Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [1].

Muhammad al-Durrah incident[edit]

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Nomination blurb[edit]

This is a partial self-nom. The 10th anniversary of this incident is coming up on September 30 this year, which is why I'm nominating it for FA status. Several editors have worked on it over the years, both on the article itself and by offering guidance on the talk page. A full list of editors is here, and talk-page contributors are here. It was largely rewritten in October this year, though earlier contributions helped to shape the rewrite. The top editors from 2009 are ChrisO, George, Jaakobou, and myself. Previous key editors were Jayjg, Tundrabuggy, and Liftarn. It is 41 kB (6502 words) of readable prose; 110 kB overall.

What happened to 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah is a highly contentious issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was filmed by France 2 on September 30, 2000 apparently being shot and killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a gun battle with Palestinian security forces. Multiple, conflicting, and sometimes overlapping narratives have developed about the incident over the years. The basic positions are as follows, with examples of who holds the view—the people cited are either involved, or are journalists who've written about the issue in depth:

  1. He was shot and killed by the IDF. Held by Charles Enderlin and Talal Abu Rahma of France 2; most of the media that first responded; the IDF initially. [2]
  2. He was shot and killed, probably or definitely by Palestinian gunfire. Held by e.g. General Yom Tov Samia of the IDF following a controversial November 2000 IDF investigation; [3] Daniel Leconte, former France 2 correspondent. [4]
  3. He was shot and killed, but we don't know who fired the shots. Held by e.g. Arlette Chabot, news director of France 2, [5] and Israeli historian Tom Segev. [6]
  4. He was shot and killed, and we don't know by whom, but not by the IDF soldiers known to have been there. Held by e.g. James Fallows of The Atlantic. [7]
  5. A boy did die that day in that area, but he arrived at the hospital (10 am) before al-Muhammad was shot (between noon and 3 pm), and the boy shown during the funeral was not al-Durrah. Muhammad may be alive or dead; there is no firm evidence either way. A small minority position, held by German journalist Esther Schapira, who has produced two documentaries about the incident. [8]
  6. There is no reason to suppose he was either shot or killed; the whole thing was a hoax. A very small minority position, the so-called "maximalist narrative." Held by e.g. Israeli physicist Nahum Shahaf who was involved in the October 2000 IDF investigation; Richard Landes, an American academic; Philippe Karsenty, a French media commentator; Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli govt press office; Luc Rosenzweig, a retired managing editor of Le Monde; Jean-Claude Schlinger, a French ballistics expert hired by Karsenty. [9] There is also a belief, held by at least one member of the October 2000 IDF inquiry, that the incident was staged, but that the boy's death was real and was part of the pretence.

The positions aren't as clear-cut as the above and overlap considerably. It has been difficult to steer a course through them, giving each view the attention reliable sources give it, but I think we've achieved a reasonable balance. The article covers all the main views comprehensively, without going into neurotic detail (I hope).

There are quite a few fair-use images in the article, as we had to use the original France 2 footage of the shooting. This is copyrighted, but although not released under a free licence, the network has allowed the images to be reproduced all over the world without charge, so there's no problem with our use of them. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter[edit]

Peter part 2[edit]

The article is much improved. I am going to support but:

  • "Rosensweig" or "Rosenzweig"? Both spellings appear.
  • Lead 3rd para: Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog. Should people be described as watchdogs? How about "campaigner"?
  • Lead 4th para. amounted to a modern blood libel. I think "modern version of the blood libel" would be better.
  • French times again. I suggest that you translate these times trhoughout into GMT in the same way as you translate the Palestinian times. So that you say 8:00pm (6:00pm GMT).

--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. Your first three points are fixed here. Regarding times, I think I'm too tired to do this right now, and I don't want to make a mistake, so I'll leave it until after I've had a short break. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's done. [10] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reconciled things the opposite way to what I expeced. But it is consistent now. So that's all my points dealt with. If the NPOV debate below results in more substantial updates, let me know and I'll check again.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 1[edit]

Material moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1#Wehwalt 1. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 2[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1#Wehwalt 2. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut[edit]

  • Comments
  • Spelling: Is it Ha'aretz or Haaretz; Canal Plus or Canal+.
  • I think the Wikisource link to Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 is buried in the notes. Shouldn't it be elsewhere?
  • Sources in notes but not refs: Reuters, May 21, 2008; Schapira 2000a [but seems to be a typo];
  • Sources in refs but not notes: CNN (September 27, 2000); Lungen, Paul (2008); Patience, Martin (2007); Prasquier, Richard (2008) [though Prasquier is mentioned in the text but linked to Barnavi]; Psenny, Daniel (2004); Ravid, Barak (2007); Rohan, Brian (2008); St Petersburg Times (November 28, 2000)
  • MinorEasily-repaired POV concerns about WP:LEDE: Yes, I see the logic of the lede, and its valiant attempt to be NPOV. I would even suggest that a majority of folks would agree that the lede is NPOV. However, it seems that the Palestinian POV is always placed in sequence before the Israeli one. Perhaps this reflects the chronological path of the development of conventional wisdom (as outlined above). However, and probably as a result, the initial paragraphs kinda lead the reader along a garden path, first painting an impression that the event was as the Palestinians would have it, then to some degree taking back the first impression with later statements. I would like to see this addressed by rewriting the first and/or second sentence of the lede to address the issue of shifting and POV-laden interpretations. I suppose this could involve WP:OR concerns if it is stated as explicitly as I just did, unless there are sources that address the shift in opinions... Even if that is the case, I still think that the uncertainty surrounding the event's interpretation should be right up there in sentence 1. I would also like the lede to contain some mention of what would seem to be the strongest piece of evidence in each camp's favor. Essentially, I'm asking you to abandon your current organizational structure in favor of one explicitly designed to address POV concerns.
  • • Ling.Nut 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ling.Nut, I rewrote the first three paragraphs of the lead to make it clearer (I hope) how views had shifted, and what the different positions are. See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the center of the controversy, yet for the most part silent". I got the Pearson story, and didn't see anything resembling this text. Was Pearson your source? • Ling.Nut 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean "for the most part silent"? I don't recall that was in Pearson. It is a general summary of the articles that discuss how he hasn't said much about it since shortly after it happened. I can remove it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I mean. I don't see any mention at all of his [the father, you mean?} or anyone's reticence. Moreover — our text says "A psychologist who treated the six remaining children"; the Pearson text says "Mohammed Makhamier, who is involved in counselling the seven remaining Durra children". Oh dear. First, no identification of Makhamier as a psychologist, and second a (minor) miscount.
  • "For the most part silent" is removed. [14] Will change six to seven. I did name Mohammed Makhamier in an earlier version, but removed it as too much detail. Pearson does not use "psychologist," but I've seen Makhamier described as that elsewhere. I can use therapist if you prefer. Here is the relevant part of the text:

"Death of Mohammed al-Durra haunts Palestinian children by Bryan Pearson, 6 November 2000, Agence France-Presse

GAZA CITY, Nov 6 (AFP) - 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.

These symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are not confined to the Durra children, according to therapists counselling young Palestinians struggling to come to terms with the killings and violence currently characterising life in the Gaza Strip and West Bank ...

The repeated broadcasting of Mohammed's death is having a particularly devastating effect, she [Rawya Hamam, a therapist from the Gaza Community Mental Health Association] said.

The footage shows 11-year-old Mohammed cowering in terror next to his father, who is signalling for help from behind the small concrete wall where they are trapped; then being struck by bullets; and finally lying slumped across his wounded father's lap.

The boy was killed just days after the September 28 start of the intifada when he and his father were caught at the centre of a fierce firefight between Israelis and Palestinians near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, just outside Gaza City.

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 ...

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.

While most of the children believe their brother is now "a bird in Paradise," Adam, 7, still believes Mohammed, "who used to protect me from the bullies at school," will come walking home one of these days ..."

