the shooting, and by the intense media attention and the repeated replays of the incident on Palestinian television. The children were described as suffering from the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder—bedwetting, suffering from recurring nightmares, denying that Muhammad had been killed, and becoming more isolated and withdrawn. Many other Palestinian children who had seen the footage on television were reported to be suffering from similar post-traumatic stress, acting out the shooting in their playgrounds or expressing a fear of being killed in the same way."

Does anyone have a link for this? I'm wondering about post-traumatic stress disorder being diagnosed so soon after the shooting, so I'd like to make sure that it's faithful to the source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not online as far as I know, but is in the Lexis-Nexis database. The specific passages read:

A sister of Mohammed al-Durra, the young Palestinian boy whose widely televised death by Israeli gunfire in late September has become a symbol of the intifada, believes a ghost follows her everywhere, waiting to kill her.

Two of his brothers wet their beds at night and have frequent nightmares, while a third refuses to believe Mohammed is dead. ...

Mohammed Makhamier, who is involved in counselling the seven remaining Durra children, said the family has been especially traumatised, not only because of Mohammed's death but also due to the intense media attention on them and because of the repeated screening of the incident on television.

Nora, 6, the one who sees the ghost, is afraid to sleep at night because of recurring nightmares. The children, he says, have become more isolated and withdrawn and no longer want to go to school. ...

Hamam said children have taken to re-enacting the scene on school playgrounds, one child taking the part of the father, the other of Mohammed. "Other children say they are afraid they are going to die the way Mohammed did," she said.}}

I'm curious why you say "so soon" - November 6th was a good five weeks after the shooting, which received saturation coverage on Palestinian television for a long period. The report says: "Palestinian television, which shows nonstop images of the intifada, or uprising against Israel, including close-up views of bodies after they have been ripped apart by bullets, gunbattles, funerals and grieving relatives, is exacerbating the situation, Hamam said." One would imagine that would be disturbing for a lot of adults, never mind children. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing, yes, but I think you'd need longer to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder. I could be wrong, of course. It would just be good to know what the article said. We have a lot of sources without links, so it makes it hard to check things. I'm adding links as and when I can find them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, also meant to say thanks for the extracts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I must confess I still don't understand your doubts about PTSD. As far as I'm aware, it can manifest very soon after a traumatic episode. Relief workers at the scene of disasters, for instance, routinely provide trauma counselling to help those with PTSD symptoms. At any rate, I don't think there's much point in trying to second-guess medical professionals about the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the source say they were suffering from PTSD specifically? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does say PTSD. I just found it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing

I think I've finished the first round of copy edits. It's down from 104 kbs to 67, there's no repetition left that I can find, and the structure flows a little better. Before and after. What's still needed is to expand the Schapira section a little, giving the key points that she makes in the two documentaries. We could perhaps also expand the reaction section with some of the other consequences of the killing, if we can find good sources who make explicit connections. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Time of shooting

As I see the time issue has been raised again on the RN noticeboard, I've added a section that simply describes the confusion. Current version is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a degree of undue weight there. We should note first what contemporary sources said, then note what the years-later followup commentaries said. Otherwise you are putting more weight on the non-contemporaneous sources. And it's not a timestamp, it's a dateline. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I focused on contemporaneous accounts, first Enderlin's, then Whitaker's. Then I later mention Laub, which is also contemporaneous, but inconsistent. I've also written to AP to ask them for the times of their stories that day, though whether they'll want to commit themselves is another matter (it would be OR to add any response to the article, but it's fine to do it to inform the way we handle the source material). It's hard to know how else to write it, other than simply describing what the discrepancies are, and leaving it at that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are other contemporaneous accounts that specifically speak of Saturday morning. I'll add them. I think you're overlooking the point that the only source that speaks of 3 pm is Enderlin. It's not Laub which is inconsistent, but Enderlin - no other contemporaneous source in any language I've searched reflects the time he gives. Laub is perfectly consistent with the other sources that speak of the incident happening around noon. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You yourself have added sources to talk that are consistent with Enderlin e.g. Boy dies in father's arms in Gaza clashes. lba0000020010821dw9u060fj By Ahmed Jadallah, 432 Words, 30 September 2000, 17:25 GMT, Reuters News. 17:25 GMT is 19:25 in Israel. And this is an early report because it still says Rami. Whitaker's report is consistent with that and with Enderlin, so Enderlin is not alone in this by any means. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

George, the material you added is repetitive, and I'd like to remove it. The writers don't say they had access to special information (like Fallows). They weren't there (like Enderlin). They don't say they personally saw a story arrive at a certain time (like Whitaker). They didn't interview a primary source (like Schapira). They are just repeating what other primary and secondary sources have said, so there's little point in including them. We should stick to the key sources for this, people with direct involvement, or who have something to add. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Enderlin wasn't there. Isn't that a key complaint of the conspiracy theorists? Second, it's misleading to exclude the sources that you're objecting to. They should stay. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He was there in the sense that he knows what time the footage arrived and was edited. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please read what I wrote about the sources George added. They don't know anything, or claim to know anything, special. There's no need to use them.

I think the problem here is that editors are trying either to show that the conspiracy theories are right, or that they're wrong. We should just stick to what the key sources are saying, regardless of the implications. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, at the very least Juffa claims to know something special: "We have the testimonies of Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil, two Palestinian doctors of the Gaza Shifa hospital who said Mohammed's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 p.m." Poller wrote that "They in turn produced pictures of a dead child, identified as Muhammad al-Dura, who had been admitted to Gaza’s Schifa hospital at noon or 1 PM on September 30, several hours before the alleged incident occurred; his face did not match that of the boy in the shooting scene, his wounds did not match the eyewitness descriptions." In this case, the "they" Poller mentions is the Jeambar and Leconte, visiting France 2. I think that's noteworthy too. ← George ^talk 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry George, I don't follow your point. Juffa is saying the same as the doctor, Tawil, who is more specific, saying 10 am not "before 1 pm." So what does adding Juffa do?

