Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

External links

According to Wikipedia:External links external links should be kept to a minimum, but this article has a long list. I intend to cut it down a bit. First all the sites used as references could be cut. Also some sites are linked more than once. Again an opportunity for some cuts. Then we'll see how many are left. // Liftarn

start with the guardian and move on to the BBC. Jaakobou 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. Some links may also be moved to ODP so we have one link instead of plenty. // Liftarn

placing of 6 bias links in one to hide them is unnaceptable. Jaakobou 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's more than acceptable, it is reccomended per Wikipedia:External links where it says "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics.". So please stop deleting valid content. That may be considered as vandalism. // Liftarn

This is ridiculus, the first link in that biased array is some artistic letter written by a blogger(!) in the name of "Palestinian martyrs". I'm not interested in a revert war here, and I request you remove this link from external links. Jaakobou 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And? It's a list of links and you can add links to it if you want. Using ODP for external links is in a Wikipedia guideline so it should definitely stay. Anyway, I've added a tag as well. // Liftarn

Tag

Could we leave the tag off, please? The article was tagged for ages by someone who believed the boy was alive, and who felt this article didn't represent that well enough, and it was only removed recently. Now it's back on from someone who believes the boy is dead. Maybe that means we're getting something right, I don't know, but please work on the article rather than disfiguring it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing the tag will not make the controvery go away. // Liftarn

What is the controversy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty! Undue weight to unreliable sources, unsourced statements, serios POV issues... // Liftarn

Can you list the particular issues? This should be a relatively easy article to write up. Stick closely to what the sources say; and use only good, mainstream sources wherever possible, and if not mainstream they must be very credible. Which bits exactly are the sticking points? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations#Opinion polls) yet the Apollo 11 article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using Occam's razor the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on... // Liftarn

Rewrite needed

The article actually needs a complete rewrite. For example, if you look at the section called Incident as reported (or whatever the exact words are), we don't actually talk much about the incident at all. Each section seems to consist of just a chronological mixture of whatever we noticed in the media at the time of editing. It probably needs to be completely restructured. The difficulty with doing this is that certain editors revert almost any changes that are made.

Also, could whoever is changing refs to citation templates, please stop. See WP:CITE: templates shouldn't be added without prior consensus and especially not to refs that are already formatted, as these were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I saw your request for a rewrite, and attempted to fulfill it. I expected some changes, but a wholesale reversion of my edits is completely unexpected. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been rewritten and is fine at it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I found when first reading the article that it was still highly disorganized and a difficult read. Much of what you have reverted are edits which make perfect sense, for example, placing the father's reaction in the family reaction section, instead of the Arab reaction section. Much of what I did just changed passive voiced sentences to active voiced sentences. What exactly don't you like here? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that, purely from a grammatical and stylistic point of view, I thought Kendrick's version was more satisfactory. As an aside, I don't think "it's fine as it is" is a satisfactory answer - what you think of as fine isn't necessarily what others will think of. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." -- ChrisO 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give specific examples of how Kendrick's version was better, in your opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically the changes from passive to active voice. As Writing style says, "Writing style is usually improved by using the active voice over the passive voice in sentence construction. Using the active voice leads to more concise, direct sentences." Most style guides will tell you that using the active voice is a better way of engaging the reader and making the sentence structure clearer and more dynamic. -- ChrisO 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You should ignore style guides that tell you active voice is always better. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I'll ask again: if you think the other version is better gramatically, please give specific examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP

See this article's entry on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which I posted yesterday. If there's a dispute over whether the subject is still alive, the article needs to be treated in accordance with WP:BLP principles. I've asked for BLP noticeboard regulars to take a look at the article and provide some feedback. I'm not going to be able to get involved myself due to an imminent vacation, but it could do with some input from neutral outsiders. -- ChrisO 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are neutral editors here, Chris, and please don't imply otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also some extremely un-neutral editors (see Jaakobou's comments above for a case in point) and a dispute that's been ongoing for a while. I simply think that this article could do with some input from people who haven't been involved previously in this article. -- ChrisO 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat that there are neutral editors here already, and your implication that there aren't isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, i consider that a personal attack, perhaps some type of response to my reaction to your "occupation" image editing.^{WP:AV/I related discussions} I request you keep your future remarks on a more neutral basis as I don't see the problem/bias with my unhappyness about a blog talking in the name of the dead boy... or is it that you think the Guardian and BBC have not been criticised more than others in their coverage of this conflict? regardless, you should not point fingers (repetatively i might add^{reply to ChrisO's accusation of assuming bad faith.}) like this, it is seriously counter productive. Jaakobou 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Liftarn, could you list here which sources you think aren't reliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Many are obviously biased like Jewish World Review, Seconddraft.org, eretzyisroel.org, WorldNetDaily, CAMERA and so on. Some are clearly not reliable sources like eprsonal websites and blogs of persons with an agenda. I noticed that soem of your cleaning seems to have introduced more POV instead of less. // Liftarn

Which of my edits introduced more POV?

Bear in mind that some of the links are merely courtesy links, not the actual sources. For example, you changed an LA Times citation to Jewish World Review, but the latter was only hosting the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But the link (and thus the source) was Jewish World Review, not LA Times so it should say so. It is very confusing when it says it is one source and then you follow the link and end up somewhere you wasn't expected. Either find the LA Times link or change it to Jewish World Review as they are the source used. // Liftarn

No, the source was the LA Times. Jewish World Review provided a courtesy link. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, please check it again. Read the URL. Go to the link. See what it says on the top. // Liftarn

See what it says on the bottom: "© 2005, Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate". It was first published in the L.A. Times on September 9, 2005. The original link was www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter9sep09,0,7325494.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions, since archived. Other sources on the web also attribute it to the L.A. Times. Care to revise your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that, but that doesn't change that the source used is not LA Time. LA Times is the source of the source. If you want to say the source is LA Times you should use the LA Times link. // Liftarn

The source is the article. The article was first published in the LA Times. The website we link to isn't the source, but just a courtesy link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then give the real source instead. // Liftarn

The real source is given. It's not even required that we link to the Jewish World Review reproduction, we only do so as a courtesy to the reader who might not have access to the L.A. Times archives. Please desist from WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As we have no way of telling if the reproduction is accurate it adds another generation and I don't see why we should try to cover that up. Unless there is something to hide. // Liftarn