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your very first link is to a YouTube video that no longer exists. In its absence, can you justify the words "slumps forward" in the lede? I don't remember that description in Schwartz, but my memory is poor....no, I just checked, and Scwartz doesn't mention any slumping motion. Moreover, wouldn't a description of a YouTube video be WP:OR? Not that it matters.. you have to get rid of the cite anyhow, since the video is gone... • Ling.Nut 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find another link. That the boy slumped forward is not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is what caused him to slump over. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw Wehwalt's "Arab street" concerns. This sentence is obviously a rephrasing of the info about "brutality" taken from Patience, as given in the lede. It may or may be an accurate rephrasing, but that would seem to be its source.• Ling.Nut 13:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still finding "after which the boy slumps forward" completely unacceptable. I saw the video (WP:OR, but wait). There's no slumping motion. There's dust and out-of-focus jiggling, and then a boy in his father's lap. Schwartz didn't mention slumping, IIRC. One editorial source uses past tense and says "slumped in his father's lap", but "slumped"is poetic license here, and Wikipedia is not in the business of disseminating poetic license. Try Schwartz's text instead. • Ling.Nut 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, is the concern that reliable sources don't say the boy slumped over, or that editors don't see the boy slumping over in the video? The latter of these sounds like original research to me, while the former can be readily supported with sources:
  • William Orme, New York Times, "A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence", October 2, 2000 - "...the enduring image of the violence was a terrified Muhammad al-Durrah trapped by Israeli gunfire and then slumping lifeless into his father's lap."
  • Suzanne Goldberg, The Guardian, "Making of a martyr", October 3, 2000 - "That is what marks the spot where a terrified 12-year-old boy spent his final moments, cowering in his father's arms, before he was hit by a final shot to the stomach, and slumped over, dead."
  • Amy Waldman, New York Times, "Times Square Marchers Protest Killing of Palestinians", October 7, 2000 - "Several [protesters] said they would not forget the image of Muhammad slumped in his father's arms, an image shown frequently on television and in the nation's newspapers this week."
  • Lynne Duke, Washington Post, "Half a World From Gaza, a Crisis Still Hits Home", October 16, 2000 - "...Muhammad al-Durrah, cowering for cover in his father's lap, then slumping over lifelessly from a fatal bullet wound..."
  • Deborah Sontang, New York Times, "Whose Holy Land?: The victims; Israel in Shock as It Buries Mob's Victim", October 14, 2000 - "Muhammad was the 12-year-old shot dead by Israeli troops in a gun battle in Gaza, caught on film by a French cameraman, as the boy cowered behind his father and then slumped dead in his lap."
  • William Orme, New York Times, "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy", November 28, 2000 - "Doctors in Gaza who examined the boy said that he had been shot through the upper abdomen and that the back wound his father had seen as the boy slumped over was an exit injury."
  • Henri Astier, BBC News, "Gaza media battle in French court", November 13, 2007, "When Muhammad slumps to the ground, the reporter's script says the boy is dead and the father wounded."
If reliable sources described it as a "slumping" motion, why then shouldn't we also? ← George talk 04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are repeating a meme; the grammar is ambiguous in most cases as to whether the boy is seen slumping. the other cases are secondhend meme stuff again. • Ling.Nut 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true"? Am I missing some nuance in what you object to? Do you just want it to say "after which the boy is seen slumped forward" instead of "after which the boy slumps forward"? I don't particularly distinguish between the two, so either is fine with me. ← George talk 09:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ling.Nut, I understand your concerns, but here's the problem. We could change that sentence to something like: "The dramatic footage ... shows ... a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is reported to have slumped forward and his father appears injured," or, "The dramatic footage ... shows ... a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen lying across his father's legs, and the father appears injured."
The problem with both of those is that they signal too clearly that we're distancing ourselves. It would be like describing the crucial moment of the Kennedy assassination in the lead, as " The footage shows a burst of what was reported as gunfire, during which Mrs. Kennedy reportedly cradled her husband then appeared to leap to the back of the car." By writing like that, we immediately signal to the reader that we're distancing ourselves for some reason, even though the sources say Kennedy was shot, and that she was either trying to shield herself, or was trying to retrieve part of his head.
That Muhammad al-Durrah was not shot and killed is a very very small-minority thesis. I'm avoiding the use of "tiny minority" here, because it implies that it doesn't even belong in the article, though there are editors (good editors) who I think might argue that. Most of the reliable sources who have expressed concern about this footage argue simply that it did not show the boy had died, though Enderlin implied that it did, and that it did not show the Israelis shooting him, though Enderlin implied that it did. Out of that legitimate criticism of Enderlin's journalism, other commentators have developed a conspiracy theory that the boy wasn't really shot at all, and isn't really dead; or that some other boy was shot and killed, and that it's his funeral we see, and that the cameraman simply switched the names (or something like that -- there are a number of variations, some less coherent than others).
What you're suggesting is that, upfront in the lead with our very first description of this footage, we give credence to those very-small-minority views. That is what we're trying hard not to do. I've written this article so that those views are constantly hovering in the background, as it were (note the title -- it's not the "death of Muhammad al-Durrah," the normal title for this kind of story; note the lack of a date of death; note the lack of Template:Infobox person, which includes the date of death parameter) but without at the same time slanting the writing to the point where I'm saying right from the start, "Hey, look, there's something dodgy about this story." It has been a difficult balance to achieve, and I don't think we should take it further in either direction. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep repeating this "small minority" comment; I'd {{fact}} tag you if this were mainspace. My point is this: The quotes that George dragged up all look very suspiciously like quotes in which the article never mentions watching the end of the video. If that's true, then it also looks very suspiciously like the output of people slurping their morning coffee, sitting at their desks, regurgitating an Internet meme, and getting paid very serious mony for it (as "journalists"). The Schwartz quote explicitly references viewing the video repeatedly... so... here's the deal: very unfortunately, it's the week before Finals week here. I will be busy busy busy. Ideally, I would like to line up quotes from those who discuss repeatedly viewing the video and those who do not, and see whether text such as the following is doable: "although many journalists reported that the boy slumped after the gunfire, those who mentioned that they watched he video carefully reported only a cloud of dust, a boy lying in his father's lap, and then a brief motion from the boy raising his hands". Or something. You can make it read better. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable trying to infer how much research journalists did or didn't do, based solely on whether they explicitly mentioned watching the video to the end. That's the whole reason Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources—we're trusting those sources for their editorial oversight and fact checking. Rejecting multiple articles published by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and the BBC based on our own inferences doesn't sit well with me. Furthermore, the Schwartz article doesn't says that the boy didn't slump over, or that reports of the boy slumping over were somehow inaccurate or exaggerated. So essentially, you're surmising that all the journalists published in reliable sources were wrong because of what they didn't mention, while arguing that we should reword this statement based on what another journalist, Schwartz, didn't mention? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! But best of luck with your finals. ← George talk 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need luck for the finals; I need a painkiller. I'm a professor, not a student. ;-) As for your long discussion of your discomfort etc.: I am only interested in accurately representing the sources. If they say they watched it and say their descriptions are a result, I am interested in including that. If they do not, I am interested in including that. If the grammar of their statements suggests or does not suggest visible movement, I am interested in that. I want their statements to be represented excruciatingly accurately. • Ling.Nut 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut, I've changed that sentence to, "The dramatic footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen lying across his father's legs, with his father appearing injured." [17] But I think we need to be very careful what we're doing here, because we're taking the lead too far in the direction of the small-minority theories. I'll write more later trying to show that they're small minorities, but it's a difficult thing to do, because most of the journalists who've written a lot about the al-Durrah case have simply ignored the alternative theories as not worth mentioning.

    Also, if we were to start trying to evaluate which journalists did and didn't watch the footage carefully, that would be the essence of original research. The footage is anyway not hard to watch carefully, because there isn't much to see. It is clear at the very end -- the final scene that France 2 cut -- that the boy moves slightly. It is undeniable. The question is how to interpret that, if at all. Was it just a twitching movement of someone dying, and therefore not journalistically relevant? That is the argument of the key players who have commented on it, though most journalists have simply ignored it. Or was it the boy peeking at the camera? That is the small-minority theory. Getting into who did or didn't watch the footage carefully would not take us anywhere, and even if it did, it would be OR. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Ling.Nut: some indications of what the majority view is[edit]

There are three key stages in the development of the story:

  1. The shooting and the reportage from 2000 to 2004 roughly. During these years, there is no question that the majority view in the media was that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shot the boy and he died. I don't think anyone would dispute that this was the majority view at that time.
  2. January 2005-2008, when three senior French journalists, who had been given access to the raw footage in October 2004, wrote critically about it, two of them in Le Figaro. This resulted in stories less certain that the Israelis had shot him.
  3. May 2008 to the present, when Philippe Karsenty was cleared of libel by the Paris Court of Appeal for saying France 2 had broadcast a staged scene. The ruling simply meant that Karsenty was exercising his right to comment, by the way -- the court did not examine the substantive issue.

In October 2004, three senior French journalists viewed France 2's raw footage. Two them concluded (a) that the footage did not show the boy dying, contrary to the impression given by Charles Enderlin's original report, (b) that it did not show the IDF had shot him, contrary to Enderlin's report, and that therefore (c) Enderlin should not have concluded that the boy had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions." However, these two journalists stressed that, when the shooting starts, it is real, and that the event was not staged. The third journalist who viewed the footage disagreed, and declared that the event had been staged, and that it was "almost the perfect media crime." See this section of the article for the details.

As a result of this debate, the news editor of France 2 declared in 2005 that no one can say for sure who fired the shots. That is almost certainly the current majority view, namely that the the incident was not staged, the boy was shot and did die, but no one knows who shot him. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I don't wan to break in to the middle, so if you are planning to add more comments, please feel free to drop this down to the end, but when you say that the court found that Karsanty "was exercising the right to comment", why should this article not include the information here that the court stated that Karsanty marshaled a "coherent mass of evidence" in defending against the network's claim? Doesn't this elevate it to far more than a fringe theory? After all, this is the only judicial opinion we have (leaving aside the overruled lower court) and it has ruled what I just said.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am planning to add more if I can find material that helps. What I'm looking for are mainstream news organizations since 2005 who have written about this to see what language they use regarding the death issue. Still looking.
Regarding "coherent mass of evidence," my understanding of the ruling is that K's claims were coherent and therefore he had to be allowed to express them. I do take your point about this being the only judicial opinion available. It has been difficult to know how to handle it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a considerable difference between "right of expression" and has a "considerable body of evidence". I can say Obama (or Bush if you prefer) is crazy, and nothing can be done to me because I am free to express my view. However, my opinion on his sanity won't be given much weight by a court, because I have no mental health training and haven't met the man. However, if a court finds I have a considerable mass of evidence that (insert here) is crazy, that is entirely another kettle of fish, and my belief should be given considerable more weight (and yes, on Wikipedia) than some random guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one thing more, apologies if I cause an edit conflict. Looking at Karsanty's organizations webpage here (google translate result) there seem to be several useful links, that might be useful in presenting Karsanty's present position, and the reaction to it. You do seem to have used the Wall Street Journal Europe article, however, there are others. Even if you editorally don't want to use them for valid reason, do they not go to the weight of what may or may not be a majority or minority view (assuming, doubtfully, that this can be determined)?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added coherent mass of evidence to the lead, making it clear that the court didn't rule on the accuracy of the report itself. [18] I can't see any material on the Karsenty site that would be useful, apart from things we've already used. Did you have anything particular in mind? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you later. That isn't the lede, by the way, it is part of the article body unless I am missing something. And I would think the Hebrew Calendar is widespread enough that you shouldn't have had to add a publisher. Common knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the lead. It looks very long in edit mode because there are a few quotations in footnotes. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding how to judge what the majority POV is, this May 27, 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe might be helpful. [19] They have been sympathetic to the Karsenty position, namely that the incident was staged. They wrote after the May 2008 verdict in Karsenty's favour:

You probably didn't hear this news. International media lapped up the televised report of al-Durra's shooting on France's main state-owned network, France 2. Barely a peep was heard, however, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in a suit brought by the network against the founder of a media watchdog group. The judge's verdict, released Thursday, said that Philippe Karsenty was within his rights to call the France 2 report a "hoax," overturning a 2006 decision that found him guilty of defaming the network and its Mideast correspondent, Charles Enderlin.

