Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

My thoughts on the Karsenty issue

My feeling is that Karsenty isn't that important -- even for the hoax theory. If France had a stricter libel standard or his website was hosted abroad, he might not have been pursued by France 2 and we'd have never heard of him. I think the Karsenty affair has some notability and I'd probably make it into an article on its own but I think it probably doesn't deserve much mention in this article. Not that he is wrong per se but the trial didn't really reslove anything. Like Chris said above, his speech was deemed permissible but not necessarily correct. All it did say that he based his notions on his own evidence rather than simply inventing them out of thin air.

That said, I think it is important that the court-appointed, independent ballistics expert said the bullets could not have come from the Israeli position. That's important. I don't think we have other opinions from disinterested experts. But the resolution of the trial doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't know before it. It may be that it spurs other people to talk about it but we'll have to wait and see.

Just my opinion. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Karsenty himself is negligible. It is the two descriptions of the same events that matter. For convince we can name them as the Talal/Endrlin view and the Shahaf/Karsenty view.--Julia1987 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, when you look at the sources there are actually three views (and perhaps four, depending on which way you slice it):

• Israelis probably killed al-Dura (original media reportage)
• Palestinians may have killed al-Dura (later media reportage)

• Nobody knows for sure who killed al-Dura (predominant current view)

• Incident was staged and al-Dura isn't dead (Karsenty/Landes conspiracy theory)

The first three are reflected in a huge amount of reliable sources - hundreds if not thousands of media reports, books, etc. The latter is only really supported by a handful of op-ed columnists, plus of course some right-wing bloggers and a few thoroughly unreliable websites. It has nothing like as much prominence among the sources as the other views.

Julia, let me put this simply: you want to get an opt-out from WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions. This is not going to happen. NPOV is non-negotiable, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's favourite conspiracy theory. If that's all you're here for (and judging by your edit history and talk page comments, it looks like it), then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

Incidentally, I noticed that the Jerusalem Post has (somewhat surprisingly) posted a scathing op-ed piece on the conspiracy theorists [1]. It's worth a read. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

it certainly is somwhat surprising. wasn't it your nutty assertion above that the jerusalem post failed as a reliable source because it's part of conrad black's zionist media conspiracy? i think you did. in fact anyone can see that you did right up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#NPOV_in_light_of_the_Karsenty_verdict

i guess the rule is that op-eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chrisO's narrative; must-reads which establish the fact of the matter when they do work for chrisO's narrative. court-appointed forensic ballistics experts are "fringe kooks" also.

side note, i actually added text which stated discretly that the libel conviction had been overturned by a higher court, but that was rv'd. such a statement of fact is a little too stark for the article campers' tastes. such things have to be insulated and obscured by intricately-parsed verbosity which in the end gives the impression that nothing was decided in the court case at all. the operative definition here for npov violation, after all, is "not chrisO's pov.

I agree with both Jaakobou and ChrisO: personally I do not know if the boy is alive or not. I hope for him he is alive but despite the fact that is a boy in his age called "Mohamed a-dura" in Gaza (a boy admired as hero by his peers) let us assume that he is indeed dead. Still there is as Chris suggest a "predominant current view : Nobody knows for sure who killed al-Dura" We should there for highlight this fact " Nobody knows for sure" in the article lead so as not to apear as placing blame on this or that side as it is not Wikipedia role to place blame. Next we should present the main views: There is the Abu Rahma report that IDF killed the boy and there is the other view – for NPOV sake both should be presented.

--Julia1987 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. IP to also see a double standard regarding op-eds here. I think the discussion would be in much better condition if people were to take up my suggestion for FTN, RfC or some other type of mediation. Someone willing to do the source work to assert their perspective would also be a nice change of pace. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on Jaakobou, surely you can see the difference between using an op-ed as a source for facts in an article and mentioning an op-ed on a talk page as an interesting read? Your "double standard" would imply that we're not allowed to mention op-eds anywhere, even on a talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email about my thoughts. You know where to catch me if you feel like discussing my above comment without further taking this page off topic.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess this is "my" section so I'll post this here. The Toronto Star, the most widely circulated, if not the best, paper in my country just posted an decent, even-handed article on the controversy.[2]

Also, I have a few questions and ideas that have come up. I'm new to this controversy so some of you might know the answers already. Firstly, I have noticed differeng opinions on the talk page about Shahaf. One says that he believes in the hoax like Karsenty, the other that he only doubts the bullets were Israeli. Which is it? I'm also thinking that the "independent journalists" and "Leconte" sections could be condensed. They were important earlier when they described the unseen rushes. But now that the rushes are available, they are less so. And this makes me think that perhaps the information should be grouped more thematically, rather than in chronolgical order. Right now it is a bit clunky and and I think confusing for readers. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the Star refers to Al-Dura as "the apparently dead" boy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder no WP:OR

ChrisO: "To answer Julia's question, we know that the conspiracy theories are fringe views because they've received a negligible amount of reliably sourced coverage compared to the mainstream views. I found around a thousand media articles on the case in a Lexis-Nexis search. "

Thank you for this research.

Many of the "thousands edits" were before the recent court decision.

Your original research is not by doing the search but by making a conclusion based on that number of articles. The only conclusion we can conclude is that indeed the original France 2 report has been rebroadcast and repeated world wide by many media outlets. This is the only conclusion which is fact and not original research.

If you have a source saying "because this was published many times this means it is true" please show this source.

Some may see in this conclusion an indication about how antisemitism is spread. If we have sources connecting this accusation to antisemitism we can point that out.

We need now to focus on the post court verdict coverage, on the court verdict itself and on the experts that the court heard (and accepted their view). This is what we need to do as good encyclopedia editors if we want to keep this encyclopedia current with the best available data to date. --Julia1987 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments dated 08:11, 2 June 2008 in the section above. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this [3] is a threat but I do not that this [4] is either a lie or irrelevant for me.

