Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Original notes

Assuming that this was correctly spelled in the interwiki link to the Arabic Wikipedia, I have solved the Arabic spelling thing. Once someone verifies this, please remove this remark and the template above. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's correct, removed. Mustaqbal 10:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are predictable, if nothing else, and approaching the bottom of the barrel level of the Holocaust deniers. --Alberuni 04:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your conciliatory tone didn't last long; I always get my hopes up, and then... anyway, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You didn't really imagine your version was NPOV, did you? Exactly which of my edits do you consider POV, or even non-factual? Jayjg 04:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All in all, your edits were reasonably NPOV; there were a couple of innaccuracies and distortions, but it looks to me like those originated from the heavily biased sources rather than bad-faith editing. What I found, and changed, was:

  • As far as I can tell, the ARD investigation consisted of a documentary based on the findings of the second investigation; it wasn't independent and, according to Fallows, it stuck to the minimal conclusion: that al-Durrah was not killed by IDF gunfire. According to this source, the documentary "stated that, in any case, the boy's death was accidental and that he was not purposely targeted by either side." I would of course like to see for myself, but I can't find a copy of the documentary in question ATM.
  • The quotation of Fallows's article from this source is misleading: he didn't come up with the questions himself, but was indirectly quoting one of the investigators.
  • WorldNetDaily is a far-right rag; it can certainly be cited as an example of the opinions surrounding the killing but it ought to be contextualized.

Fallows's article is the best source on this that I've read (I have the issue in which it appeared); unfortunately the only online version is restricted to Atlantic subscribers, though those who want to read it might try their local library. —No-One Jones (m) 11:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mirv, your edits looks good, as they are based on more information than I had. Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Martyrs

I recognize that this will probably be controversial, but considering the iconic status of his death, I believe it is appropriate. Any thoughts? —No-One Jones (m) 13:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That category should be useful. For every non-notable palestinian we'll have a non-notable Israeli civilian put in to balance it. Thanks. Lose it. Terrapin 14:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Non-notable? He's among the best-known icons of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since we don't have Category:Whatever the plural of 'shahid' is (he's very often held up as one), this cat seemed the most appropriate. —No-One Jones (m) 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that, but I and others aren't going to feel like getting into POV-wars when someone adds Mohamed Atta in there and says "well, he was in every newspaper, and struck a blow against the Zionist enemies, blah, blah...". You KNOW it'll happen. It's just better to lose it now. Terrapin 14:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Terrapin is right, it's just fodder for edit and POV wars. It's almost inevitable that a "martyr" to one side is a "villain" to the other. Jayjg 15:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not that we're saying al-dura is a villain in any way. I wouldn't have a problem with his OWN categorization in a similar cat, but it's just slippery precedent into pure POV idiocy later on. Terrapin 15:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps so. Until I figure out a better way to categorize the article, I'll remove this cat.
Isn't the category more for people like Joan of Arc? Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what Category:Christian martyrs is for; but yes, it's not entirely accurate; see above. —No-One Jones (m) 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Joan is not in either martyrs category; and yet you feel al-Durrah belongs in that very restricted list (I believe there were two others so far)? Jayjg 15:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* Yes, she is (christian martyrs, it's own huge category). Judging by MIRV's contributions he appears to be a "martyr" hobbyist, and strives to complete those cats. Mostly christian martyrs. He's not a POV-warrior. Terrapin 15:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In fact, it was the other way round; I added this article to Category:Martyrs, then noticed that Category:Christian martyrs was almost empty and decided to fill it out. My last 100-odd edits are not representative of my contributions as a whole. Anyway, since I dealt with Christian martyrs, I'd like to finish developing the rest of the category, which is still weak.
The category was too broad for this article, I now agree; I'm still trying to figure out how to organize the people one might, for lack of a better term, call "secular martyrs": people like al-Durra, Matthew Shepard, Carlo Giuliani, etc. Maybe no appropriate category exists. —No-One Jones (m) 16:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hasbara

Why this category? How were any hasbara groups involved? Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], Etc --Alberuni 20:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they reported on the controversy; but how were they involved? Jayjg 04:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they reported on the controversy; but how were they involved? Jayjg 05:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

Could someone explain to me why the opinion of WorldNetDaily is worth citing here? It's not like we've gone out to find balancing citations from rabidly pro-Palestinian sources, nor is it like they produced any evidence for their belief that the Palestinians have been so short on fatalities that they need to deliberately shoot Palestinian children to create martyrs. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yet, you find the Atlantic Monthly IDF apologist article acceptable. It looks like you have sympathy for some pro-Zionist sources and not others. NPOV does not mean "moderate Zionism". It means Neutral Point of View. When will you criticize the Zionist POV editors for "Occupied Palestinian Territory" denial? --Alberuni 19:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • See my reply below. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
O.K., we'll keep WorldNetDaily in just for you, Alberuni. Happy now? Terrapin 20:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it exemplifies the contemptible depths of extremism to which Zionists regularly descend in their denial of Israeli state terrorism and the continuing pattern of Israeli atrocities such as the IDF murder of Muhammad al-Durrah and hundreds of other Palestinian children. --Alberuni 21:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily didn't originate the conspiracy theory, and I've changed the article to reflect that. I also removed the quote of Fallows's position, since he didn't do any real investigation of his own; he just looked at the IDF findings and talked to the investigators. —No-One Jones (m) 21:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sources =

Alberuni writes, "yet you find the Atlantic Monthly IDF apologist article acceptable..." Excuse me? Did I say that? No, I was sticking my toe in the water on a discussion page which you, Alberuni, called to my attention (in an entirely repellent manner, I might add, by referring to it in a comment to an edit in which you stuck Holocaust Denial material into the article Jew). I wanted to see what response a mild criticism would bring. Unlike some people, I don't tend to use H-bombs for my opening salvo. But since you are questioning my good faith, here goes...

If one had read between the lines of my previous comment with charity rather than malice, one might have gleaned where I am headed on this. I was planning to get there gradually, but here goes: if we are going to quote sources like the Atlantic, we should be quoting sources like Al-Ahram. If we are going to quote "sources" like WorldNetDaily on a matter like this, then the only way I can imagine to "balance" this article is to quote severe critics of the Israeli occupation of the Territories, and probably throw in some jihadist who lauds Muhammad al-Durrah as a martyr.

In any case, this is obviously an article in flux, and way out of any area where I have specific expertise, but I certainly would not expect that in such a matter one should take seriously voices that say an IDF report understates Palestinian culpability, and one would presume that an IDF report is, itself, something that probably calls for balance from at least unengaged, or possibly even pro-Palestinian sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't take a jihadist to recognize that a child killed by a fascist military machine is a martyr, just like Anne Frank was a martyr. --Alberuni 04:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Jews of WW2 didn't walk onto german buses with bombs strapped around their waste. Terrapin 05:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Durrah didn't do anything to anyone. He was an innocent child. Murdering him is an atrocity. You are trying to justify it because you support Israeli state terrorism, as you have indicated on many edits. The Nazis can claim they killed Anne Frank because of the acts of Herschel Grynszpan but they were also wrongheaded and evil people. --Alberuni 05:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Equating Israel with Nazis...how boring and typical of weak-minded fools who can't find meaningful and accurate analogies, if any. Surely your mother must be coming down the basement stairs soon. Turn off the light. Terrapin 06:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you are done bickering, would any of you mind addressing the substance of what I wrote? Repeating: "...if we are going to quote sources like the Atlantic, we should be quoting sources like Al-Ahram. If we are going to quote "sources" like WorldNetDaily on a matter like this, then the only way I can imagine to "balance" this article is to quote severe critics of the Israeli occupation of the Territories, and probably throw in some jihadist who lauds Muhammad al-Durrah as a martyr... I certainly would not expect that in such a matter one should take seriously voices that say an IDF report understates Palestinian culpability, and one would presume that an IDF report is, itself, something that probably calls for balance from at least unengaged, or possibly even pro-Palestinian sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Zionist Revisionism should be moved to appropriate page

This page is about Muhammad Al-Durrah's murder, not about Zionist excuses for Israeli atrocities and anti-Palestinian conspiracy theories. Please move the revisionist material to an appropriate page. --Alberuni 04:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While they're both denial of terrible crimes, I don't believe it's accurate to treat the IDF's self-exculpation as equivalent to Holocaust denial. There's a huge body of evidence for the Holocaust, so denial is limited to a few marginal cranks. In this case, though, there's simply not much evidence one way or another; as far as I know, the IDF inquiry (and what was based on it) were the only extensive investigations of the matter. If there are other reports that reached different conclusions, we should include them, but I don't think that excluding one of the only analyses of his death is the way to go here. —No-One Jones (m) 04:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is your POV that the Holocaust is better documented than the murder of Muhammad al-Durrah. It will never matter to you how much evidence, film footage, witness testimony and Palestinian reports implicate the IDF directly in his murder. [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] You believe what they tell you, "There's simply not much evidence one way or another". You will simply privilege the IDF and their apologists over the Arab voices you refuse to hear. Witness testimony was even included in this article until Zionist editors deleted it. There is a Holocaust being perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the fascist Israelis but you close your eyes to it. Why? You take the word of their spinmeister liars over Arab witnesses. And then you claim that Holocaust deniers are cranks. Why? They are just like you. You are just like them. "There's simply not much evidence one way or another" they say. It's all a POV. Those who don't want to believe will never be convinced. No consequences to you for living in denial. What's the worst that can happen? --Alberuni 05:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"It is your POV that the Holocaust is better documented than the murder of Muhammad al-Durrah". And with that Alberuni leaves the realm of weird anti-Israel poster, into realm of deluded holocaust denier and general idiot. It won't be long when the last words spoken about him are "...before taking his own life.". (probably his 9 cats will bare the brunt! ;-) Terrapin 05:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You won't mind if I ignore you completely from now on. I won't be petty and neurotic to point out your lack of civility and initiate an RfC on you for calling me an idiot. You can call me whatever you wish. Your opinion is worthless.--Alberuni 05:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This series of posts pretty much illustrates the problem -- note the use of the term "Zionist" as a dirty word. Alberuni is a bigot and a committed propagandist dedicated to controling information flow. He should probably be banned from this and similar topics. The facts of this case are now well established everywhere but in the minds of obsessives.Scott Adler 07:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Extent of the evidence

Alberuni: Please understand that I'm not trying to deny anything; I'm just unsure about the extent of the evidence. I'm aware of these points:

  1. The France 2 video footage.
  2. Testimony by the cameraman and Jamal al-Durrah.
  1. The examination of the site. The wall was demolished before it could be examined (which is unfortunate, because that might have determined what kind of bullets made the holes), but the concrete cylinder had marks from bullets that clearly came from the Israeli outpost.
  2. The IDF's initial admission of responsibility.
  3. The IDF's subsequent investigation and reenactment.

