Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

Policy Q and A

I've mentioned Wikipedia's policy requirements many times already in this discussion, but I thought editors would find it useful to have an overview in one place of what policy requires and how it relates to this article. I've emphasised the key points.

Neutral point of view

• "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (ref. WP:NPOV)

• "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." (ref. WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view).

We cannot tell our readers that any viewpoint in the al-Durrah case is "the truth". Your personal opinion of what happened isn't relevant to what goes in the article. Note also the emphasis on significant published viewpoints. This brings me on to the next point:

Undue weight

• "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. ... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. ... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." (ref. WP:NPOV#Undue weight)

My own research of reliably published sources (books, journals and media) has found that:

1) the overwhelming majority of sources state definitively that al-Durrah was killed on September 30, 2000; 2) there is widespread disagreement and/or uncertainty over who killed him; 3) a small number of sources report on a conspiracy theory circulated by Internet activists, attributing it specifically to Richard Landes and Philippe Karsenty; 4) a very small number of sources, almost all op-eds published by a handful of conservative newspapers, express support for the conspiracy theory.

From this, it's clear that the overwhelming majority view is that al-Durrah is dead; there is no clear majority view on who killed him; and the view that he is not dead is supported only by a tiny minority of sources.

NPOV's undue weight provision therefore requires us (this is not optional) to prioritise the overwhelming-majority point of view that al-Durrah was killed - just as we do the overwhelming-majority POVs that Elvis is dead, that the Apollo astronauts really did land on the moon, that evolution is an established scientific fact, etc. We can certainly mention the opposing POVs but because they are small- or tiny-minority POVs, we cannot give them undue weight.

Original research

• "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." (ref. WP:NOR)

It's not our job as editors to determine who killed al-Durrah or even whether he's dead in the first place. You may have an opinion on the subject, but articles have to reflect what significant published sources say, not your own opinions.

Source-based research

• "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research"', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. (ref. WP:NPOV#Sources)

Don't confuse original research with source-based research. We constantly have to make our judgments about what material to add to articles, based on our research of published reliable sources. That means we have to judge what weight to give the material that we've found: does it represent mainstream opinion, how significant is it, etc.

Consensus

• "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. (ref. WP:NPOV)

Some editors have argued that because a certain form of words has been in the article for some time it enjoys "consensus". Whether or not this is true (personally I don't think it is), it's irrelevant - if an aspect of an article fails NPOV, it has to be fixed regardless of any previous consensus. If a tiny-minority POV is being given undue weight in violation of NPOV, that needs to be resolved.

Reliable sourcing

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... [S]elf-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." (ref. WP:V).

We need to be particularly careful about sourcing in this case, due to the large amount of material that has been published by unreliable sources (personal websites, blogs etc).

Biographies of living persons

• "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. ... Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." (refs. WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Criticism and praise)

This is especially important in this case, where libel actions have been brought against some of the conspiracy theorists. We can report the allegations made by Karsenty et al against France 2 but we must not take sides or present the conspiracy theorists' views as fact. We must also avoid giving the minority view disproportionate attention. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But each of these issues are nuanced. For example, saying "reportedly killed" does not say that he was killed or not killed...it merely expresses that there is some doubt. And in fact using the concept "reportedly" has a certain value since Enderlin (who reported it to the world) was not a witness to the event. In light of the release of the raw footage, which shows Al-Dura moving (in what looks like "peeking" under his arm)after we are told that he is dead, "reportedly" seems to hedge our bets. We do not have a body and DNA tests to make a determination one way or the other. We don't even have bullets. We have no forensics or autopsy. All we have by way of forensics is the film and what the film shows.

I just wanted to add this from the policy on WP:TALK

WP:TALK The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

There does seem to be some significant disagreement on this page as to what the policy requirements are. One man's mainstream seems to be another man's fringe theory. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "reportedly killed" is twofold. First, it implies that there's a significant disagreement over whether he was killed. This simply isn't the case, as the overwhelming majority of sources state unequivocally that he was killed. They dispute who killed him but not the basic fact of his death. Second, it's inaccurate. Nobody has reported that he wasn't killed - all we have is speculation to that effect from a small number of sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The verdict did not rule on whether Karsenty's conspiracy theory was correct, and we are required to consider the totality of our sources, which in this case agrees almost unaminously that al-Durrah is dead but disagrees on who killed him. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very, very relevant. The court case marks the first time that crucial pieces of evidence- the 27 minutes of unedited rushes - were made available for public scrutiny. Prior to the case, France 2 had (for reasons that are now obvious) refused to let the public view them. All those present in the courtroom who saw the rushes concluded they consist entirely of staged scenes. That led the court to rule, without saying Karsenty is correct, that his theory can't be dismissed. I ask you again: What percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for acknowledging at last that the court didn't endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory. The court didn't rule at all on the conspiracy theory; it said merely that the views of the witnesses could not be dismissed and there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the reporting. That is as far as it went. But we already know that there are legitimate questions about Enderlin's conclusions, since the Israeli army has itself disputed them. Needless to say, the conspiracy theory advocates are trying to inflate this into some sort of endorsement of Karsenty's views. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never said the court endorsed Karsenty's views. I explicitly said so several times, but it looks like you weren't paying attention. As I wrote, had the court endorsed Karsenty's views, this article would be due for a much wider rewrite than the neutral change I want restored to the lead. Had the court endorsed Karsenty's views, we'd rename the article Al-Durrah Hoax, and describe how F2 worked to engineer and then cover-up this hoax. The experts who testified in this case testified that the rushes contain fakes, exclusively, and that the video does not show the boy is dead- and the court ruled that their thesis, that the event was staged, can't be dismissed. Now please answer the question, which I have asked three times: what percentage of those "overwhelming majority of sources [that] state unequivocally that he was killed" are from after the court verdict? You are under the impression that the court case didn't change anything, so if you are right, post-court case sources should have the same percentage of sources that say this. Let's see the numbers.Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question has no relevance whatsoever, perhaps that is why it goes unanswered. See: WP:RECENTISM. The belief that the whole thing was a hoax and.or that the boy is really not dead is, at this point in time, a minority, fringe point-of-view. If you wish to challenge that notion, that's your right, but you need to have evidence and sources to back it up. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do so, and thus this point-of-view remains on the periphery of the incident. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again: WP:RECENTISM is a personal essay. It has no more standing in this policy-based debate than the personal opinion of any single editor. The notion that we should ignore or downplay new evidence as it becomes available, through court cases or investigations, because it is “recent” is too ludicrous to warrant a response. And you have cause and effect backwards: I am trying to maintain a version that has been in the article for more than two years. The onus is on those trying to change that long-standing consensus to prove that, today, after the rushes were available for public scrutiny, the overwhelming majority of sources definitely say he was killed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What new evidence? Have you actually presented anything that is not mentioned in the article that is not your original research/synthesis? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to change consensus, so I don't have to present anything new, those who want to chanege the consensus do. That said, there has been a considerbale number of new sources that have been introduced: A Norwegian news reprot headlined "this is probably a bluff". An Haaretz news article headlined "cours supports the claim that this is a hoax". Several German TV and radio broadcasts and interviews which use the term "alleged killing". Note that I am not advocating we make any of these claims - I am just trying to maintain the consensus version that has been in the article for over 2 years, which says the boy became an icon when he was filmed crouching, and reported to have been killed by the IDF". This is neutrally worded, sourced and factual. What is the original research/synthesis that you think I am trying to introduce? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "overwhelming majority of sources" already say that he was killed. What previous versions have said was "reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces gunfire"; namely, that it wasn't certain if the Israelis were the ones that killed him or not, as initially reported. The doubt was on who was responsible. What you and the SPA's have been trying to do have it read "he was reported to have been killed in an exchange of gunfire", which when phrased in that manner, cast doubt on whether the boy was killed at all. The latter is what is the fringe POV, which is entirely unacceptable for the article. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So here's the problem: you don't really understand what I'm trying to do. On June 1st, before ChrisO's edit, the lead read as follows:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian journalist Talal Abu Rahma [1] filmed the father and son sheltering during a crossfire between troops at an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outpost and Palestinian police and gunmen shooting from a number of locations.[2] After a burst of gunfire, the two slumped into prone positions. Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire.

. This formulation, including the sentence you want (" Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire"), is exactly the one I want. This is a formulation that has been in the article for well over two years, and I'm not looking to have it changed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the spectacularly mistaken notion that I want "Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire" in there? I was merely reflecting what older versions stated. What I find preferable is the reality of of the prevailing opinion of the incident; "when he was killed in an exchange of gunfire". No "reported" weasel words. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The formulation "was reported" is obviously intended to distance the reader from the mainstream view. We wouldn't say that "it was reported" that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon or that "it was reported" that Elvis was dead. There are minority viewpoints to the contrary, but we don't give them a false equivalence with the overwhelming-majority view. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thnaks for acknowledging (finally!) that older versions stated what I want stated, and that it is you who wishes to change a long standing consensus. Please make a case for why this long standing consesnus should change, below: Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated this above. NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Answer (to Moreschi): I think I know what the issue here is.
In general, there's been no proof to validate that Muhammad al-Durrah - the boy Talal has reported to have been intentionally targeted for 45 minutes by Israeli soldiers - is indeed dead.

1. No bullets, no autopsy - perhaps a few pictures of low quality.
2. The validity of Talal's claims are weak at best.
3. The boy's father, Jamal, who's been immortalized on film using the term "Nazi Zionist entity", was also called out by an Israeli medical doctor for lying, using scars from 1994 (inflicted by a Palestinian gang) to claim they were a result of that day in 2000. Why would he do that?

While the media has not reported "the boy is alive", there is certainly doubt about the level of exaggeration in this event - and there is absolutely no doubt that at least some exaggeration/manipulation did occur.
Suggestion for compromise: The main issue with al-Durrah is "who killed him", not whether he was killed, that's not even important -- not to the Arab side or the Israeli side. Instead of declaring that the boy is dead, focus on Talal's report that the boy was intentionally targeted for 45 minutes and killed by the Israelis rather than focusing on the 'dead/alive' issue which has no content for either side of the debate. I don't believe there's enough sources supporting the "he was possibly not killed" perspective that. At best, it could be listed as "apparent death (attributed to Israeli forces)" for the weak Palestinian sources, both of whom caught exaggerating to some extent. A reasonable compromise here would be to write something in the spirit of, "Talal reported that... resulting in the boy becoming an icon for anti-Israel and anti-US militancy". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Jaakobou, I think you're forgetting the no original research principle. It's not our job to determine proof or truth. WP:NPOV states this clearly: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." The question of whether or not there is "proof" is interesting as an abstract discussion but it doesn't have a bearing on how we present the article. We have to describe the mainstream views (pro and con) and mention the minority conspiracy theory viewpoint (without giving it undue weight, which is an issue at the moment) - but we cannot endorse either mainstream viewpoint or state that there is more "proof" on one side than another. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Question: I'm not really following this discussion for every word, but I'd appreciate a link to where Karsenty says the boy is alive. Would help assess the veracity of his claim. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrator intervention requested

The behaviour of several of the editors on this talk page and article leads me to believe that they are repeatedly and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Specifically, using it for advocacy or propaganda and refusing to comply with the neutral point of view requirement to fairly represent the weight of authority for each viewpoint and not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators. This is a clear violation of the principles set out in a previous Arbitration Committee ruling. I've therefore requested input from uninvolved administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I'm tasked by ArbCom with investigating ethnic and cultural edit wars (see WP:WORKGROUP), I'd like to see if I can help here as an uninvolved administrator. First though, I'd like to check that I'm acceptable as a neutral party? I have definitely worked on articles related to medieval history of the area, as well as articles about more current subjects such as the Hajj (see my userpage for a full list of articles I have created or expanded, from Fustat to Franco-Mongol alliance). So I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical complexities involved, without being biased towards one side or the other in terms of Israel-Palestinian disputes. I've also had success with moderating other disputes[1]. In terms of this particular page on Muhammad al-Durrah, I'm willing to do my best to be neutral and fair. Would this be acceptable? --Elonka 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance would certainly be appreciated. I'm just wondering - are you involved in mediation at all? I've been in touch with the mediation cabal about having a formal mediation for this article, but have been advised that an informal mediation would be a better place to start. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never been a member of WP:MEDCOM or MEDCAB, no. I have been involved as a participant in both types of mediations. And I have informally mediated multiple disputes, most notably some Hungarian-Slovakian thorny issues, where a large number of articles were in a state of pretty much constant edit-warring, with new admin board threads being started every few days (there's a list you can peruse) but I helped stabilize things. I would like to make it clear however, that though part of what I would do would be to act as a mediator, I would also be acting as an administrator. My goal would be to use a combination of mediation, education, and (if necessary) enforcement to help restore stability to the article, and get it back to a state of "healthy editing". For things I might do, you could look at a fairly new page (created as a project of the Working group on ethnic and edit wars): Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. Bottom line: It might be good to go both routes, to have me (and any other uninvolved admins) helping out as an admin, and to also continue seeking assistance from MEDCOM or MEDCAB. --Elonka 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept you as a mediator, Elonka. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration needed on new ruling against France 2

There is very little discussion on the new ruling against France 2. I see only one sentence dedicated to that happening. I would add the information myself if the article wasn't locked.