I have not promoted original research – therefore the sentence "promotion of personal views and original research." Is either an unjustified attack on my behavior as an editor or it is an unjustified thereat? Now I understand that ChrisO is what's called "an administrator" however I also understand that actions taken by administrator need to be taken by someone who is uninvolved in a discussion. Since ChrisO is clearly involved I would ask that the following steps are taken:

1. removal of the notice given by ChrisO. If another uninvolved administrator would like to place it I would welcome the notification but would wonder as to why is it relevant to me as I have not promoted any original research. Most of m edits were a civil discussion here on the talk page trying to gather cooperation to change the article based on new sources (the court verdict and press articles discussing the newly published court verdict)
2. apology by ChrisO since he seems to accuse me of behavior I did not engage in.
3. ChrisO himself need to be warned that placing the label "conspiracy theory" on the Karsenty accusations (which were cleared by the court) is actually promotion of his own personal view: That the Karsenty view is "fringe theory".

What I learn from this experience is that there are people who would use their authority to promote their own political views. This is not new in this world and now it seems this takes place in an encyclopedia that supposed to be "free for all". I have noticed that ChrisO was first trying to gather support for his view in the "Fringe Theory" board[5] but once he failed he turned into using his power as an administrator.--Julia1987 (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: CrisO's opening of an FTN notice was a proper move. Notifying of the Arb case was proper also, although, I think the judgmental tone was out of place considering his direct involvement in the discussions. I think editors here should consider on how to present their cases (with sources) for FTN observers and a possible future mediation/RfC. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your entire point of view on this is fundamentally and fatally flawed, as it rests on your conclusion that the ruling addressed Karsenty's the truthfulness of Karantsky's claims. It did not, it only ruled that his saying it was not libelous. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to enter a discussion with you on your understanding of the court vs my understanding of the court. We need to use sources - do you have any post trial sources supporting your view ?

Clearly there are enough sources that see the ruling as casting a serious doubt on France-2 version of events. Why do you think France-2 was trying so hard to prove the facts? If the issue was what you claim the only issue in court would be interpretation of free speech laws in France. Obviously they went beyond: The court saw the rushes, the court heard ballistics experts. The court has looked at the facts. If the facts would have been as France-2 claim we would know about it. So now we are left with doubts and NPOV is presenting two sides of the story "describe the controversy".--Julia1987 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We've seen this method of attack by others in the past; take the prevailing opinion (which you oppose), take the minority viewpoint (you support), magically place the two upon equal footing, and then demand in the spirit of "NPOV" that both be given equal footing in the given article. Didn't work then, not going to work now. Your understanding of the court decision is factually incorrect, this is not a matter of conflicting opinion. Let's take stock of what legitimate sources have to say, such as the BBC;

In its ruling on Wednesday, the appeals court said it was "legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world". [6]

The decision simply upheld the right of a media watchdog group to, y'know, watch the media. Reading into this decision that it was a vindication or affirmation of the watchdog's assertions is a stretch of credulity. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you bother to read the sources you deleted and reverted you will find views that are different but I guess you choose to ignore and bring selective quotes…--Julia1987 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at some sources that have been posted here and even gone looking for some myself to back up your claims. I still have yet to see any mainstream piece of news reporting or professional legal analysis that concurs with your view that this "monumental" [sic] verdict has fundamentally changed anything about the underlying issue. I see a lot of comment pieces from right-wing websites and postings from the various blogs and forums claiming that the verdict somehow backs up their long-held views, but if you don't mind I am going to discount those. The article currently covers the court case and the facts of the verdict in a pretty straight and NPOV way. --Nickhh (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All of Us who Differ in our opinions from Chris O get a Warning?