Poller is also saying before 1 pm. What does s/he add that isn't already in the section? And if s/he is referring to Jeambar, we should quote them. My point is that we should use the key primary and secondary sources—the people who claim to have information—not tertiary sources who write about them. Otherwise, we could be quoting the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Rocky Mountain Express. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The interview includes one doctor. Juffa is saying they have the affidavits of both Tawil and another doctor, Dr. Joumaa Saka.

After re-reading the source, you're correct. It should state that Jeambar and Leconte presented images of a boy they said was admitted at noon or 1 pm. ← George ^talk 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's all right with you, I'll tweak the writing to clarify that Juffa is adding another doctor's name, and I'll remove Poller. Perhaps we could add something directly from Jeambar. I hesitated to go into the whole issue of images of the body because of the claims on the Schapira film (the different images, the images of the injuries, the face recognition expert saying it's not the same boy), which I find somewhat odd, but also don't feel we can ignore once it's opened up. I was thinking we should keep those issues, if we mention them, in the section about Schapira specifically. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think you'll have to be careful to not associate this second Dr. Joumaa Saka with Dr. Tawil's statement about 10 am, when all we have associated with her is "before 1 pm". The article already has four times as much material dedicated to the conspiracy theories section as any other section, so adding the "face recognition" nonsense probably doesn't make much difference at this point. ← George ^talk 05:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit's here. It would be good to know who Juffa's source is (i.e. who originally interviewed that second doctor, or who has seen his affidavit, or whatever), so we can refer to that source directly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp/dateline

Chris, the dateline would be, for example, "London, October 15, Associated Press." What matters here is the time the news agency computer recorded the story, so it's safer to call it a timestamp. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's an unsourced assumption on your part. I'd suggest avoiding making assumptions like that without some factual basis to back them up. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part is the unsourced assumption? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The need to be disinterested

It's very important here that editors do not take sides. We're not here to show that the doubts about the story (or the so-called maximalist conspiracy theory) are correct, or that they're wrong. We're here only to tell the stories told by reliable sources, whether we agree with them or not, whether we like them or not.

It is difficult in this situation to determine who the reliable sources are, in part because much of the relevant coverage is in French or German. We can be guided in that by looking to see who the unarguably reliable sources are choosing to cite, to write about, and to interview.

It's also worth bearing in mind that we don't have a binary situation: the mainstream view versus a conspiracy theory. There are numerous views in between: that this was good journalism in difficult circumstances, and the latter accounts for any discrepancies; that it was unfortunate journalism, but basically correct; that it was very poor journalism full of errors; that it was dishonest journalism, a hoax. The last view is the one that, according to Enderlin, is being spread by the Israeli right wing, some of the same people involved in the investigation into the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, suggesting a government conspiracy in that case. It is almost certainly in order to avoid that taint, that editors are reacting strongly against some of the alternative views, so it's worth remembering that only the maximalist view comes from that quarter (so far as we know). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with the reference frame being used here. The very concept of "minimalist and maximalist narratives" is flawed, as it paints a spectrum of possibilities that completely ignores what you refer to as "the mainstream view". The true spectrum ranges from the mainstream view, to the minimalist narrative, to the maximalist conspiracy theory. To put that in Wikipedia terms, the spectrum ranges from majority view to significant minority view to tiny minority view. Wikipedia's policy is that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." And yet here we are, giving each of these "narratives" equal weight.

The most similar dispute I've found is WP:ARB911 (e.g., "This dispute seems to be at an impasse. One one side, there are the editors who feel that the term 'conspiracy theory' is a pejorative and implies that the theories are false. On the other hand, there are the editors who think that the term isn't necessarily derogatory and is simply descriptive. Neither group seems willing to back down any time soon, so I think arbitration is the only solution remaining." --clpo13). Likewise, I think the only way this issue is ever going to be resolved is to put it up for arbitration. ← George ^talk 08:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree in theory with what you say about majority, significant-minority, and tiny-minority. One problem lies in determining which is the majority view (is it the first view, that Israel shot the boy, or is it the later view, expressed by the France 2 executive, that no one knows who shot him?). A second problem lies in identifying which views are to count as the tiny-minority ones, because they are being written about, or broadcast, by journalists who seem to be quite mainstream. Schapira is just one example.

As for arbitration, the ArbCom won't resolve content disputes. It looks only at behavior.

As I see it, we do currently give the mainstream views prominence, by writing chronologically, starting with the story as initially reported. We then progress into looking at inconsistencies that various people, most of them very mainstream, have raised. It is really only toward the end that the so-called maximalist view is discussed, and there we make clear that the Sharaf investigation, for example, was not thought highly of. I don't think anyone reading this would come away believing the maximalist theory. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did a word count. The article overall is 7,976 words, current version:

1. Of these, 3866 (almost half) are devoted to the lead (with almost no mention in it now of alternative theories), background, the incident as initially reported, and reaction. These are the majority and significant-minority views.
2. It is only in the fourth section, Controversy, that we begin to explain some of the allegations. Within that section, 939 words are devoted to the discussion of the footage, and how it was cut and described; this is the most mainstream of the criticism, and it has come from senior French journalists. These are also either majority or significant-minority views.
3. We devote 314 words to explaining that there are so-called maximalist and minimalist theories; 547 to the time issue; 816 to Shahaf, German television, and Yehuda David's view of father's injuries: 1,677 words in all. These are what you might want to call tiny-minority views, but they have been reported by reliable sources, not fringe sources.
4. We end with 1,053 about the legal cases which, although they concern some of the alternative theories, did make the mainstream press, were instigated by France 2, and are reported very factually, so I don't think we can count those words as undue coverage of tiny-minority issues.