In addition, there should be at least some mention of the fact that no popular media has covered the ruling, specifically the AP, France 2, or BBC. Considering the importance of the event (and the influence the "shooting" has caused), a lack of coverage seems very suspicious.

thanks!

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )

Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your personal opinions about why some of the mainstream media has not covered the verdict. You're wrong about the BBC and Associated Press, by the way. Perhaps you could try using Google News rather than relying on badly informed bloggers? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another example of ChrisO sitting on everyone who disagrees with him on this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Now the article is locked??? Neat!!! Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Typical. I won't comment on your poor rationalizations or over-dependency on "mainstream" sources (which apparently = RELIABILITY), but your wrong on the fact that it was covered according to its importance. When al-Durrah story broke out, it hit the front page of every news source in the world. BBC dedicated stories just on the reaction of the Arab nations (and of course pandering to their cries). Now that it was discovered this story was indeed a joke, and al-Durrah might even still be alive, they dedicate a three paragraph side-story on the back page.

I'm making observations here and if you're accusing me of promoting personal opinion please prove my facts wrong.

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )

ok i made an account, all 70.181.148.148 is me

Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup: we need to keep focused

This article is long enough and can not include issues which are covered in great depth in other articles and do not pertain to the main subject matter.--Julia1987 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating its length, but its content. The recent ruling against France 2 most definitely pertains to the main subject. Heck, there is two sub-topics that revolve around the questionable activities France 2 and the responses of Arab organizations.

It is imperative that wikipedia appreciate the ruling against France 2. We might as well delete the article all together because ultimately you are denying the truth. Which, from what I understand, is not something wikipedia is known for.

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )

For once, Julia, I agree with you - we do need to clean up the article. In particular, the section on "Controversy" is far too long and goes into way too much detail about the fringe conspiracy theory. There needs to be some pruning here to ensure that it is covered in due proportion to its prominence, as required by WP:UNDUE, and is not given excessive emphasis. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you agree why this: [2] ? --Julia1987 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's directly relevant to the lawsuits. French libel law is very different from that in the English-speaking countries. It's relevant and appropriate to state what the courts were being asked to decide. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

allegedly or reportedly ?

Which is better to express the doubt ? There is no proof that he is indeed dead. There are now greater new doubts. see [3]Julia1987 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not interested in proof - it's not our job to decide on "the truth". Read the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." All we're allowed to do is reflect what our sources say, subject to the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. By the way, "alleged" is treated as a word to avoid because of its POV connotations and should not be used, particularly in this sort of context. We should not be using either "allegedly" or "reportedly" because both give undue weight to the tiny-minority viewpoint: a straightforward violation of WP:UNDUE. As for "greater doubts", that's one editor's personal opinion. We're not guided by personal opinions. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here after reading the thread at the admin noticeboard - a look through the history seems to show that "reportedly" is indeed the term which has had consensus. I'm not seeing any indication that consensus has changed. Kelly ^hi! 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV: NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. A consensus was apparently reached two years ago in the absence of empirical data on the prominence of the relevant POVs. That research has now been done. As I stated on AN/I, the POV that al-Durrah was not killed is a tiny-minority viewpoint mentioned by perhaps 1% or less of the available reliable sources. The use of "reportedly" gives undue weight to that tiny-minority viewpoint, when the overwhelming majority of sources state definitively that he was killed. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever for "reportedly". We should be using neither word - virtually all the reliable mainstream sources say the boy was killed. The use of the word "reportedly" is a cheap attempt to chisel some doubt about that into the article. There is no reliable mainstream source that says he is still alive, and no source whatsoever that has uncovered details of how the alleged "hoax" was carried through or has identified where he is now happily residing. What we have instead is a few bloggers and Wikipedia editors telling us what they think some grainy youtube footage might or might not show. This is not interesting --Nickhh (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I could really care less, but the issue would seem not as clear-cut as you present it, based on the other opinions at ANI and here. "Reportedly" seems a good compromise to me that doesn't give undue weight to fringers, but that's just my opinion. I'll just grab some popcorn and watch you all edit-war over the term. :) Kelly ^hi! 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Based on opinions" is exactly the problem here. We're not supposed to base things on opinions but on source-based research. And the research in question - which even the fringers and conspiracy theorists haven't contested - indicates that the overwhelming majority of sources don't even mention the conspiracy theory POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be a "compromise" between a fringe conspiracy theory and the current verifiable, mainstream account? Sorry Kelly, but your intervention here reinforces the point that there shouldn't be, otherwise the conspiracy theory starts to gain some purchase among people who take a cursory look around the issue. --Nickhh (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now this is just bizarre. ChrisO (and you) went to WP:ANI to ask that more uninvolved editors come here to have a look. the first uninvolved editor comes along, opines that "reported" seems fair, and your response is that the fact that uninvolved editors disagree with you reinforces your point? there's apparently no limit to what you will say to get your way. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. 1) I did not "go to ANI" along with Chris. 2) I have already made clear I do not agree with the use of the word "reported", so it is not bizarre that I have repeated that point when someone else suggests it. 3) My specific point about other editors was very clearly that a problem can arise when other editors come in and only take a "cursory look around", and then pick up on "reportedly" as some kind of fair compromise. --Nickhh (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, that's false again. The source based research indicates that the current mainstream sources overwhelmingly treat the death as an open question, an the initial report as either a likely hoax, or a possible hoax. I have no doubt that early sources, from 2000, and up until the first time the rushes were shown (in private to 3 journalists) - most sources agreed he was dead, but shifted blame from Israel to Palestinians. However, once the rushes were first seen, and when it became known that Enrlin's claim that he cut out the "death throes" is false, because no such scene exists, and th at the rest of rthe rushes are entirely of staged, faked battle scene, the thesis that the incident might have been staged was no longer treated as fringe, and it is certainly no longer treated that way since the French court case, which exposed that evidence to public scrutiny. Fourth time: what percentage of the sources you are relying on are from after the court case? Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The most sensible measure that needs to be taken for us to proceed is to place the reverting editors (ChrisO, Nickhh, CJ and Tart) on 1RR or even 0RR limit. This dispute will not be resolved simply by protection since the reverting editors have forced their version left and right on all other editors. We need to arrive to a compromise but protection will not get us there when one side is happy with current version and the other seeks to make the article NPOV. --Julia1987 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate step is to ban you and the other SPAs from this topic, and steps are underway to do that. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, has this been to any form of dispute resolution? Also, can you specify the "steps" you refer to above? I remind you there is nothing wrong with SPAs per se, so long as they abide by policy. Kelly ^hi! 15:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing wrong with SPAs, but we have here a number of SPAs who are (a) edit warring (b) soapboxing (c) serially violating NPOV and (d) promoting original research. Over on WP:AE, Moreschi has recommended a topic-ban of Julia1987 (talk · contribs) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs). I will be recommending a topic-ban of Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) as well. Now that the page is protected, I'll try to get some mediation underway, but it's unlikely to achieve anything useful unless our resident conspiracy theorists stop ignoring basic NPOV requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I remind you there is nothing wrong with SPAs per se, so long as they abide by policy. - Pretty much a meaningless statement. Sockpuppets are fine per se, so long as they abide by policy. Reversions are fine per se, so long as they abide by policy. Blankings are fine per se, so long as they abide by policy. And so forth. Adding "...per seso long as they abide by policy" doesn't provide much cover for the basic point that a GROUP of SPAs working towards a specific POV, well, per se, AGAINST policy -- or at least common sense.

Besides, at least one of the SPAs hisownself seems to think being labeled as such -- accurately -- is a Bad Thing, so perhaps you can let him know that it's okay, he doesn't have to feel so bad about himself. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Calton, that is a particularly unhelpful statement. Do you think you could be a little more professional and neutral in your comments? You have apparently been around a long time, so you should know that confrontational statements just cause escalation of the dispute. Let's be a little more collegial, shall we? Kelly ^hi! 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I laughed when I read Calton's comments. Does that make me a bad person? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Bad, bad, Chris! Go stand in the corner! :) - Kelly ^hi! 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no dubt from any reliable sources. Just some fringe conspiracy theorists. Like ChrisO put it "We do not say that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" landed on the Moon or that the World Trade Center was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft, even though there are some prominent skeptics on those issues." // Liftarn (talk)

Julia, you already tried to have me blocked from editing on spurious grounds and were unsuccesful in that attempt. All I and others have been doing is trying to make sure this article conforms to Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I am not trying to push any kind of agenda, personal viewpoint or "battle for the truth!!", as others here seem to be doing (and creating a huge waste-of-time bunfight while they are doing it). --Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So Nick, you are fine since you only did 3RR and not 4RR ? is that your argument ? Can't you see that the reverts you and others have done here are wrong because there are in attempt to push your POV and not strive for NPOV ? There are enough policy violations in your behavior even if you technically did not got to the 4th revert within 24 hour window…. This article should be placed on 'no reverts' instead of protection - this would be a giant step forward. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted about this on AN/I, so I'm copying below what I wrote, along with ChrisO's response. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
• The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

These are just some of the reliable sources who have published doubts about the mainstream view. We have to report those doubts dispassionately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, SlimVirgin, you're an experienced editor; you know what WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR require. Your first and second sources are neutrally worded reports on the conspiracy theorists, attributing claims to them without endorsing them. Your third, fourth and fifth sources are all opinion pieces, which we cannot use for statements of fact. Your sixth source is a primary source and your comments about it are bordering on original research; it's not our job to analyse grainy videos on partisan websites. ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - WP:NOR). The article does indeed report the conspiracy theories (in rather too much detail, to be honest) but the key point is that any such reporting should be in proportion to the prominence of those views, as WP:UNDUE requires. That means we do not give tiny-minority viewpoints as much attention or weight as overwhelming-majority ones. But you know all of this. Why do I have to repeat this so many times? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this article a few months ago to make it more neutrally worded, and I think the end result was okay. This is roughly the version I'd stand by. Since then, it's been battered back and forth by both sides, so I don't know what the current issues are. What I do know is that it's a statement of fact that the boy was reported to have been killed, and that several people -- including non-partisan, responsible people, such as the independent French journalists who investigated it -- have disputed the France 2 version of events. Some of them believe the boy is dead, but that he didn't die the way France 2 claimed, and others believe he didn't die at all. Their views have to be included, and the presentation of the views shouldn't serve to undermine them. Having said that, there are also some non-reliable sources claiming the boy's alive. This is why it's a difficult article to work on, because it needs cool heads to evaluate the sources fairly, and the back and forth reverting doesn't help to achieve that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:SlimVirgin, finally some sensible words. The issue is not so much is the boy dead or not but rather how France-2 presented it . Clearly there is now a high level French court which received expert advice, reviewed the rushes – all in an attempt to find if France-2 version of events can be proven – and the court concluded that the doubts are valid. The experts that testify concluded that the boy could not have been killed as France-2 has described. This all boils down to presenting this new WP:RS source (the court) accurately and giving the media critic (after the court ruled their criticism is legitimate) an equal voice in this article. The views of those who criticize France-2 is not some fringe conspiracy theory any more – if they were they would loose in court. (They did not – the court upheld their right to voice their view and wikipedia should reflect that view as well). --Julia1987 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin - we can appreciate and applaud your efforts to re-write this article and word everything in an NPOV fashion but still be completely dissatisfied with the result. This incident was not important for itself (100s of children were killed, some with much greater intent than this), but as an icon of the Al-Aqsa Intifada that raced around the world. I must commend you for at least noting the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later, but it's only a small step towards properly documenting the historical importance of Al-Durrah. (The beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later is said to be similarily linked). The Cybercast News Service story we already cite 7 times refers to both these incidents, as do many others - it is odd indeed that our "permanent" article manages to avoid talking about this history, when it's considered so important in the ephemeral news reports! PR^talk 21:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• After careful review I support this version: [4] as long as the lead would also reflect the recent court action. --Julia1987 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be wrong to present the criticism as fringe conspiracy theory.

First, you have video footage showing the boy appearing to move after the frame in which France 2 declared him killed. Then you have France 2 cutting that part of the footage. They said they had cut it because it showed the boy in his "death throes" or in "agony." But it doesn't show that.

You have the issue of a lone cameraman having taken the footage, with the correspondent who did the voice-over not present during the incident. You have the lack of recovered bullets, either from the wall, or from the boy, which is very strange indeed. You have the cameraman laughing when asked about the bullets and referring to a "secret" (or words to that effect; I am writing this from memory). You have the wall the bullets were fired into being demolished before anyone could examine it. Now a French court has declined to dismiss the claims against France 2 as fanciful. That does not amount to a conspiracy theory. These are legitimate questions about a controversial piece of journalism, and most importantly from our point of view, there are multiple reliable sources reporting the issues.

We therefore can't write this article as though the mainstream view is correct. All the writing throughout the article must be nuanced enough to admit the possibility of the alternative views, but without implying that we are on either side. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. And isn't adding up bits and pieces of trivia like this in order to come to a grand conclusion exactly what most ordinary people describe as being a "conspiracy theory"? Oh and have you ever seen anyone shot and then die? What DOES that look like exactly? --Nickhh (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the history again, I think this is probably the version I'd support, plus some updating to reflect the French court's ruling. The link I posted above was a slightly earlier version. I would have continued working on it, but then the reverting started, and I lost heart. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this this is a better starting point.

