Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleMuhammad al-Durrah incident is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
January 25, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted

Toolbox

Wording of the third paragraph[edit]

Some of the wording in the third paragraph is a bit off.

"Over the months and years that followed, commentators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report."

Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.

"French journalists who saw the raw footage confirmed that France 2 had cut a final few seconds in which Muhammad appeared to lift his hand from his face; they acknowledged that he had died, but said the footage alone did not show it. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could be sure who fired the shots."

I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying Sandy Hook was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way:

"Postage stamps in the Middle East carried the images; one of the images was visible in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002."

Unless it's just me who can't find any prominent media attention for this... notability? Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)