Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far I only found one slight copyedit error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 28, 2012: French Supreme Court Decision

On February 28, 2012, the french Supreme Court has given a long awaited decision: Ph. Karsenty appeal is cancelled by the Supreme Court, see [2]. As a consequence, Ph. Karsenty will be judged for defamation. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting link in English [3]. Sounds inconclusive yet again...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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