What's up with this? I noticed that everyone of us who believe that the recent verdict no longer means that the view that that the AlDurah affair may be a hoax is a 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' view are being sanctioned? Is that what wiki means when it talks about achieving consensus? Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, no one is being sanctioned with this notice. I concur that this one-sided, selective notice seems more like an attempt to intimidate those with a different point of view, than a simple notice to all parties involved. I'd like to hear ChrisO explain why he chose not to issue a similar notice to Tarc or Nickh. That said, it is certainly within ChrisO's right to issue such a notice. Having done so in such a one-sided fashion, and given his strongly partisan POV pushing on this article, I am sure ChrisO realizes that he is a heavily involved editor on this article, and that he woulld not even dream of using any of his administrative tools on this page or the against the editors invloved in this dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The notice is a needed step and it must be done by an admin – an uninvolved admin…--Julia1987 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the notice can be posted by any admin, but any enforcement action has to be done by an uninvolved admin. But hopefully that won't be necessary. The purpose of the notice is to inform users who may not be aware of the arbitration case that there are certain restrictions on these articles. As new users, you, Canadian Monkey and Tundrabuggy joined after the arbitration was decided and weren't necessarily aware of its provisions, therefore you needed to be notified. It's not a threat, merely a procedural thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it feels like a little more than mere 'notification'. It was put on a log and both Julia and I were accused of "single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research." It does feel personal. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been a Wikipedia editor for less than a week. You created your account on the day of the verdict. Your first edit and most of your subsequent edits have been to this article. Julia has been an editor for only a week longer, and has never edited any article other than this one. The two of you obviously have a particular interest in this article; I'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for some advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have made edits in the past without having a user account and am fairly aware of Wiki's policies and standards. Nor am I a single-purpose account - and if the the date coincides with the date of the verdict, it is mere coincidence. Because of the argumentation surrounding this issue I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time on it. I believe my edits to have been valuable and well-thought out, and have attempted to be NPOV. What I got for my trouble is a logged warning, lots of reverts, and some accusations which are not even true. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While we’re handing out advice, here’s some for you, ChrisO: Have a read of this, and stop intimidating new editors, especially using false information. According to this, Tundrabuggy has edited 11 different articles. He has edited BBC (5 times) nearly as much as he edited Muhammad al-Durrah (6 times). There’s nothing to indicate this is a Single-purpose account. It may be helpful for you to reflect on the fact that when you started editing Wikipedia, you edited a grand total of two articles during your first three weeks. So unless you, too, started out your editing career as a “single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research”, please stop describing other new editors that way. (and, btw, an apology would not be out of order, either). Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, WP:BITE is really not applicable to a user whose first contributions (as Southkept) to the Wikipedia were to a contentious ArbCom case. The edit history of both accounts bears out an extremely narrow focus of intent. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The history of both accounts? The history of one or two weeks determines "an extremely narrow focus of interest?" Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:BITE applies to each and every new editor, and WP:AGF strongly cautions against the kind of bad faith assumptions you are making here, with a specific emphasis on doing this with regards to new editors. If you can't extend this minimum of courtesy to editors who've been here less than a week, you should not be editing contentious articles. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being a newbie or having a narrow focus. But new or single-purpose editors sometimes make the mistake of not familiarising themselves with Wikipedia's policies and standards, and diving into articles without understanding the requirements they have to meet. Misunderstandings of NPOV and sourcing policies are particularly common. It's not the fault of Tundrabuggy or Julia (or Canadian Monkey) that they've made those mistakes, but I think it's not unreasonable to expect them to listen to good-faith advice on why their suggested changes don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that it's a lot harder to be a newbie editor than it was when I joined - Wikipedia's policies have been tightened up a lot over the last few years. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That much is true. Now if you had simply made sure that Tundrabuggy or Julia were aware of policy, by pointing them to the approriate page before baselessly accusing them of being SPAs and of promotion of personal views and original research, we wouldn't have this debate. As I pointed out, you edited 2 articles for your first 3 weeks on Wikipedia, and I expect you didn't think of yourself as a SPA then. Please extend the same courtesy to an editor who has edited more than twice the number of articles in his firsst week. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Simply made sure that Tundrabuggy or Julia were aware of policy"? I've been doing this from the start. The frustrating thing is that you, Tundrabuggy and Julia don't seem to accept the requirements of WP:NPOV. Let me remind you that NPOV is non-negotiable. We all have to start from that baseline. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what you have been doing is attempting to win a content dispute through the use of intimidation tactics, and the framing of that dispute as problematic behavior by your opponents. This needs to stop. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, this might be a bit more fruitful if you tried actually engaging with any of the policies that I've been quoting repeatedly on this page. Take WP:UNDUE, which is at the heart of this issue. I've yet to see you or any of the other conspiracy theorists even acknowledging this policy, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable part of the neutral point of view policy. What is your view on how WP:UNDUE applies to this article? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Court Decision re Muhammed Al-Dura

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF

Rough translation to English re AugeanStables: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/category/france/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first link is [I should say "claims to be"?] to a photocopy of the report in the original French. Can it be added to the article, and if so, where? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to put the link in the article. But theaugeanstables appears to be an advocacy blog. For an article like this I'd really prefer that we had a better source on it. But if they got it, presumably it is available. But it is still informative for us to read so thanks for the link. I don't really doubt that is genuine I'm just not sure that is good enough for the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JGGardiner. This blogs doesn't seem suitable to take "originals" from. How about requesting a copy of the transcripts from the court and uploading to wiki-commons? (just a thought) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You could maybe contact the stables guy and ask from where he got his copy to get you started on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, Tundrabuggy. I have to say it's extremely difficult to read, both in the original French and in the (rather defective) English translation. I'll make some notes on it below for general interest. However, I should point out that our own personal takes on the ruling are not eligible for inclusion in the article, being original research, and we need to rely on what other sources say (by which I mean reliable sources, not blogs or advocacy websites). In that respect, people might like to have a look at what Le Monde has published - evidently it has a copy of the ruling as well. [7] -- ChrisO (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a point re: one's own personal takes. But when I Google News (Al-Dura & hoax) or (Al-Dura & staged) -- I get a lots of links. One Op Ed from the Jerusalem Post Staff refers to it as a "myth" . An Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal Europe says "the incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes" "the court ruled that Mr. Karsenty's allegation -- that the clip was staged -- was the reasonable conclusion." David Warren, Ottawa Citizen columnist , <Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged> By Ha'aretz Staff "Independent observers who have seen the film say the whole thing appears staged" are just a few of the many articles that characterise the situation thus. My point in putting this up is not to publish my own research, (which it is not) or to do a synthesis (which it is not); but merely to emphasize my point, and I think Julia's, that weight must be given to it at on the grounds that (especially since this new verdict) the viewpoint is held by a "significant" minority and has "prominent adherents." WP:NPOV Since the court verdict, it would not even be unreasonable to suggest that since neither position has been proven, and the original position has lost its authority due to the court ruling -- it not unreasonable to suggest the France 2 version was a hoax (or staged). That being the case, that position should now have some (serious -- not undue) weight. To me that means putting it in the lead as a legitimized view, not putting it in as throw-away "conspiracy/fringe theory" Martians-are-landing stuff. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Google machine translation link: [8]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

IDF admission

I've noticed the admission quote by the BBC came from Giora Eiland and looked him up a bit.

Apparently, he noted that his statement came before any investigation and without haveing proper details into the issue.

Source: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-896228,00.html

Translation:
Eiland took upon himself the responsibility for the world's attack on Israel after the death of the Muhamad al-Durrah boy. "I said on the day it happned, that it appears that the boy was shot by the fire of IDF soldiers and I shouldn't have said it, because I did not have enough information on it. There should have been done a quick research and only after a week a statement ("to talk"). Today, after a research which took two months, I am uncertain that we shot him, but also today I don't know with certainty who's fire killed the boy"
Original:

איילנד לקח על עצמו את האחריות להתנפלות העולם על ישראל לאחר מות הילד מוחמד א-דורה. "אני אמרתי ביום שזה קרה, שככל הנראה הילד נורה מאש של חיילי צה"ל ולא הייתי צריך לומר זאת, כי לא היה לי מספיק מידע על כך. צריך היה לקיים תחקיר מהיר ורק לאחר שבוע לדבר. היום, לאחר תחקיר שארך חודשיים, אני לא בטוח שאנחנו ירינו בו, אבל גם היום אינני יודע בוודאות האש של מי הרגה את הילד".