Therefore, out of 7,976 words, I see only 1,677 words (point 3 above) devoted to describing what you might call the tiny-minority views, but which we can't simply ignore, because they've been reported in depth by mainstream journalists, and without ridicule, e.g. by The New York Times. [39] And that's not really what's meant by "tiny minority views." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, it's a spectrum. It's not three buckets to dump things in, it's a scale for deciding how much material should be included on any given theory. Wikipedia policy says we should remove the tiny-minority views, but I'm not interested in the battle that would be required to being this article into conformance with that policy. However, those tiny-minority views are given far too much weight presently:

• §Minimalist and maximalist narratives': As I stated, I'm uneasy with the way this concept—and specifically this section—is framed. The first sentence seems quite misleading, leaving out any mention of the mainstream view of the case. I would rip out the sentences about the death threats against Enderlin, as well as the second and third paragraphs (or merge them into other places). Whatever is left of this section could be merged with the Controversy introduction.
• §Time of shooting: Look, I understand there are some confusion on the timing—Enderlin, Fallows, and Schapira—giving (or repeating) a time of 3pm; the cameraman, the doctors, and published accounts saying between 12pm and 1pm, but do we really need 5 paragraphs (25 sentences) to say that? I would remove the second sentence (the court hearing about the time from Enderlin's report), as we discuss his report two sentences later. I would merge the two Fallows sentences into one. I don't know that Whitaker's passage needs to be quoted in its entirety, when only the first sentence of it deals with the time.
• §Shahaf/Duriel investigation: This investigation was almost universally panned, yet we spend four paragraphs discussing it, and only one paragraph dealing with the criticism of it. The first three paragraphs could be merged and trimmed down into one or two, and the fifth can be removed entirely (as it's Shahaf's post-investigation activities, and this is the section about the investigation).
• §Legal action: We spend 10 paragraphs (37 sentences) discussing a defamation case. This isn't a case about the incident itself, or whether or not it was a hoax, it was merely a case about whether or not Karsenty had a legal right, under French law, to call France 2's report a hoax. The details are largely superfluous.

We need to be clear here—there's a distinction between a reliable source reporting on what someone else said and reliable sources promoting something as fact. Plenty or reliable sources report on Ahmadinejad saying the holocaust was exaggerated (or whatever his latest nonsense rant is), but that doesn't mean they endorse that opinion. The Controvery section is the largest in this article; the very definition of undue weight (compare it to the Reaction section, for instance). If all that detail is so important, maybe it should be broken off into a separate article. If not, it needs to be trimmed down. ← George ^talk 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

George, just a quick response for now: regarding the point you make in your first paragraph, this article does conform to the content policies. Tiny-minority views aren't views that you personally feel are tiny-minority. They are views that only tiny-minority (fringe) sources have published. Everything on WP is seen through the lens of the sources. In a situation like this, where The New York Times is respectfully publishing those views, they are not tiny-minority. Even if you and I might strongly disagree with them, even if we personally think they are crazy, they are not tiny-minority if the NYT is writing about them without ridicule. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your other points:

• Regarding the minimalist and maximalist section, I agree that this could be merged. I'll work on it. Again, though, bear in mind that those expressions come from the sources, not from Wikipedians.

• I'll work on tightening the Time of the shooting section, the Shahaf section, and the legal cases section, along the lines that you suggest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. A tiny-minority view is one "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" of reliable sources. That's the point I'm trying to make. I have no idea if they're right or wrong personally (I'm pretty agnostic by nature), but their views, while sometimes mentioned or discussed, are rarely endorsed (note the term held in the definition) by reliable sources.

And I do appreciate your patience and diligence working through this article's issues SlimVirgin. You've definitely done a much better job with it than I could. ← George ^talk 10:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It helps a lot. :)

Just a point about the definition of tiny-minority again. The quote from Jimbo: "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority," refers to a minority of people, not sources, though you're right that the former is judged by the latter. However, if even one high-quality reliable source writes seriously about an issue (not mocking, not condemning), then as a matter of definition, it more or less ceases to be a tiny-minority issue, within WP's definition. Jimbo created the concept of "tiny minority" as a way of describing what to exclude entirely, except in articles devoted to those ideas. As you can imagine, it's a concept that has many definitions, but it's basically intended only to keep flat-earth views out of articles about geography, and things like that. Given that a great deal of the al-Durrah affair is now about these alternative issues (rightly or wrongly), and that mainstream journalists have written about them seriously in high-quality publications, the concept of tiny-minority doesn't really apply.

I do agree with you that the less significant of the minority views shouldn't be given as much weight as the more significant ones, but I also think it's very hard for us to judge what's what. Rather than looking at weight, I tend to focus more on our tone and presentation, which I find easier to understand and handle. Trying to judge proportionate weight is a nightmare at the best of times, and even more so here given that we're dealing with foreign-language sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have the controversy section down from 4,024 words to 2,989. Before and after. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SV, I think this is closer to balanced, and much more succinct. Good job! ← George ^talk 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely making good progress there. Well done, SV, and kudos for being so diligent with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Time discrepancy again

I took a look through the Saturday, September 30, 2000 Karin Laub article from the Associated Press with the 10:35 GMT timestamp. We have been assuming this is a 24-hour clock, as the other AP timestamps are, which would make it morning GMT, either 12:35 pm or 1:35 pm in Israel. Jaakobou has objected here and on the RS noticeboard to the use of this, calling it OR, because the timestamp isn't obviously reliable, and no secondary source has mentioned its existence.

Reading the story, it says: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak spoke to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by phone late Saturday."

The article therefore can't have been written at 10:35 a.m. GMT. Either this is a PM timestamp, or it's the timestamp of an earlier version of the article, the contents of which we don't have. The other details in the article would seem to confirm that it was written later than 10:35 a.m. GMT. There is too much detail, too much official confirmation of the numbers killed, for this to be such an early report.

We therefore ought to remove reference to this from the article, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it in the meantime, as it now seems clearly wrong as written, and this is an area where we don't want to sow further confusion. We can decide whether to pursue the issue of when the earliest report came in, and add it to the article if we can find confirmation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur. We now have a valid, logical reason to question the timestamp, not based on any single editor's theory or personal views. It should be removed. ← George ^talk 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a query in with AP to ask about the times of their reports that day, though I have little expectation of them replying because I suspect they won't want to get involved in the issue. The article probably says as much as it ought to about the time issue, at this point anyway, given the sources we have. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RSN as final measure to be heard

I'm unhappy that it requires an RSN to have a number of my notes accepted. Automatic reverts, incorporated with violations of WP:CIVIL, follow every edit I try and make. However, as it turns out, my concern were neither "dishonest" nor "hopeless".

