Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

Adam Rose quote

After reading Adam Rose's entire article -- not just the snippet that was quoted in the WP article -- I removed the quote because it does not actually deal with the question of who shot Mohammed al-Dura. I realize SlimVirgin raised an issue of whether Rose is a RS, and I am expressing no opinion on that, as I have not looked into it. Whether he is an RS is really a question for a different article, if anywhere. His real conclusion (which is made clear by reading that snippet in context) is that it does not matter who actually shot al-Dura, because the IDF has shot other Palestinian boys. That is what Rose refers to as the "universal Mohammed al-Dura story", in other words, if not this boy, then other boys. OK, but this article is about this particular boy, and Rose does not reach the conclusion that the IDF shot him, or that they didn't, so his quote does not belong in this article. 6SJ7 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article in question (The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows, by Adam Rose) was witten as a direct reply to the quoted article is is (somewhat) relevant. // Liftarn

He hasn't investigated the shooting, but is just giving his personal opinion on the impact of that kind of story (hence the quote from Aristotle). He's self-published; he has no qualifications or experience relevant to investigating the shooting; and his views have not been referred to by reliable, third-party sources. The quote that was added gave us no information about what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is in fact dead, even if the scene was staged

Even the Jewish World Review's Sept. 12, 2005, David Gelernter article says:

A boy named Mohammed Dura did die in a Gaza hospital that fateful Sept. 30. His face doesn't match the face in the video. Presented with these facts, France 2 officials said that "they would look into the matter.

The previous paragraph troubles me:

The voice-over reports that the child is dead, yet the rest of the segment — which wasn't aired but survives — shows the child propping himself on an elbow, shading his eyes with his hands. Poller saw the tape.

That is not reported in the International Hearald Tribune story also cited in the lead, even though it reports that the IHT had seen the whole tape. That sort of thing is so unlikely to have escaped others viewing the unedited footage, that honestly, I don't know what to say.

But as the IHT also refers to the boy as dead, and the only doubt cast on that is someone saying the event might have been staged, there doesn't seem to be any question that the boy named in the title of this article was in fact registered as dead by the local hospital. For that reason, I'm going to remove the suggestion to the contrary from the intro. ←Ben^B4 03:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you might want to look at the sources we cite before editing further. The tape is there for you to view, as are various opinions about it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources supposedly supporting the statement that the boy is dead. Is there any source which specifically supports the claim that Muhammad al-Durrah might not be dead, and not just that some other boy might have appeared in the video? The Gelernter and IHT articles cited in support of the statement do not. And I couldn't understand your edit summary. ←Ben^B4 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit summary; I hit save too soon.

There are sources for everything in the article. Please read them, then let us know which ones you don't understand. I'm a little confused as to what your point is, to be honest. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources, even Jewish World Review, say that Muhammad al-Durrah died in a Gaza hospital that day, but that the boy in the video may have been someone other than Muhammad al-Durrah.

The article says there is some question whether Muhammad al-Durrah died. I have not been able to find a source supporting that assertion. Do you know of such a source?