Have I missed anything? Were there other investigations, other tests, other analyses? Has anyone examined the full video? (I don't think all of it was broadcast.) Was the soldier who was shooting ever questioned? Was there an autopsy? Did anyone examine the bullet that killed him to determine what kind of gun fired it? If there are answers to any of these questions, they should go in the article. —No-One Jones (m) 15:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

      • The WSJ article says that Charles Enderlin "the France 2 correspondent in Jerusalem" gave as reason to leave out all but 3:26 of the 27 minute video that it was "to unbearable", and "it would not have added anything more". But the WSJ article says that after "three journalists were finally allowed to see" the whole footage, the Enderlin excuse turned out to be "a total invention". - Jerryseinfeld 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hoaxes

(hyperbole follows) If this is to stay on this article just because someone, somewhere, thought his death was a hoax, then I expect everyone who wants it here to help me keep it on an extensive list of articles. We shall start with Apollo missions 11 through 17 (several people think those are hoaxes), move on to Holocaust and numerous related articles (as before), move on to Evolution (I can find some who think that's a hoax), and so on. Who's up for it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I have a reflexive reaction to Alberuni sockpuppets which describe Anne Frank as a hoax. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see that edit; it rather nicely highlights my point, and a broader problem with the category: nothing is so well-proven that nobody can claim it was a hoax. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suspect the problem is with the category itself, which, like many controversial categories, is an invitation for POV abuse. Ideally it should be reserved for things which have been indisputably proven as hoaxes, if there are such things. And perhaps I shouldn't automatically revert Alberuni sockpuppets; on the one hand, he is banned for a year, but I must keep in mind that he is quite capable of good grammar and language editing, and on occasion has made other reasonable edits. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
BTW, note this interesting comment on this very Talk: page: [17] Jayjg (talk) 05:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inconsistency of thought is a common sign of POV-pushing—that's assuming, of course, that STP is Alberuni's latest sockpuppet rather than, say, one of the Stormfronters. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you're interested in the reasons why this is another Alberuni sockpuppet, please e-mail me. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In general, the danger is both to present truth as false or vice versa. As the evidence already shows, this story is already much more than just a controversy. IMHO, we should be doubly critical especially given continuous attempts to present killed Palestinian children (including those killed by Palestinians, as with recent incident in Gaza) as deliberately shot by Israelis, or the "Jenin massacre" of 2002 turned hoaxes. The "innocent until proven guilty" is a good principle for an encyclopedia, don't you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(going left again) The "innocent until proven guilty" is a good principle for an encyclopedia, don't you think?—Yes, quite, and it should apply equally to whoever is accused of staging the event. (I, for one, think the loss of critical pieces of evidence means that this case will never be proven one way or another, absent some unforeseen event like al-Durrah turning up alive or the shooter—whether Israeli, Palestinian, or atomic-powered Kill-Bot from Planet X—making a public confession.) Other events may have been hoaxes, or exaggerated, but I think the article makes it quite clear that the facts of this case are as disputed as can be, and it can do no more. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the recent revelations move this incident into the "highly questionable" category, but not yet into the "proven hoax" category. I'd hesitate listing it as a "hoax" for that reason. Jayjg (talk) 06:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo's edits

Marcoo, I've copyedited your latest edits; I've reduced the incredibly long quotes, and removed the irrelevant material. Please recall this is an article about al-Durrah and the controversy, not about Enderlin's life, or what various Jewish organizations might or might not have done. Also note that the Atlantic article is quite clear that there was a 2nd IDF investigation; any investigation commissioned by the IDF would have to be, and the IDF accepted it's conclusions, as the quote by Samia, and subsequent statements by spokesmen show. If you have any concerns, please bring them here. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell me exactly what is not relevant in Enderlin's explanation in an article about Muhammad al-Durrah's death ? The fact that Enderlin was threaten is a part of this affair, no ? --Marcoo 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is about al-Durrah, and what happened to him, and the controversy about his death. It is not about Enderlin's personal problems. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"If you have any concerns, please bring them here." -> The french sources I gave talk about the Shaul Mofaz's declaration about "an private enterprise".--Marcoo 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've included that in the article; however, the House of Representatives stuff was not sourced. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's sourced here : [18] --Marcoo 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not sourced there at all. It simply claims that it happened; it doesn't say who said it, where, when, etc. That was my point. If we can't find the source, then we have no idea what was actually said. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know Gérard Huber is a Metula News Agency contributor, and why would that be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By using Google, see [19] "Gérard Huber correspondant permanent à Paris"... and it's sourced here [20] --Marcoo 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
and it's relevant because most of the controversy came from Mena. --Marcoo 19:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The controversy seems to long pre-date Mena's involvement, as the timeline shows, and this seems like extraneous detail meant to poison the well. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the controversy about his death. It is not about Enderlin's personal problems." -> It's not a personal or private problem. The fact that Enderlin was threatened of death is totally linked to the public controversy. It's relevant to talk about it. --Marcoo 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with al-Durrah and who killed him; that's what this article focusses on. That kind of information, if properly sourced, belongs in the article on Enderlin, which also deals with the controversy from the perspective of Enderlin. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The part "Controversy" is about the controversy. And what happened to Enderlin is also about the controversy. You don't decide of what we can talk about and what we cannot. The controversy generate an hate climate, this article is the relevant place to talk about it. --Marcoo 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The controversy is about who killed al-Durrah, not what happened to Enderlin. I'll go put it in the correct article for you. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In the article, Enderlin reproaches Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte with promoting censorship. Why it's not relevant in this article ?
It's a silly accusation that just makes Enderlin look bad, but I'll leave it in since you insist. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • he also gives arguement for the fact he trusts Talal by telling that he works for France2 since 1988. it's relevant.
It seemed like boring detail, but ok. Keep in mind, "Talal" is a free-lancer, he wasn't a France 2 employee. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • when telling Tala had made the initial claim, he insists he made it during the broadcast. It's an important point.
It's a bizarre claim, since it was Enderlin who made the claim in the broadcast, not "Talal". But fine. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • why to change "one million bullets" to "hundred of thousand of bullets" ?
It was obviously a round number estimate, 700,000 in the West Bank and 300,000 in the Gaza Strip. Moreoever, it's another silly argument; regardless of how many the Israelis had shot up until then, there was clearly back and forth firing going on around al-Durrah. But whatever. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Enderlin is talking about several Israeli reports to the same effect (les réactions (plural) des chefs de l’armée qui allaient dans le même sens), not a single "initial Israeli statement". --Marcoo 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They're clearly not reports but rather statements, since there was only one initial investigation. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

"The campaign by the Metula News Agency (which is not a press agency) was critizised by many French jewish medias. Some contributors of Mena, as Guy Millière, have been accused by Anti-Racism french associations as MRAP, of Anti-Arab articles[21]. The main Jewish associations in France, which by the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refused to take part of the controversy."

Who are the "many French Jewish medias" who criticized Mena? Why would accusations about a Mena contributor unrelated to the controversy be relevant, except to poison the well? In what way did the "main Jewish associations in France refuse to take part of the controversy", and why would it be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Who are the "many French Jewish medias" who criticized Mena?" Most of community radios for example.

If it were relevant, which seems unlikely, it would have to be specifically sourced, i.e., name them and what they said. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In what way did the "main Jewish associations in France refuse to take part of the controversy", and why would it be relevant?" Please wait my answer before deleting the paragraph, and if you have after more questions, please give me time to answer... : Many associations asked Mena to give up the accusations. The fact that these associations in the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and here gave support to Enderlin is an interesting aspect of the controversy, it's relevant to talk about it. --Marcoo 21:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, who said what? Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Why would accusations about a Mena contributor unrelated to the controversy be relevant, except to poison the well?" Because Mena is seen by many people in France as a race hate site. Guy Millière, supported by Mena (which supported Oriana Fallacci telling that "there's something with Arab people which is disgusting for ladies"), explained that :

"Les Israéliens et les Américains se tiennent debout et droits Je pense que l'Europe se fait honte à elle-même, et qu'à force de jouer avec le feu, les Arabo-musulmans finiront par se brûler. Il m'arrive même de souhaiter que la brûlure vienne vite"

Google's automatic translation :

"The Israelis and the Americans are held upright and rights I think that Europe is made shame with itself, and that by play with fire, the Arabo-Moslems will end up burning themselves. It even sometimes happens to me to wish that the burn comes quickly"

--Marcoo 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that any French site which has material critical of Arabs or Muslims has been accused at one time or another of being a "race-hate" site; regardless, that has nothing to do with the credentials of these specific reporters, or their statements regarding their visit to France 2, and what is on the tape itself, which no-one, I repeat no-one, not even Enderlin, has stated are false. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I'm sure that any French site which has material critical of Arabs or Muslims has been accused at one time or another of being a "race-hate" site" : -> When someone makes negative generalization about Arabs or something linked to an ethnic aspect of people, he's racist. Not for you ?
I didn't say "negative generalization about Arabs or something linked to an ethnic aspect of people"; don't put words in my mouth, please. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Playing with fire, the Arab-Muslims will end up burning themselves. It even sometimes happens to me to wish that the burn comes quickly" is not racist ? --Marcoo 22:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"their statements regarding their visit to France 2" -> You're kidding ? Even Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte said that the accusation by Mena of faked death is not really credible. --Marcoo 22:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, and that's clearly stated in the article. But no-one has contradicted their point that most of the tape consists of Palestinians faking injuries, etc., nor their claim that it's obvious al-Durrah was shot from the Palestinian position; even France 2 now admits no-one knows who killed al-Durrah. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"their claim that it's obvious al-Durrah was shot from the Palestinian position" -> I didn't see anything proving that what they say is obvious. You have a very strong PoV on the controversy. For you all Enderlin arguements are silly... It's interesting but you have to let the article be built with argument's given by Enderlin, and associations who defended Enderlin. A neutral article cannot be written if more than 75 % is about opponent's thesis. --Marcoo 22:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aggressive actions

Jayjg, if for you the paragraph :

After this campaign against him, Charles Enderlin explained he had to move with his family because of some death-threat letters. The campaign by the Metula News Agency (which is not a press agency) was critizised by many French jewish medias. Some contributors of Mena, as Guy Millière, have been accused by Anti-Racism french associations as MRAP, of Anti-Arab articles[22]. The main Jewish associations in France, which by the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refused to take part of the controversy.

is highly POV, re-write it to make it more neutral, but don't simply delete it, thank you. --Marcoo 21:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said it was both highly POV and irrelevant in any case; see comments above. There's no point in NPOVing irrelevant material, and please stop aggressively insering obviously irrelevant well-poisoning, thank you. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I see you've aggressively removed Leconte's response to Enderlin's charges as "not relevant to al-Durrah", in a tit-for-tat edit. Tell me, why is Enderlin's response to Leconte relevant, but Leconte's response to al-Durrah not? I personally think you'll have a difficult time explaining that, and I suspect we'll have to remove both in the end, don't you? Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Tell me, why is Enderlin's response to Leconte relevant, but Leconte's response to al-Durrah not?" -> I tried to do what you explained me. To cut all what it is not linked to Al-durrah. (see above : "It has nothing to do with al-Durrah and who killed him; that's what this article focusses on.") But I give up, I won't be able to be as aggressive as you.