That seems to confirm that the media has paid little attention to the hoax claims. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth bearing in mind is this: if this incident was staged, it means that King Hussein of Jordan and Colonel Gadaffi of Libya, who visited Jamal in hospital, were part of the conspiracy or had the wool pulled over their eyes, as did all the doctors who treated Jamal, the doctors who received Muhammad, and the pathologist who examined him, the hospital that certified him dead, and several of the key mourners at the funeral. Muhammad's family are in on it, obviously, pretending to be grief-stricken. Despite the money that Israel pays out regularly to Palestinian informants, not one of them has stepped forward in 10 years with information that Muhammad is still alive, or with a photograph of him, or with the story of how they pulled off the hoax. Despite the very large amounts of money the media and book publishers would pay for the story, Muhammad himself, now 22, has also failed to step forward, even though doing so would make him rich. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hardly think FAC is the venue for that argument. Here's another source from the Karsenty website, here, you asked for possible sources lined from there. Umm, SV, are you saying that the WSJ "have been sympathetic to the Karsenty position" for reporting it? Would you be willing to characterize the position of media who reported the original story in terms of sympathy?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a WSJ editorial, unsigned, meaning the newspaper's editorial board approved it. They are clearly sympathetic to the Karsenty position, as they happily confirm. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Google news archive search for stories about this. It shows the number of stories per year, and allows you to click on the year to highlight those particular stories. We could perhaps use this to pin down what the majority position seems to have been throughout the coverage, and how (or whether) it changed. See results for "Muhammad al-Durrah"; "Muhammad al-Durra"; "Muhammad al-Dura"; "Mohammed al-Dura". SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moutet notes that "All of those present at the [Le Figaro] screening-illustrious visitors and France 2 executives alike, the op-ed recounted-had ended up in full agreement that it was impossible to determine where the bullets had come from, but that it was highly unlikely that they could have come from the Israeli garrison." is this in the story anywhere? • Ling.Nut 09:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular quote isn't, but there's a lot about the reaction of the people who were present. See the France 2 exec in the third paragraph of the lead, that no one could say who fired the shots (she was at the screening), and the section here about the three senior French journalists who attended it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the Figaro op-ed doesn't say that quite as clearly as Moutet does. There's a courtesy link here for the op-ed. You can run it through Google translator for a rough English version. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to apologize again for being so disengaged as you face a (somewhat) rough nom (but not as rough as RCC forex). I think the link to "fifth grade" is a bit of a minor Easter egg; text should say some like "fifth grade in a Palestinian school" (you can make it sound better), with the link on the last two words for clarity. I think the "The scene on the day" section is a bit odd, since the images precede the text and take up a lot of vertical real estate before the text begins. Two or at most three sentences before the images would seem less odd. Finally, if you think the reviewers are POV or have shifted the article too far toward one POV, then move some evidence from the Palestinian POV to the lead. ... the fact that no one has seen the boy, or the father's offer to let the body be exhumed, perhaps? Oh and that "minimalist/maximilist" explanation seems lead-worthy as well. Up to you. • Ling.Nut 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that moving the POV in that manner could cause reviewers to reconsider ... as you yourself said, SV.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added something about the independent group and polygraph/disinterment offer to the lead, and moved a paragraph above the diagrams in the Scene on the day section. [20] Can't see what to do about the fifth grade thing. I would prefer not to have it there. One of the reviewers asked for it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a message from the Truly Picky department: many of your external links in the refs/cites are missing access date info. I have no idea whether this info is required or not, but I do believe consistency is required. So... hey, just work on the cites a bit. • Ling.Nut 06:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only ones that need access dates are where the material appeared only on a website, not in print. I think they do all have access dates, though I'll check again. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! I didn't know about the crucial word only. Got a link to the relevant rule etc.? • Ling.Nut 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITE#Citation styles: "the date you retrieved it if it is online ..." That wording was added recently. It used to say only if online. There's no sense in adding an access date if the article's in print. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added access to dates to everything that exists online, even if it's in print too. Once this FA is over (if it is ever over!), I'll ask at WP:CITE whether there was consensus for that change. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned. I think you've pushed it too far in the direction of the Palestinian POV. Such an offer, to offer to have disinterred an unembalmed body unprotected against the elements, what difference does that make after all this time? And to have a polygraph test taken on someone who was not there? What's that got to do with the price of pita? To have these things presented in this manner is not NPOV. I've held my nose on a lot of things in the interest of seeing a difficult nomination through in the interests of the encyclopedia. Ling Nut said, "if you think" that the reviewers have pushed the article in a certain direction, you can do such and such, he did not say you should or ask you to do it. You've taken the comment as carte blanche. Will wait and see what you do, but the lede is now bloated and unbalanced.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, if you want to oppose, please do, and we can leave it up to the delegates. For their information, Wehwalt objects to this being added to the lead:

In September 2008, Patrick de Carolis, the CEO of France Télévisions, which runs France 2, agreed to set up an independent group of experts to examine the issues.[12] Enderlin and Abu Rahma have offered to take polygraph tests if the soldiers at the IDF outpost take one too, and Jamal has said he is willing to have the boy's body disinterred."[13]

I've been willing to go along with Wehwalt's suggestions, but I have to draw a line now, both because I don't want the article to go too far in the direction of his POV (or anyone else's), and also because this is but flesh and blood that types here. I rewrote this article in October, which took a couple of weeks. I worked on it again in December and submitted it on December 31. At that point, I basically did another rewrite, mostly at Wehwalt's request, and extended several sections, which took me until January 14 of fairly solid work. And bear in mind that the edits you see tell only half the story, or less, because a lot of research went into this too. I've responded to all suggestions promptly. I've removed most of the images, though I believe some of them were needed for neutrality. It's now January 24. I'm done. I want my life back. The question is whether it's FA standard, and I believe it is, not whether it's perfect. So let the chips fall where they may. :)
To the delegates: the addition to the lead is not vital, so if the FA hangs on that, I'll remove it. But if it doesn't hang on it, I'd prefer to keep it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I don't believe there's any such thing as a Right Version of this article. There's nothing in here that would make me throw an NPOV-based hissy fit, though. May need more nitpicky edits, etc, though. • Ling.Nut 07:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to clarify that my remarks about "NPOV-based hissy fit" were about my tendency to do that (see forex Climate change denial). I just returned from dinner with the wife, and while eating it struck me that others may have misinterpreted my remarks. • Ling.Nut 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am sympathetic to SV's point of view, but this is why this article should have gone to peer review in the first place. We've spent several hundred thousand bytes trying to bring it to something approaching a neutral point of view, then at a slight suggestion from Ling Nut that she add on more Palestinian POV, she immediately does so, at some length. I'm sorry, if the article was satisfactory to both of us before, then why the addition? Yes, this has been a difficult FAC. It happens. It's an object lesson in why you seek outside feedback (that is, not in the hothouse of an article talk page or a WikiProject) before you bring an article to FAC. There remains considerable point of view in this article, much of which is expressed by choice of words and choice of position (in an overwhelming majority of crucial paragraphs and sections, though I will say not all), there is a choice to end with the Palestinian point of view. I'm not going to get into a numbers game, because some are debatable, but that's what I see in the article. I am somewhat distressed by this. I felt that we had reached a satisfactory accommodation, but going on and loading on one side of the scale does cause a problem, even if it makes me look indecisive. The delegates know I've worked with SV on this review and remained engaged and open to reconsideration. But reconsideration is a two way street. I should add that the oppose is clearly actionable. At this point, I am going to disengage, unwatch, and save some pixels. If further reconsideration is wanted, my talk page is always open. Note that I need the NFCC issues resolved too, but that's all I'm asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 3[edit]

Dweller[edit]