I propose a 0RR rule for this article. Maybe we should have two groups of editors work on two versions. Each doing their best for NPOV. At the end a vote: One version wins the other tossed out. The article is locked (protected for 3 month). Such a method will force both groups to be as NPOV as they can (writing for the enemy). This is exactly how deal with my kids when they want the last piece of my famous lemon meringue pie: "One of you split the piece in the middle and the other one choose who gets which half"…. This pretty much assure an even split.--Julia1987 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a version of political philosopher John Rawls's original position, a thought experiment in which members of a future society have to decide which laws would be fair — but they have to decide it behind the "veil of ignorance," not knowing which position (black, white, rich, poor, disabled, able-bodied) they themselves will occupy in that society i.e. not knowing which piece of the pie they'll end up with. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Slim, you must surely be aware that your "evidence" against the mainstream viewpoint isn't relevant to this discussion, unless it's also been raised by a credible source. [written by CJCurrie as part of 21:10, 7 June 2008 edit]

Yes, of course it has, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See below. CJCurrie (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you once tried to stretch the meaning of WP:NOR to prevent me from removing demonstrably inaccurate information on another page, I find it passing strange that you'd bring forward these speculations (about the cameraman, the voice-over, etc.) in a bid to change the wording here.

You should also know that the French court's ruling has to do with the legal meaning of defamation, not with the accuracy or inaccuracy of France 2's reporting. I could ass that while there are multiple sources that question the official version of events, I don't know that I'd describe any of them as "reliable". CJCurrie (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Me: Slim, you must surely be aware that your "evidence" against the mainstream viewpoint isn't relevant to this discussion, unless it's also been raised by a credible source. Slim: Yes, of course it has, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.

I know that other sources have raised this "evidence", but, again, I'm not certain that any can be called "credible". In any event, I see that my previous wording was slightly off. I should have written, "Slim, you must surely be aware that your "evidence" against the mainstream viewpoint isn't relevant to this discussion. If credible sources have raised the same evidence, then the fact that they've done so would be relevant." CJCurrie (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted examples above: e.g. Los Angeles Times, International Herald Tribune, and the German documentary, which was very detailed and definitely credible. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not how detailed they are or how credible they are (the latter is in any case a question of personal opinion). Even some very wacko stuff has been advocated by mainstream sources; Fox TV once ran a deeply tendentious two-hour program, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?, arguing for the moon landings hoax claim. The issue facing us is how much weight to give such views. The bottom line, which none of our resident conspiracy theorists have addressed despite my raising it repeatedly, is that only a very small number of mainstream sources have even mentioned the conspiracy theory, let alone promoted it. WP:UNDUE establishes a clear set of principles:

• The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
• Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.
• We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.
• Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
• The article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
• In determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors

Those are all part of WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable fundamental principle that cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. The only acceptable solution to this issue will be one that meets the requirements of WP:NPOV, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with applying exactly these (and other) wikipedia policies to solve the dispute we are having. They are indeed non-negotiable fundamental principles.

The problem we have is three fold:

1. ChrisO thinks that the policy somehow supports his view
2. ChrisO has intimidated other editors and editwar (violated 3RR) to get his view into the article.
3. There are now new sources changing what used to be the "mainstream view". These sources clearly address the reason why, initially, the France-2 version was propagated and repeated worldwide.

Not sure how we can proceed as the logic, sources and good manner of several editors now participating on this talk page does not seem to move the small group of editors (Nickhh, ChrisO , Cj, and Tart) who's behavior prevents any ability to move forward on resolving this dispute. We have on one side editors who wish to take into account the new situation after the court verdict and on the other hand a group of editors clinging to the same old image that was the original report (now questioned by sources) --Julia1987 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the dispute is really between you and Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not between you and other editors. Key difference. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The dispute is between the aforementioned group of editors and another group of editors on what proper application of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE means, in the context of this article. Simply asserting, repeatedly "the other group isn't following policy" doesn't make it true. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey is correct: There is a group who appointed itself "to uphold" wikiepdia policy. They do it by engaging in edit war, reverts, intimidations and trying to ban other editors from topics in which their POV is different from the "group think" --Julia1987 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm going to try to get some mediation organised. I'll post a link below to the mediation page, when that gets created. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly participate. Julia1987 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about sources

Those who reject the criticism of France 2 say that most reliable sources support the original France 2 version of what happened, and that that is therefore the mainstream position. As I recall, all the sources who do this are very early ones, written before anything was known. Do we have any recent mainstream sources who continue to support, or who repeat without criticism, the France 2 version of events? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know no mainstream media is defending France 2. The current consensus revolves around the judgment against France 2, and the vindication of an accused "slanderer" who was behind the investigation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This user had no editing history before today. CJCurrie (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you genuinely think that this whole debate is about whether the "original France 2 version" is the agreed mainstream version (as referred to by other editors here), then you need to go away and do a lot of research into this issue and into the talk page debates above about it. --Nickhh (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of reading about this in order to do the rewrite. The debate is about the accuracy of the France 2 report, with various views in support and opposed, ranging from the France 2 account being largely accurate but misleadingly described after the fact, all the way to claiming it was a deliberate setup and that the cameraman was aware of that.

What I'm asking is whether we have any recent mainstream sources who do not reflect one of the opposing positions. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that is exactly what the debate is not about. The debate is about whether the claim that this individual is dead is a hoax or a fraud, and what weight to put on that theory. It really isn't that difficult to understand. --Nickhh (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, the debate began long before you made an edit to the page. It has been about the extent to which we ought to say "reported this" and "alleged that." This has covered whether the boy is dead to whether the footage shows X or Y, and many other issues. The principle underlying each issue is the same, namely that we do not take sides unless the issue is very clear cut and the opposing sources tiny-minority. Neither is the case here. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't patronise me, but nonetheless I'm going to do exactly that to you. For the fourth (?) time, this current debate is very precisely about whether to describe his death as "reported" or "alleged". No serious source has any evidence that he is not dead. Please let all of us know if you have any inside info on this one way or the other . --Nickhh (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but no serious source has any evidence that he IS dead. All information pointing to the "fact" has proven to be largely fabricated, which that in itself should discredit France 2 as a reliable source. And since France 2 is the sole media outlet that initially claimed al-Durrag was dead, there is no other evidence that could prove he is in fact dead.

Get it?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; reply to Nick) It's interesting you say that I'm patronizing you when I was responding to your "um, no ... it really isn't difficult to understand" and "you need to go away and do a lot of research into this issue."

I repeat: the issue is (and has always been) about the extent to which the mainstream view should be presented as the truth. You are right that no RS has evidence that the boy is alive. Similarly, no RS has evidence that he died. There is no evidence, because for reasons best known to themselves both sides destroyed it, or have failed to produce it. Therefore, we have only a series of narratives, all of which should be included, unless they are genuinely kooky and reproduced only in very dubious publications. But anything the Los Angeles Times sees fit to reproduce is a position we take seriously, like it or not. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I "get it". You are all, quite seriously, nuts. Cloaking that insanity in speciously rational argument does not help. Present me with the evidence that the moon landings took place or else I will start editing that page with "reportedly" and "allegedly" as well. Please turn the lights off here before you leave. --Nickhh (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate personal attacks nor does anyone else. I'm not quite sure what your angle is here. You say you "get it" (sarcastically), yet offer no insight aside from "your nuts."

I tolerate zealotry, but I don't have to like it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Read previous debates if you genuinely want my insight into this issue and others. "Zealotry" is of course an interesting choice of word.--Nickhh (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I don't think you've read the sources carefully, because you're including as "nuts" some very serious French journalists who've studied what evidence there is. The problem with the initial reporting is that it was so conclusive, despite the doubts about the footage and the lack of any forensic evidence (and the reporting was particularly conclusive in the UK, where your user page says you live) that people who read it, and who come to look at the issue now, do think that anyone questioning that version is "nuts." But if read all the sources carefully, you can see that there are genuine issues with the initial reporting. That doesn't mean it was necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the media reported material as fact without having checked it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all that debate is covered in the article, even in the lead. What the main page - quite correctly - doesn't do is give equal weight to the idea that he is not dead, which is the ideological preserve of bloggers and right wing fantasists. And anyway that is very different from simply questioning the exact details of what France 2 and Enderlin said at the time. Btw, I read lots of sources, very carefully. --Nickhh (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

update: Nothing was conclusive. The media was more than willing to accept another stab at Israel, whether it was true or not. France 2 blatantly lied to the world, then tried to sue the people that were mere steps away from discovering the awful truth. Adding the recent judgment against France 2, and the FACT that al-Durrah is likely still alive, means any conclusion made before the entire world jumped on Israel as unjustified. Let's not forget, sovereign nations worshiped Al-Durrah, declared him a martyr. How embarassing would it be if it was discovered the entire story was a total lie. This is the reason why media outlets aren't willing to spill the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, WP:SOAP. At least that's clear now, in respect of this SPA editor. --Nickhh (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scoff away Nickhh. I couldn't care less. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't. Luckily everyone can see where your edits are coming from now. Transparency can only be a good thing, surely. --Nickhh (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Nickhh and Wikifan12345. It would be better for WP:NAM if you two were to take a step back and open your issues for wider community inspection (see: WP:DR). Nickhh, I would also suggest you review WP:CIV. Calling other editors "You are all, quite seriously, nuts." is a clear violation in my honest opinion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But they are all nuts, that's the nature of conspiracy theorists. Anyway, I believe User:ChrisO may be asking for some form of mediation. How is the bid for adminship going btw? At what point are you going to make it official? --Nickhh (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this whole issue is that much of the mainstream views are conspiracy theories. ChrisO summarized the mainstream views above as either a) the Israelis killed him, b) the Palestinians killed him or c) we don't know who killed him. Both B and C are in conspiracy theory territory themselves. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely accurate (being nitpicky here). The big difference between the mainstream and conspiracy theory views is that the mainstream views do not impute motives to the shooting, whereas the conspiracy theories do. Generally speaking, Western media reports have avoided trying to suggest any reason for the shooting other than that the al-Durrahs were "caught in a crossfire". The implicit assumption is that the shooting was accidental, which would be a reasonable assumption given that the al-Durrahs were unarmed civilians. (I should note that Arab sources claim that he was deliberately murdered, but I've not found any sources in European languages that argue that line.) By contrast, the conspiracy theorists are very aggressive about assigning a motive, claiming the existence of a conspiracy involving the media and Palestinians that seeks to defame Israel for propaganda reasons. Now, it's certainly true that the al-Durrah footage has been very extensively used for propaganda, but the conspiracy theorists go beyond this to claim that the footage was created for propaganda purposes from the outset. Consider also the targets of the conspiracy theorists - not just the Palestinians but the media. A Guardian article of 2006 that mentions the al-Durrah conspiracy theories comments that "For some of Israel's supporters, a primary aim of their war on the web is an attempt to discredit what they see as hostile foreign media reports, especially those containing iconic visual images." [5] -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that most western sources will say the might have been shot by Palestinians but won't say exactly how that might have happened. I suppose there is the fog of war but the al-Durrahs weren't literally in the crossfire were they? From the map in the article it looks like no Palestinian could have been shooting at the Israelis and hit the al-Durrahs. Unless possibly they were to the east and a very bad shot. But the shooter couldn't have been to the east because the bullets are hitting the wall, right? The shooter had to be north of them and nobody to their north could have shot them while aiming at the Israeli post.

So it is true that the media won't speculate how it might have happened. I imagine any media who think "crossfire" must have arrived there by deduction: "If it wasn't the Israelis, it must have been in the crossfire." But I have never seen anyone articulate a particular scenario where the al-Durrahs were shot in the crossfire. I don't think anyone who has looked at the map thinks there was crossfire where the al-Durrahs were. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To be exact, the media won't speculate why it might have happened. I don't know how much credence to give to the map since I'm not sure what it's based on. From what I gather from the reporting, there was firing going on in both directions. All we know for sure is that someone with a line of sight to the al-Durrahs sprayed them with automatic fire. That could have been an Israeli fearing they were snipers, or it could have been a careless Palestinian or Israeli accidentally discharging his weapon at their position. We don't know, of course, and it's impossible to determine the "why" of the shooting, which is probably the reason the media have avoided that topic. The conspiracy theorists have come up with their own "why" but it's as much speculation as anyone else's "why". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I suggest you focus your comments on article improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, apologies. Most of them have been though. --Nickhh (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more focus should be put on cleaning up the article. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out the blatant partisan tactics going on in this discussion. ChisO clearly has his own agenda and his stance in this article is far from neutral. A ranking admin with a personal agenda in a hot topic such as this one is quite alarming. I hope some of you agree.Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My only "agenda", as you put it, is upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, particularly when people are trying to use it as a platform for advocacy (you've made your own position very clear). Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please be reminded that CAMERA (spectacularly exposed as conspiring to cheat here only a few weeks ago), have long been taking a special interest in this case, with an extraordinary 33 articles devoted to it. CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin has made their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances brand new SPAs (do we now have 3?),should be treated not just with caution, but with grave suspicion.