What are you talking about? No-one has tried to "cover anything up". The courtesy link's origin is described. You aren't even making any point any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the way the link is described now, but just as an example: Let's assume someone copies (or perhaps not?) an article from a reliable source (say The Times) and put it on their personal page on Geocities. Can we say that the link is an article in The Times? I don't think so because we have no way to tell if the person altered the article. // Liftarn

Our source would be the Times article and that's what should be cited. If the link is to a website that you feel might have altered the article, then don't include it. These links are only courtesy links. What matters is the citation to the source, which in your example is the Times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial broadcast

Does anyone know of a good article describing the initial broadcast and what the roles of Abu Rahma and Enderlin were exactly? We call Abu Rahma a cameraman but he says he was a correspondent. Enderlin provided the voiceover, but says somewhere that it was Abu Rahma who said on the tape that the IDF had killed the boy. Abu Rahma says he interviewed the father on camera the next day in hospital, an interview that was broadcast, which normally a cameraman wouldn't do alone. It would be good to clear up the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started trying to tidy this. Not finished yet, so it may look a bit upside-down at the moment. There's too much unnecessary detail about who said what, and who's connected to whom, and a lot of it is unsourced, but I've done as much as I can for today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Diagram

THe diagram image page says it was provided by Rahma in his affidavit to blah blah... Wasn't this the affidavit that he denied giving? In which case we should caveat the diagram. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 5 April 2007 (GMT).

He didn't deny explicitly that he had given the affidavit, but France 2 denied on his behalf that he had made one of the statements within it. It's confusing, but that's all we know at the moment. We should say something in the cutline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact template

Liftarn, please don't engage in WP:POINT with fact templates. You're asking for sources for things that are obviously correct. For example, if none of the footage contained a death scene (none of it, including the rushes), then obviously none of the distributed footage did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PLease don't accuse me of engaging in WP:POINT with fact templates. I'm aking for sources where it seems like they are missing. Please excuse me if I missed it somewhere.

It's just that some of the requests seem a little pointless. You want a source saying that the 59 seconds shown did not include the scene of the boy's death. Well, you can look at it and see that it doesn't, or you can read the article and see the scores of articles that have been written about the controversy; clearly, if the first report had shown the boy's death, there would be no controversy. You asked that just over three minutes of footage was provided to other news organizations. Okay, I can find a source, but you could have found one too; this is a well-known fact. France 2 provided the footage for free; I can provide a source for that. None of the distributed footage showed the boy being killed; see my first point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you repeating links in Further reading that are already included in the Notes section? Why have you added the cameraman's statement to the Guardian to the reported shooting section, and not the cameraman's story section? Why did you add that only "some" people doubt the affidavit's authenticity, when the cameraman is reported to have denied making at least one of the statements within it? Who doesn't doubt its authenticity after that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement was by Suzanne Goldenberg, not the cameraman. As for repeating links I think you can understand why it's easy to miss and I thought it was better to be safe than sorry. // Liftarn

As for repeating links, why did you repeat only those and not all of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement was by the cameraman. How would Suzanne Goldenberg know? She wasn't there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

She watched the evidence and draw her own conclusions? Look, I only put in what the article says. // Liftarn

Actually, she didn't; you drew conclusions for her. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, would you mind not adding citation templates, please? It makes the text harder to read in edit mode, and they're fiddly to change; for example, if the byline needs to be added, or anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But they makes the reference list soo much better. // Liftarn

I don't see how, especially when the syntax is too complex to use; that's why you messed up reference 7. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the syntax is that complex. But if you don't like it then you don't have to use it. All I ask is that you do not change them back to simple refs. // Liftarn

If you don't think the syntax is that complex, why did you mess it up? And what do you mean by "simple refs"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To err is human... Why not fix it instead of reverting it. It reminds me of an editor who deleted an entire section because there was a spelling error in it. Simple refs like [URL title]. // Liftarn

WP:CITE says templates shouldn't be added without consensus, so please don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. // Liftarn

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Funeral

It would be good to something on the funeral, but I haven't been able to find much about it. Does anyone know of any articles that talk about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Liftarn, please don't keep adding the tag instead of discussing. Instead, please list in detail what you think needs to change for the article to become neutral. Bear in mind that any suggestions must be actionable within the policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, see above. // Liftarn

Can you say where specifically? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Under Tag for instance. // Liftarn

All you said was:

First as far as I can tell no reliable source says the boy is alive (as opposed to reliable source saying that some people beleive he is alive) so the entire article should be rewritten with that in mind. A sizable minority thinks the lunar landing were a hoax (see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations#Opinion polls) yet the Apollo 11 article isn't dominated by that view by writing "alleged landing" everywhere. Then it's the use of unreliable and/or dubious sources. Using Occam's razor the simplest explenation would be that the boy indeed is dead. Otherwise it would be a rather complex conspiracy including the boy's family, the cameraman, staff at the hospital, some IDF soldiers and so on...

(1) The article doesn't say he's alive. We only repeat what the sources say. (2) Which sources are unreliable? (3) The last two sentences are your original research.

Are these your only objections? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, the problem is that the article doesn't repeat what the sources say it goes to great lenghts to use words like "was reported", "appears", "reportedly" and so on instead of saying directly what the sources say. The article also give way to much space and credibility to conspiracy theorists.

That isn't a problem. That's how we're supposed to write, especially when the issue is contentious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which conspiracy theorists does the article give too much space to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Using Richard Landes as a source for this article is like using David Irving as a source for an article about the Holocaust.