The question remains if I can close the RSN or that I require it further to be able to make an edit on this article.

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you have to go to RSN depends entirely on what you're trying to change in the article. SlimVirgin made a logical case for why the timestamp shouldn't be used, based on the content of the article; we all agreed with her conclusion. Had you made the same case, instead of making a vague claim that timestamps aren't reliable, it likely wouldn't have been disputed. I can't comment on whether or not some change you may or may not make in the future will require you to file an RSN request, since that's based on what you're trying to change, and how well you explain the reasoning behind it. ← George ^talk 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the bigger problem is not you being heard, but you not listening to others. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's still a few other issues I've fixed with my RSN-related edit and I, for one, am interested in correcting the recent edits introduced by SlimVirign (where it is needed). So, is there anything else you'd like to add to this thread before we move on? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can one comment on your edits before you've made them? ← George ^talk 10:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Several of them were reverted already so at least some of them are not future tense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Which change would you like to discuss? ← George ^talk 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How about, you note the ones you object to and why and I will reinsert the rest? Blind baseless reverts, incivility, and bad faith allegations are improper. Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That list would be too long, and there's no need to take a shotgun approach. I'm also not sure which changes you tried to implement because you were trying to fix a factual error and which were attempts to fix grammatical problems. Besides, the article has changed a lot since that diff, so I have no idea which of your changes would even still apply. How about you pick which change you feel the strongest about, we'll discuss that one, build consensus around a decision, and then move on to the next one. ← George ^talk 11:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RSN incivility aside, I'm not sure you're the one who should take the lead in this conversation - with both ChrisO and SlimVirign, the people who revert me the most, ignoring it. Anyways, I made a bid for a little bit more collaboration to my content concerns and I hope that the atmosphere will change for the better so that there wouldn't be a need for community input for each and every change I'd be interested in making.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They're welcome to discuss or ignore whatever they want with you. You don't want to see your changes reverted, so I'm trying to help you reach a consensus on such changes before making them so that they won't be. If you plan on making a large change, or a controversial one (what changes to this article, by anyone, aren't controversial?), it's suggested that you discuss them prior to making the change. ← George ^talk 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd accept this method if only SlimVirign's massive edits and yours were not automatically inserted into the article while my edits are to be automatically reverted. Also, it seems that you and ChrisO have made a hand to disagree with me without even looking at what makes the content accurate. This is a serious problem and it needs to stop.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If several editors disagreed with SlimVirgin's edits or my own, I would be glad to discuss them before making them, and I would expect SlimVirgin to do the same. I have never, in my 6,000+ edits, blindly reverted anyone (who wasn't an anonymous IP editor blanking a page or similar). I always compare diffs before reverting. I'm not sure what you mean by "made a hand", but we certainly never discussed conspiring against you or your edits. I think you're seeing the result of multiple editors disagreeing with your edits on a number of levels - both English phrasing and grammar problems, as well as disputed, poorly sourced content. There is no anti-Jaakobou cabal. ← George ^talk 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the reverts were made not by you, that is true. The section was directed at three editors, not one. Look, I can't help but feel strange where you supported ChrisO on a number of issues that were clearly wrong.. well, at least clear to me and I used an RSN to prove the case for a couple of them. You have to admit, though, that you weren't very collaborative on the RSN, putting it mildly.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobots

Was inserted here without any explanation, or comment on the talk page. I have removed it. If there is a good reason to have it there, of course replace it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

I added it because I'm moving a lot of material around, including sources, which can lead to bots appearing to replace them, and therefore edit conflicts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Inpact section

I've added an impact section to round the article off. See here. It's not quite finished yet. I have seen both sides compare this situation to the Dreyfus affair, but I can't at the moment find the sources that compared Enderlin to Dreyfus. I'll be adding them when I find them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

French ballistics expert

There's some confusion surrounding this expert, Jean-Claude Schlinger. Adi Schwartz implies in Haaretz that he was an independent court-appointed expert. [40] This gives his report, which concluded the incident might have been a hoax, extra credibility. Schwartz writes: "Schlinger has served as an adviser on ballistic and forensic evidence in French courts for 20 years ... This is the first time that an independent ballistics expert, not representing the State of Israel, undertook to examine Karsenty's claims."

But on Karsenty's website, there is a link to a ballistics report: "Vous pouvez lire l'expertise balistique qui fut remise à la Cour d'appel en cliquant ici." [41] When you click on the link, it takes you to this 67-page report, dated February 19, 2008, which has no name on it. It says it was prepared at the request of Karsenty. It's almost certainly the Schlinger report, and some of the wording appears to match.

I'm therefore going to remove that this expert was independent, and go with the primary source, even though it contradicts the secondary source, unless anyone objects. I also intend to remove the subhead giving him his own section, which I added earlier only because I'd understood him to be entirely independent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when I first saw this Haaretz report, I didn't read it as describing an independent court-appointed expert. Usually defendants hire their own experts, which is what I interpreted this as (I don't know the French system but assumed it's similar to the American system in this regard). The author of the Haaretz article is only saying that the expert wasn't working for the IDF, which he describes as "independent" (of the Israeli government), so I don't think it contradicts the primary source at all. I agree with your change. ← George ^talk 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That the court appointed him has been in the article for some time e.g. June 2009, though I've not looked yet to see when it was added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added by Tundrabuggy in July 2008. [42] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I would definitely say the Haaretz article is misleading on the point, but I can't find any reliable sources saying that he was a court-appointed expert. ← George ^talk 06:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it odd when I first read it, because why would a court in Paris take it upon itself? There's quite a lot of material like this in the article -- things that don't match what the sources say. I'm slowly making headway with them, though, I think.