Hope this helps the into issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, you don't expect updates to be included in this article - the whole world saw on (almost)live TV who killed him and there is no need to confuse anyone with facts. BBC say Israel did it, the age uses the "conspiracy theorists" so why bother with all the rest.... --Julia1987 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, I understand your frustration with the current state of affairs here, but the solution is not to give up, and reduce your participation to sarcastic remarks. The nice thing about the project is that it is a collaborative effort, managed through consensus. There is a pretty large contingent of editors here who believe that what you say has merit, and working together, we will eventually write this article in a NPOV way, which reflects the facts. As a constructive first step, I think Jaakobu makes a valid point, and we should incorporate this information into the article – it looks like Tundrabuggy has already done this.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, however be advised that virtually all if not all of my edits have been reverted. :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider "not NPOV" about the current version? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 changes introduced by your edit to the lead on June 1st (which Tarc has been edit warring back into the article) which have changed a long standing consensus in a direction that runs contrary to what recent events suggest. I've already described these, but I'll repeat them again, for your benefit and Tarc's.

Until June 1st, the lead stated in a neutral way "Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (1988-2000) Arabic: محمد جمال الدرة‎), was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a violent clash between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip....Al-Durrah was reported to have been killed and his father severely injured by Israeli gunfire." This consensus version had been in the article for many months, at least since the beginning of the year. The recent events - the court verdict which said that the theory that the incident was staged can't be dismissed, and that the testimony of the F2 camaraman is not credible, and the subsequent media coverage of the verdict - suggest that if any changes are to be made to the lead as a result of this new information, surely they should be in the direction of giving more credence to the “staged” theory, and less credence to the original F2 report. Surprisingly, your response to this new information was in the opposite direction – you rewrote the lead so as to remove the neutral wording, to state as fact (twice) that the boy was killed, and to introduce another, irrelevant POV-pushing sentence (“The killing of … other Palestinian civilians was strongly criticized by the international community”). This is simply unacceptable. If you want to change a long standing consensus, you must make a case for that change here on the Talk page, and get consensus for your new version. You have clearly not achieved such a consensus. I am reverting back to the wording that existed for months prior to your undiscussed change, and ask that neither you nor Tarc edit it back into the article unless you have consensus for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, the ironic thing is that the version you keep reverting to is one that I wrote a long time ago, though I wouldn't expect you to know that given that you've only been editing this article for two weeks and therefore won't know about the article's history or the previous discussions on this talk page. I wrote the lead as a simple summary of the article, before I was able to do a systematic survey of coverage in reliable sources earlier this year. That research (have you done any, by the way?) enabled me to determine that the conspiracy theory viewpoint is very much a view held by a small minority, and therefore as WP:UNDUE puts it, "we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." Hence the recent rewrite of an unwieldy intro which puts far too much emphasis on the conspiracy theories.

Your proposals suggest that you have some major misunderstandings about what Wikipedia policy requires. That's disappointing considering you've been an editor for six months, but maybe nobody's properly explained NPOV to you before. I'll take some time tomorrow to put together a point-by-point explanation of what NPOV requires and how it applies to this article. Hopefully you, Julia and Tundrabuggy will find it of some use. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I’m going to ignore your patronizing and condescending tone. I am quite familiar with WP:NPOV and need no lessons from you. Let me address your arguments using facts and pointing you to policies you are apparently unfamiliar with. Firstly, you do not own this article, and as such, it does not matter one whit if the version I am reverting to was originally written by you, or anyone else. If it were true that you wrote that version, that would be all the more reason for you to explain, on the Talk page, why you no longer think that what you originally wrote is neutral. But of course, it is simply false that you wrote the version I am reverting to. The wording “reported to have been killed” has been in the lead since December 12, 2005, and was originally inserted, as far as I can tell, by User:Leifern, with this edit. It has survived in this form (with some minor variations here and there) for nearly two and a half years, accepted both by those who cast doubt on the veracity of the claims by France 2, as well as by those who, like you, think that You really have to scrape the barrel to find people who believe the incident was staged. The words “became an icon of the Palestinian uprising on September 30, 2000 when he was filmed crouched behind his father” have been in the article at least since September 5, 2007, when they were introduced by user Mattelle.

Your first edit to the lead of this article, as far as I can tell, came in the beginning of this year, when both the “reported to have been killed” and the “became an icon ...when he was filmed” formulations were already well entrenched as the consensus version. So no, ChrisO, you had nothing to do with writing this version.

This establishes quite conclusively that the consensus version, which you accepted, was “reported to have been killed” – a consensus that survived in the article for over 2 and half years.