That's an absurd thing to say. He's an academic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, so is Robert Faurisson (professor of literature) and both him and Richard Landes (medieval historian) are well outside their field of expertise and are thus no more reliable than any layman. // Liftarn

That's the second time you've equated Landes with a convicted Holocaust denier. WP:BLP is a very serious policy, and it applies on Talk: pages just as much as articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) Seconddraft.org and Augean Stables are personal websites, WorldNetDaily.com and CAMERA have an obvious bias... (3) WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. // Liftarn

Most of the sources have a bias. What matters is whether they're reliable enough. I agree that WorldNetDaily isn't a good source, but I can't see where we use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the list of notes. // Liftarn

Can you please state explicitly which factual errors you feel are in the article? Also, please do not equate respected university professors like Richard Landes with convicted and jailed Holocaust deniers like David Irving; it is an egregious violation of WP:BLP and you could be blocked for it if you continue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think David Irving mind that much. ;-) // Liftarn

Now you've said that Landes is even worse than a man convicted of Holocaust denial. WP:BLP is not a laughing matter; if you do this again, or make any similar comments, I will block you for serial WP:BLP violations. Consider this your last warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made my point. We don't quote Arthur C Clarke as an expert in dental hygiene so we shouldn't quote a medieval historian as an expert on forensic science or a professor of literature as an expert on the history of WW2. // Liftarn

Landes specializes in propaganda, if you read his bio. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, when you add a citation, could you please give all the information: byline, headline, place of publication, date of publication? Also, could people please watch the writing? Sentences like "At the day school was closed due to a general strike" need to be fixed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to. // Liftarn

Significance and neutrality

Is this really significant enough to merit inclusion in the article?

"Muhammad was in fifth grade and enjoyed school. His English teacher said he was an excellent English student. He also enjoyed swimming at Gaza beach and looking after his pet birds. On the day of the incident, the school was closed because of a general strike." KazakhPol 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's background about his life. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does his swimming at Gaza matter, much less his pet birds? It seems obscure. KazakhPol 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't know much about him, and this is what The New York Times said, so we may as well include it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the TNYT should determine what is and is not notable. The fact that it was mentioned does not mean it automatically matters. KazakhPol 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an article about Muhammad al-Durrah so it should say something about him. // Liftarn

I also question the neutrality of entitling the section "Al-Durrah's life" as this implies he has died. Since the only part of the section that is worthing noting deals with his family I would suggest the title "Al-Durrah's family." KazakhPol 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How does talking about his life imply that he died? Also, bear in mind that he probably did die. It's a minority POV that he didn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The content I quoted above talking about his life is not notable to merit inclusion. The argument I am making against the current section title is a different point based on the pov-implication that he died. The argument you are making, that the view that the incident was staged and he is still alive is a minority view, is valid but irrelevant because the section primarily talks about his family. I also argue that the other content in that section is, again, irrelevant. KazakhPol 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KP, this article is swinging back and forth between your POV (the boy is alive and the incident as filmed was staged) and Liftarn's (the boy is dead and the incident as filmed was real). In fact, reliable sources indicate that the majority POV is somewhere in the middle: that the boy is dead, and that the incident was not staged but that his death was not actually filmed either; and that the journalists who filed the initial report seem not to have explained that clearly, to put it diplomatically. Therefore, all we can do is carefully report who said what.

Please bear in mind that there are BLP issues involved here. His family are real and alive, and it is very insulting to them to imply that he isn't dead. We can report reliable sources who say this, but we can't write the article as though we agree. The writing therefore has to be very careful. (And the last-but-one section isn't and need to be rewritten.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

SV, I take your concerns about insulting his family very seriously. I would hate to have them read English Wikipedia and find that we do not mention al-Durrah's love for his pet birds and which beach he swam at. I can only pray they have not already looked. KazakhPol 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That attitude isn't helpful. If you are wrong and this incident happened as reported, it is absolutely heart-breaking, and we have to write this article with that in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "Al-Durrah's family" not a good title for the section? KazakhPol 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the majority of the section is not about his family at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing

KP, this — "Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview" — doesn't actually mean anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating that it is a sentence fragment or that the content value is meaningless? It is not a sentence fragment. If it is of no value then remove it. Another user posted it. KazakhPol 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote it. [1] It is wrong gramatically and was fine the way it was. Your tidying is actually introducing errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not add the following sentence:

"This interview was given to Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape."

I did change that sentence to:

"Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape, received the interview."

The first sentence is in passive voice, the second is not. If my tidying is introducing errors, factual or grammatical, please identify them here so I can rectify my mistakes. How is it wrong grammatically? Are you asserting that it is a sentence fragment? I would disagree if that is what you are saying. KazakhPol 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the passive voice. I've explained this to you many times before. The correction you made introduced an error — people don't receive interviews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice should be avoided as much as possible, as other users have stated in the past, on your talkpage. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of "gave" in this instance. Was this interview "given" to Rahma in the sense that he interviewed the person in question, or did he physically receive it? I interpreted it as he physically received it. If he conducted the interview then neither "given" nor receive" make sense in this context. KazakhPol 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice should not be avoided as much as possible. That's simply false. There are times when active is better, and times when passive is better, and judging which is which is part of what it is to be a good writer. Do you have a source for your "passive is always bad" claim? And what do you mean about him physically receiving the interview? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have made the argument that the sentence as it is now is grammatically incorrect. I am making the argument that avoiding passive voice is preferable. Did Rahma receive a tape of the video (physically) or was he "given" the interview in the sense that he interviewed Jamal? KazakhPol 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He conducted the interview and filmed it, so who would he have received the tape from? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KhazakhPol, what is wrong with the passive voice, and why do you insist on replacing a perfectly good and meaningful sentence with a meaningless one? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My username is KazakhPol, not KhazakhPol. Passive voice should be avoided as explained here.[2] Jayjg, I would ask that instead of misspelling my username and asking me a rhetorical and condescending question, implying I intentionally posted meaningless content, you show me some respect and civility as I have showed SlimVirgin. KazakhPol 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't intentionally post meaningless content, then why did you do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please show us the source of your "passive is bad" belief, because you are always removing the passive voice, and it often leaves the sentence worse than befor you edited it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the source I already provided, for other sites arguing that passive voice should be avoided, see University of Victoria, University of Florida, Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Capital Community College. KazakhPol 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read your own sources. For example, "The passive voice is useful under certain circumstances; for example ... if the receiver of the action is more important ("The Emperor was assassinated last night")." That's exactly how it was being used here. We were discussing the interview, and that was our focus. Therefore, "the interview was conducted by X" is much better for flow than to abruptly switch the focus to "X conducted the interview." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KP, this edit of yours suggests you were previously editing that section without having read it. And what do you mean by "interesting" that I didn't have it in the body of the text? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All five sources say passive voice should be avoided whenever possible. I also find it hard to see how Rahma, a journalist, is more important than Jamal, who was directly involved in the incident. The answer to my earlier question regarding whether he conducted the interview rather than simply receiving it is "yes."[3] This certainly begs the question as to why other editors felt this was not worth mentioning in the body of the article, or why his swearing he conducted the interview in an affidavit matters. KazakhPol 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case it anyone forgot, this sentence: "This interview was given to Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the shooting incident on tape," which was there before I started editing, is impossible to understand. KazakhPol 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention it in the body of the article for two reasons: first, the background section comes before we explain how the cameraman filmed the incident, so it felt a little upside down to mention his interview the next day with the father; secondly, and more importantly, I wanted not to imply that the two had cooked up the story, and I felt that by highlighting who conducted the interview (the first journalist to reach the father), there was a danger of that. On the other hand, I felt it was important and shouldn't be left out entirely. Therefore, I went for the middle ground and added it to a footnote.