No opinion yet. That said, I think this article is a monster - there are potential POV problems waiting to break out on practically every word. The fact that the editors have got this close does them immense credit. I'm unsure it's ready yet for featured status, as I have some sympathy for various unaddressed issues above, and think there are probably others not yet raised, but I'd like to see it given the best chance of succeeding. For that reason, I'm commenting now to gently suggest to the FAC delegates that they let this one run for some time longer than they might otherwise do. And a suggestion to everyone - this page is likely to get very long - use of collapsing boxes for issues everyone agrees are addressed would be a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Comments -
  • Just a note here, I'm not doing an indepth review of whether or not the sources used are used "properly", just whether they meet the minimum standard for RS for Wikipedia. Given the nature of this article, I doubt that misuse of sources would escape other editors. I've also done some small ref tweaks to various and sundry formatting glitches.
  • Need to note non-English languages in the references.
  • On the Barnes and Noble ref, are you referencing the B&N blurb on the webpage or the book itself? If the book, title should be in italics.
  • the Feb 8, 2005 BBC ref needs a last accessdate.
  • The Hebrew Calender ref, needs a publisher, and what makes this a reliable source?
  • The Juffa ref needs a publisher
  • One further concern is that not all the newspaper article links go to the respective paper's websites. We need to make sure that we are not linking to copyright violations, and that all the various sites used for these courtesy links have the right to reprint the articles.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates you added to the Refs section have made the Refs inconsistent with the in-text citations (e.g. Smith 2005).
  • I think it's obvious the French articles are in French. Are you saying I need to add "French" somewhere?
  • I'm referencing the Barnes and Noble blurb, not the book.
  • The Hebrew Calendar isn't used as a source as I recall; it's just see also in the footnote.
  • Will check out the Juffa ref.
  • I don't know how we can check that the courtesy link sites have the right to reprint the articles. Are you saying I should email them and ask if they have permission? I'm not going to do that, so I'd suggest simply removing any links you think may be copyright violations. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert my ref tweaks, that's fine. But please note that you'll need to go through and make all the newspaper titles consistent with quotation marks around them. Also I added a few missing dates. I don't make the rules on the MOS, it says that we have to label non-English sources with the language used. I agree, it's a silly rule, but it's unfortunatly required. As for the courtesy links, it isn't my job to make sure there are no copyright violations, it is the job of the nominators, I'm afraid. After trying to help by doing a good chunk of ref tweaks, and getting told I did it wrong, I can't say I'm inclined to do much else here. But, generally, any site that has permission to reprint an article will note that on the page hosting the reprint. If that information isn't there, then it's probably best to remove the link. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert, it's fine. I think I'll leave all the links in for the time being, because otherwise reviewers will ask me to start quoting from articles they can't read, but perhaps at the very end of the review, I'll remove any that appear to be copyright violations. I can only think of one offhand that might be -- a page that reproduces two articles from Le Figaro. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it's a silly rule, Ealdgyth, it ought to be removed, not required. :) Where does it say we have to do that? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here - Wikipedia:Linking. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's just a guideline. I really don't want to have to go around adding "Le Figaro, a French-language newspaper," as the guideline suggests, when the writer's name is French and the headline French. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of hte MOS, which is part of the FA criteria. The specific one is #2, "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of...". At the top of Wikipedia:Linking it says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.". I don't like it much either, it's always struck me as pretty silly, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, as a piece of advice, there are lots of bits of the MOS that strike me as silly, but they are just hoops you have to jump through to get a FA. In the time you take to argue about it, they can be corrected. Please don't get me started on the non breaking spaces rules. And have you seen the video linked yesterday at WT:FAC? I share the lead writer's views on en dashes ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but the problem is that, if writers keep on "obeying" these rules, reviewers will continue to insist on them. Every time I approach FAC, I'm asked to do more and more. Instruction creep does creep forward, not backwards. I even did ALT text this time without a whimper, though I'm sorry to see that effort remains unacknowledged. :)
I can't find how to turn subtitles on for the video. I'm laughing already at the thought of it. :D SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have a script for n-dashes. And I have Malleus who does my non-breaking spaces, thank the gods. Citations, however, I've got to do myself. And they make my eyes bleed. (Hell, today, running through FAC is making my eyes bleed... blech! 8 more to go!) SV, if you get the language thing removed, I will thank you forever (not that I have to worry about it, I do not use non-English sources, thankfully.) The subtitles are down in the lower right corner of the video box, mouse over the little icons and you should get a pop-up that turns on subtitles. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found them, it's brilliant! :D SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Can I ask that the last three little piddling things get taken care of so I can strike them off? BBC ref needs a last accessdate, the Hebrew Calendar ref needs figuring out if its reliable or not (plus a publisher) and the language thing needs dealing with. The other two issues are notes for other reviewers, so they won't need to be struck for my work here to be done. (Frankly, the other issues on this FAC are swamping my watchlist...)Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help with "the Hebrew Calendar ref" if I can. Which one is it? --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did all of them, Ealdgyth, except for adding that the French stories are in French. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the (enhanced) Heb Cal ref now. I just wondered why it was needed at all? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The enhanced ref, or the use of it in the first place? The former, I don't know. The latter, I added it because we were discussing time and dates in Israel, and the fact that it was Rosh Hashana that day. So I added a 2000 Hebrew calendar. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SV. I'll be unwatching this, and if Sandy or Karan need me to check something, they'll ping me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I see no particular reason to have to cite the date of Rosh Hashana. I think it falls under common knowledge. The Hebrew Calendar is fairly widespread.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

  • I haven't yet had a detailed look, but at this stage the writing looks excellent. I will return. Tony (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said there was no evidence that the boy was wounded in his right leg or abdomen, as reported, and that if the injuries were genuine, they did not occur at the time of the televised events. Had the shots come from the Israeli position, he wrote, only the lower limbs could have been hit." Somewhere in here an opening quotation mark is missing. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, check the toolbox; there is one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more dabs have been introduced amid the wave of changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: recent edits[edit]

I've added some material that I hope will alleviate Ling.Nut's and Wehwalt's concerns by making things clearer and more informative, as follows:

  1. New lead (already discussed above)
  2. Second Intifada section: I've added a sentence from the Mitchell report noting that Sharon's visit did not cause the Intifada, though it was poorly timed, and a longer quote to the same effect in a footnote.
  3. Charles Enderlin section: A bit more detail about who Enderlin is, how he was perceived at the time, and where he was during the incident.
  4. A new section called The scene on the day, with two subsections describing the layout of the junction, which news organizations were there, and what their raw footage showed.
  5. Expanded Israeli response section slightly, so I think it's clearer who said what.
  6. Controversy section introduction: attributed "maximalist" and "minimalist" narratives, and who calls the latter a conspiracy theory.
  7. IDF investigation section: expanded for clarity
  8. Karsenty appeal section: expanded a little.
  9. Esther Schapira documentaries section: expanded to describe her research in detail.
  10. A new (short) section called Metula News Agency on the Israeli press agency that has promoted the alternative theories.
  11. Also quite a bit of general tidying.