Consensus is not immutable. It may change over time. But in order for you to make a change to such a long standing consensus – you must make a case for such a change here on the Talk page. Please do so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that it was Leifern who added the "reportedly"; from my experience, he's an editor with a very strong POV on these issues. The fact is, having done the research (I ask again, have you done any?), I found that probably 99% of the reliable sources - books and media articles - agree that al-Durrah was killed. There are no reliable sources - I am not counting the handful of op-ed columns, which we cannot use for statements of fact - to support the idea that he was not killed, though a handful of sources do attribute this view to a few Internet conspiracy theorists (specifically Karsenty and Landes). There are plenty of sources which question who killed him, but the idea that he is not dead is barely represented in the reliable sources. Saying that al-Durrah was "reportedly killed" is like saying that the World Trade Center was "reportedly attacked by al-Qaida" or that Elvis is "reportedly dead". Some people believe that al-Qaida didn't attack the WTC or that Elvis is still alive, but that formulation suggests that they are mainstream viewpoints, which they are not. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you chose to turn this expose of your false claims into a personal attack on Leifern. As I am sure you realize, many people, myself included, think that you are an editor with a very strong POV on these issues. But this is beside the point. It does not matter who added this into the article – what matters is that this has been the consensus version for over 2 years, and you can’t change that without achieving a new consensus, through discussion, on the Talk page. The amount of research I’ve done is irrelevant, as is the amount of research you claim to have done –for the simple reason that personal research is not allowed on Wikipedia. As I’ve reminded you several times, claims of consensus or of “mainstream” must be sourced – we do not take ChrisO’s “research” as truth – we require a source. You need to do is find a reliable source, dated AFTER the latest court verdict, that says “the mainstream view is that Al-Durrah was killed”. Unless you do that, you can research the topic for another 10 years for all I care – but any conclusions you may reach through this original research are not allowed on this project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) I think you're misunderstanding the difference between original research and source-based research. We're not allowed to add "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" to articles. But as editors, we constantly have to make our own judgments about what material to add to articles, based on our research of published reliable sources. That means we have to judge what weight to give the material that we've found: does it represent mainstream opinion, how significant is it, etc. Not only are we allowed to do that, we're required to, in order to meet the requirements of not putting undue weight on minority/fringe viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact CM of course editors have attempted in the past to roll back the needless use of the words "allegedly", "reportedly", "supposedly" etc in respect of his death for a while. But we get reverted, which I guess does mean that there has been no consensus "for over two years" for that change - so you may be right there, in that other editors will veto any change back to the mainstream version. Often these are single purpose editors who quickly join this project and then disappear (anyone can check the edit history on this). And sorry but you have this back to front - it is not up to editors to find the words "this is the mainstream view" in a reliable source in order for this article to carry the, er, mainstream view that he is dead (whoever killed him - and as long acknowledged, this is still unclear). What people who want to push the fringe view that he is still alive as being of equal weight have to do is find alternative reliable, published sources that suggest Muhammad al-Durrah is wandering around, attending school or at work somewhere and living in Rafah, Amman, Birmingham or wherever. I am still a little bemused as to why this conversation is still going on. Editors saying "the video on youtube looks a bit dodgy", or even editors quoting and referencing a couple of bloggers or op-ed writers saying the same thing is not enough. Or even those editors alleging - as a piece of clear original, not to mention slightly muddled, research - that a court has now confirmed that he was not killed. --Nickhh (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, this version, which you wanted in the article has both of the elements I want now. It states that Al-Durrah "became an icon of the Palestinian uprising on September 30, 2000 when he was filmed crouched behind his father during a gunfight", not that he "became an icon when he was killed", it does not state that he was killed, only that his death was blamed on israel by Enderlin. And it does not make any of the pov-pushing nonsense about 'other Palestinians killed' that is being edit warred into the article by ChrisO. I am asking you a simple question: If you were ok with that version in 2007, what has heppened since then that would make us change this neutrally-worded lead into one that states as fact that he was killed? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (media, books etc) state unequivocally that he was killed. They disagree on who killed him, but not on the fact that he was killed in the first place. What's changed since 2007 is simply that someone (i.e. myself) has actually sat down and done some systematic research to identify the relative balance of the coverage. As I've said ad nauseum in this discussion, the "not killed" conspiracy theory is only even mentioned in a small percentage of the coverage, where it is invariably attributed to Internet conspiracy theorists and specifically to Landes and Karsenty. The only things published in reliable sources that directly and specifically endorses the conspiracy theory are a handful of op-ed pieces in a handful of newspapers published over the last four years. This amounts to perhaps 1%, maybe less, of the total English-language coverage alone, and Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits the use of op-eds for statements of fact. What you and the other conspiracy theory proponents on this talk page have so far failed even to acknowledge is the undue weight element of the neutral point of view policy, which specifically requires that small-minority or tiny-minority viewpoints should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. This is a non-negotiable requirement. What are you going to do about it?

Second, the description of al-Durrah becoming an "icon when he was killed" relates to the context in which he became an icon in the first place. I get the feeling, particularly when reading the conspiracy theorists' accounts, that some people think the al-Durrah case was some sort of context-free incident. Let me quote a reliable source (Naomi Sakr, Satellite Realms: Transnational Television, Globalization and the Middle East, p. 192): "In October and November 2000 alone, over 80 Palestinian children were killed. Television pictures of stone-throwing children challenging Israeli troops and of wounded children had a galvanizing effect on young people throughout the Arab world. One abiding image symbolizing the mounting Palestinian death toll was that of the shooting of a 12-year-old boy, Mohammed al-Durrah, killed by Israeli gunfire as he crouched in terror with his father behind a water barrel at a crossroad in the Gaza strip." Rightly or wrongly, the al-Durrah case achieved the prominence that it did not just because of the nature of the footage, but because it was seen (or at least was presented) as being representative of the wider issue of Israeli conduct towards the Palestinians. That's not to say that Israelis weren't suffering as well (and I'm sorry, Jaakobou, if I gave the impression that I was minimising that). But the impact of the footage had at least as much to do with the context in which it was filmed as with the actual content of the footage. That's what how our reliable sources describe it, at any rate; let's not forget what being iconic actually means ("a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy"). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Julia

Julia, I’d like to try and help you become a more productive editor. Rather than this back and forth hurling of accusations – ChrisO calling you a SPA promoting original research and you retorting that he will not be confused with facts – let’s try to see what can be improved in the article. I understand you are not happy with the current state. Do you have any specific suggestions on what can be improved? Is there a specific sentence that you want included? Is there a specific sentence you want removed or reworded? Let’s hear some concrete requests or suggestions, one by one, and we can discuss them on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made my self very clear there are sources that appear after the verdict and they represent the beset 'state of the art" in what we know about the case. There were also expert witnesses that the court accepted. This is what we as encyclopedia editors should highlight or at least give equal weight. I have made many suggestions, all were reverted. I have never promoted any "conspiracy theory". I read carefully about SPA – nothing in that policy prevents me from focusing my wikipedia attention on this article as long as I don't violate any wikipedia policy. So what exactly is wrong with being a SPA as long as the editor is trying to improve the encyclopedia by improving one article at a time – bringing this article to be current with the best published sources now available to us ?