Another issue is that our diagram, the one based on Abu Rahma, doesn't include the Palestinian police position behind the cameraman (the so-called Pita), though I don't yet know whether that comes from the alternative-theory side only, or whether everyone acknowledges there was such a position. If the latter, we'll need a new diagram to sit alongside the one based on Abu Rahma's affidavit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't that diagram have "Palestinian police post" labelled on it? ← George ^talk 07:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There was apparently another Palestinian position behind the French 2 cameraman, where it says "fields." See File:Durrah-map-en rot.svg. But I'm in the process of making sure the sources who say this are reliable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've seen that. Some conspiracy theorists alleged that the shots came from a shooter sitting next to the cameraman or some such, but I don't think anyone claims that there was a Palestinian police position in that field. I could be wrong, but I just don't remember reading that. ← George ^talk 08:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't a police position. The sources are calling it "PITA," but I can't find out what it stands for. There is an image of it on p. 60, figure 63, in Schlinger's report, [43] but I don't know where he got his information from. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a reference to it in the James Fallows article: "Diagonally across the intersection was a small, ramshackle building and a sidewalk bordered by a concrete wall. It was along this wall that Mohammed al-Dura and his father crouched before they were shot. ... The other two corners of the crossroads were vacant land. One of them contained a circular dirt berm, known as the Pita because it was shaped like a pita loaf. A group of uniformed Palestinian policemen, armed with automatic rifles, were on the Pita for much of the day." [44]

That still doesn't tell us where it was. Also, I just noticed that our diagram doesn't exactly match Abu Rahma's, in that it changes the shape of the junction from Abu Rahma's diagram -- perhaps making it more accurate, I don't know, but it's definitely different. Ours is here. Abu Rahma's is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pita is the nickname for the Palestinian position (police station? RS?) due to its pita shape. This was noted in one of the documentaries as well.

p.s. I've reinserted Abu Rahma's original a few times in the past but someone kept reinserting a vector version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the vector version so long as it's identical, but this one has changed the shape of the junction. The argument against using the original might be that we shouldn't claim fair use when we can easily make a copy, but the original is arguably important in this context.

Regarding the position of Pita, do you have a good source for that, not one of the alternative-theory sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, if we only have alternative-theory sources, do we know how they know? We know where Abu Rahma's diagram comes from: he was there. But where would e.g. Schlinger have obtained his information from? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting name for the berm. The intersection should indeed be fixed, and one could add the berm to the diagram (though I'm not sure if it would still count as a diagram based on Abu Rahma's account at that point). ← George ^talk 10:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We will need two diagrams, because it's significant that Abu Rahma omitted it, or significant that others have added it. We should say "this is the situation according to X," and "this is it according to Y," rather than presuming to know ourselves what a correct diagram would look like. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the RS attacks on the "alternative theory" sources should desist. The "alternative theory" is highly notable in mainstream media. If we were to ignore it, then we automatically disqualify multiple reliable sources as unreliable. We've had so many errors inserted into this page due to recent insisting on what is known as a fact, and what subsequently should be discounted as unreliable. As it turns out, secondary reliable sources are indeed reliable (no shocker there). If, for example, Schillinger is noted as independent, that is the way that he should be presented without any original research and speculations to remove this. The same goes for the Pita. We don't care how they know what they know - we're not investigative reporters. Reliable secondary sources say he's independent. No?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments about the "alternative theory" sources were not meant as attacks. The problem with using them is that we don't know how they would know. We have grounds to show a diagram offered by Abu Rahma, because he was there (he may be right, he may be wrong, but we have reason to listen to him). But how would a French ballistics expert know what was there? That's the question we would need to answer, I think, so it would be good if we could find a source who explains e.g. a journalist who says, "according to X, blah, blah." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you've concluded that the French ballistics expert was not independent. Did you also remove this from the article? Anyways, in one of the documentaries, you can see him examining images from the scene but I don't believe anyone discussed at length on how he did his job. He was noted as a 20 year expert.. and as independent. Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The source meant that he was independent of the Israeli (or any) govt, and Tundrabuggy interpreted that to mean court-appointed. But he was in fact commissioned by Karsenty, as the report clearly says. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, the context of labeling the expert "independent" is critical here. ← George ^talk 11:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about what "the source meant". Multiple, reliable secondary sources say he's independent. No? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Which multiple reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is the context in which sources called the expert independent. ← George ^talk 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That question is irrelevant to our use of the word in the article. I usderstand that everything else is speculation based on primary sources. Something we've witnessed as cause for many errors in this article. Did SlimVirign/other remove the word 'independent'? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, regarding Pita, I found a source saying the Pita information originates in the Samia report, which I take is the Shahaf investigation. Landes says Pita was behind the father/son, whereas Schlinger says it was behind the cameraman, who was in front of the father and son, so the alternative-theory sources are contradicting each other. And it's a crucial point, because their claim is that the boy was shot from the pita. Therefore, we need to go straight to Samia's report and take it from there. Jaakobou, do you know if there's a copy online? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question about Samia, the report was apparently not released, so we have little chance of getting hold of Samia's original diagrams.

I've restored Abu Rahma's original diagram, because the vector version someone created had changed the shape of the junction, and I've added to the Karsenty appeal section a diagram from Schlinger that shows the "pita" position. This "pita" position is mentioned by multiple sources (including Fallows, for example), so I don't think it's contentious to add it as an alternative perspective, and Schlinger's would seem to be the most authoritative version, given that it was presented to the Court of Appeal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamic martyr

I don't think that they type of martyr this boy is described as is the same as the type described in the Martyrdom in Islam article. That article describes the Islamic version of the first definition of martyr from Wiktionary: "One who willingly accepts being put to death for adhering openly to one's religious beliefs; notably, saints canonized after martyrdom." However, this boy, when described as a martyr, is being described as the third definition from Wiktionary: "One who suffers greatly and/or constantly, even involuntarily." The term martyr is used in the Arab world not only for jihadists and suicide bombers (the modern version of first definition), but also for victims of bombings or politically-motivated violence (the third definition). ← George ^talk 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's really no ambiguity about him being a martyr in the Islamic sense. Maybe you should fix the Islamic martyrdom article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, if you want to help with this article, you could try to help track down a copy of some of Samia's diagrams, and/or help to determine where the idea that people were firing from the "pita" came from. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

