Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 16 June 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject HOP

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sources from SlimVirgin

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

• French TV loses Gaza footage case, BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
• Oakland, Ross. Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.
• Warren, David. All the Lies that are Fit to Print, Ottawa Citizen, Canada, May 24, 2008: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.
• Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.
• Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged, Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23, 2008.
• Benkin, Richard L. Al Dura Death a Fake!, The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4, 2008.
• A milestone victory, The Spectator, UK], May 21, 2008.
• Rohan, Brian. French court cancels libel in Intifada video case, Reuters, May 21, 2008. Says the court rejected claims that the "hoax" evidence was "neither complete nor serious."
• Carvajal, Doreen. The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame, International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005, reporting earlier doubts about the tape.
• Gelernter, David. "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12, 2005.
• Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.
• Juffa, Stephane. The Mythical Martyr, Wall Street Journal Europe, November 16, 2004 (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Al-Durra Case Revisited, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, in the "review and outlook" section. Reports that "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate."
• Poller, Nidra. A Hoax?, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, opinion piece.
• Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3 2003.
• Myth & Muhammad al-Dura, Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2008, reports that the video didn't show the killing, no bullets were recovered, and there was no blood where you'd expect to see it. Compares it to the myth of the Battle of Jenin.
• Ghitis, Frida. The dramatic killing that wasn't, Miami Herald, May 31, 2008.
• Ruling over 'fake' intifada footage, The Connexion, May 26, 2008.
• Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.

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

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

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

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

• Swiss 20minuten - raises the possibility that the scene was staged.

• another Op-Ed from the Jerusalem Post - "Not only is there no dead boy on the film. There is no sign of blood or wounds of any kind. In other footage from the scene, civilians are seen passing by the crouching man and boy - some running, some strolling but all apparently oblivious to any rifle fire." also says, explicitly, "Whether Charles Enderlin knew from the first that his voice-over was false is unclear. That he lies is certain."

• Boston Herald Op-Ed - " is an important step in fighting the lie represented by the film."
• Jewish Weekly News Op-Ed - "the France 2 report was a lie."

Discussion

There is very useful information here, but the section is getting awfully large. What do people think about moving this entire section to a subpage, such as Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sources? That way people could still add it to their watchlists and it would be easily accessible, but it wouldn't be taking up quite as much room on this rapidly-scrolling page. Any thoughts? Elonka 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would quite like to keep the list of sources handy, because the argument from some editors is that all the sources are tiny-minority/fringe, when some are quite mainstream. Maybe we could either keep just the list, minus the discussion, or move it all to a subpage, but keep a section on this page with a link to it. SlimVirgin 04:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, since it's primarily your work, go ahead and archive it or subpage it in whichever way you want. As long as it decreases the "footprint" on the talkpage, I'll be happy.  :) --Elonka 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's opinion about SlimVirgin's sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is untrue. Norwegian newspapers may not use quotation marks in headlines, but when the headline is a quote it is always preceded by a "-." The article simply references the issue without deciding whether it is a hoax or not, merely reporting that there are serious questions about its authenticity. This is not an argument between whether the boy was killed or not; it's an argument whether we for purposes of this article can definitely take the position that he was. --Leifern (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I've checked up on this since. It is the case that in the body, quotes are on a different line, and indented with a "-". This is not the case in headlines or captions.

(Reset indent)Again, this is untrue. Here are some examples of headlines from today's Aftenposten:

- De blinde markedskreftene fortsetter å styre utbyggerne med kommunen på slep

- Ikke behov for gresk brannfly

«Jeg føler frykten, men gjør det allikevel!»

- Det er ikke greit når man prakker produkter på folk

- Mediene har litt av ansvaret

--Leifern (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And nobody is yet to bring an article about the incident, rather than the conspiracy theory, that gives the conspiracy theory any leeway of the sort that various news-lovers here want. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

In this particular case, I am a native Norwegian speaker and have proven that Relata misrepresented - either deliberately or through neglect - Norwegian practices for quotes. As for your random reading of Aftenposten, it must have been limited to about two lines, as - of course - there are lots of quotes in the paper. In this article, an interview with Bill Richardson, every quote is prefaced with a dash, but there are also quotes, such as this one: «ny realisme» --Leifern (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What explanation might there be for this endorsement of K's views, if such it be, not being in the article itself? Headlines and subheadings are the province of sub-editors, who are only charged with summarizing the content of the story in a brief, catchy way that fits with page layout. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe Theory ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, there are some important points lurking here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just for the record: 20 Minuten from Switzerland is strongly advancing the staging theory, too. --Konstock (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions for editing