You're talking about neutrality, but in the part "Controversy", more than 75 % is about arguements given by opponents to Enderlin. Do you think it's neutral ?--Marcoo 22:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arguments given are about the tape and al-Durrah; the stuff you've put in is about everything else, about how many bullets the IDF fired in the West Bank and Gaza, about how many Palestinians have been killed, about what unnamed Jewish media outlets and organizations didn't do, about how long abu Rhama worked for France 2, about other contributers to Mena, about Enderlin having to move, about a million and one ways of trying to discredit the information presented about the tapes and al-Durrah without actually addressing them directly. Why doesn't Enderlin actually address what is on the tape? Instead he blurts out nonsense about "censorship". How is that possibly relevant? You can't balance statements by throwing in all these ad hominem arguments. I'd be happy to see some statements about the tapes themselves, what's on them, ballistic reports, whatever. Instead you've filled the page up as much well poisoning as you can find. And I was willing to leave that crap in, but then when I put in one sentence that directly responded to Enderlin's nonsense statements, you deleted it, first claming that it wasn't about "censorship", then claiming it wasn't about al-Durrah. That's pure aggressive bad faith editing, and I'm tired of it. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"the stuff you've put in is about everything else, about how many bullets the IDF fired in the West Bank and Gaza, about how many Palestinians have been killed, about what unnamed Jewish media outlets and organizations didn't do, about how long abu Rhama worked for France 2" -> You're not here to judge if the arguments given by Enderlin are relevant or not. He explained he gave these details to explain his claim. If we make an Wipipedia articles with only what Jayjg can find relevant, it's useless to talk more about neutrality. --Marcoo 22:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Jayjg, you deleted : "but he explained that this part was minutes before the death of al-Durrah." explaining it must be deleted because there is no source.

, but you even didn't notice that the whole paragraph was without any source ? Why do you delete a change coming from me when I don't give immediately my source, and you let it when it's a opponent's view, even without source ?

If you kindly ask me the source (I first guess it was useless to give it because I've supposed you have read the interview the paragraph is about), it is here :

http://www.crif.org/index02.php?id=4255&type=Entretiens&menu=50&sm9=entretiens&PHPSESSID=7d78f8106f9363a3379c9041a19320c2

"Quatrièmement ce qui est quand même très troublant qu’au moment où Talal Abou Rahma est en train de filmer la supposée agonie du gosse il y a à côté on filme des mises en scènes. DL et DJ : Avant, avant, avant, quelques minutes avant."

DL and DJ say that the "faked actions" are minutes "before" (avant) the death of Al-Durah.--Marcoo 22:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"and I haven't deleted anything" -> Please don't play ironic games. You know that to put a paragraph in commentary has strictly the same effect than to delete it. --Marcoo 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not ironic; I didn't delete it, I placed controversial additions in comments pending sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to be bothersome, but the following sentence seems very problematic:
"Nahum Shahaf, a physicist, who became famous in Israel when he stated that Yitzhak Rabin probably wasn't killed by Yigal Amir, but by many other snipers, and Yosef Duriel, an engineer he met during his investigation on Yitzhak Rabin's death, contacted IDF Southern Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia, and were commissioned by him to begin a private investigation of the case. "
I don't think Nahum Shahaf was famous in Israel at all. According to the Atlantic article: "Before getting involved in the al-Dura case, Shahaf was known mainly as an inventor. He was only the tenth person to receive a medal from the Israeli Ministry of Science, for his work on computerized means of compressing digital video transmission." Known is certainly different from famous. The sources suggest that he had some unusual theories about Rabin's murder, but did that really make him famous? Were these theories generally known? And does anyone know what the theories were? If some notable people see him as a conspiracy nut, then that information should be in the article. Finally, a commissioned private investigation doesn't make sense. Either the investigation was private or commissioned. Which was it?--Denis Diderot 20:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Shahaf stuff is just more well poisoning; Marcoo couldn't find anything that actually discussed the controversy itself, so instead he has tried in a dozen ways to discredit anyone involved in raising questions about the tapes, and who actually killed al-Durrah. I'll give Marcoo a day to justify this ad hominem argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Commentary Magazine: "Myth, Fact and the al-Durrah affair"

Wow. The new edition of Commentary has an article essentially arguing that the al-Durrah "event" was most likely staged. [23]. I've got a subscription to their online edition...if anyone who has worked on this entry would like a copy of the article, I could e-mail it to you for your private use. Not sure whether that would be a copyright vio. I actually don't think it would be. Babajobu 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The above article shows conclusively that not everyone agrees that al-Durah was even killed. He might be walking around today and going to school; that is what some significant number of people believe. To be consistent with NPOV, you've got to qualify that initial identification. He wasn't "killed by gunfire," he was "reportedly killed by gunfire." That is something that everyone can agree with. --66.81.115.85 18:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No serious media that I know of doubt that al-Durah was killed. A number of extremists believe, or affect to believe, that the whole story was staged, but it does not make a serious challenge to the veracity of his death. Rama 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Commentary Magazine is pretty serious media. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Commentary absolutely qualifies as "serious media". It's by no means impartial, but it's a serious, influential, and well-researched magazine. That's why I was so shocked to read the article. For better or worse, the possibility that al-Durrah was never killed has now been presented in a credible, relatively mainstream publication. Babajobu 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Probably serious, but with a very clear political stance, and possibly difficulties to get very accurate first-hand information, not necessarly being French or Arab speakers. I have read articles by pro-Israeli American groups which attempted to cite French journalists and said approximatively the opposite of what the source was saying.
Let us say that in spite of them begin serious journalists, their doubts, if they have some, would not necessarly be sufficient to make the whole affair dubious. Recent independant inquiries concluded that there was no possible doubt as to the death of the boy (see Charles Enderlin). Rama 21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Commentary is almost certainly the most respectable venue (albeit very partisan about Israel) where this has been mentioned. The fact that Commentary ran this story certainly merits mention in the article; I'm not sure it merits changing the lead. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Reading the said story, I fail to see upon which sort of facts the Commentary Magazine relies to challenge the death of this boy. They accurately cite the two French journalists who investigated the matter and concluded that the images were not faked, but finished their story by saying that a sound thing to do would now be to question the death of the boy. Since they they do not provide any independent investigation or new facts, I think it is reasonable to say that this story does not shake the credibility of the enquiry. Rama 08:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of the Commentary article. I almost feel as though we read different articles. Babajobu 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire discussion above misses the point of the original poster. The claim is that the article is now obviously not neutral, because it claims straightforwardly that Muhammad al-Durrah is dead. This is in dispute by serious investigators, and the fact that it is in dispute is itself not in dispute. Therefore, this dispute must be acknowledged in the article--the best place for it being at the end of the first paragraph.

All these doubts (and there are many, if you do much reading) could be put to rest if they would simply produce a grave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.120.211 (talk • contribs) 24 Sept 2005.

Maybe this Muhammad's death was staged or faked, or maybe it wasn't. Does it really matter? Does anyone doubt that children have died in this conflict despite their father's attempts to protect them? Do we have to have film of it to know it happened?Why be so vehement in the opposition to the basic principal that little boys have died from bullets fired by both sides. Let them rest in peace. --65.6.24.115 07:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No one is contesting any of that, but this particular article is about Muhammad al-Durra. Babajobu 19:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

www.truthnow.org

http://www.truthnow.org : the web site entirely dedicated to the Al Durrah case ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2005.

Yes, that's a well-known far-right-wing web site, thank you. Rama 12:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you write such an incredible thing ? That's only the web site of a french citizen who wants its public channel to respect its internal charte. Is not this something to be fully respected ? Could you try and explain us how you can be convinced of any political trends of this guy ? I must confess i am totally surprised by what you write. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2005.

Just google "laveritemaintenant". The site is quoted either by right-wing pro-israeli sites (like [24]), or by [25], where it is mentioned that most of the information is copied from the Mena (another well-known and much-noisy site), and that the site was one of the main activists in the courthouse attacks against France 2. Besides, just reading it leaves very little doubt. Rama 12:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to your advice, I have been deeper through this web site, but as far as i am concerned, my inquiry confirms what I thought: this guy is only trying and make ethic be respected in his country. I have noticed that he feels unfairly attacked by this kind of slander. Let me quote what I read from him on his web site (http://www.truthnow.org/Members/webmestre/Document.2004-12-02.2822) He writes : "The technique employed to hide this truth is that of slandering those who desire to reveal it. Thus, we have often heard those who fight to have the true facts revealed described as extremists. Perjoratively labeled in this manner, no credence is given to what they wish to have others understand." I liked especially the following image he gave : "The truth is like the heart of a fruit that must be removed from the worthless inedible material that surrounds it. On the table of dictatorships, the undesirable fruits have been removed from the baskets. On the table of democracies, these undesirable fruits are left on the menu, but they are the fruits whose skin, scattered with thorns, often dissuade those who desire to discover the heart within it." And to finish : "To remove them from their covering requires infinite precaution because once you have been pricked by a thorn, in the eyes of the world you have contracted an incurable evil: inhuman, extremist, war like….none of which has any relevance to the truth that you are seeking to discover. It is in this manner that this forbidden fruit defends itself and it is in this manner that it will again try to defend itself by placing the thorns in the context of this lawsuit for slander, libel and threats." So it seems to me that we should try not to be ourselves manipulated by playing the game of those who would like a truth not to be revealed to the world. We have a big responsability. Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 15 Oct 2005.

seconddraft.org

Someone recently added this link:

I don't have time right now to look at what is apparently a video; "a new perspective" sounds to me to be either vacuuous or a euphemism; I'd recommend that someone take the time to look at this and, if it belongs here at all, to describe it in a way that indicates what it actually is. I suspect it is partisan, and so should be described in a way that makes its viewpoint apparent. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A second link from the same site has now been added, again with what I find an objectionable caption.

This suggests a neutral site, but looking at the site it is nothing of the sort: it is a somewhat subtle propaganda site, but no less a propaganda site for its subtlety. For example:

  • The "About us" page refers to "Pallywood", and despite saying "we believe in the dignity of difference," it mentions prominently that site founder "Richard Landes…wrote his first book on a series of forgeries that had fooled historians for centuries…"
  • After effectively dismissing the possibility that the Israelis killed the boy either intentionally or accidentally, or the Palestinians did so by accident, their arguments against the Palestinians doing so on purpose include "No blood", "No ambulance evacuation", "No bullets recovered": in short, they are arguments that the incident was faked.
  • Finally, their page on the possibility that the shooting was staged says—as one-third of the space supposedly devoted to arguments against it being staged—"There is no clear evidence against this scenario. Once one turns off the willing suspension of disbelief and look at these scenes as potentially staged, one finds few if any scenes that argue for real acting (with the exception of the terrified boy as real Palestinian bullets fly overhead)."

We have already nearly all agreed in the past that the claims that the boy was not really killed are, at best, marginal. So why are we providing two links to a pseudo-scholarly site that claims just that? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've allowed over 48 hours. No one has responded to the above. I am removing the links. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The controversy section is quite long and well documented. Serious issues have been made about the incident, with a large deal of evidence that it was staged. Please explain why this cannot be include in the opening paragraph. TDC 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1) As you say, the controversy is well-documented.
Even more of a reason to include it in the opening paragraph. TDC 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2) "many believing that al-Durrah's killing was staged" is misleading and tendentious. Basically only far-right movements say so. Neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context that the boy was actually killed. Rama 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That is why I have changed it to "with many believing that the incident was staged". And as for only "far right" movements believing that this does not pass the smell test, perhaps this is because individuals sympathetic to the Palestinians have not looked into this matter beyond the PLO Hamass talking points? TDC 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I said that neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context that the boy was actually killed. Surely you do not regard Tsahal as "individuals sympathetic to the Palestinians [who] have not looked into this matter beyond the PLO Hamass talking points", do you ?
I think that your formulation is very misleading, and that the nuances of the matter are much better explained later on, which is the reason why I deem it better to leave this particular information. Rama 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Rama, the last part of "neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context…" is almost incomprehensible. Having reread it a few times, do you perhaps mean "neither the people who seriously investigated the incident, nor Tsahal, contest…"? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Rama 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary section

A concise summary section at the end of the article would be really nice. A lot of the article is devoted to changing public perception of the event and a back-and-forth over who probably fired the bullets, etc. If there were a summary of the following points, it would really help clear up the issue.