Can I also remind people that we've now had several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating (often supremely confident, as if they had complete impunity). In (all?) cases these cheats seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. Editors currently in front of the ArbCom on charges of abusing admin tools ("long term problematic behavior" in the words of her chief accuser) should be particularly careful about engaging with highly suspicious editors apparently arrived for a smear campaign on career journalists. PR^talk 09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment (on the comment above by User:PalestineRemembered) - What is it now ? Not even "guilt by association" but guilt by having similar areas of interest? PS is this a "non-English-speaking" wikipedia ? --Julia1987 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a user named User:PalestineRemembered after a website of the same name [6]("The Home of Ethnically Cleansed & Occupied Palestinians") could hardly be seen as neutral in this discussion. Shame. One could as easily suggest that he is a stooge for PalestineRemembered.com or Electronic Intifada. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop going on about CAMERA; you, in particular, with the user name you chose, can't point the finger at anyone else regarding being on Wikipedia to emphasize a particular POV.

The only thing that matters for us is that the article clearly reflect what reliable sources have said, and that no view is presented as though it's the truth. It takes nuanced writing to do that in a situation where sources on both sides are sometimes presenting thoughtful material, but are often simply repeating propaganda. The current first sentence, which states as fact that the boy was killed, is not good writing, or NPOV, because it aligns itself with one camp, and introduces the story as though part of it didn't exist.

The boy was "reported to have been killed" is correct, and does not in any way indicate that WP believes he is still alive; it simply introduces the reader to a narrative that has twists and turns in it, rather than pretending that narrative isn't there. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"The only thing that matters for us is that the article clearly reflect what reliable sources have said" - amen to that. --Julia1987 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. So what reliable sources say he was not killed? No, not just those that refer to the "hoax" claims - in passing or even with a hint of approval - but what reliable sources say he is, definitely, still alive? Come on, can someone finally answer that question and provide that information? Until these are presented, it is neither bad writing or POV to say simply he was killed. We don't use the (yes, strictly accurate) qualifier "it was reported .." each time we use reliable media sources for information in Wikipedia, unless there is a genuine disagreement between different mainstream sources about a specific matter of fact, which is not the case here. We take mainstream media reports as being accurate unless and until they are corrected or retracted. As discussed ad nauseam there is of course a dispute in mainstream sources about who killed him and exactly how he died, and this is all reflected in the introduction. As indeed is the fringe allegation that he is not dead at all. --Nickhh (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• WSJ says "allegedly killed" --Julia1987 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In an online editorial it make a brief reference to him being "allegedly killed by Israeli bullets". I am not going to waste any more time debating with you if this is the standard of evidence you are going to bring, and if you are going to ignore all the points about WP:RS that have been made to you hundreds of times. This article is now locked, and you cannot currently insert your POV into it anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all sources are now saying "reportedly" or "allegedly." Here, the Miami Herald says "supposedly." I can't think why we had "reported to have been killed" in this article for, I believe, years, and suddenly someone tried to remove it just as a French court said that doubts about the footage have not been dispelled. This is just not realistic. As I said earlier, can someone produce a recent reliable source who affirms that the boy was indeed killed? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who can actually read more than six words in one go? That Miami Herald piece says not simply "supposedly killed", but "supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers". And in any event it is clearly another comment piece, which should not be taken as a reliable source for issues of fact. And in addition I am of course asking for reliable sources that definitively say he is alive and therefore give real weight to the dispute, not ones which simply debate the overall controversy and refer to the hoax theory, even if approvingly. And finally, as also discussed ad nauseam above, the fact that poor phrasing was allowed to fester in this article for so long proves nothing. I tried to remove it on at least one occasion in the past and was reverted. Thank god it has now gone and won't be back for a while. --Nickhh (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The "supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers" issue is irrelevant. Multiple reliable sources are now reporting that the incident may have been a hoax at worst, and that, at best, there is something odd about the footage, and France 2's reluctance to show all of it. You can dismiss this or that source, but there are too many for them all to be dismissed, and it means the idea can no longer be entertained that this is a straightforward issue, and that anyone disagreeing is verging on conspiracism. That is the only point that matters for us, because it has to inform the tone of the article. The current first sentence, for example, has to go. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a number of recent reliable sources from around the world reporting, to varying degrees, that the incident may have been a hoax. The onus is on editors who disagree with this analysis, and who feel it is fringe conspiracy material, to produce recent reliable sources who affirm the accuracy of the original reporting. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above Google link, which appears to bring up a fairly eclectic collection of occasional commentary from partisan "news sites", one or two online op-eds from conservative columnists in American or Australian newspapers discussing the issue in very broad theoretical terms and of course an op-ed from the Jerusalem Post in which the writer actually lays into the "conspiracy theorists". But no reliable sources whatsoever explicitly saying he was not killed. Sorry, but the onus is on YOU and others to justify why you want the weasel words "was reported" to appear in this article, when it refers to al-Durrah's death itself. --Nickhh (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that using "reportedly" puts undue weight on the tiny-minority view that he is not dead. As I've said before, it's like saying that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" went to the Moon or that the WTC was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft. I've already pointed out what WP:UNDUE states on how to treat small- or tiny-minority viewpoints. Could you try addressing that point rather than constantly ignoring it, please? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The repeated Apollo references seem to be irrelevant in this case - the sources for the disputes are nowhere on the same level of reliability. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a tiny-minority view anymore. Please look at the number of mainstream sources implying it was a hoax, or openly calling it that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And SV you are still confusing the debate about the accuracy of the original France 2 report in terms of how it said he was killed, with the entirely different debate about whether he is dead or not and whether the entire scene was faked. This has been endlessly explained and pointed out, but it never seems to sink in. --Nickhh (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources according to our sourcing policy, WP:V. You can't go through them all and dismiss every single one: this is commentary, that one is partisan, that one conservative, this one Australian. Your opinion and my opinion of the issue or the sources is irrelevant when they are as widespread and as mainstream as this. The point is now being made by serious commentators (I suspect you strongly dislike them but that doesn't mean they're not serious) that this was a blood libel, [7] and that the speed with which it spread, and the intensity of the belief in it despite the lack of any evidence, is sadly illustrative of people's attitudes toward Jews/Israel. You personally may think this is nonsense, but it's a legitimate point of view, which this article needs to reflect, as it does all the other POVS that reliable sources see fit to publish (whether as news or commentary). SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No they're not. They include blogs and personally published websites. Nor do they all "imply it was a hoax". Some do, yes, but many just report on the claims that it was a hoax. Please stop misrepresenting sources like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating my request

Would the editors who believe the "video-might-have-been-a-hoax" view is tiny-minority conspiracism please produce some recent, mainstream, reliable sources who dismiss that theory out of hand, who say or imply that it's a fringe view, and who affirm the original reporting? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Or even just recent sources who affirm the original reporting without mentioning the so-called fringe views? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, SV, read WP:FRINGE. Nobody responds to your request because they don't need to. They don't need to because those of us with long experience working on conspiracy theory/fringe articles know that "where are the sources saying the theory is wrong" is always answered with "there aren't any, because its a fringe theory not worth anyone's time". So your question is irrelevant per the standard policy for such pages. Move on and actually make a case for inclusion, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You are attempting to dismiss eight years' worth of news reporting in favour of two weeks' worth. That's a textbook case of recentism, and it blatantly contravenes WP:UNDUE. You also ignore the fact that the majority of sources which reported on the original shooting have not returned to the story since. The recent court verdict has actually attracted relatively little attention (some of the partisan websites have complained about this). I can't think of a single source which has said "ok, we got this one wrong." -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate, Chris. The vast majority of the anti-hoax sources (if I can put it that way) were published shortly after the incident, when nothing was known. I am not dismissing eight years' worth of sources, but about 12 months' worth, if even that. It is over the last seven years or so that alternative views have emerged, and they now actually appear to be the mainstream view — that there is a strong possibility this was a hoax, either entirely or in part. Or, at best, that it was an example of poor journalism with crucial parts of the footage being cut, and then that not being admitted to. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't address the last part of your post. Yes, I agree. It is a feature of journalism that reporters rarely come back to a story if it's been messed up, to say "we stand by the original," or "no, we got it wrong." The problem it leaves us with is that finding the mainstream view is difficult. The mainstream view back in 2000 was that he had been killed by someone (Israelis, Palestinians, both), and the mainstream view now seems to be that it was a hoax. Therefore, we should simply reflect all views that reliable sources have published. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually sat down and systematically reviewed the sources and how the story has developed? I have, and this is what I found by doing a systematic Lexis-Nexis search. In 2000, the story was very widely covered with hundreds of reliable sources reporting first on the "Israel killed al-Durrah" viewpoint and then the "maybe the Palestinians killed al-Durrah" POV that the Israeli army subsequently promoted. Apparently Karsenty et al first started promoting their conspiracy theory around 2002, but it wasn't until France 2 sued Karsenty in 2004 that the conspiracy theory got any real attention. (That's always the problem with libel suits - they draw attention to the defamatory allegations that the plaintiff is trying to suppress.) At the same time, two newspapers in the same group - the Jerusalem Post and Canada's National Post, which I believe were both owned by Conrad Black at the time - began running a series of op-eds arguing for the conspiracy theory.

Now the important qualifier: very few of the articles mentioning the conspiracy theory actually endorse it, and virtually all of the handful that do are op-eds (which, per WP:RS, cannot be used to support statements of fact). The total number of articles that even mention the conspiracy theory number perhaps a few dozen. The number of articles over the entire eight-year period that describe the al-Durrah killing as a matter of fact numbers many hundreds. Even when discussing the conspiracy theory, many of the articles state clearly that al-Durrah is dead (see e.g. [8]). We cannot simply dismiss all of that coverage in favour of a few dozen articles which report on the views of a few activists - not the Israeli government or army, or any official body at all - or indeed a handful of articles by op-ed columnists. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Black's company sold its remaining stake in the National Post to CanWest in 2001. But they had both been Hollinger papers before then. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Chris, an important point: RS is not policy, and in fact is a widely ignored guideline because it keeps changing. V is the policy. Opinion pieces are fine so long as the publication is a good one, or the writer, and there is in-text attribution if the view is contentious.

Secondly, the BBC article that says the boy died is from 2007, before the recent evidence and ruling. Can you find a more recent one where a reliable source writes that the boy died, or implies it in some way?

And yes, I spent days reading the sources when I did the rewrite. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what makes this difficult is that nobody is really sure of what happened. I notice in the court documents that the judges note that even Landes thinks the probablity of that this was a staged scene is only "supérieure à 95%". So even one of the originators of the theory isn't really sure what happened. It is hard for us to say with certainty what even Landes won't. On the other hand, there are these serious questions. It is hard to pick apart what was a journalistic error and what is a discrepancy in the whole story. This is just the kind of thing that makes it hard to write an encyclopeida article, especially with multiple authors. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right. The "hoax theory" (for the sake of identifying opposing views) has wide latitude. At its heart, it says that this was not good journalism, that there is no evidence that anyone died, and that France 2 showed poor judgment in their original reporting and/or their subsequent responses. At the extreme end of the theory, some people are saying the entire thing was a set up. The bottom line is that no current reliable source seems to want to publish that the boy is dead, because there is now too much reasonable doubt about what happened. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One other point. You seem to be arguing that the small number of journals which have reported on the verdict now (a) constitute "the mainstream view" and (b) that by reporting on the case they're somehow endorsing the conspiracy theory. That's nonsense. The vast majority of the media have not reported at all on the story. Even some of the conspiracy theorists are complaining that the media is somehow "ignoring" the verdict. The media outlets that have reported on it are, as Nickh rightly says, predominately conservative. You might be able to argue that the conspiracy theory is a mainstream view in the conservative media (though you would have the difficulty of defining what's in that category). But you can't possibly argue that it's the mainstream view when the vast majority of the mainstream hasn't even mentioned it. It's also undeniably not been supported by the Israeli government or military, something which I note Karsenty has been complaining about. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So what that certain newspapers are conservative? Most of those continuing to report (until last year) that he had died in the way France 2 claimed were left-wing. It matters not. If they count as reliable sources, the politics are irrelevant. We report what they have said without taking sides. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Their political leanings matter only inasmuch as that they are only a section of the media as a whole. They do not constitute "the mainstream" all by themselves. And once again you're ignoring the central point: yes, we report what they have said, but WP:UNDUE directs not to treat minority views with as much weight as majority ones. Are you ever going to address this point? I'm going to keep hammering on it until you do. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I posted a list of newspapers reporting these allegations above. They are not only conservative, but even if they were, it means that a substantial part of the media sees the allegations as worthy of reporting without commenting that they are clearly wrong or nuts. And so must we. There is no way we can do otherwise. That the original story is deeply problematic in some way is no longer a tiny-minority view, as I've said many times. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reports. Given that, the rest of what you say is irrelevant. Give it up, SV, this is not worth your time. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they are "clearly wrong or nuts". Personally I don't take a position on the issue. I don't know who killed al-Durrah and I don't particularly care, to be honest. I deliberately haven't watched the video because I don't want my personal impressions of it to colour my edits (and my own view of it is irrelevant anyway, since that's OR). I'm going solely by (a) what the totality of reliable sources have said (not giving a small number of articles over two weeks a higher priority than a huge number over eight years); (b) what WP:NPOV requires, specifically concerning undue weight; and not least (c) what WP:BLP requires, since the conspiracy theory so clearly affects the reputations of multiple living people. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