If all that that ChrisO has against me is that I am new and SPA – he really has nothing of substance and we should restore all the edits which were based on sources published after the verdict.

If anyone has a better suggestion I am all ears – but to accept that the article will be reverted again and again by ChrisO/Tarc to what it is now – that is not getting us forward at all.--Julia1987 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)\

Julia, there is nothing wrong with being an SPA, so long as you edit within policy. Now, please read what I wrote - Do you have any specific suggestions on what can be improved? Is there a specific sentence that you want included? Is there a specific sentence you want removed or reworded? Let’s hear some concrete requests or suggestions, one by one, and we can discuss them on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

CJCurrie has (rightly in my opinion) removed the sentence “killing of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians” from the lead. ChrisO restored it with the puzzling edit summary “restored "and other Palestinian civilians", as it's what the reference specifically discusses; follow the link to the BBC story”. I say puzzling because the referenced BBC story is not at all about Al-Durrah, and does not even mention him. Perhaps ChrisO can elaborate on what made him include this irrelevant story as a source for this article, much less as a source for a disputed statement. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Context is important. It's important to bear in mind that the al-Durrah killing didn't occur in a vacuum. It occurred around the same time as the killing of a large number of other Palestinian civilians, including several other children (see [9]. One of the reasons why it attracted so much attention at the time was because it was seen by some as emblematic of Israel's approach towards the Palestinians. The killing occurred on 30 September 2000; on 2 October 2000 the Arab League demanded that those responsible for the deaths of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians be put on trial [10], and on 4 October 2000 UN Security Council members "strongly criticised what they described as Israel's excessive use of force".[11] If we omit the context - that al-Durrah was killed during a period of widespread violence and many other shootings - we're missing a key part of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I hope you're aware that Palestinians weren't the only people killed in that period. Some of my personal friends lost family also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, what you are doing here under the guise of “context” is called original research and POV-pushing. Let me make this very , every simple for you: every single source that you want to add to this article must directly related to the article topic. Referring to an Arab league call ‘for those responsible for the Palestinian deaths to be put on trial.” as aimed at “those responsible for the deaths of al-Durrah and other Palestinian civilians” when Al-Durrah is not mentioned is original source, which is not allowed on this project. Suggesting that a UNSC resolution, that criticized excessive use of force but does not once mention Al-durrah, was a related to Al-Durrah is is original research, which is not allowed on this project. Like NPOV, WP:OR is non-negotiable. Stop flaunting it, and stop pushing you POV into the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, doesn't this all sound like the inverse of the conversation regarding "context" on the Avigdor Lieberman article? So all of a sudden context is no longer important? Be careful what you wish for... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 14:23

I have no idea what you are talking about, and other article which may suffer from this type of original research are not a justification for adding original research to this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment was directed more at User:Jaakobou, who passionately insisted on including in the text every possible statistic on Israeli casualties surrounding the xenophobic outbursts of one Avigdor Lieberman, arguing that the context was fundamental in understanding why Lieberman suggested the mass drowning or bombing of certain people. The same principle can be applied here: the violence surrounding the incident is fundamental to the understanding of the incident itself. This was not one lone shooting in an otherwise peaceful void, but yet another horrible incident in a cascade of almost daily slightly less horrible incidents. The whole argument that this was just a staged coup-de-theatre kind of falls apart when you consider that in that same year more than 80 children and about 300 adults were killed (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Casualties). By these figures, a kid got killed every 4-5 days, making each death an almost routine horror, yet in this case, where it got caught on tape, we're supposed to believe it was a fabrication? Who needs to stage violence with figures like that? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 14:43

I'm sorry, but you seem to have some basic problem with logic. If 80 or even 8000 other kids really were killed has absolutely no bearing on this incident and the argument that it was staged. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is off-topic and I don't feel like debating your definition/perception of logic (a close shave with Occam's razor perhaps?), but the point is: there is a very significant difference if you view this event as an isolated horrific incident or yet another especially horrific incident in a series of horrific incidents. This isn't some completely anomalous -- and thus inconceivable ("they couldn't have!") -- shooting on the outskirts of Pleasantville, but yet another Palestinian casualty of the Israeli military in the Gaza strip. The fact that this kind of thing is almost routine weighs heavily in the perception of who did what. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 15:04

Surrounding events no doubt influence the subjective perception (this is after all, Enderlin's infamous "reality of the situation" excuse), but have no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the specific incident. If your argument was (as it seems to have been) 'other kids really were killed, so this one was, too' - it is a logical fallacy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, it's a bit more subtle than that... Why go through all the criminal intent and energy necessary to stage an event that happens every 4-5 days anyway? And it's not about certainties, but, as with Occam's razor, about probabilities. Hence, given that this kind of thing happens often, it is probable that this has happened again. As for Enderlin's perception, it is no different than the "spin" that Jack and others insisted belonged to Avigdor Lieberman's making xenophobic outbursts of blood-lust. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.06.2008 15:54

you are conflating logic, heuristics and probability. Logically, the fact that certain events happen frequently has absolutely no relevance to the claim that they happened in a particular instance. So your claim that "The whole argument that this was just a staged coup-de-theatre kind of falls apart when you consider that in that same year more than 80 children and about 300 adults were killed" is a logical fallacy. The probability argument is indeed what led early reports to assume that Israeli fire had killed him - but since them actual facts related to the specific incident came to light, which make the probablistic initial assumption irrelvant. As to the "why go to the trouble..." question, you might wnat to reflect on the fact that even though something may happen often, it is not easy to film. You may also reflect on the fact that even when something happens often, and is easy to film, some journalists inexplicably decide to fake and embellish. And finally, you may wnat to reflect on the fact that the Al-Durrah incident occured during the first week of the intifadah, long before those other incidents happened, and so the journalists staging this fake had no idea they was coming. Playing devil's advocate, the cynic would say that those who staged this boy's killing did so in order to get to the result they desired - many other kids being killed - but that without this hoax, those other killings would not have happened.