Further more, the only video linked to in this article doesn't show any propping up on elbows or shielding eyes from the sun, but it only lasts for about a minute while the boy is laying flat. Is the full 28 minutes available? ←Ben^B4 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source says this: "The voice-over reports that the child is dead, yet the rest of the segment — which wasn't aired but survives — shows the child propping himself on an elbow, shading his eyes with his hands. Poller saw the tape. A boy named Mohammed Dura did die in a Gaza hospital that fateful Sept. 30. His face doesn't match the face in the video." So it's clearly stating that there's no evidence that the person described in this article died. Yes, a boy died in a Gaza hospital on September 30; but was he the subject of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that above. So there is no question that "Muhammad al-Durrah" died, only that that some other boy might have been the one on the tape. So I'm reverting back to my version which actually says that. By the way, none of the other sources which viewed the entire tape say he was moving after shown laying flat. Also, shouldn't we qualify the description of the controversy to clearly state which sources have raised it? ←Ben^B4 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, there is a question of whether or not he died; someone described as Dura died in a hospital, but there's no indication that it was the subject of this article. "Then appeared the picture of the small boy that died the same day at Shifa hospital at Gaza and that the authors of the imposture wanted people to believe was Mohammed. “It seems”, announced very serenely the man from Upper Savoie, “that there is a small problem; that the face of this corpse is not exactly the same as the one we make out on your film.”"[1] It's one of the sources of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good; I'm glad that's up supporting the statement in question. There is still a question of whether the boy is the same; even your source leaves the question of whether the cameraman or the hospital had the name wrong if they are different. ←Ben^B4 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) Also, why would you trust a source such as that given the description of where the photograph came from, over the sources that named the hospital? ←Ben^B4 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trusting anything; I'm pointing out that whether or not the subject of this article (as seen in the photographs) died has been questioned. That's all, and that's what the lead says. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled with a name, not a picture. Forget it. ←Ben^B4 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about an individual; questions have been raised as to whether or not he was killed. I personally think he was, but my opinion doesn't matter, we have to report what the sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

three bullets and a dead child

why would this information be reverted out of the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which information in particular? The passages about the father? ←Ben^B4 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now creates the sensation that everything was staged. Honestly I do not think so. I have seen the aerial photograph of the place and the account of Fallow is completely unfair and does not fit with the photograph at all (not to say that is based in the end-of-course-work in a press intoxication training). THe first IDF explanation should have more relevance since there was no point to them self accusing themselves and it is not their way of working. Unfortunately we have no rights to publish the photo so we cannot show this key piece of conviction. I will try to found the owner and ask for ritghts. In the meanwhile is nothing to do except reflect what sources say even if are sources as these Fallow who looks to me as 100% unreliable since as I said above is basing his account in the work of the students of intoxication course.--Igor21 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a URL for the photo you are referring to? And, what do you mean by intoxication training? ←Ben^B4 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Igor21, please don't mix issues, i can't even follow your comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BenB4, both the information about the bullets, the autopsy and directions of fire. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to be concise. Now I separate my points.

1-This is the link for the photo[2]. It is below the vidpics in middle page. It would be very good if someone can find the owner for asking permission. It is a photo and shows how false is The Guardian diagram in the references and how false is the diagram that is now in the page supposedly done by the cameraman.

Ben, why do you believe that diagram to be more accurate than the Guardian's or the cameraman's? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2-Regarding the "end-course project of the intoxication training", the main source for James Fallows article is a work done by some students of an IDF training of a special nature: the fall of last year Gabriel Weimann mentioned the Mohammed al-Dura case in a special course that he teaches at the Israeli Military Academy, National Security and Mass Media and then goes on explaining how the students "investigate" from scratch. I know we cannot cherrypick sources but this particular source seems to me as really biased. "National Security and Mass Media" training does not sound as a CSI training. --Igor21 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Igor21, to your 1st point, it is explained in the article that france 2 has given the video rushes free of charge. i'm sorry, but i do not understand your 2nd issue about "intoxication training" so i cannot comment on it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaackobou : I will explain myself more carefully

1-I am not speaking about the vidpics but about this [3] We need to find the owner to be able of including it.

2-The part of the wikipedia article that says that everything was staged is based in an article of Fallows. This article of Fallows is based in the work that a teacher ask to do to their students. The training were the students were when doing this homework was called "Mass media and National security" and was part of a training for officers of the IDF. My point is that if some students that are doing a training in how spinning the press to become spin doctors of the IDF, do a home work about an issue and this work contradicts the official account of the IDF, it cannot be a reliable source since the aim of the training was precisely to spin and find the truth was not the goal.