  1. How certain is it that the boy was killed in an active exchange of gunfire?
  2. Who, based on information we have now, probably fired the bullets?
  3. Could it have been intentional, or alternately, could it have been unintentional?

Also, I don't quite understand this: "Jamal al-Durrah was also shot and suffered critical injuries but survived after receiving emergency surgery in Jordan." Why did he go to Jordan? Event occured in the West Bank; it would have been necessary for him to travel across all of Isreal and the West Bank to get there. Why was he not treated in a Palestinian or Israeli hospital? In whole, though, the article is remarkably NPOV. --AK7 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Very detailed about controversy. Lacking historical background, although that is to be understood as he was a child. Low B, but more than Start. Article will have to stabilize re: NPOV issues for it to become GA or greater. -- Avi 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Very poorly written and full of rhetoric and redundancy. Any attempt at turning it into readable prose is promptly removed by agenda-pushing editors. This article does not deserve any promotion whatsoever beyond start. Furthermore, it makes use of unlicensed images on the presumption of fair use, and adds POV commentary to explain them.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Citations

I have been going through this, trying to clean up citations, changing them from blind links to proper references. As of the moment I'm writing this, I'm not quite finished, but I'm seeing two disturbing patterns, both of which suggest bias.

  1. There is extensive citation of sources partial to the theories that al-Durrah was either deliberately killed by the Palestinians to make a martyr, or that he was not killed at all. These are relatively marginal views in the debate over the incident. But considerably less marginal views near the opposite end of the spectrum—that he was killed by the IDF, for example—are given almost no play at all. They are set up early in the article, but the structure is entirely one of "debunking" those. There is no comparable "debunking" approach to (for example) the claim that the entire incident was faked.
  2. Many of these citations come back to repetition of the same rather weak sources. WorldNetDaily is, itself, not generally considered a particularly reliable source, and several sources that, from the blind links, appeared to be independent confirmation openly admit to getting their own information from WorldNetDaily: Gabrielle Goldwater, Is Mohammed al-Dura Alive? and Report: 12-year-old Palestinian Martyr's Death 'Staged' (PDF). Further citations come from the site of CAMERA, a very partisan source, and again one whose reliability is widely questioned.

Please understand: I'm not saying that sources must be middle-of-the-road. There are plenty of sources very far from my own left-of-center politics that I will consider quite reliable for facts (National Review leaps to mind, as does the Wall Street Journal), but these two are not among them. - Jmabel | Talk 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is the article from Le Figaro written by Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte on January 25 2005 as availible in the Lexis Nexis database:


Partis pour faire notre travail journalistique de façon honnête, nous voilà aujourd'hui accusés d'être les complices d'une manoeuvre malhonnête, voire conspirationniste, un comble. C'est dire l'état d'une certaine presse en France.
Résumons. Depuis plusieurs années, la Mena, une agence francophone de presse israélienne, et la rédaction de France 2 s'affrontent. A l'origine de cette bataille médiatique, la fusillade du carrefour de Netzarim, dans les Territoires, le 30 septembre 2000. Elle oppose des soldats israéliens à des soldats palestiniens. Entre les deux, des lanceurs de pierres. Et parmi eux, un enfant et son père, pris dans la fusillade. Charles Enderlin, le correspondant de France 2 en Israël, n'est pas sur place. Il récupère les images tournées par son cameraman palestinien, Talal Abou Rama. Il les monte. Et le soir, sur l'antenne de France 2, il les commente de la façon suivante : « Ici Djamal et son père. Ils sont la cible des tirs venus de la position israélienne. L'enfant fait des signes mais... une nouvelle rafale... l'enfant est mort et son père est blessé. »
Faux, rien ne permet de dire que l'enfant a été tué par des soldats israéliens, affirme très vite la Mena. Et pendant trois ans, l'agence de presse accumule des indices troublants qui mettent en cause la version donnée par Charles Enderlin. Plutôt que les tirs israéliens, elle évoque des tirs palestiniens et demande des explications. En guise de réponse, France 2 se retranche derrière des arguments juridiques et décide de ne plus bouger.
C'est dans ce contexte que nous sommes approchés, il y a six mois environ, par Luc Rozensweig, ancien du journal Le Monde. Nous savons les ravages causés par cette image, la haine qu'elle a entretenue et développée sur place, chez nous, dans les banlieues dites sensibles, et partout ailleurs dans le monde, où elle a été présentée sur la base du commentaire fourni par Charles Enderlin comme un exemple de la barbarie israélienne.
Après discussions, nous acceptons donc d'accompagner Luc Rozensweig dans son enquête pour tenter de savoir ce qui s'est vraiment passé ce jour-là au carrefour de Netzarim. Mais pour empêcher les manoeuvres médiatiques habituelles, nous demanderons à Luc Rozensweig de garder le secret jusqu'au bout. Nous entendons même nous réserver la possibilité de ne rien dire s'il n'y a rien à dire de plus que ce qu'on connaît déjà.
C'est ce que nous faisons. Luc Rozensweig enquête et nous présente des faits totalement contradictoires avec la version officielle donnée par Charles Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Rozensweig va même plus loin. Il reprend les thèses de la Mena et suggère que les images de l'enfant et de son père sous le feu des balles pourraient être le résultat d'une mise en scène organisée par les Palestiniens.
A ce stade de l'enquête, Arlette Chabot, directrice de l'information de France 2, accepte de nous rencontrer. Et de collaborer sincèrement et courageusement à la recherche de la vérité. Nous lui présentons les éléments en notre possession. Nous lui confions nos doutes sérieux sur la version fournie par Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Mais dans le même temps, nous ajoutons que nous sommes prêts à écarter les accusations de Rozensweig sur la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant si le visionnage de l'ensemble des rushes tournés par Talal Abou Rama confirme ce que Charles Enderlin a déclaré à deux reprises au moins, dont à Télérama : « J'ai coupé l'agonie de l'enfant. C'était insupportable... Cela n'aurait rien apporté de plus. »
Arlette Chabot accepte sans réticence. Sauf que le visionnage des rushes ne nous apprend rien de plus sur « l'agonie de l'enfant ». Ou plutôt, si ! Cette fameuse « agonie », qu'Enderlin affirme avoir coupée au montage, n'existe pas.
En revanche, le visionnage permet de relever, avec l'approbation de nos confrères de France 2 présents autour de la table que, dans les minutes qui précèdent la fusillade, les Palestiniens semblent avoir organisé une mise en scène. Ils « jouent » à la guerre avec les Israéliens et simulent, dans la plupart des cas, des blessures imaginaires. Le visionnage intégral des rushes démontre aussi qu'au moment où Charles Enderlin donne le gamin pour mort, tué par les Israéliens, c'est-à-dire le soir même sur le journal de France 2, rien ne lui permet d'affirmer qu'il est vraiment mort et encore moins qu'il a été tué par des soldats israéliens. Tout, bien au contraire, à commencer par l'emplacement des uns et des autres sur le terrain, incriminerait plutôt une ou des balles palestiniennes.
Face à cette dernière remarque, nos confrères de France 2 reconnaissent que rien effectivement ne permet de dire que l'enfant a été touché par des tirs israéliens. Leurs experts ont même démontré, nous assurent-ils, que l'enfant a été touché par des éclats ( ?) ou par des balles qui auraient ricoché sur la chaussée, des balles qui en tout état de cause ne visaient ni l'enfant ni son père. « De toute façon, conclut l'un d'entre eux, on ne pourra jamais savoir d'où venaient les tirs. »
Autrement dit, en attribuant la mort de l'enfant à des tirs israéliens le soir même sur France 2, Charles Enderlin a extrapolé à partir des rushes et de la version des événements fournie par son cameraman. Pourquoi ? Pourquoi a-t-il privilégié cette interprétation ? Dans quel but ? Peu importe, le fait est là et suffit en soi à revisiter toute cette affaire de fond en comble pour trier le vrai du faux.
Alors que, de part et d'autre, nous nous sommes engagés dans ce travail, la Mena, informée sans que nous le sachions par Luc Rozensweig, rend public le lendemain, dans une longue dépêche, les détails de la rencontre entre France 2 et nous. Elle profite même des premières conclusions auxquelles nous sommes arrivés la veille avec France 2 pour pousser l'avantage et exposer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant, thèse que, pour notre part, nous n'avons, faute de preuves sérieuses, jamais reprise à notre compte.
Sollicités par la presse, nous choisissons de nous taire. Nous savons en effet que dans le tintamarre orchestré par la Mena, nous ne pouvons plus être entendus. France 2, entre-temps, d'ailleurs, nous a présenté des éléments sérieux qui réfutent la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant. Nous décidons alors d'interrompre notre enquête comme le fait la presse sur bien des sujets tous les jours.
Aujourd'hui que le tintamarre est un peu retombé, il redevient possible de dire les choses et qui sait, peut-être, d'être enfin entendus. A ceux qui, comme la Mena, ont voulu nous instrumentaliser pour étayer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant par des Palestiniens, nous disons qu'ils nous trompent et qu'ils trompent leurs lecteurs. Non seulement nous ne partageons pas ce point de vue, mais nous affirmons qu'en l'état actuel de notre connaissance du dossier, rien ne permet de l'affirmer, bien au contraire.
A certains journalistes « médias » qui ont tenté d'amalgamer notre point de vue à celui de la Mena pour mieux le discréditer, nous voulons dire qu'ils participent une fois de plus à rendre ce dossier opaque. Il n'en avait pas besoin. En tout cas, compte tenu de la valeur symbolique de ces images et de leurs effets ravageurs, c'est un devoir professionnel pour tous, nous semble-t-il, d'éviter les approximations et de dire exactement ce que l'on sait. Ni plus ni moins.
I used babelfish to loosely translate it. I insert proper names that are translated (Le Monde is translated as The World) as well as some clarifying notes in square brackets:
Parties to do our journalistic work in an honest way, here us are today shown to be accomplices of an operation dishonest person, even conspirationnist, a roof [shill]. It is to say the state of a certain press in France.
Let us summarize. Since several years, [Mena], a French-speaking agency of Israeli press, and the drafting of France 2 clash. With the origin of this media battle, the shooting of the crossroads of Netzarim, in the Territories, September 30, 2000. It opposes Israeli soldiers to Palestinian soldiers. Between the two, stone launchers. And among them, a child and his father, taken in the shooting. Charles Enderlin, the correspondent of France 2 in Israel, is not on the spot. He recovers the images turned by his Palestinian cameraman, Talal Abou Rama. He assembles them. And the evening, on the antenna of France 2, it comments on them in the following way: "Here Djamal and his/her father. They are the target of the shootings come from the Israeli position. The child makes signs but... a new gust... the child died and his/her father is wounded "
Forgery, nothing makes it possible to say that the child was killed by Israeli soldiers, affirms very quickly Carried out it. And during three years, the news service accumulates disconcerting indices which blame the version given by Charles Enderlin. Rather than the Israeli shootings, it evokes Palestinian shootings and asks explanations. As an answer, France 2 cuts off itself behind legal arguments and decides not to move more.
It is in this context that we are approached, approximately six months ago, by Luc Rozensweig, old of the newspaper [Le Monde]. We know the devastations caused by this image, the hatred which it maintained and developed on the spot, on our premises, in the suburbs known as sensitive, and everywhere else in the world, where it was presented on the basis of comment provided by Charles Enderlin like an example of Israeli cruelty.
After discussions, we thus agree to accompany Luc Rozensweig in his investigation to try to know what really occurred this day to the crossroads from Netzarim. But to prevent the usual media operations, we will ask Luc Rozensweig to maintain the secrecy until the end. We intend to even to reserve the possibility us nothing of saying if there is nothing to say moreover than what one knows already.
It is what we do. Luc Rozensweig inquires and presents to us completely contradictory facts with the official version given by Charles Enderlin and Talal Abou Rama. Rozensweig goes even further. It takes again the theses of Mena and suggests that the images of the child and his father under the fire of the balls could be the result of a setting in scene organized by the Palestinians.
This stage of the investigation, Arlette Chabot, director of the information of France 2, agrees to meet us. And to collaborate sincerely and courageously in the research of the truth. We present the elements in our possession to him. We entrust our serious doubts to him on the version provided by Enderlin and Talal Abou Rama. But in same time, we add that we are ready to draw aside the charges of Rozensweig on the setting in scene of died of the child if the visionnage of the whole of the rushes [video of the whole of the clips] turned by Talal Abou Rama confirms what Charles Enderlin declared twice at least, of which in Télérama: "I cut the anguish of the child. It was unbearable... That would not have brought anything moreover"
Arlette Chabot accepts without reserve. Except that the visionnage of the rushes [video of the clips] does not teach us anything more on "the anguish of the child". Or rather, if! This famous "anguish", that Enderlin affirms to have crossed to the assembly, does not exist.
On the other hand, the visionnage makes it possible to raise, with the approval of our fellow-members of France 2 present around the table that, in the minutes which precede the shooting, the Palestinians seem to have organized a setting in scene. They "play" the war with the Israelis and simulate, in the majority of the cases, the imaginary wounds. The integral visionnage of the rushes also shows that at the time when Charles Enderlin gives the kid for death, killed by the Israelis, i.e. the evening even on the newspaper of France 2, nothing does not enable him to affirm that he really died and even less than he was killed by Israeli soldiers. All, quite to the contrary, to start with the site of the ones and others on the ground, would accuse one or of the Palestinian balls rather.
Vis-a-vis with this last remark, our fellow-members of France 2 recognize that nothing indeed makes it possible to say that the child was touched by Israeli shootings. Do their experts even showed, us ensure, that the child was touched by glares (?) or by balls which would have rebounded on the roadway, from the balls which in any event aimed neither the child nor his father "In any event, concludes one of them, one will be able to never know from which the shootings came"
In other words, by allotting the death of the child to Israeli shootings the evening even on France 2, Charles Enderlin extrapolated starting from the rushes and of the version of the events provided by his cameraman. Why? Why did it privilege this interpretation? With a which aim? It does not matter, the fact is there and is enough in oneself to revisit all this basic business in roof to sort the truth of the forgery.
Whereas, on both sides, we engaged in this work, Carried out it, informed without we knowing it by Luc Rozensweig, makes public the following day, in a long dispatch, the details of the meeting between France 2 and us. It benefits even from the first conclusions at which we were able the day before with France 2 to push the advantage and to expose the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child, thesis that, for our part, we do not have, for lack of serious evidence, ever taken again on our account.
Solicited by the press, we choose to conceal to us. We know indeed that in the din orchestrated by [Mena], we cannot be heard more. France 2, meanwhile, moreover, us presented serious elements which refute the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child. We then decide to stop our investigation like does it the press on many subjects tous.les.jours. [All.The.Time.]
Today that the din fell down a little, it becomes again possible to say the things and who knows, perhaps, to be finally heard. With those which, as Carried out it, wanted to us instrumentaliser to support the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child by Palestinians, we say that they mislead us and that they mislead their readers. Not only we do not share this point of view, but we affirm that in the current state of our knowledge of the file, nothing makes it possible to affirm it, quite to the contrary.
To certain journalists "media" which tried to amalgamate our point of view with that of Mena for better discrediting it, we want to say that they once more take part to make this file opaque. It did not need any. In any case, taking into account the value symbolic system of these images and their devastating effects, it is a professional duty for all, seems to us it, to avoid the approximations and to say exactly what one knows. Ni more nor less.
Commentary: it seems that Jeambar and Leconte are asserting an agnosticism about the contents of the tapes and criticizing the lack of same from France 2. They argue that the tape is unclear about the circumstances at best and offers evidence that suggests a hoax at worst; and therefore reporting specifics, such as the state of al-Durrah or who was responsible for his state, was irresponsible.