To go deeper into my previous suggestion, I believe the article's focus should be on who reported (and what he further claimed), since that's the point of conflict. Saying "reported to have been killed" actually promotes the perspective that he might not have been killed a little bit and the main contest is the claim that he was "controversially reported to have been targeted and killed by Israeli soldiers -- with the Palestinian cameraman going further, saying "that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead". This version certainly doesn't promote that the boy is alive, and leaves enough room for the "following XXX and YYY, many accused that that the report was staged" perspective also to be presented in the following line. Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to wrap my head around what you are saying but it doesn't seem to work. Could you please rephrase? By the way, NickH contends that there is no way that the original will be changed for some time. If that is true, and if as ChrisO contends that it is POV to include "reportedly," and that NPOV trumps consensus....what exactly is the point of this argument? The article will remain locked until consensus is reached that agrees with ChrisO's belief as to what constitutes NPOV? Are there wiki mediators who do not have a stake in this argument? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors, and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus.. Go and read WP:NPOV - I'm quoting directly from the second paragraph. If you can't accept that principle, you shouldn't be editing here in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what most of us are arguing — that this article not take a position, because there are many mainstream sources supporting and opposing the various views. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit that you and the conspiracy theorists are resolutely ignoring is just below that section I cited - namely WP:UNDUE. We do not give minority positions as much weight as majority ones. There are also many mainstream sources arguing that the Srebrenica massacre never happened, that global warming is a hoax and so on. But as a proportion of the overall reliable published literature on those subjects, those sources are minority views and we do not use weasel words like "reportedly" to put such views on the same footing as the mainstream views, right at the top of an article. I really don't know why you're bothering to take this line, as the policy is unambiguously stated in WP:UNDUE. Note also that WP:UNDUE states "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", not "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources published in the last two weeks". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"You and the conspiracy theorists" -- come on, Chris, that just isn't fair. I've spent as much time on this page (if not more) trying to keep out the wilder conspiracy theories as trying to make sure that the more reasonable doubts are allowed in. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(deleted - WP:BLP -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

OR. When the majority, or a significant minority of reliable sources, make a similar claim, please return. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SV, I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist, otherwise I would have done so. But let's not pretend that we don't have any active conspiracy theorists on this page, OK? Wikifan12345, I've redacted your allegations about France 2 - please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to talk pages as well as articles (and also note that I can block you for violating it). I'm going to enforce this from now on, so please don't repeat it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, with respect, neither of us can block anyone involved in this article, because we ourselves are both involved. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so - "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." (WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material). BLP is an exception to the normal rules. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Any thoughts/suggestions about my comment from above please? I thought it was a reasonable compromise suggestion that might actually be accepted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jaakobou, I don't think it's so much a case of people ignoring you as people not really understanding you. Like Tundrabuggy, I don't really get what you're trying to say. Could you suggest a form of words for the article that would address the concerns you've raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some May-June 2008 mainstream sources

• BBC News, UK, May 22: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
• Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• News.com.au, Australia, May 29: Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.
• The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4: calls the death a "fake."

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Spectator, UK, May 21: Calls it a "killing" in inverted commas.

Op-ed. Blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this a blog post? And if you don't like it, read the previous story of theirs that they link to. There is nothing wrong with op-eds, so long as we provide in-text attribution. Do not be so dismissive of sources you disagree with, please. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reports. They are distinctly less useful and encyclopaedic as sources of fact, per long precedent and usage, especially in areas subject to heavy propagandising. I would imagine that you are already aware of this. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, its a blog post because it says its a blog post. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recommend this new movie: http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php "France 2 vs. Evidence" Narrated by Richard Landes. Not a reliable source but well worth looking at as it discusses the evidence using the film and analysis and interviews with the father and the cameraman. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I call it a blog because it's Melanie Phillips' personal blog on the Spectator website? The print edition certainly doesn't cover the story - I should know, I get it on subscription. Also, it's not that I disagree with them, it's simply that what you're citing is mostly columnists giving their opinion (that's why they're called "opinion pieces", you know), not reporters doing actual journalism. Their parroting of the Karsenty-Landes conspiracy theory doesn't advance our knowledge of the story one inch. By way of analogy, op-ed columnists have claimed that Barack Obama is a Muslim; on that basis, should our article on him state that he is only "reportedly" a Christian? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've elsewhere linked to the Los Angeles Times and International Herald Tribune. It isn't possible to continue to claim that no or few reliable sources take this seriously. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So let's see, including the LA Times and IHT we have... 2 articles that aren't op-eds? Please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take the opinion sources and those that talk about the conspiracy theory rather than the incident itself out if you wish this list to be taken seriously. Please also familiarise yourself with the standard approach about conspiracy theories. The talkpages of the 9/11 arbitration, WP:FTN and WP:FRINGE would be a start. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's a very, very complex story, probably the most complex I've encountered on Wikipedia. I had to do some serious reading to know enough to do the rewrite last year, must more reading than would normally be necessary, because there are a number of theories, most of them put forward by serious commentators who have evaluated the evidence, including the raw footage. I suggest that anyone commenting here do the same before going any further. Things really aren't what they seem, and the more you read, the more confusing it gets. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, replace what I say with "complex stories" and do what I suggest anyway. This is no different from a dozen other such complex stories, and will not be treated as different either. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is being treated differently: we are stating as fact something that no reliable source now states as fact. More sources below, as I posted above. I again recommend this wording with an update to include the recent verdict. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That is no different from anywhere else. "Now" means nothing: we are not news, nor do we make OR-y inferences of the sort you suggest. If you do indeed find a source indicating that a significant minority of informed opinion now believes that this was a hoax, please present it here, rather than this combination of op-eds and analysis of what "isn't there". Please believe me, these are approaches that have been seen before, and are precisely what WP:FRINGE has been written to stamp out. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you'd ever been involved in this article before. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no point to that statement. Please detail any objections to my post, or take it on board and alter your approach appropriately. I have some considerable experience in articles that are subject to fringe activist campaigns, and I detailed above the approach not to take to such in order to stay within our policies. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that neither your current nor previous account has been involved here before, so I'm assuming you haven't read the voluminous source material. What triggered your interest today, incidentally? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted an alert about this to the fringe theories noticeboard. Relata commented on the matter there several days ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, a familiarity with everything ever written about an incident is not necessary to recognise a fringe POV - requiring that would make our job impossible (and claiming it is necessary is also something a lot of us have seen before in such articles) and second, I'm not discussing my "current or previous account" here or anywhere, thanks, and it is neither appropriate nor good conduct for you to bring it up on an article talkpage. It should be blindingly obvious why I'm here, this has been on AN/I and at FT/N, both of which I read and post to regularly, so I can't imagine why on earth you asked a question that has such an incredibly obvious answer. Please stay on-point and away from personalities, SV, this is not doing anyone any good.

Again, we are not news, nor do we make in the text original inferences of the sort you suggest. If you do indeed find a source indicating that a significant minority of informed opinion now believes that this was a hoax, please present it here, rather than any further combination of op-eds and analysis of what "isn't there". These are approaches that have been seen before elsewhere, and are precisely what WP:FRINGE has been written to stamp out. You should read that sometime, by the way. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
• The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

Speaking of cutting things out, do you suppose that you could cut out the original research that screams out from your last line? It would be helpful if you could also stop misrepresenting sources. That Reuters story you cite says no such thing (the word "supported" never appears). The court found only that Karsenty had not violated the Press Law of 1881 under which he was sued. Moreschi has put it very concisely over on WP:FTN: ""Is not libellous" is not synonymous with "is true". That is very easy to understand." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, if you read all the reports, you'll see that the court appears to have gone further than that in his remarks. I believe people are waiting for the full decision to be published. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been published and I've read it. My comments were based on reading that full text in conjunction with what the French media has reported about it in brief. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the full decision, please? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - see http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF . It's on Richard Landes' personally published website, so it's not a reliable source per se, but the document certainly seems authentic enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more detail, the law in question enables a defendant to evade a conviction for defamation if it can be proven that (a) the matter is of genuine public concern, (b) the publisher has acted in good faith and (c) he has made at least a basic attempt to verify the defamatory material. Truth doesn't enter into it - not only is truth not an absolute defence, but courts are apparently specifically forbidden from investigating the truth of defamatory statements. If you read the judgement (which I have, in the original French - hard work, I can tell you) it states - as the French media has reported - that (a) the matter is of public concern; (b) Karsenty wasn't motivated by malice, therefore good faith is assumed; and (c) the witnesses called by Karsenty supported some or all of his claims, so he had made at least some attempt at verification. But the court also said, to quote the Reuters report you linked to, that "Karsenty did not provide proof of his allegations." So claims that the court in this case did endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory (how could it, if it said he didn't have any proof?) are basically self-serving bunk. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

False, yet again. Read the article in question, which, under 'defeneces' clearly says 'Truth of the defamatory statement is available as a defense in most libel cases'. Now, of course, you already know this, because you wrote the article in question. What you hope to accomplish with this easily proven false statement, is beyond me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And, since yoyu read the verdict, you also know that in addition to the above, the court stated that (d) the testimony of the Palestinian cameraman, which is , in essence, ALL the France 2 offered as evidence for their case, is not credible, and (e) that the thesis brought about by Karnesty and supported by his expert witnesses, that the event was staged, can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no hard facts to prove the boy's death or his non-death. All we have are assumptions based on a film and a film-maker's word. The idea that the boy is dead is as much an opinion as the one that he is alive -at least until we have a body to exhume and test. The fact that everyone believed it initially may in fact have been due to a hoax (as the French courts say is not a libelous position). Until we exhume a body and do DNA testing everything will be op-eds. Until then all we have is Enderlin's assertion and a film. What France 2 produced as evidence of the boy's death is being reviewed by the courts & the world press and found wanting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And if the world press pronouces it false in reports, we will update this article dutifully. Till then, we do not rely on two op-eds and a blog post. All the other detail you provide is irrelevant to questions of sourcing and evaluation of weight. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into debating evidence with a conspiracy theorist because (a) that's original research and (b) it's like mud-wrestling with a pig. But I will note that the original reporting on the killing didn't depend solely on the videotape - there were also a number of reports from the hospitals involved and the funeral, as well as comments by Palestinian, Israeli and Jordanian figures (including the then King of Jordan). Larry Derfner noted in a recent JPost op-ed that the alleged conspiracy would have had to involve "journalist Charles Enderlin, his Palestinian cameraman, al-Dura's father, a hospital in Gaza, a hospital in Amman, the Jordanian ambassador to Israel, the UN, the Palestinian people" and who knows who else. There was much contemporary reporting of the events immediately after the shooting, not just on the day itself, by many more journalists than just Enderlin. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, the person who interviewed the father in hospital was the same cameraman, again alone. Otherwise, all sources are secondary, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that assertion? My own reliably published source (L'Humanité, 22 November 2004) states that the father was treated in a military hospital in Amman, Jordan, where he was visited by the King of Jordan. I'm pretty sure that the King of Jordan was not the person who took the pictures in Gaza. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So? What was the King testifying to, even if he was there? The boy was obviously not there, alive or dead. At best, the King could testify that the father was being treated for some injury in the hospital - not where this injury was sustained. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if he was there? Are you implying that the conspiracy extended to faking a visit by King Abdullah? Those conspirators sure do have a long reach! According to the contemporary reports, the father underwent multiple operations by military surgeons for "wounds to both legs, one arm and his midsection, and spent four months in a Jordanian hospital." Incidentally, that needs to be reflected in the article when it's unprotected. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm implying that I don't have a source in front of me that says teh King was there, so at this point in time, I can's coment one way or theother on hi sbein g there. Now, Answer the question: what was the King testifying to, as a primary source? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was one contemporaneous interview published with the father, and the interviewer was the cameraman, acting alone. I don't have time to look for a source right now, but it's in most of the comprehensive sources; it was also in the version of the article I linked to above, after the rewrite. He may have been photographed with various celebrities at later dates, and he gave interviews at later dates too (although not always saying the same thing), but the main interview that was relied on by the early reports was conducted by the same cameraman, who is not someone who would normally conduct interviews. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to compile a list of people we know for sure are primary sources i.e. people who have firsthand knowledge of what happened. The two that I know of are the cameraman and the father. There would be whichever doctors treated the boy, but did they ever release a statement about the boy? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not need to rely on primary sources in any way. Enough secondary sources exist. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata. For the record, according to an AFP/AP report of 4 October 2000 the Jordanian doctors spoke publicly about the treatment of the boy's father ("Doctors in Jordan have said Mr. Durra will have permanent paralysis in the right hand and has been psychologically traumatized.") and there are extensive quotes from an interview he gave in Jordan the previous day. I don't know if that's the same one as yours. I found a Le Monde article of 20 November 2004 stating that the Palestinian cameraman had interviewed the father in October 2004; maybe that's the one you mean? Some of the conspiracy theorists are quoted as citing reports from the Gaza hospital where the boy was taken, so evidently they must have given a public statement of some sort as well. Of course, all this goes some way to address the false claim that the whole story rests on one grainy videotape. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinian cameraman interviewed the boy's father when he was first admitted to hospital. It was the first interview and the one the media relied on. But did any doctor (or any other primary source) give a statement about the boy? It is what happened to the boy that we're discussing, not the father. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, no need to worry about primary sources. If several secondary sources note that a doctor discussed the nature of the supposed boy's alleged injuries, it might be relevant. Till then, no. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no dispute that the "supposed boy" was, in fact, an actual boy. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire "it would have had to have been a wide conspiracy" has been dealt with already. There is ample proof that Gazans are capable of orchestrating wide conspiracies, and of Western media falling for it, if not willingly playing along. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. I think this entire section of discussion is irrelevant to the central point. As and when the mainstream media wakes up in the manner in which that blog wishes it does, we will change this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen above. Numerous sources, from Aftenposten through Ha'aretz to ARD have been presented, in which current media news reports treat the hoax theory as at least plausible, if not likely. Perhaps you should get around to finaly reading them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly, "dirty ragheads and liberal media are all liars", which I suspect is the underlying subtext if the blogged comments by some of the conspiracy theorists' supporters are anything to go by. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Derfner's piece, which you are recommending all over the place, can be summarized succinctly, as "dirty lying Israelis and their supporters are to blame for all the world's ills"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The other way of looking at it is that critical thinking is always important. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on WP, not to the extent of second-guessing the vast majority of reliable sources, no. In fact, that's the very opposite of important. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone not understanding the importance of critical thinking will not be able to understand this case.