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

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

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

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

I absolutely don't agree with this - it's far too early. Please withdraw the request for the lifting of page protection. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is noted, but I'd like to give it a try. Do you think the above conditions are sufficient? --Elonka 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose to enforce it? You've seen for yourself that people are blatantly soapboxing and promoting their personal views ; if they don't respect our most fundamental policies (NPOV, V etc) what makes you think they will respect your conditions? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I have other cards I can play.  :) I start with, "Please, and thank you." Then I upgrade to "nudge", then I up the ante to "reminder", then "caution", etc. Or maybe I can skip steps and go straight to "warning". But most people, when they receive a polite and respectful request to moderate their behavior, are able to do so. At least, that's where I like to start from.  :) --Elonka 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that lifting the protection before people are even on the same page is disastrously premature. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the "alter without reverting" rule is absolutely inapposite when dealing with fringe theorists. Elonka, you know this. When point X is fringe, once its in, there's no way of removing it without it being a revert! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If something is added which you think gives undue weight to a point of view, but it is still reliably sourced, one way to deal with it is to change it, as in moving it down to the "controversy" section. Yes, that might make the controversy section a bit long for now, but we can always winnow it shorter later. Remember There is no deadline. We can take some time to circle in towards consensus. --Elonka 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, in addition, moving the disputed wording "down" to the controversy section is indistinguishable from a revert. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus requires people to be on the same page as to how it can be achieved. We aren't there yet. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the nub of the problem. Have we even tried to define the specific areas of disagreement yet? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have. I know that at least on my end, I have articulated clearly what my disagreement is: I object to the undicussed change of a consensus version which had been in the article for more than 2 years, from "became an icon when he was filmed and reported killed" to "became an icon when he was killed". There is substantial dispute over the claim that he was killed, with current reliable sources studiously refraining from making such a bold statement, if not agreeing with the "staged thesis" outright. Misplaced Pages should not take sides, but return to the neutral wording that has been the consensus version in the article for a long time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been made several times, but unfortunately the several eloquent, policy-based answers and explanations made in response appear to be ignored. I don't think there is anything more to say until those making this argument make a basic good-faith attempt to engage. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil, as Elonka has requested. There's no need for that kind of tone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner, please try to adopt a more civil tone. I have also left a more detailed note on your talkpage. Refactoring comment as the related post has been removed (thanks!)

Relata, I understand your frustration since it appears that some people "aren't listening", but please remember that this page is scrolling very fast. Even though ChrisO had archived it on June 1, it was already back up to 350K (and some people's browsers have trouble with anything over 32K!). I'm currently archiving threads that are only a few days old, just to try and keep things manageable. Or in other words, except for those of us who keep up on the page "edit by edit", it is very unlikely that other more occasional editors are reading everything. So those of us who are trying to keep up with things in a more detailed fashion, should make allowances for this. If this means that we need to answer the same questions or re-explain the same policies over and over, well, that's what we gotta do. :) --Elonka 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If people can remain civil avoid edit wars this can work. It is the interest of having a better and up-to-date article to lift the protection and letting civil, sourced and NPOV edit take place.--Julia1987 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

Rather than hack around the live article while the most basic questions of editing policy are still up in the air, would it not be a better idea to work on a sandbox version instead? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This will stipple progress -- Julia1987 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO: Why don't you go ahead and change what you think is wrong in the article ? --Julia1987 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple ways of editing an article, just as there are multiple ways of formatting citations. Some basic methods of editing are:

1. Wide open editing, no restrictions of any kind except asking everyone to stick to policy
2. Taking disputes to the talkpage, and protecting the article until consensus is achieved
3. Bold, revert, discuss cycle
4. Allowing cautious edits to the article within certain restrictions, and allowing editors to flow through, making steadily successive "tweaks" to try and find consensus somewhere in the middle.
5. Have different editors work on different sandbox versions, and then see about splicing them into the main article (or replacing the main article with a sandbox version)