George, I'm pretty sure they mean martyr in the Islamic sense. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea came from images of people firing shots from the pita. Did you not see the images in the documentary? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Can you show me where? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an image of a Palestinian policeman firing shots behind a wall that observes onto the junction. Its everywhere... my time is a bit limited to fish for obvious things but I'll try and do it tomorrow if you still can't find it.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an obvious thing, and your time is clearly not so limited that it stops you from edit warring over material you've tried and failed before to add without a source. If you want to help with this article, please do help. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree. In the Arab world, many people not fighting for anything particularly religious are labelled as martyrs when killed due to political circumstances (which often mix with religion). It's a pretty generic term. A Christian Iraqi killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, even accidentally, would be labelled a martyr. Or consider Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister who was assassinated by a carbomb in 2005. He wasn't a religious warrior, but a politician, assassinated for political reasons. The political party that formed after his death was referred to as the "Rafik Hariri Martyr List". Unfortunately "martyr" carries a different connotation in English than in Arabic, and the translation isn't perfect. Per the Martyr article: "Usage of 'martyr' is also common among Arab Christians (i.e. anyone killed in relation to Christianity or a Christian community), indicating that the English word "martyr" may not actually be a proper equivalent of its commonly ascribed Arabic translation." ← George ^talk 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe a "Martyr in the Arab world" is different than the Islamic martyr (even though they "often mix"), that would be a bit of original research IMHO but you are free to find sources and promote this change in wikipedia. It really shouldn't affect this article directly.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the articles on Wikipedia are inaccurate; it's a definitional difference. This article is simply using the wrong definition of term. The article on the more correct definition would just be the martyr article. We could just wikilink to that article I suppose. ← George ^talk 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, George. Our Martyrdom in Islam article seems to be very sketchy and incomplete. I'm reading the (very comprehensive) definition in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, and it seems clear that Islamic martyrdom in the broadest sense simply refers to someone who has died in a meritorious cause: "Books of ḥadīth list categories of believers whose deaths occur in such a violent or painful way that they are counted as martyrs." Apart from those dying violently, these include causes of death such as epidemic illness, drowning, pleurisy, childbirth, fire, being crushed by toppling walls (?) and even diarrhoea. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I misspoke. I haven't even looked at that article in any depth because it's simply the wrong article to link to. It's discussing a different definition of the term. If the boy had be a Christian Palestinian and sources described him as a martyr (a term also used for Christian Arabs in the Middle East), would we then link to the Martyrdom in Christianity article? Of course not. ← George ^talk 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The two would not necessarily be equivalent. I suppose it is dependent on the degree to which the dead person was regarded as having died for his religion or co-religionists. There's certainly a big religious element in the views of Muslim Arabs towards the occupation of Muslim territory. I'm not sure that's comparable to how the death of an Arab Christian would be perceived. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple. As long as they are later used for the anti-Israeli cause, they are hailed as martyrs in the Islamic sense. This applies to non-Arab as well as non-Muslim individuals as well.

p.s. I request that you try and avoid deeming Israel as "Muslim territory". It is an offensive POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no. Being used for an "anti-Israel cause" does not make one Islamic. Speaking of offensive POVs... ← George ^talk 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended by it as well but that is how it works for the "Mukawama". No offense intended, but you should know this as a Lebanese (Assumed by the flag on your userpage). I'm not sure you recall, but Christian Arabs died from impact of Hezbollah rockets and were immediately declared as [Islamic] martyrs (i.e. Shaheeds) for the Mukawama. The same occurred with a documentarist in Gaza, even though the crew specifically asked that he will not be used for this purpose. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost on the context with regards to the Muqaawama, and you probably shouldn't assume things about me. Christian Arabs have also been killed by Hezbollah, and they too are labelled martyrs. Can you provide the sources about Christian Arabs being considered Shaheeds by this Muqaawama, so maybe I can pick up on the context of what you're talking about? ← George ^talk 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

George,

No disrespect, but how's your Arabic? Mukawama is literally translated as "resistance" and is a general term for a certain culture that is mostly based on militancy and propaganda. I wasn't aware that there's a union called Muqaaqama, but looking through the web, I've also found a musical group called Mukawama... everyone can use the word but it doesn't make me wrong here. Apologies if I made a wrong assumption about you being Lebanese. I don't see that as a problem if you are and if you're not.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it disrespect at all; I don't speak Arabic. So who declared Christians who died from Hezbollah rockets to be shaheeds? And do you have a source for that I can read, to get a better sense of the usage of the term? ← George ^talk 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah declared them to be "Shaheeds" even though they are Christians. The same can be said of many others who have become more prominent icons for the Mukawama. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? 9 year old Mahammad was Christian? But I see the point that those killed can be considered Shaheeds. And I hope you can see my point that non-Shaheeds can be called martyrs as well. So we just need a source that says that someone considers al-Durrah a Shaheed, and not just a regular martyr. ← George ^talk 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The family was Christian and don't appreciate the tone of your response after I take my time to find sources that clarify to you that I am correct. I wholly disagree with your point about non-Shaheeds being called martyrs for the "struggle" as you seem to not even know what Mukawama is. ChrisO's notes here exemplify the Shaheed status the boy has and I find it strange that you're suggesting he wasn't a martyr to the Islamic militancy when he clearly was and still is. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what makes you think the family was Christian? Neither source says that, and one of the two boys killed is named Mohammad, the most common Muslim name in the world. How can you disagree with non-shaheeds being called martyr's when I just gave you an example of one (Rafik Hariri, a businessman and former politician)? I'm not "suggesting" he wasn't, I'm asking for a source saying that he was a shaheed, and not just a martyr in the usual sense. You found me a source for Nasrallah labeling those two boys shaheeds (regardless of their religion); how about one for al-Durrah? ← George ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you might be correct about the boys in question. I couldn't find any RS source about this, but I found something that seems reliable which says they were buried at the Muslim cemetery. This is still not germane to the issue at hand as the boy was iconized, as ChrisO notes below, as a Shaheed for the Mukawama. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that this BBC News article says: "a legend is being made of the child who hated injustice, who wanted to be a martyr for the cause of Jerusalem. Mohammed al-Durrah's face has become a potent symbol of the struggle. The call to arms, to claim Jerusalem as their capital, is broadcast loud and clear on Palestinian television." Compare the Jordanian postage stamps reproduced in our article, which juxtapose the al-Durrahs with the al-Aqsa mosque. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian gunmen and police