As for your other point, where you say "till then, no" or something. Till when and no to what? I am losing the point of your posts here. If you have something of substance to add, by all means add it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you seem to think that critical thinking has a place in assembling secondary sources. It does not. Please do not use it to second-guess our sources, as that is original research. The collation of primary sources in order to do that is also original research. If you have any future trouble with comprehension, please feel free to ask. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An answer to Relata[9]:

"We must take into account new information as it appears and this is the crux of the issue now: court have heard expert testimony and ruled. You and ChrisO are as disruptive as people who would still cling to the theory of "flat earth" after a voyage around the globe have been completed."

--Julia1987 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is what the court ruled on. As the French press reporting makes very clear, it ruled on the narrow question of whether Karsenty was guilty of libel, not the bigger question of whether Karsenty was right. Nowhere in the judgement does the court say that Karsenty's witnesses were right - only that their views could not be dismissed. It's a lot more nuanced than the conspiracy theorists have claimed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisO: It is nice that you offer us your own (very original) view but above you rejected published op-eds ….

If you don't mind we shall simply ignore your interpretation and analysis of the verdict and go by what the published sources understood the ramification of the verdict is. We can start with the WSJ source: [10] or use any of Slim's sources above you rejected.

As for the facts in this matter:

Since the French court ruled the Karsenty/Shpira/Shahaf version has a valid reason to be presented we in wikipedia shall do exactly that - We shall present two versions:

1. The Abu-Rahma/ Enderlin version
2. The Karsenty version

--Julia1987 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And we shall describe the controversy as this is exactly what WP:NPOV require us to do.

Please do not get sidetracked into discussing the moment of the verdict. Neither individual wikipedians nor the tiny fraction of presented op-eds are relevant to the wording of those sections that do not deal with this latest verdict, which, per NPOV, needs to be a tiny fraction of the article itself. The French court's verdict is completely and utterly irrelevant, whatever it may be, untill reflected in a significant proportion of reliable source, or until reliable sources issue some form of retraction or clarification. This is now the fifth time you have been told this. Please note that repeated failure to address issues in this manner is considered a breach of the normal editorial process. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And once again, no, we should not be doing nothing of the sort. All of this section's sources, plus the WSJ one just cited, cannot and will not be used in this or any other article. As numerous people have stated, OpEds are not reliable sources. Once again, I will direct you to legitimate reliable sources such as the BBC, which notes that the ruling was that it is legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world". That is FACT. This OPINION of the matter, that the ruling actually means Karsenty's claim of "pure fiction" was substantiated is just that; OPINION. The OpEds produced here may share the OPINION as some editors, but that doesn't bring it to the standards of Wikipedia policy for inclusion in and attribution to in articles. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC is one source. They choose 1 quote from the verdict and gave their interpretation of the facts. When we discuss the case should we use BBC technique of selective quotes ? Here are quotes from the BBC article::

"The website, Media-Ratings, said the pictures of a father and son being fired on had been staged by a cameraman working for France 2 television. The state broadcaster sued, insisting it had shown the boy being killed" " A French court has ruled in favour of a media watchdog "--Julia1987 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event, one side here seems to be discussing a slightly different point at times. The article clearly does "describe the controversy" around both the Karsenty allegations and other different criticisms of the original France 2 broadcast. And it "presents" the "versions" expressed by those critics. In great detail. I don't think anyone is suggesting it shouldn't do that (at least to a certain extent and in the main body of the article) - what is immediately at issue is the weight to be attached to some of the more extreme criticism in the lead of the article, eg by reducing the broadly accepted fact of his death - however it happened - to being a mere "report". --Nickhh (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No the article does not describe the controversy when it uses France-2 report as facts…--Julia1987 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the court ruled that the media watchdog has the right to say it. That is all. There is nothing in this ruling to suggest that it was a ruling on the truth of the media watchdog's claim itself. Attempting to read one's own interpretation into what a source says is the epitome of a violation of WP:SYNT. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trac, what you raised has been discussed and answered many times. Not going to get into it gain and again. What I suggest is that when the article is open for edit again you should refrain from reverting it to your favorite version. You and ChrisO are the one violating WP:SYNT in this case. --Julia1987 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

T-A-R-C. Its only 4 letters. What I do or do not favor as far as an opinion goes is not relevant here. What I do favor is an adherence to policy, which is continuously being violated by reading into the court verdict something that is not there. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So what Julia are you suggesting the enormous section titled "Controversy" within the article is about, if it's not about, er, the controversy? And the article as is does NOT endorse the France 2 "version" (which blamed the IDF for shooting him) or "use it as fact" - it does however, yes, reflect the mainstream contention that he is dead in the opening paragraph. It then goes on to discuss the various (different) criticisms, eventually in some detail. --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is more fundamental than that section (and the lead) currently present. The whole incident is under doubt: Was it a hoax or an actual event ? Is the boy dead ? etc… There are now two different versions to the events in Nezarim Junction: One version is the France-2 version the other is the independent investigation.

The source (only source) to the France-2 version is Abu Rahma. Anything that comes out of that tape can not be presented here as fact but as one side. The other side is the Karsenty/Shpira/Shahaf Version that need to be presented as well. I am not saying Karesenty is correct I am saying that we need to write this article in NPOV manner. I am glad that ChrisO/CJ no longer raise the "fringe conspiracy argument" and that we are finally discussing how the article should look like. I'll admit that there are better wordsmiths than me who can re-write the needed sections.--Julia1987 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lost count of the number of times people have pointed out there are not "two different versions" of what happened - there are actually multiple versions being claimed by various different people, some of which are being given more credence than others in mainstream reporting. You seem incapable of understanding that. Or of understanding the point that this article does not say that the original France 2 report - which asserted that he was killed by IDF fire - is "fact", or necessarily correct. This debate has now become as ghoulish and offensive (since it is about a child who was almost certainly killed) as it always was tedious. --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask participants to please avoid terms such as "ghoulish" and "you seem incapable"? Let's please just stick to the sources. Also, when the article is unprotected, I'd like to see all parties avoid any kinds of reverts (except of course for blatant vandalism). Instead, I'd like to see everyone concentrate on changing the text, to try and find a consensus version. If one editor adds something unsourced but plausible, and another editor disagrees with it, request a citation. If a reliable source citation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time, the unsourced text can be removed. If someone adds something that is sourced, and another editor disagrees with what was added, don't remove it, improve it. Edit it, tone it down, or perhaps move it to a different section of the article, so that the information is still included, though perhaps not given as much prominence. WP:UNDUE seems to be the core policy here, in that we want to concentrate on identifying "significant" views. But even minority views, if they are represented by multiple sources, are worth including, as long as we are providing things in the proper proportion. --Elonka 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

May I join all Elkona's requests and add that since we now have new data we need to focus on adding info from current sources. We would like to have this encyclopedia up-to-date. --Julia1987 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, consensus here sounds nice in theory, but the reality here is that consensus cannot override policy. A WP:FRINGE theory is a fringe theory, and no amount of calls to the contrary, regardless of the number or status of those who are calling for it, can elevate a fringe theory to a factual one. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Forcing out non-conformist views

That would be those who do not conform to ChrisO's view of what constitutes NPOV . He says:

"There's certainly nothing wrong with SPAs, but we have here a number of SPAs who are (a) edit warring (b) soapboxing (c) serially violating NPOV and (d) promoting original research. Over on WP:AE, Moreschi has recommended a topic-ban of Julia1987 (talk · contribs) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs). I will be recommending a topic-ban of Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) as well. Now that the page is protected, I'll try to get some mediation underway, but it's unlikely to achieve anything useful unless our resident conspiracy theorists stop ignoring basic NPOV requirements."

First he changes an long-established and contentious edit to reflect his views, and when met with resistance posts warnings only on the pages of those of us who hold a different view. By the 3rd or 4th day of discussion, he starts the search for "uninvolved" admins in 2 different forums in order to ban or block these opposing editors. No such warnings are issued or made to those editors who have been edit-warring from his perspective, including those making personal attacks such as calling other editors 'liars.' ChrisO seems to have made himself sole arbitrator of definitions of SPA, "soapboxing",what comprises 'serially violating NPOV" & "promoting original research," fringe theory, undue weight etc. It appears that the use of the word "reported" preceding "death" can be attacked from multiple wiki-policy angles, At the very least, one might expect particular diffs to illustrate such serious accusations as "serially violating NPOV," but apparently it is sufficient to get a crony who will support him in his attempts to shoehorn his opinion into this highly sensitive article, even at the expense (or with the added benefit?) of having to ban/block other editors. I would think such a way of dealing with disagreements between editors should have some safeguards to prevent administrators from (what I would consider in any other venue) an abuse of power. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News covers the controversy before the ruling

Greg Palkot of Fox News covers the controversy and about the content and veracity of the French Report, and the doubts raised. [11]Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the discussions

Just as a general reminder to everyone, please:

• Stick to discussing the article, not the editors
• As an exercise, try to avoid using the words "you" or "your" in your posts. Referring to everything in the third-person can have an excellent calming effect.
• Try to keep every opinion, source-based. Instead of saying, "I think that the article should say," try "According to this source, the article should say".

Just my $0.02, Elonka 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. You posted earlier about how we should only rely on source-based material, which is correct, of course, but the current dispute is happening despite the use of sources, so any thoughts from you would be much appreciated.

At the heart of the dispute among the sources is whether the shooting was a set up, or whether it was real in some sense, but not in the way France 2 (the original reporting team) described. In other words, was the boy really killed in the way they described, or was he killed at all?

For a long time, the article lead took no side. It said, for example (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was reported to have been killed by gunfire on September 30, 2000 near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada. [12]

Recently, ChrisO changed this [13] to the current version (bold added): "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was killed in an exchange of gunfire ..." [14]

I feel we should definitely not take such a clear stance in the lead, given the doubts about what happened that day. It is definitely true that he was reported to have been killed, but I feel it would be wrong of us to affirm anything further. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources - or vanishingly few - that report otherwise. Given that, there is no question that a lead that "does not take a side" does, indeed, take a side. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the recent judgment? It makes clear that there is a legitimate story to be told here, and that the cameraman was not a "perfectly credible" witness. If it's a legitimate story for a court, then it's most certainly a legitimate one for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A primary source, which we are not competent to parse. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you're using the word "parse." It is a legitimate primary source, of course, because it's a court case that has been written about by secondary reliable sources. Have you read the judgment? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "parse" is frequently used in casual conversation to refer to the act of deconstructing long, complex arguments for the purpose of analysis, particularly original analysis.