I'd really appreciate the assumption of good faith here. When I added all that material, I tried to steer a middle course between the Pallywood theories, which assume it's all faked, and the initial reports, which assume it's all real. Striking that balance isn't easy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially when your edits are being thwarted by a non-native English speaker who insists that al-Durrah's death was faked. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thwarted, aye? Jayjg, I'm not a native speaker of English? Really? I guess that means I speak Virginian. KazakhPol 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF forces me to assume many things about you, including that you are not a native English-speaker; the alternative is too disturbing to contemplate. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that's a pretty poor explanation. On the other hand you don't really have to explain yourself. No matter. I would argue the current phrasing of the paragraph is better than my previous version or past versions. Jayjg has chosen to revert my edits[4] to this page, which, for the record, can be viewed here.[5] Jayjg chose to revert with the edit summary "tidying." I would question the factual accuracy of that summary. KazakhPol 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more factual than the "tidying" edit summaries that preceded it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Reverting with the edit summary "tidying" is more factual than minor edits to sentence structure? I would disagree. Perhaps you should take a moment to reevaluate your stance. KazakhPol 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Among the accomplishments of Jayjg's reversion:

• The militants who may have shot Durrah are referred to as "the Palestinians."
• The identity of Jamal's interviewer is no longer mentioned.
• The article now implies that the broadcasting of the tape internationally, rather than what was depicted, led to international outrage
• Run-on sentence in the third paragraph

I would argue my last version may be better. KazakhPol 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards section

Can anyone find a source for the section on rewards for the cameraman? I looked but have had no luck. If no one can find any sources I suggest someone removes it. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind the incident may have happened and do not want anyone to feel insulted... Maybe should we leave it up just in case... Who knows how Mrs. Amal might react... KazakhPol 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're out of order. Please be respectful of this, whether in the article or talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of order? Some would deem your earlier comment here to be out of order:

"KazakhPol does almost nothing on Wikipedia but push the POV that certain Islamic groups and political parties are terrorists."[6]

You are certainly one to talk. KazakhPol 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Various queries

(copied from SV's talk page)

Why are you using colons before quotes? I suggest using commas in the future. KazakhPol 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A BLP action? Please explain how my post on the talkpage is a BLP action. I dont understand the vague and incoherent threat you posted on my talkpage. KazakhPol 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may explain your actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Last section. KazakhPol 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is lying. The section I was referring to is here. KazakhPol 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, she didn't make a mistake but "lying?" What do you base that on? Answer on your talk page as I'm issuing a block. El_C 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change BBC News to "the BBC"? It's a newspaper as much as it is televised news. "The BBC" is colloquial. KazakhPol 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a newspaper? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, "A newspaper is a publication containing news, information and advertising, usually printed on low-cost paper called newsprint. It may be general or special interest, most often published daily or weekly." KazakhPol 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say the BBC News is a newspaper, what do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC News is a public broadcaster, but I guess its BBC News Online division can be described as an online newspaper... El_C 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also do not understand why you changed "Palestinian militants" to "Palestinians." Are you trying to frame this as a David and Goliath incident? It's as much heroic as it is anti-Palestinian racism. KazakhPol 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because militant is a silly word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a joke? KazakhPol 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian militancy seems to have ... I said too much! El_C 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Longstanding problems

Longstanding attempts to frame this as a David and Goliath incident are exemplified by this edit[7].

Recurring problems:

• Repeatedly referring to "Muhammad al Durrah" rather than "Al Durrah" in instances in which no other member of the Al Durrah family is directly referred to,
• Referring to "Palestinians" rather than "Palestinian militants" shooting at the IDF,
• Referring to how Al-Durrah "lived," in the past tense, implying he is without a doubt dead,
• Referring to Israel when the entity in question is the Israeli government,
• This paragraph's phrasing is a good example of bias:

"Muhammad's mother, Amal, watched the incident on television, worried that her husband and son had not returned home, but without recognizing the two figures she saw sheltering from the gunfire. It was only when she watched the scene in a later broadcast that she realized who it was. Her children said she screamed at the sight, then fainted."

• Using "claim" instead of "said" for statement made by those who question the initial report.

KazakhPol 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The section about the allegations of staging has yet to be copy edited. A lot of those issues will disappear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you that those issues were dealt with. You reverted them under the pretext of tidying.[8] KazakhPol 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I said the section about the alleged staging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point being... KazakhPol 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem with using "Muhammad al Durrah" rather than "Al Durrah" apart from that it is a bit longer.
• "Palestinians" vs "Palestinian militants": Do we have a source WP:RS for the use of "militants"?
• "lived" in the past tense: Well, he certainly doen't live like that any more regardless if he is alive or not. Also the theory that he isn't dead is a non-notable minority view that should not affect the article.
• Referring to Israel: Yes, or the IDF. It's always good to be more exact.
• "claim" or "said": Nope, "said" is more neutral. // Liftarn

Tag

Liftarn, you can't keep adding the tag just because you don't like something. According to the tagging policy, you must "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. So please do that here, now. Please be very, very specific. This sentence must go, or this sentence must be added. No handwaving.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty

I've moved this section here, because I can't get into the report. The paragraph also doesn't really make sense. (1) So what that AI quoted the cameraman (who has anyway withdrawn what he said)? (2) I find it hard to believe AI said they could tell by the pattern of bullets that the IDF had "targeted" the boy. (3) The last sentence about the map doesn't make sense; I think it almost goes without saying that he was caught in crossfire, so I couldn't see what point the sentence was making. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A November 13, 2001 Amnesty International report entitled "Broken Lives — A Year of Intifada" quoted Abu Rahma's affidavit, adding that photographs taken by journalists showed a pattern of bullet holes indicating that father and son were targeted by the Israeli post opposite them. AI also stated that, on October 11, 2001, the IDF spokesperson in Jerusalem had shown AI delegates maps that purported to show that al-Durrah had been killed in crossfire.