as aside note, let me remind you that WP:BLP applies to everyone, and on every page of wikipedia. Descibing a living person as making "xenophobic outbursts of blood-lust" is a violation of that policy, and could get you (and the project) in serious trouble. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When even a blatantly anti-Israeli newspaper like Aftenposten raises the possibility that the al-Durrah incident was a hoax, we can no longer report it as fact. As I've said many times before, this is a topic that must be treated with sensitivity. The death of a child, as well as the accusation of killing a child, is very serious business. --Leifern (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheer bollocks. Just being "anti-Israeli", as you allege, does not make this small newspaper any more authoritative on the subject. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just let that paragraph stand as a shining example of a rhetorical fallacy in the service of POV pushing. --Leifern (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that one newspaper (where's the citation anyway?) might have suggested that the incident was a hoax - probably in an op-ed column, I would guess - really doesn't make much difference, regardless of its ideological views. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of sources published over the last eight years state that al-Durrah really was killed. They dispute who killed him, but not the fact that he is dead in the first place. If a few newspapers started suggesting that the moon landings were a hoax we wouldn't rush off to amend the Apollo program article to state those unrepresentative views as fact, or even to give them any equivalence to the mainstream view. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I have learned to have very very low expectations from you, but still. Aftenposten is considered Norway's newspaper of record, although its editorial bias is clearly critical to Israel. The article in question is here: [12], where it quite appropriately raises the question in a news article. When the Atlantic Monthly makes this a centerpiece - years before the video producers had their setback in French courts - it is unreasonable to go with only one point of view. --Leifern (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have to say I don't think you've represented what the article actually says very accurately - you seem to be reading more into it than is actually there. It does not advocate the conspiracy theory; like most of the small number of other sources that have referred to the conspiracy theory, it merely describes it and attributes it to Landes and Karsenty. To quote in translation:

"But there is much that grates on this video, which was originally distributed by the French television station France 2. So much, in fact, that a number of people have alleged that the whole [video] is a well-directed lie.

Among these is Professor Richard A. Landes, who on his website "The 2nd draft" explains why he considers the video to be a product of "Pallywood" in which a scene is created in order to create sympathy for the Palestinians' cause.

The view is shared by the French journalist and media critic Philippe Karsenty, who in 2004 decided to challenge France 2."

The article then goes on to report on Karsenty's view of the case and lists "some of his arguments, according to Jyllands-Posten" [the Danish newspaper]. It doesn't endorse any of those claims. In other words, it's not much different to this International Herald-Tribune article which is already cited in the article, and it doesn't really tell us anything new that I can see. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you went to the trouble of reading the article and translating it, I'm puzzled as to how you missed the article's headline, which reads 'The video images of the Palestinian boy who died in father's arms have been one of the greatest icons of our time. But the film was probably a bluff." No attribution to anyone, just the article's conclusion - a likely hoax. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you know anything about journalism, you'll know that headlines are written by sub-editors, not an article's author. It's not uncommon for subs to exaggerate or even to miss entirely the point of an article. The text of the article does not in any way advocate the conspiracy theory. I would guess that either the sub has exaggerated the point for dramatic effect, or is (rather clumsily) paraphrasing what Karsenty et al are saying. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of this process, but it is irrelevant to the point. We have Aftenposten, claiming the video is a likley hoax. Whether this claim was made by a reporter or an editor is not relevant. If it is a mistake - the journal will correct it. Your speculation about why this was done is mildly interesting, but likewise has no bearing on the fact that a newspaper of record of Norway has declared, in it's headline for a news article that the video is a likely hoax. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Aftenposten tries to present an NPOV view, unlike well, never mind. It raises the issue whether the whole shoot is a hoax, but - properly - doesn't endorse one view or another. But if there is a legitimate question about the authenticity of the footage, then we can not accept one or the other. Someone with a POV agenda equivalent to yours but on the other side would insist on writing that al-Durrah is a fictional character portrayed by an unnamed Palestinian amateur actor. But ChrisO, would you accept mediation to resolve this in a mutually agreeable way? --Leifern (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is even-handed, but that's not the equivalent of NPOV. Newspapers have no requirement to consider undue weight and routinely treat tiny-minority viewpoints as equivalent to mainstream ones if they happen to be newsworthy - something which denialists of all kinds have exploited for years. Unlike newspapers, we do have an obligation to consider undue weight. Unfortunately our resident conspiracy theorists have repeatedly ignored this - I've raised it many times and directly challenged them to address it, but they've not responded. This isn't about whether there is a legitimate question about the authenticity of the footage; it's about whether those questioning the authenticity of the footage are anything other than a tiny minority. The vast majority of our sources state definitively that al-Durrah is dead and do not even mention the conspiracy theory. That's the essential point which our "truthers" aren't bothering to address - not surprisingly, because if they acknowledged it they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I have no objection to mediation but I very much doubt if it will get anywhere, since it requires editors to act in good faith and follow established policy. This will most likely end up in arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mediation, as well. What's the next step? Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with this edit of CM's [13] of the first paragraph of the lead which according to CanadianMonkey has been consensus for 2 years. Why do we have to change it now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

German media (and Stephanie Gutmann)

In Germany the hoax theory is not that fringy anymore. Titel Thesen Temperamente ( public TV) reported on it, Deutschlandfunk did, Focus Magazine did, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung characterized the Enderlin report as "eine der übleren Medienfälschungen der jüngeren Vergangenheit" ("one of the nastier media fakes in recent history").