I don't know about your interpretations of English, but I do believe that "Palestinian gunmen and police" is not the same as "Palestinian positions". Don't mass reinsert errors please, it is in poor taste. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please only add material that you have a reliable source for, and stick very closely to what it says (without actually copying it). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk) You know. For a person who's been reading so many sources about this al-Durrah article, I'd assume you already know that there were gunmen at the scene. Also, for the reason that you assert yourself as a professional English writer, I would assume that you know the big difference between "Palestinian positions" and my correction. Can we work together without you reverting me automatically on each and every edit? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am asking about the place called "pita," not generic gunman at the scene. Stop wasting people's time. It is really getting to be too much. Use sources like everyone else has to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,

I apologize for the tone, but I'd like to request that you show a little more respect for the content and the sources than we have thus far. For example, you wrote down "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" where the sources said "Palestinian struggle" and you continue to refer to secondary sources as "alternative-theory" and make suggestions to change what they are saying. This change in meaning, which I gave as an example, suggests that you have, no offense intended, a real lack of understanding in this topic. I just now made a fairly clear correction about (a) gunmen and police, and (b) youngsters and adults among the protesters.[45] I believe you have good intentions here, but I really don't follow the reasoning to automatically revert corrections/clarifications to material errors. If you think I'm wrong, I'd understand the revert - but it seems you're only interested in better sourcing and are ignoring my concerns about the missing content. Think about it and let me know if I might be correct.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of spending time posting on talk, why not find reliable sources for your edits, and stick very closely to what they say? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,

My time is also wasted by the errors you "source" (or unsource) into the article. No?

Did I complain that all three of you wasted my time on the time-stamp issue?

Am I complaining that there is no citation to the text that is currently used? (i.e. "Protesters had gathered to throw stones at an IDF outpost at the Netzarim junction")

Please check and let me know it there is. Anyways, I will ind a source or two for this but it doesn't change the auto-revert to an erroneous/lacing versions attitude issue.

p.s. here (Rees, Matt. "Mohammed al-Dura", Time, December 25, 2000.) they are called "rioters" and there's use of the word "Molotov".

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll weigh in with my take on your edits:

• "...declared the day a general strike and called for a day of protest." - A general strike day is a day of protest. This is redundant change.

(adder) Should be noted that they were called to riot. A business strike is not the same as a protest. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that they were "called to riot", just that they were rioters. I have little doubt that the PA intended for their to be protests, which is why they called the general strike, but you need a source if you intend to say that they were "called to riot" - something I haven't seen claimed in sources. ← George ^talk 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The implication of Jaakobou's edit seems to be that the violence was planned in advance. This would certainly raise a red flag as a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Protesters" changed to "Palestinian men and youngsters" - We know were no women protesting? The terminology is poor - a youngster can be a child of any age. Were there two year olds running around protesting? If so, what's the source? I don't see the advantage of this wording over the more generic "Protesters".

(adder) I'm repeating what reliable sources said. Usually, when we trust editors and have no special reason to think it is bogus (I don't see such a claim by you). We request the content be cited without removing it. There's a special template used because having realized that article development has ground to a halt because of incessant reversions, two or more people agree to give higher-than-usual respect to each other's edits.. This way, a person who already knows how to work in wikipedia doesn't delete encyclopedic content that seems within reason. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to some of the reliable sources you're citing? Wikipedia's editing policies suggests discussing large, controversial changes before making them too. I consider the term "youngsters" to be rather exceptional, so it would need sourcing. ← George ^talk 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou may be misreading the source. The source cited in Jaakobou's edit was this BBC News article, which says: "Coming back from the auction, they blundered into the type of small-scale riot that is so familiar in Gaza. Kids gather to throw stones at the visible manifestation of their oppression, the Israeli Defence Force. The soldiers respond with tear gas and rubber bullets, sometimes live rounds." Note the tense - the article is describing an example how such incidents typically unfold, not reporting how this incident actually unfolded. It's a subtlety of English which Jaakobou maybe hasn't quite understood. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...exchanged between Palestinian gunmen and police and the Israeli position." - Do we know that there were Palestinian gunmen who weren't police present, and what's the source for that? Again though, I don't see any advantage to this wording over the previous wording: Palestinian positions is more neutrally vague, as it doesn't imply that they were only police or only gunmen.

(adder) Yes we do know this. We have multiple sources on this as well. In here (Rees, Matt. "Mohammed al-Dura", Time, December 25, 2000.), they are noted as "Palestinian militiamen" because the majority of them were not in police uniform. Can we now stop with the automatic reverts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the "militiamen" described aren't members of the police force, this can be added (though we should likely insert it as "militiamen"). It would be better if we can find a source that says "police and militiamen", so we can be sure they weren't describing the police as militiamen (since these police are often aligned with Fatah or Hamas). ← George ^talk 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments below about the police vs. militiamen issue. The source cited by Jaakobou is dated three months after the shooting and is the only one for the whole of 2000 that claims militiamen were the shooters at Netzarim Junction. All of the sources published at the time, including Israeli ones, speak exclusively of policemen. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In general these edits add more words without adding more meaning, or providing questionable meaning. That's my thoughts on the diff you provided. ← George ^talk 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I really don't see the point of those changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame that you two (again) agree that we should misrepresent information. We have reliable sources and should follow the appropriate material rather than change what it says. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC) +again 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch the civility with regards to accusations of misrepresenting information. Most of my disagreement with your changes has to do with problematic English that changes the meanings of the statements in a way you may not have intended. ← George ^talk 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really not an accusation. I'm merely stating a fact and without intention of anything other than to request that you pay more attention to sources and appreciate that I actually know the content. Concerns can be sorted out in a civil manner and without automatic reverts. Its not like I'm making vast edits to the entire article and, in fact, I am correcting fairly clear errors that even external observers can agree that I am correct. We really need to change the level of collaboration here.