All of these are valid methods, at different times. This article has been in state #1, and then state #2, possibly #3, and right now I am encouraging everyone to try state #4 (which has elements of #3, except we're not allowing people to revert). Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I would like to at least try it.  :) Can we please give it a chance? --Elonka 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• shrug* I don't think it will work here, because that method is particularly unsuited for narrow-focus FRINGE problems, as I explain above. I will turn my attention elsewhere, I believe. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox versions usually work better than messing around on the main article. There's nothing so disastrous it needs to be fixed right now. I'll create a copy of the current article Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sandbox and we can go from there. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Created. Everyone can work on this, or others can create their own sandbox versions if they prefer. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

This section is for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing the dispute on this page

Uninvolved admins

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Editors under ArbCom restrictions

The following active editors on this page have been notified of restrictions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

• Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) June 15: one month ban from editing the lead of the article (by Elonka)
  • Note: Julia1987 was previously editing as Southkept (talk · contribs)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor) June 15: one week ban from talkpage, 30 day ban from article (by Elonka)
• Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) June 10, 90-day ban from talkpage and article (by MZMcBride)
• Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Other frequent editors on this page

Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have been actively engaged with this article over the last two weeks (early June 2008)

• Beit Or (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CJCurrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
• JGGardiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Leifern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
• Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Relata refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admin participating as involved editor)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 6SJ7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Admin log

• ChrisO (talk · contribs), for violating the editing conditions, has been banned from this talkpage for 1 week, and from editing the article for one month. --Elonka 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Julia1987 (talk · contribs) banned for one month from editing the lead section of the article (this includes any changes to the caption of the top image). She is still allowed to make other changes to the rest of the article, and to participate at the talkpage. She is also strongly encouraged to spend some time editing other articles than just this one. --Elonka 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Anyone, admin or editor, who has questions or comments on any of the above, may post here.

I have started the above section for my own (Elonka's) notes, to keep track of who's who, and also so that everyone knows where they stand in terms of ArbCom restrictions. If the section grows too large, I may move it to a subpage. Any other uninvolved admins who are interested in this dispute, are welcome to update the above lists, though of course you should avoid changing another admin's restrictions, unless you check with them first. Thanks, Elonka 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. "No reverts" is completely unworkable if one wishes to maintain our core policies and values. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is backed up by ArbCom. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions: (emphasis added) "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." --Elonka 04:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ORR for everyone is a very good idea on an article like this. I started to rewrite it last year, and ended up taking it off my watchlist because of the reverting on both sides. It's frustrating when someone adds a version you don't like and you can't revert it, but the challenge then is to improve it. The article should get better bit by bit if we each use the last editor's work as a platform, rather than something to be discarded. SlimVirgin 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Elonka) You made a blanket restriction, which arbcom did not authorize. Arbcom said you could place restrictions on editors, if "despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." In other words, the restriction should not apply to every user on the project. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead

I've just posted a suggested lead, as follows:

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah (Arabic: محمد الدرة; born in 1988) was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen on September 30, 2000.

The report of his death was based on 59 seconds of a 27-minute film taken by a local freelance cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, who was filming alone for France 2, the largest of the French public television networks. The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire, the father shielding the boy, and waving to make the soldiers, police, and gunmen aware of their presence. Toward the end of the footage, both the father and al-Durrah appear to have been hit, the boy slumped over the father's legs. The France 2 reporter, Charles Enderlin, who was not present during the gun battle, said in a voiceover that al-Durrah had been killed. His report attributed the death to the IDF, after the cameraman said he believed the IDF had aimed their fire at the boy. France 2 provided three minutes of its footage free of charge to news organizations around the world, the broadcasts triggering international outrage against Israel.

Because there was no forensic evidence, and the footage did not show the actual shooting or the moment of the boy's death, and was not made available in its entirety, a number of questions were raised, including about the source of the bullets and the video's authenticity. The IDF initially apologized for the boy's death. Although a later IDF investigation concluded that he may have been hit by bullets from one of the Palestinian positions, the army did not otherwise contest the accuracy of the France 2 report. A small number of commentators suggested that the boy may not have died, or even that the entire incident had been staged, an allegation strongly denied by France 2.