The AI report did indeed say that, so I've restored it and added a proper link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections in detail

1. The use of utterly biased and/or unreliable sources
2. undue weight to the opinion that the boy is alive (no reliable source has claimed this)
3. using weasel words like "was reported" instead of stating it right out
4. quotemining
5. unbalanced view

Is that enough? // Liftarn

Unreliable sources

Let's deal with them one by one. First, we are of course allowed to use biased sources. Which sources do we currently use that are not just biased, but unreliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We use Augean Stables, a personal blog of a non-expert. Both biased and unreliable. // Liftarn

Where do we use it as a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

39 and we use Seconddraft.org in 14. // Liftarn

I removed the first one. The second one is just a courtesy link. This is the France 2 footage that was distributed free to all the media at the time. Are there any others you object to as unreliable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We have the same footage from BBC. No need to get it from a place where we can't tell if it has been manipulated or not. // Liftarn

Where do we have it from the BBC? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 9. // Liftarn

I've combined the footnotes so that readers can check the BBC and Landes footage together. Anything else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

OK. There is still a lot of biased sites used, but it seems to be more under control now. Next item: undue weight to the opinion that the boy is alive (no reliable source has claimed this). Does WP:FRINGE apply? // Liftarn

Can you give examples of where it's given undue weight? I'd say it's given almost no weight at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some examples "the reported shooting" (used several times, no reliable source says no shooting took place), "appears to be injured", "reported to have been killed" (instead of "was killed"), "apparently killed by gunfire" (instead of "killed by gunfire"), "According to Matt Rees writing in TIME" (instead of stating it directly, TIMES is a reliable source), "was reported by the BBC" (ditto), "TIME said" (ditto), "New York Times reported" (and again)... // Liftarn

at one point in time everyone reported the boy as shot by israeli soldiers.. the controversy and the investigations point out that it was not the case.. just saying "was killed" and "injured" shows support for the cameraman's narrative which nobody knows to be true and many suspect to be a propagandish endeavor like the one in the battle of jenin. Jaakobou 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, reliable source have ever as far as I know said that the boy wasn't shot (but there is some dubt about who shot him). That some suspect he wasn't shot at all does not mean we should introduce undue weight on their behalf. Compare with the article about for instance the lunar landings, some 8-20% of the US population beleive they were faked, but the articles are written as the landings took place. I agre we shouldn't say who shot him as it is uncertain, but the article should say he did was shot, because that is what all the sources say. // Liftarn

i never went into that debate (20%? lol?) too deeply - one of the head israeli reaserchers on field said he believes the boy wasn't him.. but beyond that, i'm not intervening on this one - a long debate was done earlier tho, and the end result was the use of "reported" - if you wish to reopen this issue.. personally i think "reported" is as close as we can get to neutral on this issue .. considering the netzarim junction tapes (i.e. pallywood). Jaakobou 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 20% of those who view FOX News (that says something I guess...). If some reliable sources said the boy is alive then "reported" would be a good compromise, but as it is no reliable source say he is alive and that makes it an open and shut case. // Liftarn

a head researcher said he believes the boy was alive. it was barely reported at a few places because he came to the conclusion 8 months after the incident. the only informative link about his views was a post he has made on a forum so the link was not allowed as RS. i'm a bit tired right now, but i'll look it up again (it should be here on the talk page somewhere) at a later date. Jaakobou 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. Normally we can read the key newspapers ourselves and come up with a rough estimate about which is the majority view, which the significant minority ones, and which the tiny minority. It's harder to do that here because most of the articles are in French, so it slows the research down for many of us. I'm getting the sense from the reading I've done so far that the view that the boy is alive is definitely a minority view, but not quite tiny minority. If it were only a tiny minority view, we shouldn't be referring to it at all. But it's a view that has gained currency, and you can see why the failure of the Palestinians and Israelis to investigate even minimally would give rise to it. And then there's the odd demeanour of the cameraman when he's asked whether any bullets were recovered. For those of you who haven't watched that interview, he starts smiling and says there are secrets. It means there's plenty of ammunition for people who want to allege a conspiracy.

For these reasons, I don't think we have any choice but to speak of the "reported shooting." It's not as strong as saying "alleged shooting," which raises a question mark over it. "Reported shooting" is much milder than "alleged." I think it's quite good compromise wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that researcher sacked? And keep in mind that it was one of the two IDF researches so it's not an unbiased sourced to begin with. The view that Muhammad al-Durrah is alive is indeed a tiny minority view if even that, but I haven't seen any poll results so it's ofcourse difficult to tell, but no reliable source say he is alive, but several says he's dead. // Liftarn

that researcher was indeed relieved (we really don't don't know how it went down) because he did not want to publish a fast comment - on a different article i found, the other head researcher (there were two) complains that because of him (the relieved researcher), they waited too long before they published that the boy was most probably killed by palestinians and thus their investigation lost any of it's value. on that artilce he stresses that israel has not yet learned to counter the most problematic issue in this media debacle, which is the limited time that an issue stays in the media and that responses must be made within' that time frame. on a second note: yes, both researchers are Israeli, however they have, in my opinion, more validity than other pseudo-researchers who took testimonials from the infamous netzarim junction (see: pallywood video) for granted. it reminds me of this CNN transcript from the "massacre" of jenin: "And all of them, almost all of them, told us stories of mass graves, of bodies being loaded into trucks and driven away. Of bodies being left in the sewers and bulldozed."... needless to say, i was pissed when i witnessed that broadcast. now, I'm not saying we have to take the reaserchers' word as the absolute truth without presenting other opinions - but i don't think it can/should be dismissed. Jaakobou 09:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. // Liftarn

to the topic. i think "reported" is the most neutral we can get - if someone believes the boy was shot, then "reported" is good. and if someone believes otherwise - then "reported" is good. f someone doesn't know about the case, then reading the article and the opinions of both sides is what will make or break his opinion, not the word "reported". Jaakobou 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't do like that in articles on for instance Elvis, the Moon landings, shape of the Earth and so on... // Liftarn

yes, you've said that allready - it does not convince me as a situation nearly close to this one. and i stand by my opinon until i see a better one. Jaakobou 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