What's the official position of IDF on this issue?

Can anybody provide any links to prove that the IDF stated it was responsible for this alleged killing? Mieciu K 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prove" is a tricky word, but is was reported so by the BBC: [26] - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

death controversial?

is there really a controversy about whether the boy died or not. i read in a german interview with the woman who made the tv documentary that she talked with the doctor that performed the autopsy...--trueblood 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is dispute at to the authenticity of just about everything that happened that day. Bibigon 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sure i take it there is also a dispute to whether the fbi planned 9/11 but these claims are kept out of the main article --trueblood 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but there are no reliable and notable sources disputing the official 9/11 story. Meanwhile, just about every reliable and notable source reported the 9/11 story as fact. This is not the case with al-Durrah. Bibigon 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

not quite convinced. the cause of his death might be disputed, but aren't the people that dispute his death more on the same level as the people that tell these 6000 jews did not come to work in ny on 9\11 stories? his father says he is dead, there was an autopsy performed. the israelian army even took responsibility at some point. do you think he lives with his family or what?--trueblood 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The people who dispute his death are "Richard Landes, a Boston University professor", "Nahum Shahaf, a physicist", "the cameraman Talal Abu Rahma", "A 2002 documentary on Germany's ARD television network", "James Fallows, in a June 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly", etc... That's just half the list. These are sources of significantly more notability and reliability than those who dispute the traditional 9/11 story. The IDF never took responsibility, they indicated that they were "probably responsible" at first, before the later investigations. That an autopsy was performed has not been substantiated, and the father's claims are also thus far merely claims.
The sources and evidence for the traditional 9/11 story were far stronger than the sources and evidence for the al-Durrah death story. The sources and evidence disputing the 9/11 story was meanwhile far weaker than the sources and evidence disputing the death claim. Bibigon 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category: "Allegedly living people"

I deleted the "Category: Living people" entry. IMHO, "Category: 2000 deaths" is probably right, but "Category: Possibly living people" is at least arguably applicable. Thoughts? TheronJ 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much any category is going to be POV, isn't it. Even "possibly living" is awfully close to endorsing one side of an argument. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now been placed, via a template, in Category:Biography articles of living people. Seems very problematic to me. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

www.truthnow.org again

I am very surprised that the web site http://www.truthnow.org has not yet been mentionned among the references of wikipedia on the Muhammad al-Durrah topic ! It's just the web site of a french citizen who have seized the french justice, not to accuse France Televisions of having made a stage, but to obtain, at least, that France Televisions officially says to his wiewers that it has never had any proof that this palestinian child was killed by israeli soldiers. Arlette Chabot (director of information of France Televisions) has told that France Televisions had never had any proof that would have unabled it to accuse Israeli Soldiers. But she told that only on a small french jewish radio. The citizen mentionned in http://www.truthnow.org wants her to tell the same thing, but on prime time during the TV news of France Televisions, in order to repair the consequences of an accusation without any proof that has been diffused on prime time several times during the TV news of France Televisions. He wants all the french citizens to know it and not only the few people that were listening to this french jewish radio when Arlette Chabot confessed her channel did not respect the journalistic deontology. In fact, he just asks the journalistic deontology to be respected by the french public channel. And "accusing without any proof" is considered to be one of the biggest faults that can make a journalist (Munich charte) That's all ! He never asked France Televisions to say Palestinian had killed the child. Nor did he ask France Televisions to say the child is alive. He just wants his public channel to rectify something that, according to its charte, it should rectify. A normal rectification that France Televisions tries to refuse him !That is the reason why he has transfered the question to the Human Rights European Court. This refusal is very important. It may show France Televisions has something to hide. Are french citizens who act as citizens going now to be qualified as extremists ? By not mentionning this web site, the only web site that gives people all the information about a VERY important plaint that is today beeing studied by the judges of the Human Rights European Court, i am afraid people do not understand why wikipedia censures such information. Best Regards. Bernard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.128 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2006.

It is always very wise, when demanding that people propagate your self-promotion, to use words like "censorship" right on. Rama 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Rama, i confess that the last sentence was not appropriated and do not correspond anyway to the way i see wikipedia. If you interpreted it like this, let's say i just expressed myself badly. No problem. But I am afraid i do not understand you. I found the web site http://www.truthnow.org very important because i found that this plaint was clear and fair. I explained you clearly what this plaint was about. The only thing you answered me was that i was making the promotion of something. But of what exactly ? Of the fact that there is a plaint that I considere is important enough to be known by the readers of wikipedia ? What is the problem ? Is not this the rule of this encyclopedia ? To let know what can be of interest relatively to a topic ? Now if you give me a good reason for wikipedia to prevent such an information from reaching the article, no problem of course. But if possible a reason linked to the very web site and not to what some other people may say about it as i read already in this page. Sincerely.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.128 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2006.

www.truthnow.org

Can someone give clearly a good reason to prevent wikipedia readers from having this critical information relative to the fact that the Al Dura case is now beeing judged by the Human Rights European Court ? And to the fact that the CSA (french equivalent to FCC) as well as the Conseil d'Etat (highest french administrative court) avoid this case for which, howewever, they have been seized ? And if posssible any other reason than the one consisting in writing that the http://www.truthnnow.org would be extremist, which makes absolutely no sense ! Thank you in advance.