And perhaps you could incorporate Stephanie Gutmann's "The Other War", too. - Regards, Konrad S., Berlin -- 217.186.193.249 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those links. I'm afraid the FAZ link doesn't work; can you provide an alternative, or maybe just send me the text if you have it? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On Earlier Consensus in the Lead

At least until April 5th 2007 and from at least May 29th 2005 Mohammed al-Dura was noted as "reportedly killed", the controversy was noted and it was not tagged as "conspiracy theory." These ideas have already been established in earlier consensus. Just did some checking of some old diffs to see. Here are some samples: [14] 12 Sept 2005 [15]

Muhammed al-Durrah (Arabic:محمد الدرة) was a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy reported to have been killed by gunfire on September 30, 2000 at the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. A French television crew (France 2) near Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip filmed the boy clutching his father as his father tried to shield him from bullets. Broadcast around the world, this event caused outrage against Israel, which was assumed to be responsible. Shortly thereafter, a number of challenges were made about the incident, including the source of the bullets and even whether the entire incident had been staged. The controversy persists to this day.

Revision as of 21:02, 12 December 2005 (edit) (undo)

[16] 5 may 2007 [17]

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was reported to have been killed by Israel Defense Forces gunfire on 30 September, 2000 near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip during the first week of the al-Aqsa Intifada.

So the point is, for years it was perfectly acceptable to withhold judgment on the validity of the accusations but now after an appeals court rules that the authenticity of the Enderlin report is in doubt, it suddenly becomes time to insist that this view is a fringe theory or conspiracy view and insist that the child had been killed. </shake head> Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What you just documented is that under the banner of "wikipedia policy" wikipedia has become more and more extreme while the main stream press and the courts have started to lift the veil from the propaganda and expose the truth. When a person like ChrisO can intimidate other editors there is no doubt why the value of the encyclopedia as a neutral source declines. --Julia1987 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what both of you are saying is flawed for two reasons. 1) I and others have attempted to take out the words "allegedly" etc in the past but have been reverted (see my post above). 2) Just because a certain phrasing has more or less languished in an article for a long time does not mean it's correct, or represents a "consensus" view. It might be convenient for one or two editors who prefer the wording in question to assert that, but it could just mean no-one else has even noticed it's there. Take a look around - there's a lot of cr#p in this encyclopedia and a lot of it has been here for a long time. To repeat my point - where is your reliable source that claims he is still alive, has evidence from those involved in the hoax and subsequent cover-up and gives details about where he is living and what he is doing now? Not just a source of some sort which vaguely asserts that he might be alive because according to them, the video that is available looks a bit iffy. --Nickhh (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. In (1) you suggest there wasn't consensus becuase you noticed the wording, didn't like it, and tried to change it. In (2) You suggest there wasn't consensus becuase 'no-one else has even noticed it's there', Since (1) is true - per the diffs you produced, let's dispense with the nonsensical claim #2. As to claim #1: I am happy with the wording you wanted when you attempted to change the consensus at the time. Please address my question: why are you not happy with it today, seeing you were ok with it last year? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, as I keep asking people here, read others' posts properly. I was making a very general point about content in Wikipedia, as made clear by my words "an article" .. "it could just mean" etc. That is, I was trying to suggest one general reason as to why poor content might remain in articles here (others include articles being owned by POV pushers, conspiracy theorists etc). It is only "nonsensical" if you choose not to understand the point being made. As to your question, I don't recall ever being "happy" with any version that gave prominence to conspiracy theories. The fact that I might not have tried to change every single phrase I disagreed with in previous versions or debate them on the talk page 24 hours a day doesn't mean I thought they were good or accurate pieces of writing. How on earth can you make that assumption on my behalf? And now, will you do the courtesy of answering my point about what reliable sources you are going to present with the specific information about al-Durrah's current whereabouts? --Nickhh (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because some material is in an article for an extended period of time, that does not mean that it is correct or meets our policy requirements. The "information" that John Seigenthaler, Sr. was involved in the Kennedy assassinations remained in that article for five months before it became a public controversy. It didn't become any truer or more compliant with policy merely because it had remained uncorrected for so long. In an encyclopedia with 2.4 million articles, it's inevitable that some will include uncorrected inaccurate and POV statements for extended periods of time. But it's our responsibility as editors to correct such statements when we find them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a woefully poor analogy. In the John Seigenthaler, Sr. case, the wrong information was kept in the article because nobody noticed it. In our case, the different proposals ("killed", "reported to have been killed", "murdered", "allegedly killed") were very clearly noticed, debated for weeks by muliple editors, until a version that people were happy with was arrived at, and survived in the article for 2 years. It is the very definition of consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that editors noticed it; they just didn't challenge it. Be that as it may, in the case of this article we had a situation where editors may or may not have reached a consensus, but unfortunately it was one which violated NPOV. We have a very clear standard in the second paragraph of WP:NPOV that the policy cannot be superseded by editors' consensus". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, false. They did challenge it, and offered alternatives, including "murdered" or "was killed" - but the compromise consensus that had survived for two years until you POV-pushing edit of 5 days ago was "became an icon when he was filmed ...and reported to have been killed". Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy Q and A

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

Neutral point of view

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

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

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

Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

Original research

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

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

Source-based research

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

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

Consensus

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

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

Reliable sourcing

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

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

Biographies of living persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

Elaboration needed on new ruling against France 2

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

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

thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok i made an account, all 70.181.148.148 is me

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

Cleanup: we need to keep focused

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

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

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

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

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

If you agree why this: [18] ? --Julia1987 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

allegedly or reportedly ?

Which is better to express the doubt ? There is no proof that he is indeed dead. There are now greater new doubts. see [19]Julia1987 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this this is a better starting point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem we have is three fold:

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

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

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

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

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