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully convinced it is NPOV. I was especially struck by the loss of the "substantial body of evidence" (I probably misquoted) statement in what otherwise seems a comprehensive description of the France 2 appeal. After my objection re IDF taking responsibility, it seems still a very misleading and incomplete way of putting it in the lede; the reader is going to take that as an admission of guilt, and the IDF's current position is never made as clear in the lede. There are a number of other matters. I will continue to await fuller discussion before taking a final position, but I still think this article would benefit from peer review, rather than trying to make it work with extensive changes at FAC, which is really not what we're here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, the article can't be pushed as far as you would like in the direction of the alternative theories. I've taken Ling.Nut's advice to expand on those theories so that readers can make up their own minds, so it's now considerably more comprehensive than it was, and I think clearer and easier to follow. As for the IDF, they did say they were responsible on day three or four; see this section. Their subsequent October 2000 investigation was somewhat unofficial and widely scoffed at, including in Israel itself.
As for the lead, the writing has to be kept tight, and we can't get into summarizing the ruling without explaining what we mean by the summary, so it opens a can of worms and would lead to a POV treatment. As it stands, we just say in the lead that his libel conviction was overturned. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing what I said. Can you read my comment again? I didn't ask for what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment as saying you'd like to see "substantial body of evidence" in the lead again, and I explain why it's problematic. And you feel that saying the IDF accepted responsibility within a few days is misleading, and I explain that they did, and that their subsequent investigation that overturned it is regarded as questionable. What did I miss? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you talk above about the IDF's current position. Do you know what it is? All I'm finding are contradictory statements from people not clearly in charge, something they've been criticized for by the alternative theorists, because they're not coming out with a clear position. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they are hoping the incident goes away! Good point, I will amend that to say "later position". No, I'm not asking for the "coherent mass of evidence" to be in the lede, I'm asking for it to be in the body. As for the IDF, the statements from the days after the incident considerably varied, yet you summarize it as an acceptance of responsibility. I should note that I do not believe your cite to the Toronto Star of 10/4/00 is sufficient, we usually insist on the article name, the author if there is a byline, and either the page number or an online link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Star cite in the Ref section is: "The Toronto Star (October 4, 2000). "Israel admits to killing boy, 12." No byline. I will look to see if it's online, but I think the Star is Canwest, and they're not good with their online archives. "Coherent mass of evidence" is in the body of the article in the Appeal upheld section. Israel did accept responsibility. The named chief of the army did, the named government spokesmen did. It was others who didn't -- people not in charge. I think the section makes that clear enough. I could rename the subhead to "initial Israeli response," but as it's in the "Incident as initially reported" section, I felt that was already clear. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a pain with former canada.com articles, but such is Wikipedia, we have high standards for citation at FAC. As for talking about the acceptance of responsibility, I'm talking about the lede this time. As for Israeli command structure, are you saying that those not in charge set out to undermine their superiors' acceptance of responsibility? I think that that would really have to be cited, whether you are saying it or just implying it. Keep in mind that this would be the case in any nominated article. The lede would need to fairly reflect what's in the body, and if similar implications are made, the nominator would be expected to back it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As for talking about the acceptance of responsibility, I'm talking about the lede this time." Not sure what you mean by this. The lead makes clear that the army accepted responsibility within a few days. And they did. It also makes clear that over the following months and years, this came to be questioned. Now, I can add to the first mention of responsibility in the lead that it was later somewhat altered, but it would be over-egging the pudding somewhat (the lead doth protesteth too much). Also, have you read the section on the October 2000 IDF investigation? It involved replicas being built in the desert by people with no ballistics training. People were laughing at it. Haaretz said, "it is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation." So we can't represent that in the lead as, "They initially said they did it, but a later IDF investigation showed otherwise," as if the later investigation was a formal and respected one.
Regarding your question about the lower ranks undermining the superiors, no source that I've found says that explicitly, but it's clearly what happened, which is how you ended up with the strange October 2000 investigation. Some IDF people were furious that the IDF accepted responsibility, and did it so fast. I can perhaps find a source that says that. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More NPOV concerns: I'd like to see the instances of "shooting" changed to "incident"; I'd like some of the experts mentioned in the lede (facial recogniton, ballistics, etc.); I'd like "Muhammad was buried" altered to a non-NPOV stance ("a burial was held for a boy identified as Muhammad" e.g.). I am truly and sincerely sorry that I am dashing in and out. My remarks are not complete. I sincerely apologize. • Ling.Nut 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can look to remove instances of "shooting." The other suggestions I'd feel uncomfortable with, because it buys too much into the alternative theories. The facial recognition man was commissioned by the German television program. The French ballistics man commissioned by Karsenty. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean they're not independent sources. They're also barely mentioned by reliable sources, so I feel it would be UNDUE to add them to the lead. I'll try to find a workaround for the funeral wording. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the BBC article that you use as support, only says that the IDF officer said that Israelis were "apparently" or "probably" responsible. You delete the caveat. How about something like "While initial IDF statments indicated that it was likely responsible for al-Durrah's death, it subsequently conducted a controversial investigation that it states eliminated the possibility that the boy could have been hit by Israeli fire." Also, still waiting for resolution on the "coherent mass of evidence" thing in the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... well, I'd hardly call that completely neutral. Regardless of whether you feel the IDF investigation was a comedy routine, it appeared to form part of the Israeli position. I would say that what you are doing is closely analagous to the situation of a defendant who confessed and then withdrew his confession, "He confessed." That would hardly be a fair summation, and it is hardly a fair summation here. I realize you don't think highly of the later Israeli investigation, but firing shots at an identical pipe does seem the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel anything about the Shahaf/IDF investigation. All I do is report what the sources say about it, and they're uniformly critical so far as I can tell. Even the IDF and the Israeli govt distanced themselves from it, Haaretz calling it almost a pirate endeavour. We therefore can't write about it as though it was a respected, mainstream, official investigation. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"uniformly critical". It is sweeping statements like that, I suspect, and the effects on the article which come from that, that make it so hard to support. This article says "An Israeli army investigation concluded the gunfire could not have come from their position". This one (different author, same publication says "An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching." I will say this. Reviewing a contentious article is difficult. It must have been hard for reviewers when I submitted Natalee Holloway (with two conoms) and Jena Six, because people had strong views about the incidents described. However, we were very careful with the sourcing and how we characterized them, and that never became a serious issue. You need to do exactly the same thing. You need to make very sure that reviewers, especially those who interact with you here, are not left with the perception, possibly unjust, that every time you flip a coin in characterizing sources and quotes, that it does not come down on the side with the P mintmark. I am being blunt, while continuing to engage with you here. Please consider what I am saying as an attempt to help you. As I have said before, it would be the simplest thing possible for me to have maintained my oppose and gone away. I am trying to assist you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a strong POV on this issue, and it makes things awkward. I don't mean that disrespectfully and I hope it doesn't sound as though it is. I appreciate the input. But if I were to accede to your every request, the article would be unacceptably slanted in favour of the alternative theories. I feel you're picking and choosing which sources to highlight. I know that it's hard to do otherwise, because the only alternative is for you to spend weeks reading all the sources, so that you know which ones are representative. But that leaves a problem for me. I've been reading about this since 2006, and reading about it carefully since I started the re-write in October 2009. My reading of the sources as a whole is that the alternative views are more or less ignored by mainstream sources, and most of those who do report on them positively do so with caution. That the sources were "uniformly critical" is a fact. The Wall Street Journal opinion piece that you cite was written by Nidra Poller, who has been heavily involved in promoting the minority thesis. One of the problems here is that you're allowing all the sources equal weight.
Anyway, the point is that I can't slant this article any further in the direction you want. I'm sorry. I do thank you for your input so far, which has helped me to see areas that needed to be clarified. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has a POV on a lot of things. I'm generally sympathetic to the subjects of my bio articles, less so to the Nazi and sympathiser I wrote about, both of which are FA's. But the trick is not to make it show in the writing. You are welcome, and if it is OK, I will continue to comment. If you are interested, personally I think the boy probably died, but that it is just impossible to tell who killed him, and not really that relevant anyway which bullet "done him in". Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our personal sympathies or POVs are irrelevant. We should rely on what reliable sources say, which is something we've been disucssing on the talk page for some months now. As SlimVirgin stated, the vast majority of reliable sources were highly critical of General Samia's investigation. Your links to an op-ed by Nidra Poller in the WSJ Europe, and an article that cites Poller in the sentence immediately prior to your selected quotation ("But nagging doubts soon emerged, as Nidra Poller recounts here. An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching.") have little bearing on how most reliable sources reported on the investigation.
Normally this would be too much detail for such a discussion, but since editors here haven't been privileged to the full discussion and source review for the last several months, it might be helpful to discuss how reliable sources reported the investigations & comments about them:
  • Muhammad and Jamal al-Durrah are shot.
  • Three days later, General Giora Eiland, Israeli Army Chief of Operations, said "There was an investigation by the major-general of the southern command and apparently (the boy was killed by) Israeli army fire at the Palestinians who were attacking them violently with a great many petrol bombs, rocks and very massive fire."[25] The Major General of the Southern Command was Yom-Tov Samia.
  • Nahum Shahaf, a civilian Israeli physicist, watches the video, notices an "apparent anomaly."[26]
  • Shahaf contacts Yosef Duriel, an Israeli engineer, after reading an editorial Duriel wrote that criticized the IDF for not saying that the Palestinians had used al-Durrah as a human shield. Shahaf proposed they work together on an investigation.
  • A few weeks after the shooting, Shahaf and Duriel contact General Samia to perform a investigation.[27] Some criticized the investigation because General Samia had an apparent conflict of interest (as the person in charge of the base accused of the shooting), while others criticized the use of civilian investigators (Shahaf had previously, and controversially, raised questions about who shot Yitzhak Rabin). The investigation consists of a reenactment of the shooting at another location (because the IDF bulldozed the original).
  • Mid-investigation, Duriel does an interview in which he said that the investigation would prove that the Palestinians had deliberately shot the al-Durrahs as propaganda. Samia fired Duriel for his comments.
  • The investigation is completed, concluding that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs (the so called "minimalist" alternative theory view). The investigation "never published the report of its findings nor the identity of its members."[28]
  • The investigation was not accepted as the official Israeli position, and was widely panned by government officials and the media: "Reports say the Israeli army's chief of staff, Gen. Shaul Mofaz, assured Knesset members that Samia acted alone and that the army was investigating his actions. It has been reported that the scientists used by Samia were not ballistic experts and that at least one of them was convinced that Palestinians shot Aldura before they began the project. The Ha'aretz newspaper quoted Knesset member Ofir Pinnes as saying, 'It seems that instead of dealing with the incident and drawing harsh conclusions, the army preferred to conduct a fictitious reconstruction...with preconceived conclusions.'"[29] Ha'aretz wrote that "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."[30] Duriel sues a man that sent a letter, critical of the investigation, to the editor of Haaretz. He loses the case. The Israeli judge comments that that investigation was "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional".
And so on... Shahaf & Duriel go off and perform their own investigations. Shahaf collaborates with German journalist Esther Schapira on her documentary in the following year, but is "disappointed" that she only advances the "minimum" version of his case (that the Palestinians may have shot them). Schapira then makes another documentary questioning if the boy was even killed. Karsenty gets sued for his comments, and the case goes back & forth on appeal. Years later, Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office says he thinks the whole thing is a hoax, but the Israeli government distances itself from his comments. Yada yada yada. ← George talk 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a note was left on my talk page. There's now 160K on this nom, so stuff easily gets lost! Right now I am neutral on this article, but may yet take a position. I'm waiting to see how other editors weigh in. I'm also curious to see how the article's very heavy reliance on fair use images gets resolved. We haven't yet had an image check. Watching and waiting. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli response section clarified, as requested. See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good source, many thanks. I also appreciate your reformatting the references so you can go with one click from teh reference section either to the actual reference or the text. But if I read the piece correctly (definitely usable under WP:SELFPUB, the Israeli position in 2000 was that they has shot the boy, so I drop any quibble on acceptance of responsibility. But you say that it shifted by 2007. If I read the JP piece, the guy is saying that by 2001, Israel was saying that it was unclear who had shot the boy. Suggest you make an appropriate change there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear enough that the change was gradual. Obviously there are two clear points in time -- formal admission in October 2000, then formal withdrawal of that admission in September 2007. But in between there was shifting:

In late October 2000, General Samia set up a controversial team of largely non-military investigators (see below), who concluded that the IDF was probably, or certainly, not responsible, depending on who was issuing the statement. The investigators' report was not published, but was presented in 2001 to the Prime Minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office. Gissin and Seaman began to challenge France 2 in media interviews, to the point where the network threatened the Prime Minister's office three times with legal action. In 2005, Major-General Eiland publicly retracted the army's admission of responsibility, and in September 2007 a government press office statement to that effect was approved by the Prime Minister's office. Seaman writes that this was done, at least in part, because Israel's reluctance to support Philippe Karsenty in the libel action France 2 had brought against him (see below)—a reluctance based on an unwillingness to appear to interfere in another state's legal proceedings—was being misinterpreted as a validation of the France 2 report.