Then cite a reliable source and get the material into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

controversy

I think the controversy section takes up way too much of this article. It needs to be whittled down to at least half the current length. Suicup 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for controversy, this story would not be of encyclopedic notability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The picture (regardless of its 'controversy') is one of the defining images of the second intifada, along with The lynching in Ramallah. Its notability is not in question at all. Rather, the size of the controversy section distorts the article and causes bias. Hence the reason why it should be shortened - the article is about the boy and the photo, not the controversy. Suicup 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the satement that "the article is about the boy and the photo, not the controversy". I think the two are intertwined, and I agree with Jmabel that this event is notable for the most part because of the controversial nature of the incident - with one side claiming it was deliberate murder, and the other side claiming it was a staged incident. Were it not for this controversy, the story would be "boy killed in crossfire" - a tragic but unfortunately quite common occurence in conflicts of this type, and thus non-notable. Isarig 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Suicup, unless you are suggesting the article be split between the boy and the controversy around him, I do not see a valid argument in shortening the section. KazakhPol 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe most (if not all) the 'evidence' claiming that the boy is still alive (ie the death was faked) should be removed as none of it is credible. Every single commercial credible source says he was killed: AI, CBS, the IDF (!) etc etc. If you can find someone who is not a crackpot that espouses this theory, then so be it, however none of them fit that criteria. Suicup 06:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop changing "is" to "was." This has nothing to do with whether the boy is dead or alive, it is supposed to be "is" because we do not use passive voice. KazakhPol 15:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Both "is" and "was" are passive voice. The only difference is present versus past tense. Also there is no policy prohibiting passive voice, although passive voice often has a hard time being judged "brilliant prose." -Amatulic 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed

Excerpts: "sought sanctuary in vain" "as bullets rained down around them" "waving desperately," "eventually hit" "collapsed in his father's arms," and "the trapped pair." Refrain from removing the TotallyDisputed template until this eulogy is made encyclopedic. KazakhPol 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Libel

Rama, do you have an English source for your recent edit? This one indicates there was just a token fine, not a "condemnation for libel," but I don't know which is correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Le Monde, Karsenty was found guilty of libel. This has nothing to do with the amount he has to pay.
Your source mentions 3000 Euros to be payed, which seems not to be exact ; according to le Monde, Karsenty was fined 1000 Euros, and to one symbolic Euro in damage to both France 2 and Ederlin (2 euros, then). The 3000 Euros figure is probably justice expences, which is yet another matter. Rama 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This [27] essentially confirms what I was inferring. Rama 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a more detailed Jerusalem Post article, and I've tidied the edit. Could you use English-language sources whenever possible, please? French-language ones can be used in addition, of course, especially if they're more detailed, but English-language sources should be used if available. See WP:V. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the information you found about the damages. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I agree that his name should be stated first instead of the camerman's but we shouldnt say "was" because thats passive voice. I understand the concern that it should say reported rather than just filmed the death - personally I highly doubt this kid is dead. KazakhPol 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real issue with "was" vs. "is"; it's a minor grammatical point, and one shouldn't re-write the entire intro of this contentious article just to try to deal with that alleged problem. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not just that that I am fixing. In addition to the obvious grammar points his death should be mentioned in the parentheses rather than the pov-way of mentioning his age when he was killed. Is the current version acceptable? KazakhPol 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. I feel the current lead is better, for a number of reasons. We can't talk about his "alleged death." Your first version started with someone else's name, which is not our usual format. We can't say he became "famous" when ... Talk of becoming "famous," of "alleged death" etc is disrespectful. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV to give his age upfront? The story is about a child who is reported to have been killed. It is because he was a child that what happened had such an impact. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, your version is highly pov and uses passive voice. The age of death is alleged. Putting his birthdate in parentheses is how all other Wikipedia articles do it. If his age at death is what is notable then source someone saying that. KazakhPol 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that it is highly unusual to claim that a reported death was staged, and extraordinary to claim that there was no death at all, or that the person identified as Muhammad al-Durrah never existed in the first place, that the boy on the footage was essentially an actor. So I think it's important to phrase this as carefully as we can to avoid revert wars, while of course not discounting the controversy. I think it's self-evident that the age of a dead child is a notable fact. --Leifern 18:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
KazakhPol, you expressed the view above that "personally I highly doubt this kid is dead." You're not allowed to rewrite the lead in order to express that POV, because it's a minority one, and I'd say a tiny-minority one. Most of the controversy that I know of is about who shot him. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Leifern, asserting that it is a minority view without any proof other than 'I told you so' is a weak argument. And, by the way, I am allowed to rewrite the introduction so it conforms to a neutral point of view. Please do not revert until you have a viable argument. KazakhPol 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Your edits border on being offensive. He did not "become famous." He died, at least according to the majority view, and I believe also according to sig minority views. You also appear to have violated WP:3RR; if you revert again, you may be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My edits are not offensive. This is a difference in opinion on how the article should look. I would expect an administrator to not be a little less threatening when in a content dispute. The WP:3RR warning is appreciated but I have not actually violated the policy, so you'll have to find another way to deal with this disagreement. I will seek a third opinion. KazakhPol 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You reverted a fairly long-standing intro four times in less than 24 hours; that is a 3RR violation. That you added slightly different material each time makes no difference. Please read the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Amatulic, your lead isn't acceptable. That the boy didn't die is a tiny minority POV. We can't write the lead section as though it's a mainstream opinion; please read WP:NPOV. If you want to write the lead in accordance with that view, you'll have to produce some reliable published sources showing that it's a majority or significant-minority opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but after I looked over the edit history of this article, I determined that the two versions of the lead paragraph could be merged using the accepted facts:
  • The boy was reported to be killed, is a fact.
  • The boy appeared to be shot dead, is a fact. The word "alleged" is POV. The fact is, he appeared on film as being shot.
  • The boy was born in 1968, is an accepted fact. Saying that he "was" twelve, in this context has a connotation of establishing death which, as is pointed out in the article, is a controversial point.
Furthermore:
  • The article says enough about that controversy that the issue of the boy's death does appear significant. Nowhere did I write that the boy didn't die.
  • I have no view whatsoever. What, specifically, did I write that seems like an opinion? I only tried to summarize the facts above in prose. I came here not on my own but by request (because someone noticed me offering unbiased 3rd opinions by request). I came knowing nothing about the subject, without any POV whatsoever about the subject, so I can hardly be accused of POV pushing.
  • I would remind you of the policy WP:AGF which neither of you are doing. And I need no lectures regarding WP:NPOV, thank you. -Amatulic 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "Saying that he 'was' twelve, in this context has a connotation of establishing death which, as is pointed out in the article, is a controversial point." Please produce a reliable published source that shows whether he is dead is a controversial point. If you need no lesson in NPOV, you'll know about the undue weight provision. Please follow it, and produce sources that show this is not a tiny-minority POV. That issue apart, the previous lead was better written. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I will try again. The article itself, and particularly citation #8, suggests that part of the controversy concerns the film being staged or faked. What's the point of killing a boy in a staged film? Therein lies the controversy concerning his death. I noticed that right off the bat when I read the article the first time, and I am frankly astonished that this point would escape anyone. Perhaps I am missing something?
As I said, my first and only exposure to this subject was when I was asked to come and provide an opinion to help settle your dispute. Instead of addressing my statement of the facts as I understand them, or any specific way I expressed them in the lead, you resort to accusations of POV pushing when I had no POV to begin with, and still don't.
Again I ask, what did I write in the lead that suggests any POV or undue weight? The boy was filmed being shot, and he appeared to be dead. That's what I wrote. Are those facts in dispute? That was not my impression from reading this talk page, before I offered my third opinion as requested. -Amatulic 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No one said you were POV pushing. I said you were violating NPOV by giving a fringe theory undue weight. The authenticity of the film is a separate issue from whether the boy died — whether exactly as described or differently — and to the best of my knowledge, despite the various legitimate questions, that he did not die remains a fringe theory. Talking about his "alleged death" and how he "appeared to be shot to death," particularly in the lead, violates NPOV (and "shot to death" is odd writing). If you want your writing to imply that he may not have died, you'll have to show that reliable published sources are maintaining that position. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem now. No, I certainly did not mean to imply that he may not have died. I agree that the word "alleged" violates NPOV. I intended the word "appeared" to mean "appeard on film", but it didn't come across that way to you, so I see your point. I only tried to work into the prose two simple NPOV facts: (a) that he was reported to be killed, and (b) that the film showed him getting shot to death. I think we can agree that these are objective facts, regardless of whether or not he actually died. Saying anything more would promote a POV and would conflict with the later sentence about the controversy, which explictly says that controversy included questioning the fact of his death. I tried to make a small change to the lead just now to reflect this. -Amatulic 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the current version except for the use of "was" which is bad for all articles from a grammatical point of view. "Was" is passive voice which is weak writing.
"Was" is the 1st and 3rd-person singular past tense of the verb "to be"; it isn't a "voice," passive or otherwise. Are you seriously saying that all articles that contain the word "was" are badly written? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a policy that says to avoid passive voice? If there is not then there should be. I am being completely geniuine in my rational here - if you go through my contributions you will see numerous instances in which I change passive voice to past tense for dead people. I would also like to point out, before this really goes any further, that HighInBC (and Jayjg on this specific issue) has yet to comment, and his input would be much appreciated as he has experience in providing third opinions. Additionally, SlimVirgin, I did not violate WP:3RR. KazakhPol 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, you need to do some more reading about English grammar before going around making any more grammatical changes. And you most certainly did violate 3RR; reverting in part still counts as a revert. Please review the policy carefully or you're likely to do it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like passive voice either. There's no policy against it but a guideline for good or featured articles is that one must write them with "compelling" prose, which implies avoiding passive voice. Sometimes it's very difficult to avoid, however. If I think of a way around it, I'll try to put it in. -Amatulic 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a myth, and a mysteriously common one on Wikipedia, that there's anything wrong with the passive voice. There isn't. It depends on context. See here, for instance. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it depends on the context, and encyclopedia articles and other scholarly works tend to use passive voice. Nearly all Wikipedia articles have a passive voice first sentence. However, one can employ active voice without sounding awkward, it does grab the reader's attention more effectively than passive voice. (now I really must continue packing for my trip...) -Amatulic 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, what are you doing? This is not even a content dispute anymore you're just messin up the grammar. If you do not speak English then propose changes on the talkpage and native speakers will correct the grammar on the article page. KazakhPol 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent). I don't see anything in this article that alleges anything that is untrue or biased. By now, the controversy about the authenticity of the footage is so widespread that it is no longer a fringe point of view. I think perhaps we can resolve some of the noise on this by reworking the introduction to state that 1) the authenticity of the tape is questioned; and 2) this raises a number of secondary issues about whose bullets killed the boy, the identity of the boy, the behavior of the individuals, etc. This is tricky, since it isn't up to us to determine what is true. Assuming that the boy is dead, it would be offensive to question it; assuming that he isn't, it would be offensive to assert that he is. --Leifern 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. KazakhPol 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest reverting