In 2006, the network sued one of those commentators, Philippe Karsenty of the French Media-Ratings Agency, for libel after he alleged that the reporter and cameraman had presented staged footage. France 2 won the case after the judges said that Karsenty had "seriously failed to meet the requirements expected of an information professional." In May 2008, that judgment was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that Karsenty had presented a "coherent mass of evidence," and that his criticism of France 2 was legitimate, although the factual accuracy of his evidence was not examined. France 2 has said it will appeal the decision to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Better than current rev but still too long and not NPOV enough --Julia1987 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The length is fairly easy to deal with during a copy edit. Which parts do you feel aren't neutral enough, or what is missing that would make it neutral?

Apologies for overriding the edit conflicts there; I should have used the "in use" tag until I had finished. SlimVirgin 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please hold off posting that version to the live article for now? You and I have differing versions. We've proposed both on this talk page - let's get some feedback before making either one live. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm happy to give feedback on this version, but will you give feedback on mine (posted above?) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, my understanding was that we weren't supposed to revert wholesale. SlimVirgin 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So how come you wiped out the version I posted before I'd even had a chance to discuss it on the talk page? I don't want to argue about this. Let's just present our alternatives here and discuss it, without trying to put either into the live article without wider agreement. We might be able to find an acceptable synthesis between the two versions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in Slim's version -

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada, when he was widely reported to have been killed by gunfire during a clash in the Gaza Strip between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian police and gunmen...

– is weaker than what it replaced –

Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah...was a Palestinian boy who became an icon of the Second Intifada when he was reported to have been killed by gunfire from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers during a clash with Palestinian police and gunmen...

– for two reasons: (1) Slim's version oddly suggests that the very fact of al-Durrah's death – or perhaps the material cause (gunfire) – is seriously in question, whereas the previous version accurately suggested that what's contested is Israeli culpability. (2) The previous version is more precise about how and why al-Durrah became an icon: the widespread belief that he was killed by the IDF.

On the other hand the details Slim adds in her version (where the incident took place and the victim's age) are welcome improvements.--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with the above. A few points in particular:

1) We can't leave out the death date (i.e. 2000). As has been pointed out numerous times before, the vast majority of reliable sources state definitively that he is dead. Even the Israeli army has stated this - no official body on either side of the conflict has ever stated that he's not dead, as far as I know. We don't omit Elvis's death date because a minority of people claim he's still alive - it's undue weight, pure and simple. Also, if you leave out his death date you are in effect stating that he is alive - correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think you have any sources to support that.

2) I think it goes into a bit too much detail, to be perfectly honest. For instance, do we need to know in the lead about "59 seconds of a 27-minute film" or that Karsenty is "of the French Media-Ratings Agency" (hardly a major outfit)? It seems to me that we need to give the basic outline of the story, without going into the fine detail of it.

3) "A later IDF investigation" is inaccurate - it turns out it wasn't by the IDF at all and it was disowned by the IDF chief of staff as a "personal initiative" of one of its officers. This needs to be made clearer in the article, admittedly.

4) "A number of questions were raised" - this is distinctly weaselly; raised by who, when, where, how, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SV's version, as modified by ChrisO & G-Dett's comments would work for me. One change I'd make is to the sentence "The dramatic footage shows al-Durrah and his father seeking cover from the crossfire" - the footage does not show any crossfire, and the existence of crossfire at the time of the filming of this incident is one of the issues under dispute. I'd change it to the way ChrisO had worded it - "al-Durrah and his father were seen sheltering from gunfire". I agree that "A number of questions were raised" is weaselly, but then so is "Some supporters of Israeli policy". We need to explicitly name the main proponents and their issues. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Point taken about date of death.

2. The 59 seconds of the 27 minutes, and later distributing only three minutes, is important, as is showing the court only 18, saying the rest had been destroyed, which I'd actually like to add. I say who Karsenty is because the court says in the next quote that he's a media professional (or words to that effect) so that's just a question of the writing.

3. Okay.

4. I don't think it matters for the lead who -- we say a small number, and we do say what. SlimVirgin 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

4) I think this bit does matter. It makes a difference whether "questions were raised" by official sources, by the media or (as in this case) by activists. To be honest, I dislike the passive voice from a stylistic point of view as well. Can you come up with an alternative version of that line that uses the active voice? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Credibility should be mentioned higher up in the lead. Doubts on the report :

"Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate. While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a "coherent mass of evidence" and "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible."

Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty:

"observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin."

--Julia1987 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Doubts on the report" expressed in an OpEd pose no relevance to the article whatsoever, and cannot be given an ounce of space in the lead or anywhere else in the article. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I will gladly do so for as long as is necessary. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, my mistake of not being clear enough. The doubts exist for a long time independent of any op-ed. The doubts were raised in as series of news reporting from many sources: Shahaf (reported by mena news agency), Karsenty , Shapiro on German TV and others. Those are all good sources. The verdict is quoted in the op-ed – that is the reason I brought it and you are correct we should find a direct quote from the published verdict itself.

The other part with op-ed is that France-2 "reporter" Enderlin was actually doing an op-ed that he presented as "news reporting" – after all he was in his air conditioned Jerusalem office while reporting on events in Gaza (100 K'M away) as if he is there and see them with his on eyes…..

In any case I agree with you that we should all use proper sources. The lead, as suggested above - is all based on facts not on op-ed. --Julia1987 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask that editors who oppose including certain material in the lead stop talking about op-eds. We have serious news reports and unsigned editorials from serious newspapers. They are not all op-eds, and even if they were, there is nothing in the policies to prevent their use to show that a certain view is held. The fact is that no news organization would write about this issue without mentioning the doubts that have crept in, and mentioning them prominently. If anyone disagrees with me, please produce a recent source showing the contrary.

We must stick to our policies, including WP:LEAD, which explicitly says that notable controversies must be included in the lead. SlimVirgin 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The op-ed point is a serious one that can't be ignored. Op-eds do not have the same value as original reporting. By definition, they're an individual commentator's opinion and analysis of a particular issue, based on previous reporting. They don't often develop a story with new information. The fact that a particular right-wing commentator says "OMG! Hoax!" in reaction to the recent French judgement is not intrinsically significant because it doesn't tell us anything more than that particular commentator has bought into the conspiracy theory. It might have a bit more significance if the commentator is someone particularly notable or is a party to the issue at hand. But some random commentator endorsing the conspiracy theory is not inherently notable or worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambulance driver

One of the initial reports, quoting the father (probably during his first interview with the cameraman), said:

"Mr Durrah said the Israeli troops had fired relentlessly, even shooting at an ambulance that had tried to rescue him and his son.

"Its driver was also killed in the incident, and a second ambulance driver was wounded."

Was this something that turned out to be true, or false, do we know? SlimVirgin 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Adura showed scars that were caused by what he claimed are Israeli bullets that hit his leg. An Israeli doctor remembered that few years before he treated a a palestinian in the Barziliy Ashkelon hospital – he pulled the medical records and indeed it was Mr. Adura that was wounded in a knife fight over a drug deal that went sour with other palestinians and was rushed into a hospital in israel…...--Julia1987 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the source for that? SlimVirgin 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, I've seen some far-right bloggers making this claim but (as usual with such people) they never cite any source. It's certainly not been mentioned in any reliable source that I know of. It also directly contradicts something we do have in reliable sources - that he underwent several operations in a Jordanian military hospital for multiple bullet wounds and spent four months recuperating there. One would imagine that doctors (especially military doctors) would be able to recognise the difference between fresh bullet wounds and old knife wounds. But presumably if the conspiracy theorists have ever addressed this point, they probably argue that the Jordanian government and military were part of the conspiracy as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO is right; it is easy to tell the difference between bullet wounds and knife wounds. here is the source: --Julia1987 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(replying to a question since deleted) Sources in other languages are acceptable, if they are reliable sources, and there are no comparable English-language sources for the same information. Also, per WP:RSUE, quotes should be provided in the reference which both quote the relevant text in the original language, and also provide an English translation. --Elonka 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted an unpleasant smear against the father, who is (let's not forget) very much a living person - WP:BLP applies on talk pages as much as it does on articles. Julia, please moderate your language when discussing the people involved in this incident. As for the video, who produced it? If it's by some random conspiracy theorist it's patently not a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Video produced by Israel channel 10. This is not a smear campaign as the channel clearly states : "the fact that al-dura lied about the scars is still no proof that the incident is staged, the kid is alive as some claim and that France -2 knowingly published a wrong report. However, it raises serious questions about the authenticity of Jamal Al Dura story."--Julia1987 (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from being a claim by 'far-right bloggers', this is in fact part of the evidence presented by Karsenty at the recent appeal - a sworn statement by Dr. Yehuda Ben David who treated Jamal al-Durah for knife and ax wounds inflicted on him by Palestinians. This has been cited in one of the sources already used in our article- the Wall Street Journal piece by Nidra Poller, which reads