This article is completely POV now and it says in big letters that everything was staged. This is because the parts stating that everything was true are being continuously eroded with "was reported" while the home work of the students of "how spin efectively" and the article of Fallows based on it are having undue weight. It is ludicrous to say that the first report of IDF charged israeli soldiers without having studied thoroughly what happened. IDF has a very long record of reporting biased in favour of their officers and soldiers. I do not see why here must be asumed that suddenly they changed their way of working and that students doing a training of how spin to the press are more accurate that the IDF officers that did the original report. --Igor21 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't become an edit war

SlimVirgin or Jayjg, since you're the more experienced editors, if you feel you should revert back, do you suppose you might find a way to use the added reference?

Jaakobou, I don't think the phrase "shooting from all directions" makes a lot of sense in English. Do you suppose it means "shooting in all directions?" There are some other usage problems throughout so I'm hoping you can get the assistance of a copyeditor to help.

I don't think either version is biased one way more than the other and I'm worried experienced editors might not be looking at what they are doing very closely, and reverting away a source instead of trying to incorporate it and help with prose.

The one issue I have at present is that "France 2 legal action" is a poor header when the courts have already ruled. The outcome of the libel case would normally be reported in the header, e.g., "Allegations of staging found libelous" or "France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court." Any objections to that? Which is better? ←Ben^B4 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BenB4, according to the source, the palestinians were shooting from everywhere with automatic AK47 fire, and in particularly from (not "in") 7 major locations, one of which is the twin towers behind the israeli outpost (behind, compared to al-dura's location). i did not want to either state "7" and make for an incomplete statement (since they were shooting from everywhere) or muck up the intro with a long explanation; so i chose the phrasing used, which i believe to be accurate and well enough referenced. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "shooting from several locations"? ←Ben^B4 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd prefer "from 7 main locations". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there are several problems with your edits, primarily that you're trying to push the article further toward the view that the event was staged, but there are also problems with the writing. For example, in a section called "Incident as initially reported," you want to add subsections called "the reported shooting" and "reported injuries," which is repetitive. You also want to add to it material from much later, not "as initally reported."

Another example is that, in the injuries section, you leave a paragraph contradicting itself:

The BBC reported that doctors removed bullets from both Jamal al-Dura's arm and pelvis[18] however, according to the doctors, no bullets were found because they fragmented upon entering the body; yet no fragments were recovered either.

You give “Three Bullets and a Dead Child” by Esther Schapira as the source for the doctors saying no bullets or fragments were found. Can you tell us what the documentary actually said about this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

bbc has made many mistakes in the past and i believe this to be no different. The movie talks directly with the palestinian people involved (i.e. you can see the doctor who worked on the boy showing pictures of him wounded and talking to the camera), surely a more accurate source than the BBC hearsay. i'm not "pushing" the article in any direction by stating 1st body (i.e. well sourced) notations. p.s. i did not erase the bbc claims, it's not my fault if they make mistakes, albeit they do have a strong tendency to do it when israel is involved. p.p.s. what the documentary states, was inserted into the article (you've just pasted it here) and i see nothing gained from repeating it again in a different phrasing. i hope i answered all your questions, i'm in a bit of a rush and haven't read your note word for word. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

new info

i've added a lot of new info to the article, and quite frankly, it's getting irritating that it's being reverted out of the article without proper reasoning.

please raise your issues to each part here before making the mass revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also irritated that you have reverted my header fix and ignored my help with English language usage. Furthermore, I don't think your version has any significant semantic difference from the one you reverted -- would you mind telling me exactly which facts you think your version includes that the other version doesn't? ←Ben^B4 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

as for your renaming from "France 2 legal action" to "France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court", it seems a tad POV but ok with me until i take a deeper look into the sources.

if i missed other changes you've made, i apologize and request you open a new section about it on talk (or just reinsert the changes) so it won't interfere with this issue.

here's the list on included facts differential: (link to the revert)

1. intro has input on direction of fire and a note that bullets were never recovered.
2. Personal background, has the correct input on the profession of father (house painter, not contractor).
3. Personal background, has correct input on the reason that school was out ("protest day") and also a statement muhammad's mother gave to the documentary.
4. Reported injuries, has testimony of the examining pathologist.

--Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, saying "shooting from all directions" makes no sense in English. Where I live, house painters work on contract so the terms can be equivalent. What difference does the reason school was out make? And what exactly in the pathologist's testimony is not included in the version you reverted from? You deleted the passage about there being a leg wound. And finally, why do you think explaining the disposition of the case in the header of the court action section is POV? ←Ben^B4 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. we've been talking about that one ("shooting"), and i've now made the change per my last suggestion.
2. he was a house painting employee for a Jewish contractor, phrasing as though he was the contractor is a mistake.
3. i will now (after changing the shooting direction issue) search for the leg wound issue in the article.
4. the court case was about the ability of a news agency to prove france 2 was lying, not about innocence of guilt... no serious investigation was made into the issue by the court.
5. you have removed the issues i've explained here from the article with your last revert, claiming "no substantial difference"^[4]. something that seems unclear considering my full reply to your qualms.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inuendo

I thing the header of the sections are completely POV. "Initially reported" implies that afterwards it was proofed as false but this has not happened. The so called "initially reported" facts are still the official reported facts. Some people have arised questions but I do not see them as relevant enough to change the whole article. I spoke above about Fallows source so let us now comment about this guy who has "surprising information about Rabin assasination" and gave IDF hints about what happened with Al-Durrah. To have "surprising information about Rabin assasination" only known by him is a good credential? Has he anything "surprising" about Bermudas Triangle too? I agree with a section of "doubts" or "controversies" but not about Wikipedia backing up bizarre non-official investigations in the whole article. --Igor21 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

most of what was initially reported has later been brought into contention.. so much contention (unlike the rabin case) that much of what was initially reported was later reported differently. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What has changed (apart from the conspiracy theorists)? // Liftarn

read and compare BBC and france 2 report notes with later notes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them says "Oh, and he's alive now.". The basic facts like that he was shot and is dead haven't changed. // Liftarn

1) the most basic fact of death, has very little with the body of reports and claims. 2) even his death was put to question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. we are discussing the "Initially reported" issue, not the issue of whether or not the boy is dead... that issue was discussed before with many people involved on the final phrasing that was achieved as consensus after hard negotiations and some warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source have said he is alive. If you find some, then we can discuss it. // Liftarn

User:Liftarn, we are discussing the "Initially reported" issue, not the issue of whether or not the boy is dead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou : It is the same discussion. This trick you are using is as old as wikipedia. "It was initially reported that Kennedy was killed by a single sniper placed in a nearby building" and then in "Controversies" you put "Several sources speak about one or more shooters above the grass knoll". You can do this in many articles "It was initially reported that Amstrong was the first man on the moon" "Some sources have arised questions about shadows and craters under the lunar module so some people says it was staged". And so on. I have checked in Betselem website and the kid is there as a casualty. We cannot do primary investigation not to say primary conspirationist investigation. So for wikipedia he is dead. There are doubts about who kill him but the only official report (from IDF) says that the probability is on having been killed by their soldiers as collateral damage. This what must be called "official version" as in 9/11 official version is that some islamists crash the planes. You can ask for "Other theories" section and there you can state that the kid is alive and was killed by his father.--Igor21 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

it's definitely not the same discussion. one is about the way the issue was reported media hoopla and all (which was not factual), and the other is about whether or not the boy is dead, which is a different matter. i'm not supporting any conspiracy by making sure the initial report is shown with all it's mistakes... well, maybe just the "conspiracy" theory that BBC is biased when israel is involved.