KazakhPol, what is it that you feel makes no sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak English? The nonsense you added is not grammatical by anyone's standards. Israel is a singular entity not a plural one. You altered what everyone else has accepted to incorrectly say: "The video, later broadcast around the world, caused outrage against Israel, who were assumed to be responsible." KazakhPol 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That is quite normal English, but you can change it to govt, IDF, whatever, as you prefer. However, you reverted all my changes, including adding a reference, so what else did you feel made no sense? [28]
I'm also confused about your position overall. You said your objection to the original intro is that it implied the boy is dead, by using the word "was," and your belief is that he is not dead. But now you're reverting to a version that says the video shows him being "shot to death," which in fact it doesn't; if it did show that, there would be no controversy. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if there was a single truthful statement in what you just said. Mediation - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad al-Durrah? Or arbitration? KazakhPol 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the one truthful statement was that you reverted all my edits. Here is the diff. You explained why you didn't like "who were assumed to be responsible." But you didn't explain what you didn't like about the rest. What was wrong with the citation that you removed, for example? Also, do you have a reliable source that says the video shows him being "shot to death," as you put it? My understanding of the controversy (and if you would read the source you removed, you'll see it) is that there is a gap in the tape where one would expect to see the killing. Various explanations have been put forward for this gap, which may or may not be legitimate (my own opinion is that the boy was indeed killed). Nevertheless, whether legitimate or not, there is a gap, and that gap means the video does not show the boy being "shot to death." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, using a plural verb to refer back to the immediately preceding noun "Israel" will strike a lot of Americans as being veddy veddy British, and should probably be avoided (I think that even many British people would use a singular verb in this particular case, though they would use a plural verb in other cases). AnonMoos 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a matter of choice, and I'm easy either way. I'm interested in what was wrong with the rest of the edit, particularly the reference that was removed. It's from the IHT, was published in the NYT, and it's already referenced elsewhere in the article, so why remove it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The reference I have no problem with. When I reverted you had just added that so your second edit simply got covered in the reversion on accident. You would use the singular in the case I pointed out no matter whether it was in British English or American. Since NetScott is resorting to intimidation I will not edit this until the mediation is either accepted or, if rejected, I will pursue arbitration. KazakhPol 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Netscott is not relying on intimidation. His edits tried to find a compromise and were helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Odd, where am I "intimidating" anyone? (→Netscott) 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
NetScott: "will cause other users to work against you." [insert evil cackle by NetScott]. What a lame attempt. KazakhPol 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not intimidation... but rather simple fact. Deleting civil comments from your talk page with the edit summary, "no, really not interested in this lie" essentially sets Wikipedia up to be a battleground. Such behavior is quite frowned upon and seen as quite incivil. (→Netscott) 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources for this article

Curious what sources were used for this eulogy, I tried putting in some of the unsourced quotes into Yahoo! and guess what I found? The source is an incredibly reliable website called "AlBalagh" and the page[29] where some Wikipedia editor stole it from is entitled "Who Stole the Peace from the Holy Land?" Guess who "stole the peace." Here's a hint: Juden. KazakhPol

But where else does it come from? Apparently, from another reliable source called "Aztlan"[30] another website that celebrates "martyr" attacks on Jews. KazakhPol 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you've found actual copyright violations, they should be removed (unless they can be easily rewritten). Similarly, if that's the only source the material can be found on (whether a copyright violation or not), it should also be removed. Everything needs to be sourced to a reliable publication, preferably a mainstream newspaper in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Are you sure that wasnt the point I just making? Not copyrights as far as I can see though, just made up quotes and events. KazakhPol 23:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Anything that can only be found on an unreliable website, or a mirror of Wikipedia, should be removed. Now, it could be that the website is only copying it from somewhere else, and that the website's sources could be reliable. So we could try to re-source the material. But it should be removed in the first instance, and rewritten using only mainstream newspapers, books, and mainstream websites (websites run by reliable organizations). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, you wrote: "until everything is sourced, the template remains." Can you say which claims still need sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps everything in the article that is not currently sourced. I also noted you've deliberately distorted sources to fit your agenda. AGF no longer applies here. You have set a clear path for this article and it is far from the truth. KazakhPol 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please say specifically what you need sources for. The tag has to be accompanied by specific and reasonable suggestions for improvement that are actionable within our policies. And which sources have I deliberately distorted, and how? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And what's my agenda? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
My comments were inappropriate. I apologize. Perhaps I am misunderstanding how citing is being done - normally I would put citation at the end of the sentence, but there are paragraphs which do not have citations at the end. Are these paragraphs sourced? If they are, please add the citations at the end of the text chunks. KazakhPol 05:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. Not all paras necessarily need sources, and of course you could find some for yourself. :-)
I'm confused about the page move. His name is Muhammad al-Durrah. It's not for us to decide that's not really his name. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
100% agree with you SlimVirgin... there are literally dozens of Al-names on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I apologize for my single act of incivility and you call my edits "infantile." Feel free to restore the page to its earlier name. It's quite clear there's no point in editing this page. KazakhPol 05:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Calling others' illustration of an indisputable 3RR violation lies would be another example of incivility. And no I did not say that your edit was infantile I said that "mass media" sounds infantile... why ever would that need to be explained? Is that not a given? Parts of my edit commentary stemmed from your rather blanket revert of my former edits (to the point of switching back from "al-Durrah" to "the Durrah"). You even reverted out my addition of (IDF) next to the Israeli Defense Forces wikilink (which I put there due to the IDF reference later on). (→Netscott) 05:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I proposed conspiracy theory for the controversy because it's a conspiracy theory.Faat78 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a conclusion that can be reached by analysis of evidence. The term "conspiracy theory" is loaded language that implies a point of view that the conclusions have no basis or cannot be taken seriously. The article is correct in presenting the issue as a controversy (a more neutral term), in compliance with the policy WP:NPOV. -Amatulic 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You said : "The term "conspiracy theory" is loaded language that implies a point of view that the conclusions have no basis or cannot be taken seriously." No, the term is used for 09/11 on Wikipedia. Faat78 00:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the change in wording. You know you do not have consensus. So why are you trying to change the wording? Do you really think the rest of us will stop watching this page? KazakhPol 01:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have consensus, and you don't. Counld you please answer my question : why the term is not neutral, and why it is used in other articles ? Faat78 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I actually do have consensus. That's why various users reverted your edits when you tried to change the word anonymously. It's used in other articles because some users on Wikipedia like ignoring the naming conventions. KazakhPol 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The term is used for other articles because that's how they have been described by reliable sources. Which reliable sources have described the controversy of Durrah as a "conspiracy theory"? Oh, and please don't try to slip you POV in elsewhere, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46286 Terrorists' 'poster boy' exposed as media fraud: 5 years late, Los Angeles Times reveals Palestinian hoax inspired 'bestial crimes'], September 13, 2005

Does a World Net Daily rehash conveying as gospel truth someone's column in the Los Angeles Times claiming that the incident was a fraud really rise to our standards for external links? In my view, if it does, then our standards need to be raised. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed two links from the article, both with specific rationales. User:KazakhPol reverted me, explaining only that he was doing so "for obvious reasons", and without addressing my rationale at all, so I have removed these again, pending discussion.

  1. I removed the internal link Hizbollywood from the "see also" section. Note that Pallywood is linked, and while I find the term offensive, I have not challenged it. However, as I wrote when removing this, "If Hizbollywood is not simply a synonym for Pallywood, then it is off topic, if it is a synonym it is redundant." No one has even alleged that Hezbollah were in any way involved in this incident.
  2. I removed [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46286 Terrorists' 'poster boy' exposed as media fraud: 5 years late, Los Angeles Times reveals Palestinian hoax inspired 'bestial crimes'], September 13, 2005, which, as I remarked above and remarked again in my edit summary, is a World Net Daily rehash conveying as gospel truth someone's column in the Los Angeles Times claiming that the incident was a fraud. It adds nothing except noise. It is a weak tertiary source. - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Without answering me here, KazakhPol has again restored the latter link with the comment "rv whitewashing". I have no idea why he is questioning my motives, and, for what it is worth, I resent it. (For what it's worth, to the best of my memory, I have no significant history with this user, but I presume I do with some of the other contributors to this article, and I think they can vouch for me not being one to whitewash things.) I think this further reversion without discussion amounts to edit-warring. And I still think this link does not meet the standards of WP:EL. Will someone else please step into this situation so that this does not become a personal matter? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I just in general am tired of you people trying to censor the theory of what happened that you dont like, since it puts into question your entire perspective on the overall issue. Since the article is already full of whitewashing, hence the TotallyDisputed template, I figure it's best to maintain its current, dissapointing state rather than make it worse. KazakhPol 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm tired of being on the receiving end of your ad hominem remarks such as "…you people trying to censor …since it puts into question your entire perspective". I have not been responding in kind. I am asking you to stop. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, I'm not keen on that website and I wouldn't use it as a source, but as an external link, I think it probably does meet the standards. However, I stand to be corrected or persuaded because I know very little about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You donät think it's a bit undue weight to add links that support fringe theories? // Liftarn

Can you find verifiable and reliable sources that support the notion that alternative viewpoints are fringe theories? I think such links are appropriate, provided that the current too-long list of external links gets separated into logical subsections, such as historical accounts, criticism, alternative viewpoints, whatever. If the "alternative viewpoints" subsection gets too long, then links should be cut out, especially redundant duplicate viewpoints, blogs, discussion forums, editorials in vanity publications, etc. -Amatulic 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, I think you have things in reverse. It is not necessary to provide reliable sources that establish alternative viewpoints are fringe theories. Rather it is necessary to establish that an 'alternative viewpoint' it not a fringe theory by providing multiple reliable sources of a resonable caliber. People can't be expected to look into every single wacky theory out there and write that it is a fringe theory. Nil Einne 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also while I haven't looked at the site extensively I think I agree with Jmabel on this one. If the site is simply mentioning a theory from a reliable source that we already discuss, and it is not suitable as a reliable source, it has no merit as an external link. If the site is about the theory we already discuss but covers it in significantly more detail, then there might be merit, the site would need to be analysed more carefully. If the site is discussing a theory we don't mention, there is no merit to include it in EL. Unless the theory is mentioned in the article, there is no merit IMHO to include external links which discuss other wacky theories unless the site is (resonably) unbiasedly summarising the theories that exist. Nil Einne 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

As per WP:UNDUE we should not give undue weight to a handfull of far out theories regarding what happened. We should give the story and then have a breief mention about the controversies. Just as the article about Earth deals with the theory of the flat Earth. // Liftarn

When there is as much evidence that he was shot as there is that the earth i snot flat, you'll have a point. Until then, what we have is a highly questionable film, by a protagonist who has retracted parts of his accompanying testimony, contrasted with several serious documentaries by the likes of German Television. if anything, it is undue weight to claim he was shot based on specious propaganda claims. Isarig 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Liftarn. The article should reflect how this was debunked as a scam. The theory that Durrah is dead is a fringe theory. KazakhPol 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Get real! A handfull of propagandaists have claimed it was staged. The rest of the world agrees he was shot dead. Don't let the tail wag the dog. // Liftarn