External sites

Liftarn, we don't link to external sites this way. [9] We add them in footnotes. I wish you would stop making edits that undermine the improvements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't? It's not a reference so it shouldn't be in the refence list. // Liftarn

Not everything between ref tags is a reference. Ref tags are for footnotes. We definitely don't link to external sites as though they're internal ones, so that readers aren't mistakenly taken to another website if they click on them not realizing they're external. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... // Liftarn

Overall balance

People reading this should not be able to tell what the opinion of the writers/editors is. Does the article as it stands achieve that overall? If not, which bits appear to betray an opinion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No. All of it. // Liftarn

First, what does the article reveal about the opinions of the writers? Secondly, which bits specifically (as examples) illustrate that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, we have something from a news article from BBC and say "according to the BBC" and we have something from an op-ed piece and say "IDF investigation concluded". If it would be written the in the same way it would say something like "Stephane Elkaim said that..." // Liftarn

Could you give clear examples with links so I don't have to keep asking what you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, have you ever added material from the other POV, the Israeli POV, for example? Or removed material that damaged Israel? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Okay, thanks. It's just that you give the impression that you expect everyone else to be NPOV, while you are allowed to comment and edit from one POV only. That would be very unfair, so I hope you'll post and edit from all POVs, as far as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. Oten when I find articles pushing one POV I work mostly on introducing the oposite POV so that the article becomes more balanced. If the article already is biased in one direction I see little point in introducing more bias in that direction. // Liftarn

instant wealth and other such stories - interview

i just fond this link but sadly i'm a bit overswamped with other projects at the moment - if anyone feels they can work with it before i get around to it, i'd probably be pleased about it:

http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_122201_images.html

from the link: His father, Jamal al-Durrah, is dismayed by the way images of their son's death have been commercialized by other Palestinians. [JAMAL AL-DURRAH SPEAKING IN ARABIC]

TRANSLATOR: I had very bad feelings when I saw some toilet paper -- they put the picture of the killing of Mohammed with me on the cover just to sell it. I didn't like it, because this is a symbol and a martyrdom. The next day people took the roll cover and threw it in the garbage. end Jaakobou 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Jaakobou. I added some quotes from it. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

The personal background section now amounts to a copyvio. From the original source:

"His mother, his four brothers and two sisters and his friends described an ebullient boy whose life revolved around school, swimming with pals at the Gaza beach and tending after his new pet birds. He was an excellent English student, his teacher said today."

On this page:

"Muhammad al-Durrah was in fifth grade and lived with his four brothers, two sisters, his mother, Amal, and his father, Jamal, in the Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip when the incident took place. He was in fifth grade, enjoyed school, and was an excellent English student. He also enjoyed swimming at Gaza beach and looking after his pet birds. On the day of the incident, the school was closed because of a general strike.[4] His father worked as a general contractor."

We also seem to have the addition of his swimming with "pals." Is there a source for this or was this added just for fun? KazakhPol 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the source that said with "pals," not us. Our version is not copyvio; it's sticking closely to the source in a contentious area, and it's referenced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm very much puzzled at the way User:Liftarn keeps introducing "obituary" style notes into the biography part without giving reasonalbe encyclopedic motive on the talk page - i think that this style of "war-reverting" and "ignoring other editors detters others from ever contributing properly on wikipedia. please, someone please explain to me how a teacher who says he was good in english is encyclopedic... moreover, explain to me why revert tactics are abused by editors like this. Jaakobou 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed in a section above. Since it's an article about Muhammad al-Durrah it should say something about him. Please do not removed sourced content. // Liftarn

there's no problem about some info about him.. but it should be encyclopedic style and not "editorial obituary" style... please keep away from the usual emotionally charged editing that features "al-nakba" websites. it doesn't fit in here - for example, if a teacher says he was good in english... at 5th grade... what does that mean? how is it encyclopedic to cite her over a different relative (uncle) who said the boy actually enjoyed going to rallies (i.e. where they throw stones at soldiers)? personally.. i'd think the uncle knows the boy better than the teacher who just says nice things for the reporter. 11:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source that said he enjoyed going to rallies? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i couldn't find it yet but here's something - [11], the one i've read before was a personal story that said teachers were saying the boy was a good student but a relative/uncle said the boy was vibrent and full of life and enjoyed going to rallies although he would not participate in the stone throwing... that's what i remember... i'll keep looking for that article. Jaakobou 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. [12] I don't know what to make of it. It quotes the father as saying they were shot several times before (he says an hour before) the main shooting. I don't know whether the other accounts and the footage bear that out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, it's very much uncomfortabe that you enforce your pro palestinian bias by reverting again and again... i'm reffering here not only to this "loved birds" notation, but also to the External Links disaster where you were promoting this link via "ODP" excuses.^[13] Jaakobou 11:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss it here on the talk page before you delete sourced content. I am aware that you dislike one of the links ODP links to, but why not add more palletable links to ODP yourself instead of mindelessly deleting it. // Liftarn

adding links to it would not make it a better encyclopedic source - the original idea of the policy is not to enable POV blog pushing. this "loved birds" is a weak refrence that's not encyclopedic at all.. he loved birds? what did he do with these birds.. did he go to shows? did he own a per bird? .. what makes this encyclopeic and important/notable? - i'm not deleting the source material that's encyclopedic... you're enforcing an "obituary style" text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I can't see the problem with including the biographical information. We know almost nothing about him, so it seems odd to want to exclude the only things we do know. Of course any biographical detail is going to sound a little trite, but that's because he was only 12 years old, so we can't expect a list of his degrees.

Liftarn, can you say what is wrong with that reference (i.e. which part of the sentence is unreferenced), rather than just adding the tag? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What tag are you refering to? And the source say he did have pet birds. // Liftarn

Ah, the tag at "A later, informal IDF investigation concluded that al-Durrah had probably been killed by Palestinian fire". Yes, my misstake. I read the article too fast. // Liftarn

The lead to the controversy section is good, but again "Israelis" and "Palestinians" needs to be changed to the "Israeli and Palestinian governments." KazakhPol 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm not keen on "Al-Durrah eventually slumped over as though killed by gunfire." Before being changed, it was "Al-Durrah eventually slumped over, apparently killed by gunfire."