We can use the primary source to substantiate what has been written about extensively in multiple reliable sources. First we need the multiple reliable sources. Then we need to find the part of the primary source which those secondary sources unquestionably describe or discuss, and quote only that, as substantiation or illustration. Given all that, I think it singularly unproductive to focus on primary sources in this case, when we have no secondary sources that discuss the overall impact of this individual judgment, which provides only a tiny fraction of the encyclopaedic interest of this incident. I hope that's clear enough. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From which policy are you taking such an idiosyncratic view of how primary sources may be used? And can you answer my first question, please: have you read the judgment? ChrisO left a link to it above if you haven't. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A standard interpretation of WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE in these cases, the latter which it seems clear has not yet been read by some people on this page. Please see above for extensive arguments as to why it would be singularly unproductive to focus on primary sources that we are not competent to deconstruct and analyse. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just another nudge, again, let's please avoid the words "you" and "your", to try and de-escalate things a tad. As for the wording here, I'm sure that we can come up with a source-based way of describing the events, that still stays within WP:UNDUE. Is there a specific sentence that seems to be at the center of the conflict? Let's try word-smithing a bit. --Elonka 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do strike out any of my comments that uses the word. The particular dispute seems to center around the use of the word 'reportedly'. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read the sources before commenting further, please. It's difficult enough to know how to write this article even having read them. Without having read them, it is impossible. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, are there any sources that use the word "reportedly"? If not, we should stick to how the current reliable sources are describing it (random example[15]) and then follow their lead. --Elonka 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the current issue is whether we say in the lead the boy was reported to have been killed, or that he was killed. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No sources, Elonka, which describe the case overall, have been presented that use the word "reportedly" in the manner in which it is suggested we use it in the lead. We would require a significant number of such sources, as this case was widely covered. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's article, The Star, says this: "...The shocking footage – which ended with an apparently dead Palestinian youngster sprawled across the lap of his father, who also seemed to have been shot – was viewed over and over by a TV audience that spanned the globe." Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not necessarily the word "reportedly." It is whether we say the boy was killed, or was reported to have been killed. The latter is true according to all reliable sources. The former is not agreed by all reliable sources to be true.

As for your comments about primary sources, I am very familiar with WP:NOR and the primary-source issue because I helped to write it. It says (and it is policy):

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

We are therefore able to use the court's decision, so long as we simply quote it and do not analyse. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had occasion before to point out that writing a policy does not necessarily imply the ability to flawlessly and invariably implement it. (This will come as no surprise to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of political science.) NOR actually says "...the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Which is why "we need to find the part of the primary source which those secondary sources unquestionably describe or discuss". I think it is possible that that wording in the policy is my own. WP:FRINGE, into which I had significant input, IIRC, is also worth reading as relevant, as I believe I might have mentioned once or twice.

I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed. Replace the words "boy is dead" with "man landed on the moon" and it might help. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a significant part of the problem is the lack of agreement on what the verdict actually signifies. The conspiracy theorists naturally claim that it vindicated them. Let's note first of all that the vast majority of the media didn't even think it was newsworthy (Karsenty's supporters have been complaining about this, apparently it's all part of the vast liberal media conspiracy against them). Of the media that did cover the verdict, most of the pieces that took the conspiracy theorists' side were op-eds. None of the reporting in the (admittedly few) French media stories about the case states that the court supported the conspiracy theory. The French reporting is particularly significant, as only the French stories quote from the actual text of the verdict (as far as I know). So in total, only a very small proportion of the world media has backed the conspiracy theorists' claims about the verdict. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to SV's comment immediately above, the problem is of course that people are attempting to analyse the verdict. The French verdict is an incredibly densely written document, very difficult to read in English let alone French, based on legal principles that don't have a direct equivalent in the English-speaking countries. All we can and should do is report what reliable secondary sources have said about the meaning of the verdict. Since said sources evidently disagree, we cannot state or imply that the verdict ruled that the France 2 report was a hoax. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never suggested we do that, but simply that we use the text to quote from, and most importantly that we change the lead sentence back to the stable "was reported to have been killed." We can use any of the secondary sources to evaluate the ruling e.g. (Wall Street Journal Europe): "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate." (see below for link) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Illustrative of the problem. "Legitimate", of course, could mean "legitimate commentary", or "legitimate concern". The former concept, a well-understood one, hardly bears up your preferred evaluation of the ruling. We are not capable of interpreting the ruling beyond that single word, we are not capable of understanding the legal basis underlying what the court considers "legitimate", and we certainly cannot look at the primary source for answers. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with quoting from the text is that you are relying on your own personal judgment about which bits are significant. That's not only OR, it's deeply flawed, since we don't personally know which bits are significant (I don't see any experts on French libel law on this talk page). Where reliable sources have quoted from the verdict, we can highlight that, since we are then relying on our sources' judgement rather than our own. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy allows us to quote notable primary sources, so long as we stick to quotes. And the quote I used above was from a secondary source. Look, Chris, you can't keep this stuff hidden. It is out there. It has been discussed by reliable sources. A French court has ruled that to repeat these concerns is not libel because they are legitimate issues to raise (whether true or not), which none of us is in a position to judge. We would do well to remember that. None of us was there. All we can and should do is report what the secondary sources and the courts have said. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many fringe viewpoints are not libellous, so that interpretation of the court's judgment is irrelevant.

The policy indicates that we locate the portion of the primary source that can be quoted, once that portion has had its applicability attested to by a reliable secondary source. That is not the case here, it seems. In addition, that attestation should be done in a manner that can be judged without specialist knowledge. It has already been mentioned, I believe, that that is, in this case, beyond our capabilities. I believe we can dispense with worrying about the judgment's transcript now. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "keep this stuff hidden" (and please respect Elonka's request to depersonalise this). The undisputed fact is that none of us are experts in French law and the nuances of a complex judgment in a foreign jurisdiction, written in a specialised format and using specialised non-English vocabulary, are exactly the kind of thing that requires what WP:NOR terms "specialist knowledge". We can certainly express our own view of the verdict on talk pages, but ultimately we're simply not competent to determine which bits of it are significant. Relata's example of the ambiguous use of "legitimate" illustrates the point perfectly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one original source for the story of Mohammed al-Dura and it is France 2's version and its cameraman. By stating that the boy was killed in the lead, one is accepting a story that the appeals court has implied is "doubtful." The Appeals Court did not merely make a ruling that Karsenty had free speech rights -- why, would it have even required any evidence at all in that case? Evidence of the original incident would have been immaterial. No, the court looked at all the evidence, included all the film evidence, interviewed witnesses, read reports...then issued a judgment overturning the lower court's decision and saying that it was the evidence that influenced their decision [All those "Considering...." statements] that to claim that the footage was staged, or that France 2 had perpetrated a hoax on the French people was not a libelous position. They did not say it was staged, but they did say there was plenty of evidence to lead intelligent people to make such a determination ....ie that those who believe it to be so are not conspiracy-theory nut-cases, as have been described on this page.Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources that report that the narrative you have constructed is the case. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the point that it is only op-ed's which claim that al-Durrah was not killed. That would be a matter of course unless there were further new irrefutable evidence, such as an autopsy. The sources that claim that al-Durrah was in fact killed, were merely parroting the news as they got it from France 2, the original source. They could not be faulted for reporting what seemed at the time to be factual. Now that the court has suggested in its verdict that France 2's evidence is sketchy, flawed, possibly manipulated and not incontrovertible, (a position that many have held for some time)--one can see that to claim he was killed is every bit as much of a 'conspiracy theory' as the claim that he was not. If the original news story is false, then all the other sources parroting it are false as well. And to repeat, there is no way that we can ever say with absolute certainty that he is either dead or not without DNA evidence. The chances we will ever get that are infinitely remote. The best we can say is "reportedly killed." Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources retract news coverage they believe to be false, or print or broadcast a correction. The remainder of your statement requires us to second-guess the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which we do not do. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is untrue. I'm going to repeat myself YET AGAIN and point out that there was reporting by many news outlets of the events after the shooting - the funeral, the hospital treatment of the father in Gaza and Amman, the public statements by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli officials and so on and so forth. The claim that the only source for the death of al-Durrah was France 2 is patently untrue. The Israeli government and army have never endorsed the conspiracy theory that he is not dead. Even the Israeli army's later suggestion that the boy was killed by Palestinian gunfire was based on the basic premise that he was killed in the first place. Personally I find this one of the weirdest aspects of the conspiracy theory saga - that the conspiracy theorists are making arguments in favour of Israel that Israel is not making in favour of itself. (They've complained about this, too.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources from SlimVirgin

I'm going to compile a list of sources here that discuss the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax. If anyone wants to add their comments about each source, please do that in a separate section so that this section can be used simply to compile a list. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
• Oakland, Ross. Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.
• Warren, David. All the Lies that are Fit to Print, Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24, 2008: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.
• Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.
• Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.
• The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4: calls the death a "fake."
• The Spectator, UK, May 21: Calls it a "killing" in inverted commas.
• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12 2005.
• Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece, December 2004 (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• A Wall Street Journal Europe again, May 27, 2008, from the "review and outlook" section. Reports that "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate."
• Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3 2003.
• Poller, Nidra. A Hoax?, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, opinion.
• Myth & Muhammad al-Dura, Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2008, reports that the video didn't show the killing, no bullets were recovered, and there was no blood where you'd expect to see it. Compares it to the myth of the Battle of Jenin.
• Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.

Adding a few more sources - Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Norway's newpaper of record, on May 27th: Headline asks: "Was this video a bluff?", and the subheading answers affirmatively: "the film was probably a bluff. "
• Title Thesen Temperamente, Affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD - article states "a French journalist commented: "Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured". ... But was it really so?", and later says "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood". Not the usage of "allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded"

• German public Radio: "Philippe Karsenty has now managed, inter alia, to get the entire video material from the alleged murder to be shown as part of the legal the process ". Later in the article, interviewee Esther Shapiro, producer of "Three Bullets and a Child" is quoted as saying that before we can determine if these pictures are real, we need to see a corpse, which has not yet been produced, and later saying "one thing we can say with certainty, is that at the end of the video, the boy is still alive"

• Another Ha'aretz article - this one headlined "Government Press Office: Al-Dura's death was staged by Gaza cameraman" - giving the official position of Israel's press office.

ChrisO's opinion about SlimVirgin's sources

(copied from above) I'm going to compile a list of sources here that discuss the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax. If anyone wants to add their comments about each source, please do that in a separate section so that this section can be used simply to compile a list. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're pulling a bit of a fast one here, frankly, by conflating several different POVs. As I've said before on this page, there are three mainstream POVs. The first is that the Israelis killed al-Durrah. The second is that the Palestinians may have killed him. The third is that nobody really knows. Note that all three mainstream POVs accept that he is dead. Views 2 and 3 necessarily accept either that France 2 got it wrong or that it isn't clear. The conspiracy theory that the whole thing was a hoax and al-Durrah isn't dead is a separate POV altogether. There are a large number of sources suggesting that France 2 got it wrong and the Palestinians killed al-Durrah. There are a relatively small number of sources reporting on the conspiracy theory, and a very small number indeed that actually endorse that view.

Let's go through these sources (again, since we've already done this) and note (again, but it strangely seems to have gone missing) which are op-eds and which is original reporting:

• BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.

News report. "Studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past" is pure OR on your part; you can't make that kind of inference. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. All you have to do is read the article and it is obvious that the writer is leaving open the issue of whether the person is dead. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC

"All you have to do is read" typically prefaces an exhortation to do a bit of original research. This is the case here as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.

News report. States explicitly "Note that the court did not say the images actually were a hoax, just that it is now acceptable to characterize them that way."

• Ross, Oakland. Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.

Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that the rule now? Opinion articles can't be sources? I know a few articles that are about to disappear if that's the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion articles by proponents of a fringe theory cannot be used to judge the fringiness of the theory. This is also well-understood practice in such areas. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• News.com.au, Australia, May 29: Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4: calls the death a "fake."

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Spectator, UK, May 21: Calls it a "killing" in inverted commas.

Blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterisation "supported", which does not appear in the text. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed this out. Why am I having to repeat everything I say on this talk page over and over again? It's Groundhog Day here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris refers to his comment of 22:50, 8 June 2008. Frequently having to repeat oneself is not uncommon when dealing with such theories. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.

News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About the theorists. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12 2005.

Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).

Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3 2003.

Op-ed by one of the conspiracy theorists who, I believe, was also one of the defendants in a separate libel case brought by France 2. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.

Personal website of one of the leading conspiracy theorists. "Does raise the serious question of why it was removed" is your personal opinion and OR. Please don't bring OR into this discussion, it's not helpful.

• Norway's newpaper of record, on May 27th: Headline asks: "Was this video a bluff?", and the subheading answers affirmatively: "the film was probably a bluff. "

While the article itself attributes those views to Karsenty, with no endorsement whatsoever. See, I'm repeating myself again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in the headline, nor in th esubheading, which are not attributed to K, and are the paper's own view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Directly contradicted by the image caption, which attributes it to mediekritikere. Note also that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, dispenses with quotation marks. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh indeed, please look up "contradiction". This is the paper's view, per the headline and sub, as well as K's view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, if it was the paper's view, why would the paper attribute it? As I said, please note that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian papers, does not use quote marks, so claiming that it is the paper's view when the body and the image caption attribute it (except when quoting K, without quote marks) is indeed a trifle strong. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

umm, it didn't attribute it, not in the headline, and not in the subheading. Take your OR speculation elswhere, please Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that it was the papers view and not a quote. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re a little confused as to who has to prove things. This statement is not attributed, and does not appear in quotes. Thus, it is self-evidently not a quote. If you want to claim that despite the fact that it is not attributed to anyone and does not appear in quotes it is a quote – the onus is on you to provide some extraordinary support for such an extraordinary claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have. Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, does not use quotes. Thus the premise "does not appear in quotes" is empty. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By this logic, every single Aftenposten headline must be assumed to be a quote, which is ridiculous. The claim that an unquoted, unattributed headline is in fact a quote is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence, and "they never use quotes" is not enough. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Every Aftenposten headline is, in fact, ambiguous - this one less so, because elsewhere the claim is always attributed. I rather believe that "they never use quote marks" is pretty extraordinary, and more than enough to demonstrate that we cannot make assumptions that they have the same practices we are familiar with. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, Relata. If you take a random read through Aftenposten, it doesn't seem to use quote marks anywhere. This is another example of English-speakers using English conventions to interpret sources in foreign languages - a recipe for trouble if you don't know what the foreign languages' own conventions are. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Title Thesen Temperamente, Affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD - article states "a French journalist commented: "Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured". ... But was it really so?", and later says "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood". Not the usage of "allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded"

Fascinating. The second excerpt is taken out of context: the context places it between a direct quote of K's, and a sentence ending "will Karsenty wissen." The evidence piles up. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all out of context. there's K's quote, then there's the broadcaster's summary of the situation, which concurs with K. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this one because it doesn't belong with the rest:

• Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.