anyways, i'm not discussing the boys death on this subsection. that was done earlier with many editors involved and a whole lot of wasted words. if you wish to reopen the issue, give it a proper subsection. meantime, i don't see much problem with liftarn's changes except for the one or two i changed back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how many editors participated but it is clear that the conspirationist won. The serious sources are dismissed to prepare the ground for the subsections were totally irrelevant subjects citing picturesque investigations, finish the job of creating the inuendo. You know, I know and everybody knows this. Unfortunately your spin will not revive the poor kid. Perhaps will convince someone but IMO will be someone ready to believe that Palestinians are pervers sub-humans who kill their sons for a headline while IDF heroes can respond a massive attack from all directions without causing any collateral damage. --Igor21 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

igor, obviously you have a misunderstanding of the "Resistance jihad" culture and narratives. i personally disagree with the ideology, but many in the pro-palestinian world do embrace it when jews are involved (and renounce it when sectarian violence is involved). i suggest you watch a film called Death In Gaza, it's slightly anti-israel because it doesn't give israel a chance to present it's point, but in general it's a fair film.

p.s. i don't recall mentioning something derogative about arabs and i find your comment to go in that direction. in all honesty, i don't think that different style of reasoning makes a person into a subhuman; black and white depends on the culture you come from and palestinians simply want victory. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

France 2 and Abu Rahma cleared in court

i'd like to hear the reasoning for the connection of a libel lawsuit filed by "'France 2" and between claiming that France 2 was cleared in court. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"a court in Paris ruled that Philippe Karsenty, who runs the Media-Ratings Agency, was guilty of libeling France 2 and Charles Enderlin for alleging that they had faked their report" ←Ben^B4 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

the court did not clear france 2 of anything, it only decided that enderlin could not prove his allegation. we are reporting enderlin's POV as 'allegation' without saying it is true, and surely we add a subsection that he was found guilty of libel by a french courthouse.. however, the title introduces WP:OR that was not part of the legal process. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just that Enderlin couldn't prove that he was right -- that is not the standard for a libel award -- additionally, the plaintiffs proved that he was wrong. That the allegations of staging were found to be libelous is the same as finding that the video wasn't staged. The English idiom is that people so absolved are "cleared." ←Ben^B4 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i never saw proof that the france 2 report was correct, quite the opposite. i think this title is a serious stretch since the court has not conducted an investigation to prove the report was correct, and unless you can proving material that counters my perspective on how courts operate, i can't see how the title is not an introduction of original research and POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he dead or not?

Several times in the article he is mentioned as being dead, yet he is listed in the category of people being "possibly living". If we know for sure that he is dead, why is he still in that category? Nateabel 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

we don't know for sure (although it's the more probable option). the reports/propaganda are filled with inconsistencies and instead of raising a huge debate we are using "reported as" to avoid most conflicts between POVs. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody know that he is dead and he is listed in many respectable lists of victims of the conflict (e.g. Peace Now website). In fact IDF accepted him being dead and having been killed by loose bullets from an israeli soldier. However this is Wikipedia and everybody with patience enough can cause a conflict big enough to make editors accept bizarre wordings that induce the reader to doubt about evidence. Anti-conspirationist manpower is limited while conspirationist energy is infinite so anti-conspirationist editors must concentrate in protecting big articles such 9/11, the Triangle of Bermudas, etc.. so here we have this poor kid being "possibly living" because nobody has the time to remove the inuendo that has been constructed so masterly and carefully to mislead the reader. For me do nothing about this is rather vomiting but I must accept that I do not have the hundreads of hours that are needed to make truth prevail in this article so I carry on with my live.--Igor21 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i'll disregard most your post and note that your assertion about the IDF is completely 100% false... i suggest you go over the article and it's references. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not goint to read again the spin you have done in the article. The IDF initially admitted that it was "probably responsible" for killing Muhammad al-Durrah and expressed sorrow at his death. IDF operations chief Giora Eiland announced that a preliminary investigation revealed that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim". An IDF inquiry released November 27, 2000, reached different conclusions. Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia stated, "A comprehensive investigation conducted in the last weeks casts serious doubt that the boy was hit by Israeli fire," he said. "It is quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets in the course of the exchange of fire that took place in the area.". IDF is fair enough to accept that is not sure who killed the child. You are the only one who thinks that he was killed intentionally and that is still alive. You have constructed the article as if it were a media issue. If you have blood in your veins remove him from the "possibly living" cathegory and let him rest in peace once and forever.--Igor21 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the boy named by the title of this article is dead. The only question is whether that boy is the same boy in the film, who some people think might not be dead. I'm removing the category. ←Ben^B4 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay

With regard to this story [5]: Obviously, Cybercast News Service, a right-wing partisan website, is not a reliable source. But even if we assume that this particular story is reliable, all it says is that Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte said that Abu Rahma retracted his deposition. In other words, it's hearsay, and hearsay evidence is not sufficient to support assertions like the cameraman later denied having made one of the statements or The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear. We must be particularly careful since WP:BLP applies, in this case to Talal Abu Rahma, who is being accused of giving a false deposition. Sanguinalis 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

no offense, but abu rahmeh has been the cause of BLP upon himself with how he testified "the police has the bullets.... eh we have the bullets, france 2..... eh... we have some secrets". he's very notable as a bullshit cameraman mock-jurnalist in the 18min video pallywood and while i don't think we should discredit anyone without sourcing, but this seems very possible. what are the current links/refs for this information.. only the hearsay or maybe there are more links with discussions about it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have a problem with me removing this material. You yourself say "i don't think we should discredit anyone without sourcing". These particular claims were based on one Cybercast News Service article. I examined that article and it only contains hearsay evidence on this point. If there is other evidence besides the word of two Frenchmen that Abu Rahma has retracted all or part of his affadavit, then no one has found it. Also, if you're going to participate in the English-language Wikipedia, can you please learn how to use capital letters? Sanguinalis 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

it would seem that there are two people making this statement (i.e. Metula News Agency editor-in-chief Stephane Juffa, and filmmaker Daniel Leconte), so i suggest we name them as we mention this issue in the article.^[6] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article from CNS is pure spin. The filmmaker Laconte wrote shortly after an article in Le Figaro denying what it is said in the CNS post and explaining that he abandoned the investigation because he felt instrumentalized by Mena. He said that his only remark in this affaire is that it is imposible to proof that the kid was killed by israelian bullets and that Enderlin should not have said so THE SAME AFTERNOON but he should have waited for the conclusions of the Tsahal (that were published some time after and said as it is known that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim"). Laconte says in the article that in his opinion the incident was not staged and that Mohamed Al-Durrah is the kid who died in front of the camera. You can read this in here [7]. So this article from CNS is as valuable as Von Daniken remarks about the Mayas. --Igor21 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the link, i'll get back to this issue once i read the new information. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this must be in the article . "The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear. It was apparently given to the Palestine Centre for Human Rights in Gaza on October 3 2000, and signed by the cameraman in front of a lawyer, Raji Sourani. France 2's communications director, Christine Delavennat, later said that Abu Rahma "denied making a statement — falsely attributed to him by a human rights group [the Palestine Centre for Human Rights] — to the effect that the Israeli army fired at the boy in cold blood." since is evident that the IDF does not shot in cold blod to the kid and nobody present there can say so.--Igor21 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor21: It's not clear to me what you're arguing here. Before I removed it from the article, the only source for the statement attributed to Christine Delavennat was the Cybercast News Service article. In your previous post you made it clear that you don't believe CNS is a reliable source. Even if someone can find reliable evidence that Delavennat said that, it still not sufficient to support a bald assertion like "The authenticity of this affidavit is unclear". Sanguinalis 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

