Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

RfC on statement in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo George,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo George,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence

I'd like to change it from

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could have something like

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

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

Heyo Liftarn,

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo ChrisO,

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisO,

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

George,

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

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

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

Heyo George,

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

On another note,

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

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

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

Heyo SlimVirgin,

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

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

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

General note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

George,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent changes

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

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

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

In the lead was then changed to=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George's thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyo George,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local cameraman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument breakdown - pt 1 - global icon for the Mukawama

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues

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

1. Unfortunate journalism, and no forensic investigation

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

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

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

2. Conspiracy theory, hoax

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

Our lead focuses on the wrong criticism

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

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

Commentary vs reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisO,

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

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