Shapiro's documentary, as I understand it (I haven't watched it) asserts that al-Durrah was killed by the Palestinians. It pre-dates the Karsenty-Landes conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists. (Not that the latter is going awfully well.) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that collecting usable sources is an excellent idea. I'd especially like to focus on very reliable sources, especially since we seem to have many to choose from. If there are sources of questionable reliability, we can probably just pull them off the list for now. If there is dispute about whether a particular source is or isn't reliable, I recommend pulling those into a separate list, and then we can ask for opinions from the reliable source noticeboard. --Elonka 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another highly informative article for our French readers -- --from Guysen News : La Cour d’appel de Paris a relaxé Philippe Karsenty dans l’affaire al-Dura Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the point that it is only op-ed's which claim that al-Durrah was not killed. That would be a matter of course unless there were further new irrefutable evidence, such as an autopsy. The sources that claim that al-Durrah was in fact killed, were merely parroting the news as they got it from France 2, the original source. They could not be faulted for reporting what seemed at the time to be factual. Now that the court has suggested in its verdict that France 2's evidence is sketchy, flawed, possibly manipulated and not incontrovertible, (a position that many have held for some time)--one can see that to claim he was killed is every bit as much of a 'conspiracy theory' as the claim that he was not. If the original news story is false, then all the other sources parroting it are false as well. And to repeat, there is no way that we can ever say with absolute certainty that he is either dead or not without DNA evidence. The chances we will ever get that are infinitely remote. The best we can say is "reportedly killed."Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources retract news coverage they believe to be false, or print or broadcast a correction. The remainder of your statement requires us to second-guess the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which we do not do. Please feel free to remove this duplicated response when the duplicated post to which it responds is removed. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If we removed all the duplicated responses and duplicated posts this talk page would be a fraction of its current length... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources or not, there is no further hard evidence one way or the other. There are no new witnesses. No reliable source for bullets. No hard evidence. Everything is now op-ed, wherever it comes from. The only "news" now is the latest verdict, and what people are saying now that more evidence has been evaluated by unbiased judges. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks above on retractions, corrections and other methods by which reliable sources maintain their reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording of lead

I would like to see some suggestions from participants here, as to how you think the lead should be worded, if you don't like what's there right now.[16] Could you please suggest an actual sentence or two, which you think is the best neutral summary of current reliable sources? Thanks, Elonka 04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the following, which , I may add, has been the consensus version in the article's lead for over 2 years: (first para only, I 'm ok with 2nd para as-is)

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire on September 30, 2000. The incident was filmed by a local Palestinian cameraman working for the French television station France 2,[1] during an outbreak of widespread violence on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[2] Images from the footage of the al-Durrah shooting became an iconic symbol of the Palestinian cause in much of the Arab world.[3]

Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The "reported to have been killed" phraseology is worrying - the original controversy concerned who killed him, the "Al-Durrah not dead" theory remains fringe.

You've included (in fact, duplicated) the bit about "iconic symbol of the Intifada/Palestinian cause" ... however, that's actually the most important thing about this incident. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later - as we're informed at an article we seem to think so useful we're already citing it 7 times. An Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... [at] a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol". That's what we should be aiming to document. PR^talk 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CanadianMonkey, thank you very much for suggesting wording (I've italicized it to make it stand out a bit, I hope you don't mind). To everyone else: Do you agree with this change? If not, could you please suggest different wording, or say that you support the existing wording in the article? I think that there are some very interesting discussions going on, on this talkpage, but that sometimes folks are veering a bit too much into abstract discussions of the veracity of the theories. If possible, I'd like to bring people back to discussing the actual Wikipedia article, in terms of, "what wording would you recommend"? In other words, instead of abstract discussion, can we focus things into a more practical "end result" direction? Thanks, Elonka 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is not accurate

The diagram used in this article is not accurate – for a reason:[17] --Julia1987 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, please don't waste our time with blog posts - we cannot use them as sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, if we can find out which map was presented as evidence to the court we should be able to include either both maps or neither. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the point

The issue is not "blog source" or not "blog source".

The issue is: Again, as throughout this article, Wikipedia is using the Abu Rahma version as facts. It is not a fact, it is a POV. In this case it is a clearly false - all that one has to do is look at a published source (the aerial or satellite photo) and see that in his diagram Abu Rahma "moved" the IDF position (so that it has a "better" firing angle (to fit his story…).

We can not use the Abu-Rhama diagram as the only diagram in this article. Actually since it is so bluntly false (as the photo indicate) we should not use it at all.

We need to see this example in the right context: Everything coming from Abu Rahma is tainted based on his agenda and false story – we can only present this as his POV – not as facts--Julia1987 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)….

Fringe Theory ?

Are there current sources describing the Shapiro/Shahaf/Karsenty view as "Fringe" ? if the answer is "no": Tarc is violating WP:SYNT here: [18]. We need to move beyond this violation and focus on how to improve the article and make it based on sources and wikipedia policy. Continuing to yell "Fringe Theory" will not change the facts that this story is hotly disputed and has (like anything else in I/P issues) two clear opposing POVs. The only issue before us is how to present both in NPOV manner --Julia1987 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation both my position and the nature of a fringe theory itself within the Wikipedia. What makes it "fringe" is not being necessarily being called such, but rather it is the lack of reliable sources that talk about it at all. Refer to the following found at WP:FRINGE;

“ The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. ”

In this particular case, no secondary reliable sources have been produced that discusses the idea that the boy's death was a staged event. Blogs, OpEds, and minuscule, regional newspapers do not meet the criteria. This is quite similar to what can be found in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories, as there are reams and reams of "evidence" and websites that discuss alternate theories about the tragedy, but none rise about the rabble into the realm of respectable, reliable sources. As it is there, so it is here; discussion of this event as if it was a hoax does not occur within legitimate circles. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is , in a word, nonsense. While not all reliable sources have endorsed the staging theory, a great many of them have discussed it, and an OpEd certainly meets the criteria for 'discussion in a reliable source". Have a look above - newspapers form Aftenposten through the IHT to Ha'aretz have discussed it, as have multiple German broadcasters. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Each and every one of those discusses the theorists. I refer any further claims that that that is a sign of the theory's non-fringiness to the passage I have written above, twice, about the nature of coverage of conspiracy theories. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply would ignore any trolling about "Fringe Theory" - the best thing against trolls is to ignore them (at least until they show some reliable sources that supports their strange view) don't feed trolls --Julia1987 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without saying whether or not the theory is true, it does seem from a search at Google News,[19] that it is getting coverage in many significant sources. --Elonka 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, fringe theories are often covered extensively in the context of the theories themselves. What makes them fringe is the degree to which reliable sources think they are true. Consider how many google hits in reliable sources there are for Kennedy assassination theories. But no bio of JFK is likely to alter its wording to take them into account. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some important points lurking here.

First, the conspiracy theory has primarily been covered in the context of the Karsenty libel trial. It received negligible media coverage until France 2 sued Karsenty, which attracted the interest of the media. In other words, the conspiracy theory has derived its newsworthiness primarily from the trial. No doubt if Neil Armstrong sued one of the Moon landing conspiracy theorists, that would raise the profile of such people. It does not in any way imply that their views have become mainstream.

Second, the coverage of the conspiracy theory invariably attributes it to just three named individuals: Karsenty, Landes and a fellow named Juffa (who was also sued by France 2 in a separate case). As fringe theories go, this is one that seems to have a remarkably small number of proponents.

Third, please don't forget that the media do not have any equivalent of our NPOV policy. They are guided by what they think is newsworthy, not by any concerns of undue weight on fringe views. As Relata says, a viewpoint can be held by a small minority but still receive extensive coverage if its proponents happen to be doing something newsworthy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how many proponents the hoax theory has but it must be more than three -- look at all of the op-eds you noted above. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the mainstream media did not give a lot of weight to the "staged" theory before the latest trial. What happened in an analogous way is that the appeals court judges looked at the evidence for this theory and decided that it was not so far-fetched to believe that we may have landed on the moon after all. 'Reliable' news sources are demonstrating respect for the opinion of the judges in this case. Reliable sources are considering the verdict a 'vindication' of those who have believed it was staged from the beginning. The authority and reliability of France 2 has been completely compromised by the French courts, on the grounds that the (now) available evidence is compelling. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "fringe" theory, and some Wikipedia editor insisting it is, doesn't make it so. This is hardly the first time such films have been doctored or staged. The Palestinians have a long history of providing the media with this kind of footage. See this link for another episode: [20]. "Fringe theory" claims are disingenous at best.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I please ask folks to not use words such as "troll", "nonsense", and "ridiculous"? These kinds of terms often do little except to escalate a dispute. I am not seeing trolling here, I am seeing legitimate good-faith concerns, by established editors. I would like if everyone could work harder to assume good faith. I don't think anyone here is trying to damage the article. --Elonka 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd join that appeal, and also request that we stay on-point, and particularly that generalised negative remarks are not made about entities such as "the Palestinians". Not only are such remarks possibly offensive and certainly irrelevant, but they are capable of derailing discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And on top of that they are blatant original research. Could I please ask people to stop trying to promote their personal views? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish that we could get away from trying to use wiki policy as a stick to silence discussion. This is a talk page and we are trying to get to some consensus here by sharing our thoughts and understandings on this page. If something is mistaken, in your opinion, please simply tell us what is wrong and how it is wrong without trying to slam us with its being against this or that wiki policy. We are all supposed to be trying to achieve something here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has received a great deal of media coverage. To claim it is fringe theory is just obtuse. News articles don't endorse controversial theories, so it is unreasonable to judge the issue by that standard. Does the Israeli media count?[21] They could be considered the specialists on this type of issue. Kauffner (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

People who continue to argue that the Shapiro/Sahaf/Karsenty version is "fringe" while accepting the Abu-Rahma/Enderlin version as "truth" should not be editing this article. Such editors are too close to the subject emotionally. Only those who can detach themselves and present both views as opposing, equal validity POVs should be involved in this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid negative characterizations of the emotional well-being and/or motivations of editors you happen to be in disagreement with, or making judgments on who should and should not be editing; that is seriously out of bounds. Moving on...it isn't the truth that we're working on here, it is the reporting of what reliable sources out there report in regards to this event. And as such, no reliable sources have been produced that would elevate the "this is a hoax" opinion to anything above a fringe theory. Numerous people venting in blogs and opinion pieces, sure, but that utterly fails what the project policy requires here. Again, we go back to other examples of faked moon landings, dynamite in the World Trade Center, or FDR's prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor; there is nothing that elevates these alternative theories to the level of established and verifiable reality. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists, or on deducing information about the importance of a theory from data about the occasional article discussing the dottiness of the theorist. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable articles would now never insist that the boy is dead (or not dead) without an autopsy and conclusive evidence (such as DNA). They are now under the impression that they may have been duped by France 2 when they reported he was dead. The court trial has put the original evidence in doubt, not affirmed that it was false. The response of the media is, understandably --"fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me." In other words, they are reporting the verdict without affirming a position. The verdict and the commentary following it, demonstrate that intelligent reliable trusted people (French high court judges, reporters, commentators) deem the idea of the boy's death having been staged not as a "conspiracy theory" but as a legitimate question, a controversy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I believe I have asked before, please present a reliable source presenting a retraction, correction, or statement that it was duped if we are to take this narrative into consideration. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the court is the correction and is independent of any news reports. And just what conclusion did it come to, considering France 2's claim against Karsenty? They found that when Karsenty said it was a hoax that he had a credible opinion in view of the content of the extended film, and other presented evidence.Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think we should count up how many articles that say Durrah is alive vs. how many say he is dead and base editorial decisions on that? Whether the boy is alive or dead is just a side issue. The main allegation is that this video, which provoked the world against Israel when it was first shown, is quite obviously a hoax when seen unedited. Actors fake their injuries and get up off strechers. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For best results, I'd like to see if we can focus on actual concrete changes to the article. What wording changes, based on sources, would people recommend? --Elonka 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing

I have requested that page protection be lifted for now, and I encourage people to resume editing. However, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, I am placing some restrictions:

• No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.
• Keep edit summaries very neutral and civil.
• Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source
• If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording.
• If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it.
• If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
• If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.
• Don't worry about sections, or the article, getting too long (for now). First I'd like to give everyone a chance to add the information that they think needs to be added, and then we can take a look later at putting things in the proper proportion, per WP:UNDUE

Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Good luck, Elonka 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)