Also, the Seaman article doesn't count as self-published. It was published by The Jerusalem Post. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selfpub covers more than just cranking your own printing press, it includes questionable sources. It is an op-ed piece, normally that would not be usable, but it can be for Israel's position. I don't see why the statement in the article that by 2001 Israel had taken the position that they didn't shoot the kid and was acting on that is not used instead of 2007. Is there any shifting going on between 2001 and 2007? It seems that they considered the matter closed in 2001, realized that their position was being misinterpreted in 2007, and issued a clarification. It seems pretty clear that by 2001 at the latest, Israel was saying "it wasn't us", the rest is relatively minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SELFPUB covers only sources that are clearly self-published. And an SPS is not the same as a questionable source either. This is neither. It's a primary source, perfectly fine to use.
Israel hadn't taken the position that they didn't do it by 2001. It was just individuals in govt challenging the assumption. You seem to read things very differently from me, Wehwalt. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we agree it is usable. Nuff said.

The 2001 thing seems to come from this in the JPost article:

The analysis and findings were presented to the prime minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and then to myself in early 2001. After reviewing dozens of hours of materials, and only after all our questions had been addressed to our satisfaction, was our initial skepticism transformed into confidence that there was no basis for the accusations leveled against Israel in the France 2 story. Armed with that knowledge, both Gissin and I, as official representatives of the State of Israel, challenged the integrity of the France 2 report in several media interviews.

While it doesn't say when those challenges took place, the language used seems to suggest a time contemporaneous to 2001. That's what I am going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paragraph I added makes that clear enough, I think. It took them another six years before they could persuade the govt to issue a formal retraction of the admission. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that "it took them another six years before they could persuae the govt to issue a formal retraction of the admission"? I don't read the article that way. That implies that they were trying and failing to do that. I don't see that anything really happened as regards the Israeli position after 2001 other than a formal statement being issued in 2007. I also don't like the word "admission" in the lede, I would suggest "statement" or "position". Admission is more or less equivalent to confession.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an investigation in 2000 that the govt distanced itself from, Seaman got on board in 2001, it took another four years for the IDF to change its position formally, and another two years for the govt to do so formally. They did admit it in 2000. Sorry, I think the confusion within Israel has been made clear enough. If we impose any more clarity on it, we'll be distorting it. :) The fact is, there was internal dissent, internal confusion, inconsistent public statements. And I have length concerns now, so I don't want to go into any more detail on that point. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another update[edit]

Just to clarify, in case this page is confusing, I've finished the expansions and clarifications for Ling.Nut and Wehwalt, and the edits I'm making now are just tweaks while I wait for other reviews. I can't see any key issue that is missing or that remains unclear, and I think the length now has to be watched, so I'm reluctant to expand anything else. The changes have been:

  1. New lead
  2. Second Intifada section: I've added a sentence from the Mitchell report noting that Sharon's visit did not cause the Intifada, though it was poorly timed, and a longer quote to the same effect in a footnote
  3. Charles Enderlin section: More detail about Enderlin, his stature in France, and where he was during the incident.
  4. A new section called The scene on the day, with two subsections describing the layout of the junction, which news organizations were there, and what their raw footage showed.
  5. Expanded Israeli response section, so I think it's clearer how their position has evolved over time.
  6. Controversy section introduction: attributed "maximalist" and "minimalist" narratives, and who calls the latter a conspiracy theory, explained a little more what the basic problems are.
  7. IDF investigation section: expanded for clarity
  8. Karsenty appeal section: expanded for clarity.
  9. Esther Schapira documentaries section: expanded to describe both her documentaries in detail.
  10. A new (short) section called Metula News Agency on the Israeli press agency that has promoted the alternative theories.
  11. Added images from the pathologist, the funeral, and what appears to be an image of Muhammad on a hospital trolley.
  12. Swapped the infobox for one with more appropriate parameters.
  13. Quite a lot of general tidying and copy editing for flow.

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As this page nears 200kb, I think it is time for those of us who have been watching the discussions to declare our hands. When I first read the article I shared some of the concerns expressed about POV content and questions of balance, though not perhaps to the extent expressed by others here. As a result of the lengthy discussions and negotiations I believe that the article is now as neutral as it is possible to be, given the flammable nature of the topic. No doubt it is impossible to get everyone's agreement on this, but I think SlimVirgin is to be commended for the way she has engaged with the article's critics – who should also be commended for the civil and generally constructive way in which these discussions have been conducted. I don't normally like seeing this degree of debate at FAC, but in this case I think it was justified, and I can't think that such attention would have been devoted to it in any other forum. The article is no doubt capable of further minor improvement, and I may yet essay a few prose tweaks, but overall I am pleased to support the article as it stands; now possibly the most balanced account of the incident and its aftermath available anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brian. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I'm not quite as enthusiastic as Brian, but I think this article gets the job done in a contentious area. The latest set of changes pushes it over the line for me. Featured articles are not perfection, there is a range in which they fall. I'm not totally convinced it is NPOV, I'm pretty sure it isn't, frankly, but it falls within the acceptable range of views. It is well written, and SlimVirgin has been more amenable to reasonable changes in the article than I expected when this hoorah started. I'm personally fairly weak kneed when reviewers come along and ask for changes, but I won't penalize SV for standing up for her article. I know she is considering at least one more nom in this contentious area of I/P relations, perhaps there will be lessons learned on both sides before she brings another one. Note that the article has yet to have an image check, my support is subject to any necessary changes being made there, it is quite possible that some of the fair use images may need to be looked at. I would not have written the article in the same manner. But it is within WP:WIAFA and ought to pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Wehwalt. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
np. It turned out much better than I expected it too. I think there are still questions about the images, but those will be addressed when one of our image hawks finally reviews the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I think this is a really good article. As you know, I often complain about tiny writing on maps and diagrams. The map is just on the boundary of readability, but the text on the diagram is way too small. In case it's my machine alone, I checked with His Grace, who said he can just read "Orchard", but nothing else. Do you have control of the original? Can the text-sizes be boosted? There's lots of white space for it. Tony (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to increase only the text, Tony, and I'm wondering if it's anyway better to preserve the original. We do have a copy of it that a Wikipedian made, but it wasn't exactly the same -- some of the angles differed, though in ways that maybe don't matter. I'll try to find it and post it here. We could always just increase the size of the whole thing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the image on the right, made by a Wikipedian, but for some reason he changed the angles of the crossroads. Not that it makes a difference, but it's not the same as the cameraman's original, and the writing isn't any much clearer, so I'd prefer to use the original. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've increased it to 350px; see here. It could probably be a little larger still if you prefer. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible the original image can be justified. This ne though, is intended to reproduce a copyrighted drawing, and I suspect it is incorrectly labeled as free use. I'd avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim V, this one is better, although if WP has control of the electronic copy, the blue text could be boosted. It's no big deal, and even if you have to go back to the previous one (which could possibly be positioned "center" and boosted more), I can cope. But in general, I do encourage WPians to be more generous in the font-size on their images, particularly when there's no shortage of space within the image.

I just want to make a point that SV sometimes takes on extremely challenging topics for her FA nominations, particularly WRT sourcing, structure and striking the right balance. Although entirely within our NOR rules, they manage to be original works and are valuable pieces on the Internet (there's no resource like this article, I think, in its synthesis). It's brave, and I think we should be very pleased someone is doing this. Tony (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Tony.
I've created three versions of the section called "The scene on the day" with various diagrams:
  • The first is the original cameraman's diagram centered and enlarged; see version one.
  • The second is a centered and enlarged copy of the cameraman's diagram created by a Wikipedian, but I'm not keen on this because it didn't get the angles quite right; see version two.
  • The third has the cameraman's original 2000 diagram and the French ballistic expert's 2008 diagram enlarged and side by side, explaining the key difference between them; see version three.
I think my own preference is version three, because it makes things immediately clear for the reader. An objection to it might be that it places the cameraman's version on a par early on with the ballistic expert's version; some editors might object to that because the latter is connected to the alternative theories, and specifically because the ballistics expert was hired by Philippe Karsenty for his appeal in 2008. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last seems preferable. Please remember that someone owns the copyright on the cameraman's diagram. Therefore, a "reproduction" by a Wikipedian is a reproduction (as you note, somewhat changed) of a copyrighted image, and the Wikipedian has no rights he can release under the Creative Commons license. Even if the original qualifies as fair use, the reproduction cannot.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have concerns that the altered angles in the copy might somehow affect the ballistics arguments. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, but am content to let you make that argument :) . I just stuck to policy!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, let me observe that your line that this nomination should fail because it didn't go through GA or peer review first is not admissible. Correct me, please, but I see no such FAC criterion. This is what makes me suspect that there's a prejudgement here, almost on personal grounds. It's only a suspicion, not an accusation, though.