The majority view is that he was, indeed, killed, though there are arguments about who and how. But only a small number of commentators believe he may still be alive. Therefore, although we shouldn't state that he was killed, we also shouldn't do anything to imply he's still alive. I feel that "slumped over as though killed" comes too close to the Pallywood allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont mind you changing it to maintain NPOV, but "apparently" should not be used. KazakhPol 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the line of "slumped over and remained motionless"? That way no side is taken and we dont read into his health at that point. KazakhPol 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't remain motionless, though. That's part of the argument later. He moved. Some say death throes, some say otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we come up with wording that lies between those two positions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see "apparently" as very descriptive here, because that is what appeared to happen, and that is what most people assume happened (and everyone assumed it at the time). But maybe "as though" is just as good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly on the wording. I am only going by past messages I received instructing me against using 'apparently'. KazakhPol 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently" is not a word to avoid; please don't use false edit summaries. The alternative you suggested, "as though", gave undue weight to an extreme minority view. Again, keep in mind that almost all sources agree that he was killed, the main disagreement is about who killed him. The article must reflect that reality. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg you again take a civil conversation and engage in incivility. You misportray a discussion over word choice and try to portray it as a POV-dispute. My alternative doesnt change the POV at all. Are you this uncivil with every user you encounter or just anyone you incorrectly assume is a non-native speaker of English? KazakhPol 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your wording did slightly change the POV, KP. "He slumped over, apparently killed by gunfire" means "He appeared to have been killed by gunfire," which is true. Whatever in fact happened, that's what it looked like. You changed that to "He slumped over as though killed by gunfire." That suggests more "as though killed, but not really." It's a subtle difference, but I feel it's there, and there was no need to change the sentence anyway. Regardless of what the "words to avoid" page says, there's nothing wrong with using "apparently," and it's being used correctly here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, "almost all sources agree that he was killed" is incorrect. All sources agree that he was killed. // Liftarn

No, an extreme minority view asserts that he was not killed. I'm not sure why you would make comments that are obvious falsehoods; what purpose does it serve? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here. All reliable sources say he was killed. Some people (i.e. non-reliable sources) say he wasn't killed. There are reliable sources that report that some people thinks he wasn't killed. See, no problem. // Liftarn

There is a difference between extreme minority view and non-reliable source; in any event, your claim was false, and it's unhelpful to make false claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is my claim false? // Liftarn

If it's an extreme minority view, why do we defer to it in the very first line of this article? To give a comparable example, would anyone seriously suggest that we should start our article on Barbara Olson in the same way - "Barbara Olson (born December 27, 1955) was reported to have been killed on American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001"? After all, an extreme minority of conspiracy theorists claim that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon (see 9/11 conspiracy theories#Pentagon not hit by a Boeing 757) - should we defer to them, too? -- ChrisO 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, even the people who say the flight didn't hit the Pentagon aren't saying the passengers are still alive. It's true that it's a very small minority view that he might still be alive, but it's one that is shared by Richard Landes. You've implied that he isn't credible, but can we really say that a professor of history at Boston University has no credibility at all in this matter? Also, there seem to be senior sources within the IDF who share the view. The fact is that their questions will almost certainly never be answered, because no one investigated the death properly. No one even retrieved the bullets. All we can do is report what various sources have said, and we have no reason to ignore one particular group of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A professor of medeival history is not credible outside his field of expertise. I'm not saying we should ignore them entierly, but we shouldn't give them undue weight. // Liftarn

Landes says that his specialism within medieval history is the study of propaganda, and that he is therefore qualified to examine how the narrative of this killing evolved. The point is that he is a serious academic, so we can't dismiss his views as tiny-minority that should be ignored. Because we can't ignore them, the wording throughout the article has to reflect that it's not clear what happened. I think we do that quite successfully. We don't cast inappopriate doubt on it, but right from the start we're careful not to assume that we know anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that he's an academic doesn't mean that he's not in a tiny minority, nor does it mean that his conspiracy theories are academic in nature. They're all self-published; they plainly haven't gone through any kind of academic peer-review process, and I'm not aware of any of Landes's conspiracy theories being published or cited by any academic third parties. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.) Landes' website comes across as a polemical work motivated by personal political convictions, rather than a serious academic study. It's perhaps not surprising given that he appears to have been involved in pro-Israel political activism for some time (see [14]).

Landes strikes me as being rather like the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who are all serious academics (and there's a lot more of them than Landes' one-man outfit). Applying your principle consistently, we'd have to be "careful not to assume that we know anything" about the 9/11 attacks; since serious academics have claimed that the US government was responsible for the attacks, we shouldn't dismiss their views as "tiny-minority" and should be giving them due prominence in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. So why aren't we being consistent here? -- ChrisO 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I think the difference is that 9/11 was investigated, and so there's a credible story about what happened. This wasn't investigated: no bullets or fragments recovered at the scene, or at the hospital; no ballistics tests; no report about the boy's injuries. Nothing. Then there's the correspondent's statement about having cut the final death scenes, which turned out to be non-existent; and the cameraman's inconsistent comments about who picked up bullets, and his laughter about it during that interview, and his talk of "secrets." That places someone like Richard Landes in a stronger position as a source than Scholars for 9/11, because he's the only one who appears to be going through the evidence systematically, whereas the 9/11 group is trying to compete with the FBI and CIA for credibility, and so clearly looks inadequate by comparison. I take your point, though, about him being self-published and not an expert in the field. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Immediately following the incident, there was broad agreement about what happened. Then, more and more questions arose, ranging from the timing of the tape, ballistics, credibility of witnesses and Enderlin, the reporter, etc. It is true, there is only a small minority that claims that he wasn't killed; but there are credible sources (such as the Atlantic Monthly) that point out the initial reports don't make sense, leaving us with a lot of uncertainty about everything. Meanwhile, absolutely nobody has any interest in investigating this any further. Israeli authorities will only heartless if they do; Palestinian authorities certainly won't get into this; and none of the NGOs see this as a priority. I don't think we should give the sources denying his death a lot of play, but I think that we should highlight the uncertainty about the authenticity of the footage. This is one of those truly sick situations, where any scenario is terrible. --Leifern 13:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is an uncertainty about who shot Muhammad al-Durrah, but only fringe conspiracy theorists claim he wasn't shot. Later newspaper articles also say he was shot for instance "was shot dead before the cameras"(03/01/2007)[15] and "who was shot dead"(14 March, 2001)[16] (that one has some good follow up on the family) and "was killed in a hail of bullets"(30 September, 2002)[17] and "being shot dead"(Nov 18, 2004)[18]. // Liftarn