A handfull of propagandists (including Liftarn) have claimed it was real. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid ad hominem attacks and stay civil. // Liftarn
telling other editors to "Get Real", and then complaining about civility is a case of WP:POT. ARD Television is not " A handfull of propagandists" Isarig 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
ARD Television is not used as a source in the article. Instead IsraelInsider is used as a secondary source. // Liftarn
Are you denying that ARD produced such a documentary? Are you alleging that the claims about the documentary source to IsraelInsider are false? Isarig 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if they did or not. Anyway IsraelInsider are not claiming the whole thing was staged. Just that it is a "high probability" that he wasn't killed by an Israeli bullet. As far as I cen tell no reliable source have stated the boy wasn't killed. // Liftarn
You don't know ? Well how about doing some research, before making POV edits to the article, then?. Start here: [31] Isarig 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that Isarig should bring up the documentary that aired on German televesion, since the director of the documentary in question (Esther Shapira) has stated unequivocally that she believes al-Dura was killed that day. Granted, she believes he most likely killed by Palestinian, not Israeli, gunfire, but nonetheless she does not dispute that he was killed. Neither does James Fallows, or Denis Jeambar, or Daniel Leconte, dispute that al-Dura was killed. I don't believe the article should state as fact that al-Dura was killed by Israeli gunfire; there is room for reasonable doubt on that point. But all the serious journalistic accounts report that he was killed during an exchange of gunfire between IDF forces and Palestinian shooters. The theory that al-Dura was not killed, and the whole incident was staged, should be treated in Wikipedia in the same way as we do 9/11 conspiracy theories, that is, we can have an article that presents them without suggesting that they deserve as much attention as the consensus view. To say that al-Dura was "apparently" killed by gunfire, or put "alleged" in front of the word "shooting" wherever it appears, goes against the accepted WP:NPOV standards, since it suggests that there is serious doubt on the matter by journalists, when in fact there isn't. Sanguinalis 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it has to go as no reliable source say anything else than he was killed (exactly how is in dispute). We don't say "His alleged death" in the Elvis Presley article even if there are people who beleive he's alive. // Liftarn
Some people will believe anything but there is a huge difference here. In case of Elvis, I am sure there is some documentation. Is there a reliable source in case of al-Durrah? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Plenty! What about BBC? "Muhammad al-Durrah was shot dead"[32] // Liftarn
A good example of an allegation by a biased, sensationalist and inaccurate news source that ate the crow too many times (see http://www.bbcwatch.com) Anything better? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC are a very reliable and much respected source. BBC have a strong integrety and doesn't swing with the popular opinion and it's only natural that some people have a problem with that. I don't think a peronal webpage (like http://www.bbcwatch.com ) is a reliable source, but I do think the BBC is. // Liftarn

The Atlantic also has a lengthy article about this issue, in which many questions are raised about the authenticity of the incident. This is a really tricky problem - if this boy was actually killed (under any circumstances) it would be horrible to deny it; if he wasn't killed, it would be horrible to perpetuate a falsehood. But this is one of those things where if one aspect is in question, everything could potentially fall apart. "Alleged" does not imply something is true or untrue. We should be able to work this out. --Leifern 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source states he lives (or never existed) the article should not say "alleged". We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" or "Elvis is allegedly dead" even if some people have a different opinion. // Liftarn
We don't say "the Earth allegedly rotates around the Sun" becuase there is plenty of scientific evidence, including simple observations you can do at home, that show this is not the case. We don's say "Elvis is allegedly dead" becuase there is plenty of reliable evidence, including an autopsy report, that he is dead. When similar evidence - e.g, an autopsy report, becomes available for al-Durrah, we will drop the "alleged" part here. Until then, we have Palestinian propaganda that alleges his death without any proof. Isarig 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I've read quite a bit about this matter, what I'm left with is a sense of bewilderment and confusion. It might be simpler for everyone if this were a tragic incident of a boy and his father caught in the crossfire and all that we were left with was a dispute over ballistics; but as it is, there are serious questions as to whether there really was a Mohammad al-Dura; whether the person on the film was killed at all; etc. There simply are too many reasonable questions about all this to simply assume that what was originally reported was true. I'm not saying that it wasn't true, but there's no reason to be confident one way or another. --Leifern 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of people who have questions about the Hollocauset as well for simmilar (but opposite) reasons. So far no reliable source have stated the boy didn't die, nor that he never existed. // Liftarn
So you think the evidence that the boy was shot is equivalent to the evidence of the Holocaust's existence? I think we're just about done here, then. Isarig 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that some people dubt thing, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen and per WP:UNDUE such fringe opinions should not be given undue weight. // Liftarn
And I've already explained to you the difference between a belief in Flat Earth, or a belief in "Elvis lives" (and now, denial), and a belief that Al-Durrah was not killed. These events do not stand on equal footing from an evidence perspective. Isarig 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
From a WP:RS standpoint we actually have better sources for that Elvis lives, the flat Earth and that nobody died during WW2 than we have for that he never dies. // Liftarn
Really? what would those WP:RS be, for the claim that 'nobody died during WW2'? Isarig 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, a bit overstated, but you get my meaning. No reliable source says the boy didn't die (or never existed). There is some different opinions on exactly how he died, but nobody dubts he did die. // Liftarn
  • just linkage, i don't have a solid opinion (as of now) on the 'alleged' designation on the death. (i think it fits on the being shot though). Jaakobou 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Head investigator of what?
2) Looks like an online forum. Those are generally not very reliable sources for anything.
3) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. Open letter from who?
4) Non English (or any other language I can read). Babelfish don't do Hebrew. URL makes it look like an online forum.
So in conclusion thay re not to any use at all either way. // Liftarn
Liftarn, apparently you can't read much information on this event by any Hebrew sources, i.e. you cannot read the investigation reports (i did not find a link to them as of this moment) or any inside written commentary about them unless it was translated allready. perhaps you're not the most fitting editor for disputes on this article which is very much Israel related. Jaakobou 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:RS "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.". You should try to find a translation (or some online translator, I think I can handle a bit weird grammar) somewhere. // Liftarn
Sources in foreign languages can be used in Wikipedia if there is no English language alternative, but the editor introducing foreign-language sources should provide an Engligh translation (his or her own if necessary). If there is a dispute about the translation that can be handled later by requesting assistance from bilingual Wikipedians not involved in the current dispute. However, before we even get to that point, there is a more fundamental issue to address, which is whether any of web sites mentioned by Jaakobou meet the WP:RS standard in the first place, regardless of language. I'm not sure he is claiming that they do, he is just saying they are "interesting". By the way I would like to point out to Jaakobou, with regard to his comment about who is a "fitting editor", that this article is very much Palestinian related as well. Are all the contributers to this article fluent in Arabic? Sanguinalis 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reliable sources to consider:

and so on... Looking at the list os references I find some sources that are not very reliable like blogs, personal websites, biased political organisations and so on. // Liftarn

OMG!!! did you just cite both BBC, the Guardian as reliable sources in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict??? i'm beyond being unamused. will cite examples of media bias by those sources a little later.

small sample: the guardian: they found them huddled together.. more than 60 including 34 children .. final death toll of the event was 28 with 16 children but don't let that confuse the guardian who neglect even a retraction. (same with the BBC (4 out of 6 winner of HR bias media source between 2000-2006) and times.. you should really inspect honestreporting.com sometime).

In any event, what would they do other than to reiterate the same as everybody did disregarding factuality issues? see "jenin massacre syndrome". Jaakobou 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. In fact, the IDF rushed to take responsibility for it, since they always get in trouble if they hesitate. It's the number of reliable sources since then that have raised unsettling questions. If the incident was staged, the boy was either killed deliberately by those who staged the incident, or else the death was fake. And if it was staged, and the boy was an actor, why would he appear under his own name? It's one of those things that if you poke a hole in one aspect of this, there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. --Leifern 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So far no one has addressed the article from Time magazine that Liftarn found. So let's have it, Jaakobou, Leifern, Humus Sapiens, and Isarig: Is Time magazine a reliable source, or isn't it? A simple yes or no answer, please. Sanguinalis 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it has been answered- right above your post - Nobody is disputing that his death was reported, and you could find any number of media outlets that reported it that way in 2000. But, since then, many questions arose, and there's much more uncertainty about the whole thing. We're not claiming that he isn't dead; we're pointing out that there's much more uncertainty than anyone originally thought. Isarig 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, my question has not been answered. I asked whether or not you consider Time magazine a reliable source. Not the Guardian, not the BBC, but Time magazine. Now please answer the question that was asked. Sanguinalis 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
time is for the most part reliable, on this al-dura event, everyone was fooled.. even israeli channel 1 aired that he was killed... however, things have changed since then and many different reports have been aired. in any event, i wouldn't take the words of either BBC or guardian on most any story... last note, i was confused for a bit with "time mag" and a few other sources with the word "times" in them.. for example: the Los Angeles Times giving space to Saree Makdisi to ask "Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?"... gotta love hidden agendas. Jaakobou 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is this: We have reliable sources saying he is dead. We have no reliable sources saying he is not dead. Ergo: The article should say he is dead. // Liftarn

Some news sources are sometimes reliable for reporting news. People thought this was news and then found that it is a hoax. There is a lot of confusion, deliberate and not, surrounding this tragedy. So far the evidence is inconclusive. Ergo: don't push one POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says it was a hoax? If not it shouldn't be in the article. // Liftarn
Concerns regarding another Pallywood hoax definitely exist. A few links at the top of this section may help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked for reliable source, not conspiracy theories posted on online forums. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. // Liftarn
here's another RS, backing up the other links i gave [33] this one is from a respectable israeli news site. I think we should keep the issue of his death without any phrasing that's conclusive... i don't like either "killed" or "allegedly killed"... "reported as" is a phrasing i can live with. Jaakobou 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't managed to find a transation or translator? "reported as" could be a sollution altough I would prefer a source (in English) for the claim that he's not dead. // Liftarn

offtopic, please don't push guardian articles as "WP:RS" per my link from above (there's more blatant examples)... it would be hard to find an english source on this matter because the guy (head researcher) waited so long until he finally published his piece that no news source gave a rat's ass (pardon the language) about something more than 6 months ago... however, there seems to be allready enough linkage in hebrew to show validity to the researchers POV (he doesn't have cutting proof, apart from the father fumbling saying the boy isn't dead and later saying "he meant that he's not dead because he's with allah" (lol?)... and people in the market calling some kid "al dura" for looking spot on like the boy). Jaakobou 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An automatic translation would do, but yes, an English newspaper source would indeed be better. // Liftarn

Ah, I found http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,403831,00.html that is usable. It says the second investigation "casts serious doubts that the boy was hit by Israel defence forces' fire". // Liftarn

my lord, this woman calls herself a journalist? everything about that article screems of "i decided allready who's the good guys and who's the bad guys... and israel clearly "washes its hands" from something it has done".
in my opinion we should have no more usage of the guardian without stating "the guardian, an anti-israel magazine claims" that... i suggest we use it as an example to standard pro-palestinian reaction, disregarding the investiagtion matter and accusing anyone who doesn't support the cause of being bais to a fault.
we should probably just not use it at all. Jaakobou 09:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that The Guardian is "an anti-israel magazine"? // Liftarn
go read the The Guardian article, see what refs you come up with (I think a journalist who quits stating that as his reason is a good start). Jaakobou 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Any honest publication reporting on the middle east situation has at one time or another been accused of anti-Israel bias. It really says more about the acuser than the acused. // Liftarn
Please don't disregard how a few certain publications have recieved far more criticism than others, i.e. BBC, The Guardian, Robert Fisk and The Independentand and Adnan Hajj and Reuters. Jaakobou 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and? They may be criticised becasue they are right, not because they are wrong. Thet Robert Fisk is criticised is no wonder. He have stated he doesn't believe in being unbiased. He sais that is he reported about a bus of Israeli civilians being blown up by a suicide bomber he would make the story about the victims, not give half of the article to allow the terrorists to give their side of the story. // Liftarn
In this case they are criticised for numerous times of getting things wrong *shrug*. Jaakobou 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Muhammad_al-Durrah/Archive_1&oldid=1190135576"