The article, IMO, is just excellent. It's a hard one in which to get the angle right, but the nominator is highly skilled and experienced in (1) sourcing and verification, and (2) attaining NPOV. I think the article is well worth the bronze star as an example of our best work—of WP's ability to debate its way through the delicate issues at play in this article. Tony (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: first, it's not that freaking excellent. Probably through no fault of the nominator(s), it has a slight "consensual soup" tang to it. Second, and far more importantly — I've always gagged when people type "AGF". But AGF. • Ling.Nut 11:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ling, it's not a question of good or bad faith. It's just never a good idea for one reviewer to have so much input when it comes to a delicate POV balance. Wehwalt posted thousands of words, 22kB in around 70 posts, switching from oppose to strong oppose to neutral to weak support and back to oppose, depending on whether he liked what I was writing. That isn't appropriate when it's someone with a strong POV of his own. Otherwise what we're saying is that this one person's point of view may overrule the input of the other reviewers, and the 400 editors who've worked on the article, and the person who's done most of the writing, and that can't be right. An article like this needs to be reviewed by largely disinterested people.
Don't take that to mean that Wehwalt's input wasn't helpful, because it was. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

In the hope this makes things easier for reviewers, there are 23 21 18 images in the article, 15 13 10 of them fair use. This is more fair use than would normally be acceptable in an FA, but if there were ever a strong case for it, it's here. The entire controversy is about the images of the boy: the raw footage and what it shows; the images of the boy in the morgue and hospital; and the images used of him elsewhere and their impact e.g. postage stamps.

A breakdown of the fair-use images:

  1. Seven are frames taken from the original France 2 raw footage: (a) the lead image, (b) Jamal waves in the direction the cameraman said the bullets were coming from, (c) Jamal seems to shout something in the direction of the cameraman, (d) the reported impact, (e) the scene directly after the reported impact, (f) showing the pattern of bullet holes in the wall, (g) the scene France 2 cut. France 2 retained the copyright on this footage, but released it free of charge to media around the world in September 2000. It has become iconic and ubiquitous, and it's the only real evidence that exists of what happened.
  2. Two are diagrams—the France 2 cameraman's and the ballistics expert's—of the junction on the day of the shooting. They are important because there is a key difference between them regarding where the Palestinian police were standing. Both diagrams have been submitted as evidence to court cases in Paris.
  3. This is of the funeral. It is taken from a documentary about the incident, though who originally filmed it is unknown. Some sources say the boy at the funeral is clearly Muhammad, though others say it is not him, including a facial-recognition expert.
  4. This was taken by the pathologist in the Gaza hospital morgue, and released to a German documentary-maker and others. Again, it is used for comparison purposes with the image in the funeral. Some sources are arguing it is not Muhammad. The article would be significantly less informative without those two images.
  5. A frame from footage taken of the same scene from a different angle by Reuters, and owned by them. It is being used to show that another cameraman did film the situation, though he didn't film the shooting. Jamal's hand can be seen in the lower left of the image. This image is also widely available.
  6. This is an image of unknown provenance that was obtained by the German documentary-maker. She said in the documentary that she does not know where it came from. It appears to be Muhammad, and he seems to be wearing the same shirt that was seen in the raw footage.
  7. This image of Jamal in hospital the day after the incident is included because his injuries are being questioned. Copyright is France 2, but these images were also released for free by the network.
  8. This image of stamps that bear the al-Durrahs' image, as an example of the tributes that were paid across the Arab and Muslim world.

Free-licenced images are:

  1. Temple Mount
  2. Map of the Gaza Strip
  3. Efraim Sneh
  4. Isaac Herzog
  5. Shaul Mofaz
  6. Ophir Pines-Paz
  7. The boy in the Warsaw Ghetto
  8. Avenue Al Qoods, Bamako, Mali

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout's comments[edit]
My question is why is File:Diagram of junction with Schlinger report.JPG is used twice? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until a couple of days ago, it was used only in the lower section. Then I enlarged it, and added it to the earlier section next to the cameraman's diagram, for the sake of comparison. I was unsure whether to remove it from the lower section at that point, or leave it there for the reader to look at again, so I left it. If it's a fair-use issue (i.e. if we can only justify one use), I'd prefer to remove it from the lower section. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a fair use image, I would suggest removing the lower image and perhaps make a link to the top section to both maps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, my concerns are addressed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could whoever gives the images a second once over assure themselves of compliance with WP:NFCC? That is really my concern on that front. It does contain a lot of fair use images. It may be justified, and I've been urging SV to beef up the rationales, which she has, at least here. But I'd like to see it specifically addressed by an outside person with image experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs's comments[edit]
  • On a non-substance side, it would be nice if all the rationales and source info was consolidated into a template like {{Non-free use rationale}}. Many reviewers (ok, I do at least) like this because it makes it much easier to see which part of the FU rationales need work and which are sufficient. Anyhoo.
  • Free images look fine, with appropriate info, sources, et al (I cannot however verify this OTRS ticket as I do not read Hebrew).
  • All the free images have rationales. The question is a) the strength of those rationales, b) if they substantially increase readers understanding and if it would be a serious detriment without them, and c) their resolution. I have issues with some of them, below:
SV response to David[edit]
  • You're suggesting that we remove some of the most important images. Bear in mind that the frames from the France 2 footage were all used in evidence in the Paris Court of Appeal in 2008. They were shown to the court and described and analysed frame-by-frame, because each frame is important. It would be odd to have a comprehensive FA on the incident that excluded them. They're the source of the controversy. They are the story.

-- France 2 footage from Sept 30, 2000:

-- France 2 footage from October 1, 2000:

  • the image of Jamal injured is important because some people are saying he wasn't shot; France 2 distributed this image to show that he was in hospital and appeared injured.

-- Other non-free images:

  • the pathologist's image of the boy in the mortuary is obviously important in an article about whether he is dead; the pathologist has given the images to journalists because of the doubts that he died.
  • the Reuters image shows the perspective of a cameraman who was hiding with the al-Durrahs for a few minutes. This is taken from behind them. It shows the reader what they saw. Again, this is an image that was shown to the court in Paris. The importance of it is that critics say it shows two things: (a) that this wasn't such a dangerous position to be in because a cameraman was also there for part of the time, and (b) that, if the Reuters man was able to move away, so were the al-Durrahs.
  • you said above of File:Funeral image Muhammad al-Durrah 2.JPG and File:Schapira documentary image, possibly Muhammad al-Durrah.JPG, "We're not forensic experts, how are we supposed to know if they're the same kid or not." The point is not so that we can decide. It is twofold: first, in an article about whether a boy died, an image from his funeral is clearly relevant, and secondly, the point is to show the reader which images are causing the controversy, and which images are being compared by the sources.
  • I've removed the image of the stamps. [32]

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt's comment[edit]

Comment Unhappily, sometimes we have to sacrifice images we love to get compliance with WP:NFCC. It is tough. It frankly sucks. But we are the free encyclopedia, which means that almost everything therein shoudl be free. A FA is our best work, an exemplar of what it means to be Wikipedia. It should not heavily rely on unfree images. I will say this. The lead image (which is not free, of course) is utterly iconic and eye catching. You could have no other images in the article and it would barely matter. I could even make the argument that having too many images is distracting the reader from the first one. Note also this: Wikipedia is intended just as a starting point. With the many links in the article, the sufficiently interested reader can go on and discover other images. Having too many images is just as bad as having too much text, either way it is clutter and diminishes the impact on the reader. From my exprience (and I bet, at heart, your experience) with FAs, you know you are going to have to lose "some of the most important images". Your writing has been praised by some of the best people we have here, the images do not make or break the article, because the prose has already made it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV's views on which images are crucial and why[edit]

I see the following fair-use ones as crucial, in the sense that the article would be seriously undermined without them:

  1. the lead image, because it is the best-known of all the frames (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal), and it is neutral: he's not waving or shouting in either direction, Israeli or Palestinian—I need a neutral one for the lead.
  2. the two diagrams of the junction on the day, File:Diagram with cameraman's affidavit1.JPG and File:Diagram of junction with Schlinger report.JPG, because the first is the cameraman's view of where the shooters were, and the second is the critics' view, and they differ in one crucial respect (shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  3. Jamal waving toward the Israeli post, because some sources say he was signalling to his killers (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  4. Jamal appearing to shout in the direction of the cameraman, because critics say he was shouting at his killers who were standing behind the cameraman; the cameraman says no, he was just shouting to the cameraman himself for help (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  5. the moment of the shooting, where all we see is dust; the fact that all we see is dust is one of the reasons for the controversy (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  6. the final frame broadcast by France 2, crucial because it is where France 2 chose to end their footage of the shooting, and announce that the boy was dead (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  7. the scene after the final frame that was broadcast, crucial because it shows the boy was not dead when France 2 said he was; this is the frame that sparked the controversy (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
And the following as important:
  1. the boy in the morgue, important because people are saying there was no dead boy, but here he is - a dead boy (image broadcast in France and Germany)
  2. the boy at the funeral, important because it seems to show the same boy who lay in the morgue, according to the sources (image broadcast all over the world)
  3. Jamal in hospital covered in bandages, a France 2 image, important because critics say he wasn't injured (image broadcast all over the world)
Any documentary, newspaper or magazine that was producing a comprehensive account would include these images if they had space. We do have space. Our fair-use policy allows for the use of this kind of image when the story hangs on it, and it really does in this case. Add to that the fact that France 2 distributed their images free of charge, so there is no monetary issue regarding those ones, which is the key reason for the fair-use restrictions. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, it's not space, but the idea that we should be using free content whereever possible, and thus that means essentially discouraging nonfree content. Whether or not a copyright holder has given permission for an image to be used (not changing the license), it really isn't germane to the points above. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of important images, but we have to prioritize. My point is that most of the content above can simply be described by text. Sure, it would be great to have visual accompaniment, but we can get on by just as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that all images could be described using words. If we allow any fair-use images, it means we do sometimes admit that words aren't enough, and given that this article is about the France 2 images -- the whole controversy is about the images -- and they've been distributed for free by the copyright holder, published repeatedly all over the world, have been ordered to be shown in public during at least one court hearing, and have become iconic, it would be bizarre not to include them. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that the various "conclusions" drawn from seeing the man and the boy don't really come through from a still photograph. I do not think any of the man and boy are really needed except for the iconic one. It just loses something in translation from a video to a still, and I don't see that the reasons are strong enough to keep them. The one of the out of focus shot... well, it conveys just dust, which can be described in words. Jamal waving to the Israelis, well, all I see is him leaning against the barrel with his hand in the air. It's not possible from the image to see who he's waving at, he just has his hand facing the camera (which leads to interesting questions about what the cameraman was shooting :) )Then Jamal looking towards the camera, well, that really doesn't show anything, though it does allow for a caption for the cameraman to say it was "raining bullets". I think, SV, what you are trying to do is make them almost like a moving sequence, which is not a bad idea, it is just not possible in fair use. I note that the reader can readily find the original video through the references. What the current sequence does is try to be a poor-man's substitute for the video, and that's not why we have fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the photographs of the boy apparently dead are only important to rebut the contentions of a tiny minority. That are the only reasons you've stated here, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an opinion from Elcobbola, who wrote the Signpost article on non-free images in FACs. I just want to leave this note for him here that the guideline I'm relying on is Wikipedia:Fair use, the "Acceptable use" section, where it says, "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support

  • I have read much (but not all) of the article, which in general seems excellent. I am commenting on two issues: neutrality; and non-free images.
  • For the information of other participants here, I read the article as an outsider who knows nothing of this incident (other than my memory of hearing the news reporting many years ago): I came away with the impression that the prevailing argument is that the incident was probably a set-up of some sort. Reading the comments above, if the WP editorial consensus is that the set-up / hoax theories are minority / fringe, then the article does not have that 'feel' to it.
  • Regarding the images: I have some sympathy with Wehwalt's comment that stills from the video lose a lot in the translation, and that the article may not need all of these. I particularly agree that the one showing, basically, dust at the moment of shooting can readily be conveyed in words. The 'death throes' still image really is of little help - if anything, this moment can only be conveyed effectively with a moving image, so if the video is not available, then this still can also be replaced by words (which may give a more accurate sense of the issue than does the still image). Finally, i do not think the two body and funeral stills are necessary. Again, the words of the article actually give a better explanation of their significance. The other video stills appear to me to add more value. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton, I'm not sure I can do anything about the neutrality issue, because I changed a lot of the article in response to these reviews, so to change it back would risk unsettling the other supports. However, I may be able to tweak it here and there to deal with your concerns. Was there any section, any passage, any wording that added to your sense that the article was leaning too heavily in one direction? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed three images: death throes, funeral, and morgue. [34] I want to keep the sequence of France 2 images if at all possible. The lead image has to be neutral. It therefore can't be the one where he's waving to the Israeli position, and it can't be the one where he's shouting toward the Palestinian position. But I would like those both to be in the sequence, because commentators on either side cite those images as, "Ha, see? He's waving and shouting toward the direction of the bullets." The shooting dust image is there because it shows the camera went out of focus: commentators have asked why etc. It's a key issue.

    So anyway, that's it down to seven non-free images: five from the France 2 footage, and two diagrams. Would you regard that as acceptable? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed two more: to be neutral, I've removed the one where he seems to be waving to the Israelis, and the one where others says he was shouting to the Palestinians. [35] We are therefore left with (a) the neutral lead image, where he's neither waving nor shouting, (b) the moment of the reported shooting where the camera loses focus (this is a controversial and much-discussed frame on both sides), and (c) the last frame shown by France 2 where they declared the boy had died (also controversial and much-discussed on both sides). Plus the two diagrams. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free image policy is not my strong suit, so i will be interested in other comments, but i think those image removals should at least make the task of ticking this article at FA a bit easier. You have removed the ones that I thought were most readily replaced with words, apart from the moment of the reported shooting, and i understand your argument in respect of that. You ask about specific suggestions re nuetrality in the text. Unfortunately i don't have specific suggestions - i know that is of very little help - i can only report the overall effect of reading the text on my 'sense' of the balance of views. I just raised it because there seemed to be a suggestion that theories that the boy didn't die, or was shot in a set-up of some sort were fringe views. If that is so, then one certainly doesn't get that impression. But I'm afraid that is all it is, an impression. I agree that it will be very difficult to re-open this debate on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. If the images use rationales are now in order (with the reduction in non-free image numbers), and editors overall consider the POV to be an acceptable compromise, then i would certainly support this being at FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Hamiltonstone. When I brought the article to FAC, it was much less inclined toward the alternative theories, but I had to change a lot of that in response to Wehwalt's and Ling.Nut's suggestions—and I believe Wehwalt feels I didn't change it enough, but I did as much as I felt I could justify. As it now stands, it shouldn't advocate for the alternative theories, or incline in their direction, but it also shouldn't undermine them. The structure was chosen carefully in that regard: the incident as initially reported (which reflects the original, mainstream "Israel did it" views) followed by a "controversy" section, which I normally don't like to have in articles, but in this case I felt it was needed to separate the views, rather than weaving them all throughout the text. So, for example, Esther Schapira, a respected, mainstream German journalist, is given her own section, rather than being used a secondary source throughout. In that way, the structure is signalling, "these are the alternative, minority views," while at the same time giving them sufficient coverage for readers to understand them. It was a difficult balancing act, and I know it's imperfect, but it was the only way to get agreement from editors and reviewers with different POVs. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I thought it was neutral enought to give support to. No article is completely neutral. It's in the ballpark. I feel that there is more that can be done, but suspect the remaining rough edges will be worn off over time. Regarding the images, I said my piece, and am content that it is being checked by our best NFCC people. As that is my only remaining issue, I see no need to alter my support, either the images are OK, or you will tweak them until they are, or this nomination will not succeed because of image issues. Very simple, really--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. I've spent at least two hours going through this. I initially had a list of grammatical niggles that, on further contemplation, were all subjective and might trigger other complaints. So, I'm just supporting. I think it's by far the best treatment possible; I challenge anyone else to do better. It certainly won't ever satisfy everyone, but we've got to have some path for controversial topics to become featured without getting mucked up in what sometimes amounts to personal opinion. Oh, someone broke note 150 by using a refname that isn't defined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how long a FAC remains open, but I don't think this article can be promoted as long as there are still disputes on the article talk page, which seems to be the case at the moment. Also, I have one or two concerns about this article myself. I haven't much time to respond here right now, so I will try to detail my concerns tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that's a useful criterion to try upholding. There are articles that will always have disputes—should they never be featured? Again, we need some path for controversial topics to become featured. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if I'm not mistaken, a minimum requirement even for a GA is that the article be stable, which can really only occur when there is general consensus that the article meets basic policy. There is currently at least one NPOV dispute on the article's talk page, raised by one or more users in good standing, and as a matter of principle I don't think an article should be promoted until such disputes are resolved. Other than that, as I said I have one or two issues of my own I would like to raise, but I can't really comment until I have more time to do so tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes[edit]

There are no {{convert}}s on distances; these should be added. There is a severe WP:NBSP problem with times and words like "France 2" wrapping (a global replace in a word processer should be able to catch them all). I'm not thrilled with how readers are bounced about in the text with "see here" or "see below", but unsure how to fix that ... any ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I did that deliberately. If I were writing this article on my own (i.e. where other views weren't an issue), I'd weave the controversy throughout the text. That's how I normally write articles, as far as possible. But here, the problem is that the controversy material outweighs the original mainstream view, just in terms of volume. So to weave it throughout the text would overwhelm the original view. The way I got round this was to maintain an article structure of "Incident as initially reported," where you basically get the October 2000 view of things, followed by Controversy, which is where you see how the story developed.
However, I had to solve the problem of giving either view too much weight in its own section. I therefore offer the reader links so she can dart back and forth as needed. So there is lots of "In 2000, X said Y, but see below," with a link to the section where Y later says X was lying. It was the only way I could make sure both "sides" had breathing space in their own sections, but didn't have the last word in those sections.
I'll add distance conversions. I'm never very sure of non-breaking spaces and where to put them. I'll try to figure it out. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks hard to avoid in this case (just want to go on record for other cases, where it usually can be avoided and is an indication of poor organization-- feel free to remove my inlines). The NBSPs can be added by copying all the text into a word processer; ping me or Dabomb87 if you need help later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think! Distance conversions, plus nbsp for times, France 2, and distances. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can help out with NBSP type stuff too if needed -- looks like it might be taken care of, but feel free to let me know if you have questions. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Pete. I think it's done, but I'll give you a shout if not, or maybe for anything in the future. You may one day wish you hadn't offered. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident/archive1&oldid=1138467305"