This is a complicated story with several possible explanations and a lot of uncertainty. If it were only a matter of ballistics, e.g., the bullets came from another direction than initially supposed, then you would be absolutely right. But if it's a staged event, it would be a monstrous assumption that someone deliberately shot the boy to deliberately capture it on tape. If it were staged, a more plausible scenario would be that the death was simply acting. I have no idea or opinion which is the case, only that it's messy and confusing. --Leifern 17:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated earlier if the boy wasn't killed it would take a large conspiracy to cover it up. You would have to explain all the witnesses, the doctors at the hospital, the injuries of the father not to mention the boy had to hide away from his family for all this time and so on. // Liftarn

Perhaps mention

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article?

Vendredi, Arlette Chabot a rediffusé pour ses invités le reportage du 31 septembre 2000, un autre reportage pris sous un autre angle au même moment par une autre chaîne ainsi qu'un troisième reportage tourné à l'hôpital, montrant le père gravement blessé. Elle a également présenté un film où le père du jeune garçon expose les profondes cicatrices de ses blessures à la caméra ainsi que des photos du jeune Mohamed, prises à la morgue, où l'on peut distinguer les traces des blessures qui l'ont tué. [AFP Nov 18 2004]

--Denis Diderot 08:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Translate:

Friday, Arlette Chabot repeated for her guests the report of September 31, 2000, another report taken under another angle at the same time by another chain as well as a third report turned to the hospital, showing the seriously wounded father. She also presented a film where the father of the young boy exposes the deep scars of his wounds to the camera as well as photographs of the Mohamed young person, taken with the mortuary, where one can distinguish the traces from the wounds which killed it

Do you have an URL? // Liftarn

The AFP archives are not open access, but there is a copy here at debriefing.org --Denis Diderot 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they a trustworthy source? Oh, and a translation[19]. It regretably doesn't say what other "chain" (news agancy?) that also took photos of the event. But we could update the article so say that the wounds of both Muhammad and his father was documented at the hospital. // Liftarn

It is an accurate copy of the original report from AFP, if that's what you mean. On Nov 18, France 2 held a press conference at their offices (13 boulevard du général Martial Valin). They announced that they would sue the people who accused them of having staged the scene, and they also presented the additional material mentioned in the quote above. I thought that perhaps this press conference should be mentioned in the article. The other agency was Reuters. There was additional info in Le Monde:

Pour prouver la bonne foi de M. Enderlin et de son cameraman, Mme Chabot a projeté leur reportage tel qu'il avait été diffusé sur la chaîne ainsi qu'un autre reportage tourné au même moment, mais sous un autre angle, par l'agence Reuters. Les deux séquences prouvent qu'une « mise en scène » est hautement improbable. En outre, pour répondre aux accusations selon lesquelles Jamal Al Dura n'aurait jamais été blessé, un autre reportage de la télévision jordanienne, tourné le 1er octobre 2000 à l'hôpital militaire Al Hussein à Amman, montre le prince Abdallah rendant visite au père du jeune Mohamed, transporté en Jordanie pour y subir plusieurs opérations. Enfin, France 2 a demandé il y a un mois au cameraman Talal Abou Rahmeh d'aller interviewer Jamal Al Dura à Gaza, où il vit toujours. Montrant sa carte d'identité pour bien se faire identifier, l'homme a accepté de se déshabiller devant la caméra pour montrer que ses cicatrices correspondaient bien à ses blessures filmées sur son lit d'hôpital. Concernant le petit Mohamed, France 2 a par ailleurs effectué une comparaison entre les photos de l'enfant prises à la morgue avec ses blessures au visage et les arrêts sur image de son visage lors de la fusillade. « Il s'agit bien du même enfant et nous sommes prêts à livrer ses photos pour une expertise officielle », a souligné Mme Chabot.

(Daniel Psenny: "Accusée de mise en scène, France 2 porte plainte" Nov 20, 2004. Copy here) --Denis Diderot 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are difficulties involved in writing about the other news agencies. There were two other agency photographers (one from Reuters) standing right behind the al-Durrahs while they were hiding behind the drum. Landes has produced some of their film. I didn't mention it because I don't know how to write it up. I didn't want to rely on Landes's statements, but I couldn't find any other story about what these cameraman saw, and why they don't have film of the shooting. Secondly, there are sources who say the photographs of al-Durrah in the mortuary are clearly of a different boy, and I don't recall how credible those sources were. I also couldn't find out who took the photographs said to be of him, and how credible that photographer is. That whole issue is very complicated, so I steered away from it. What we need is a good source who gives a clear overview of who's saying what, but I couldn't find one. It might be worth trying to get hold of the German documentary, which seems to have been neutral and comprehensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editorial aside, the whole situation sounds surreal. A raging street battle, a father and his son caught in the crossfire, and photographers everywhere. --Leifern 09:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not dead?

Seeing as this article refers to the possibility that he was not even killed in the incident, perhaps, for the sake of completeness, we should start a "Sightings of Muhammad al-Durrah" article, equivalent to the "Elvis Sightings" article. Anyone fancy taking this one on? --Nickhh 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Both concepts are equaly valid, but I don't think there are as many al-Durrah inpersonators around. // Liftarn

And at least Elvis sightings are a genuine phenomenon ... --Nickhh 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a matter for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. // Liftarn

Two points

1)Reference 24 supposedly backs up a statement that says "A later, informal IDF investigation concluded that al-Durrah had probably been killed by Palestinian fire" when in reality is an account of a nearly opposite thing.

2)In this link [20] there is the only photograph of the place that I know and it is shown clearly that the stories about the bullets turning corners are crap and that the "investigations" always put the barrel far away from the place it was. Perhaps were not IDF bullets but it is clear that could have been and that the people saying the opposite are either liying or in a deep mistake.--Igor21 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)