Respectfully, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Query about references

Ynhockey, I can't see support for your revert in either of the sources you took from elsewhere in the article (Time and NYT), unless I'm misreading them. Can you tell me which bits of those articles you're relying on for: "The Palestinian Authority had ... called for a day of protest ... shots were exchanged between Palestinian gunmen and police and the Israeli position." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi SV! The part about the day of protest is indeed unsourced. Since I worked from Jaakobou's revision, it was left there. I will remove it. About the other part however, it seems fairly clear from the sources, and more of an argument on cosmetics. The Time source (which, by the way, was already in the article before my edit) uses the term "militiamen" which can refer to both gunmen and policemen (in fact, a closer term to police than gunman/militant). George changed it to say "militiamen" to be true to the source, which is fine with me. There is another one which mentions gunmen. In addition, Yom-Tov Samiya said that al-Durrah was killed by a policeman, and whatever side one takes in that dispute, there's no reason to believe that policemen being there is false, since this is based on an actual investigation, not just something Samia decided to say one day (plus, the incident did take place right next to a Palestinian police station).

Despite all of the above however, I don't feel very strongly about this, and if you wish to just leave the word "militiamen" or "gunmen" per secondary sources, I will not raise objections unless other sources come to light. Unfortunately I don't have nearly as much time to work on this article as I'd like (and other article), having come here just because of the RSN thing which really bothered me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You turned up to revert for Jaakobou, because otherwise he would have violated 3RR. You've not edited this article since 2008 (and then only twice), and you hadn't edited WP since yesterday. Yet suddenly here you are, reverting, and adding sources that don't support what you say. "Militiamen" does not mean "policemen," and neither of the articles mentioned policemen fighting or a day of protest. This is the kind of editing this article has had in the past, and doesn't need in the future. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To your comment on my talk page about sources, please read the comment above, I didn't say you were right about the policemen, just that it wasn't an important point to argue about. As to your conspiracy theory, I can only recommend this free track by Temple City, called Paranoid Delusions ;) You seem to always have comments only about the editor, never the edit. This is the kind of discussion that has taken place on this page in the past, and doesn't need in the future. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interject on personal commentary, but I wasn't in danger of violating 3RR. Not that I think a person should play with those things at all. What matters here, is that there's a couple of changes/clarifications that are needed. Nothing major, but it would benefit the article if the reader is not is lead to assume that there were several Palestinian positions (citation needed). I allowed myself to fix this error and I think it is poor form to insist on reverting this fix on legalities. Yes, I can understand a request to add a source - but there was no source for the error either. Was there?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the policemen vs militiamen issue, I've had a look at the contemporary sources and they all speak exclusively of policemen. I've added a source from the day itself (quote: "Mofaz accused Palestinian police of opening fire on an Israeli military outpost guarding the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip on Saturday. A witness at Netzarim said Palestinian police were firing at an Israeli position...") The only source referring to the shooters as militiamen is Rees, writing three months after the incident, and he doesn't mention police at all. The contemporary reporting unanimously describes the shooters as policemen, and there are even statements from the Israeli military leadership demanding that "the Palestinian policemen ... stop firing at the IDF forces." Given this, I've replaced the non-contemporary outlier - Rees - with one of the many reports from the day itself mentioning policemen exclusively. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we already established the problem with using only the immediate sources (and making false assumptions based on them). Clearly, footage shows both general militants on top of ones that wear the PA police uniform. Also, the words gunmen as well as militants apepar on several sources. Agreed?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, thank you very much for providing what I didn't have enough time to find. On the subject matter, the BBC source I gave in this discussion does mention gunmen, so I believe it would be appropriate to mention both. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we have not established that at all, and we cannot ignore statements from the Israeli military about who was shooting at them. One would hope that the IDF's soldiers would be competent enough to recognise their attackers. Your "clearly" is not clear at all without reliable sourcing. We know for a fact that Palestinian policemen were involved, since that's what the IDF itself stated, along with all the contemporary eyewitness reports. Hopefully you agree with that point. However, it's very unclear whether there were armed parties involved in addition to the policemen. The words "gunmen" are uninformative, as anyone with a gun is a "gunman"; likewise "militants" is a meaningless bit of journalist-speak that doesn't identify what it's referring to. It's unclear whether "gunmen" and "militants" refers to the policemen or a different group. SlimVirgin and George are quite right to point out that you need a source that is clear on this score. I note that the Rees report that you cited doesn't even refer to policemen, suggesting that he's using "militiamen" to refer to the shooters identified as policemen by all the contemporary reports and by the IDF itself. Unless you have a source that makes a clear distinction between the policemen and these claimed gunmen/militants/militiamen, drawing such a distinction is merely original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

The Israeli soldiers clearly said that they were shot at by militants from all around so I'm not following your logic here to discredit them. We know for a fact that some of the gunmen were wearing PA Police uniforms, yes. But this does not make them all out to be Policemen. As for the informative nature, this is why we should include both 'Palestinian gunmen' and 'police'. In any event, we have no source which says that there were Palestinian positions. Am I missing a source that says this?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Earlier fake

The article The Falling Soldier, in the talk page, has seen a number of points made by 66.81.170.218. The same point can be made in both cases, that there is no visible injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.202.70 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No visible injury is not the same as no injury. There are plenty of cases of people being killed by blast effects or shrapnel fragments without causing obvious external injuries, and major injuries may not be visible if they are not in the line of sight of the camera. In the case of al-Durrah, there is plentiful photographic evidence of extremely severe injuries that were not necessarily visible from the cameraman's point of view or discernible in low-resolution video footage shot from a distance. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The original footage is not low resolution and it doesn't account for any of the alleged 15 hits. Anyways, this continued advocacy and speculation is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a forum.

p.s. 86.169.202.70, the point that no injuries are visible have been made in a couple sources I've seen. One of them the second documentary by Esther Schapira. We try and work here through reliable secondary sources, not through our own speculation.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)