how do you suggest we write this down then? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how this can be worded but my point is that we must distinguish from what the cameraman said and what the Palestinian association said that he said. The cameraman and everybody involved except the Palestinian associacion, denied that he said that the kid was killed in cold blood. So even if the affidavit was signed, he retreated from it afterwards and thus eliminates any relevance from it (except as a litmus of the will to spin of this Palestinian association). So more than discuss the authenticity of the afidavit, the emphasis must be in the fact that when everybody (the cameraman + the french journalists) was able to speak without pressure, they went for and accidental death as collateral damage, ruling out both a deliberate murder by IDF and a staged incident.--Igor21 08:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor, have you seen 'three bullets and a dead child' ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. In general I hate spining and propaganda (from both sides). I prefer accounts from witnesses and in this case the winesses -including IDF- are clear. --Igor21 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

actually, it's one of the more serious films i've seen in a long time and i've seen quite a lot... they talk with everyone including the coroner and the mother of the boy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor21: I'm still very confused by your sequence of posts, and I hope you can clarify. You seem to be taking it as known fact that Abu Rahma has etracted his affidavit, yet the only evidence that has been presented to support this are statements from two French journalists and one France 2 employee on the Cybercast News Service website. You seem to agree with me that this webite is not a reliable source - you compared it to von Däniken's theories. So what is your basis for believing that "the cameraman...denied that he said that the kid was killed in cold blood" and that he "retreated" from his affidavit? Sanguinalis 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not like articles being written as an ongoing investigation when all the data is on the table. What the group formed by the Frenchs+the cameraman says is explained with the nuances of each one in the link in french I provided. There is the article of Laconte in Le Figaro were he said that Enderlin should have not said that the bullets were coming from IDF and two comments of Enderlin were he says that everybody on site agree on this and that IDF confirmed the likeliness some days after. So from this link emerges a solid position with two clear things 1)Enderlin was imprudent in the first moment and 2)his guess (in fact the guess of Talal Rahma was confirmed by IDF that justified the incident in the violence of the palestinians and the presence of childs in a war place. Apart from this, the french say that Mena was manipulating (Laconte says and Enderlin agrees and explains the Mena campaign for bluring the facts). This is what must be stated in the article as the position of these Frenchs+Rahma. The story of the afidavit and the Palestinian Association is another story with no relevance once the French and Rahma have a clear position clearly written. I do not know if he retracted, if he do not signed it or what, but it is clear that neither him nor the French are backing up in any way what is said in the afidavit. And yes, that website is devoted to misinformation and spining and should not be used as source in Wikipedia, not to say for explaining what said the French when we have a link written from the hand of both parts of French (Laconte and Enderlin) where they declare everything they want to say about the facts. Perhaps we should ask for a formal translation of the french text. --Igor21 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're getting at. I have read the Figaro articles (I can read French), and they say nothing about Abu Rahma retracting his affidavit or denying he ever said the IDF killed al-Durrah in cold blood. What's more, Enderlin clearly stands by his original report and his camaraman, Talal Abu Rahma. Sanguinalis 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also can read french and when Enderlin says : "Mais revenons à l’article de Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte. Ils posent la question suivante : pourquoi Enderlin a-t-il dit dans son reportage que les balles venaient de la position israélienne ? Voici les réponses : D’abord, parce que, au moment de la diffusion, le correspondant de France 2 à Gaza, Talal, qui a filmé la scène, indiquait que tel était le cas." So he does not say that Talal said that "the kid was killed in cold blood. Secondly Enderlin says "Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte évoquent l’utilisation qui a été faite de l’image de la mort de l’enfant et posent ainsi un problème fondamental : lors de la réalisation de son reportage, un journaliste doit-il tenir compte de l’usage malhonnête qui pourrait en être fait ultérieurement par des groupes extrémistes ? Une telle exigence signifierait une inacceptable censure à la source". For me he is saying that say that was killed in cold blood is "usage malhonéte". But all this is speculative. I have no formal statement about why or if he signed that affidavit and if he retracted of just choose to stop speaking about it. --Igor21 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Enderlin doesn't say that Abu Rhama said al-Durrah was killed in cold blood, but he doesn't deny it either. The point about "usage malhonnête" is too vague to draw a conclusion about Enderlin's views of Abu Rahma's testimony to the Palestine Center for Human Rights. Most importantly, if Abu Rahma wants to retract his affidavit, he has to do so himself, by making a public statement to that effect. Charles Enderlin can't speak for him. Sanguinalis 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say is very wikipedian but is totally absurd in real world. If Enderlin knows that a presential witness thinks that the kid was killed in cold blood by IDf he would say all the time.--Igor21 08:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape

Have editors seen this post: IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape? I have glanced over it and the Wikipedia article. I quickly decided that I didn't know enough to add anything to the article so I thought I would just pass it along. Sbowers3 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A French appeals court has ordered the full unedited tape to be released. [8] Sbowers3 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908848.html> Government Press Office Director Daniel Seaman said Monday that the September 2000 death of Palestinian child Mohammed Al-Dura in the Gaza Strip was staged. Seaman made the comments in a letter he sent responding to a demand that he strip France 2 journalists of their GPO credentials. France 2 broadcast the footage of Al-Dura's death in September 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremona (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel officially denies responsibilty

A recently released document, for the first time, Israel officially responded to this incident, denying that the boy was killed by israeli fire, and claiming some of the footage was staged. The statement was released by Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman. As part of the letter, they inform of their intention to sue to revoke journalist documents from France 2 unless they appologize. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455496,00.html (The hebrew version of the article links to the original letter (in Hebrew): http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/1_10_07/index1.htm Yonyb 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The YNET article is pure spin. The real piece of news are some verbal statements by Seaman who is director of the Governement Press Office. The document is not seen nowhere in the article and it is referred as "An official document from Jerusalem" which means nothing. So Seaman spins a little, making blur accusations to Enderlin, and then YNET takes the token and creates the ilusion that there is an official report just realeased when in reality they are speaking about "various investigations", probably refering to the famous recontruction that is extensively used in the wikipedia article. What is staged in the tape is some people simulating being hurt and the ambulance arriving. The plan is to use this fake scene to make the death of the kid look fake. Until nothing official comes, what IDF officially stated in its time must be considered truth (it is not in the wikipedia article but should be).--Igor21 08:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the significance of this news (which is open for debate), the document IS seen, simply not in the English piece, since it is entirely in Hebrew (See my link above to the original letter). It is a pretty short letter (1 page), but the YNET piece only takes quotes from the letter (and covers most paragraphs), no other quotes from the Israeli side are used, as far as I can tell. Yonyb 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Can you please tell us what is this document, who is signing it and what new research is based on?--Igor21 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hebrew linkage: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-1769288,00.html http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/1_10_07/index1.htm http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-294448,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3455459,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3455479,00.html -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why and what are the parts in document blurred? --Magabund 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

fax and phone numbers.

p.s. that link has 3 pages of information, not just one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So all in all, the document was just a written statement from the Governement Press Office to silence the fanatics that in Israel were asking for IDF denying even the posibility of the bullets coming out from one of their weapons. Since spin is normally conducted by Press Offices the selection of the signer was very adecuate. The importance of the document is clearly shown by the fact that was not released in English and nobody in the world has cared a fig about what says.--Igor21 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What balance needs to be struck?

It is becoming clear that, no matter your POV, there is a strong possibility that the al-Dura footage was staged, or otherwise faked in some way. At what point does the word "allegedly" need to start appearing throughout this article? And at what point could we conclude that this entire episode was a hoax? I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but it does seem highly possible that the tapes will expose this entire episode as a fraud. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

my personal opinon is that we should hold out for the 27 min tapes coming out in november... hopefully. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Schrodingers Mogoose : Do not worry. If there is the slightliest posibility of saying that the kid is alive and was killed by his father, Jackaboo will not hesitate. So with the help of profesional spin doctors in the Governement Press Office, the kid is not going to be dead for a long time except if they decide to blame the father. Wait and see.--Igor21 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)