"The possibility of a staged scene is further substantiated by expert testimony presented by Mr. Karsenty -- including a 90-page ballistics report and a sworn statement by Dr. Yehuda ben David attributing Jamal al-Durra's scars -- displayed as proof of wounds sustained in the alleged shooting -- to knife and hatchet wounds incurred when he was attacked by Palestinians in 1992. "

. I think it's about time we stop baselessly attributing things we don't like to 'far-right bloggers' or to 'loony conspiracy theories', and start reading the relevant material form the court case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How come a reasonable edit becomes a target of a threat?

We all agreed to no reverts – but Tarc is exempt from this ?

The edit he reverted was:

1. accurate
2. based on sources (see this edit by leifern: )
3. NPOV – it added to the description of the scene as "iconic" a question about the authenticity. The words used weere from leifern edit.

So why is Tarc alowed to make threats ? only to cause editors to flee from this article ? or from Misplaced Pages in general ?--Julia1987 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc's edit summary could have been more civil, but the removal was appropriate, because information was added without a source. There's also the issue that the image caption may not be the appropriate place to argue the veracity of the image, since it may be giving undue weight to the controversy. Better is to ensure that things are properly included in the body of the article, and to ensure that the image caption stays neutral and brief. --Elonka 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The caption is the proper place since the image itself is highly POV. The image was added by an editor that was since that time banned and we need to point out to any reader that the image may not be what it seems. As for sources – as indicated in the edit summary: the doubts are well documented by newspapers around the world and if needed a specific citation can be provided.

Can you please restore the image caption – we all agreed not to revert so I would like to comply with that.

If there is an alternative suggestion how to phrase the doubts/controversy in the caption – please do so. tnx. --Julia1987 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that the current caption is misleading? Or simply that it is not comprehensive enough? --Elonka 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc was quite right to remove it, as it was a grossly POV statement; it stated one side of the dispute as fact (clearly France 2 doesn't consider there to be "major questions" about the authenticity of the footage). Elonka, could you please explain to Julia1987 what NPOV requires and disallows? I've explained it repeatedly but apparently futilely. It would save everyone a lot of time if editors here had a common understanding of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you have so far done a commendable job of mediating this dispute – not only calming things down and nearly eliminating the edit wars, but also driving the process to a point where we now have a lead that just about all the editors agree on. However, Julia raises a valid point, which I do not think you have properly addressed. One of your requirements for continued editing on the page was “No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.” – in fact, this was the first requirement, and the bolding of “no reverts” was your emphasis, which you then re-iterated at the end – “Don't revert other editors”. Here we have an editor who clearly and directly violated that important principle, and reverted an edit, with an uncivil edit summary, to boot. He is getting off, as far as I can see, without so much as a warning. This follows on the heels of a similar revert, by ChrisO, of SlimVirgin’s changes to the lead. (The only reason I did not speak up on ChirsO’s revert was that he quickly self reverted, and engaged in good faith dialog on the Talk page). In contrast, Tundrabuggy made an edit that was not a revert, and one which many editors here (yourself included) found reasonable, and got slapped with a 90-day article ban. If it was appropriate to ban TB, it must be the case for Tarc as well. If you are to have credibility in this dispute, please impose a similar sanction, or it will appear that only reverts from one side of the argument are subject to sanction. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, please note Elonka's rules above: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." That's precisely what Tarc did, and as Elonka has stated, "the removal was appropriate, because information was added without a source." Please go and re-read what Elonka stated at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this one by one – the words I used came from . In this edit the editor described what the Norwegian press is saying: "Norwegian newspapers ….. merely reporting that there are serious questions about its authenticity". So it is obvious that this is sourced (not only to Norwegian press, since the serious questions that were raised during (and before) the trial were reported by many newspapers and TV stations. (I have seen this on NPR in the US). So we have:

1. "un-sourced" – clearly not. This is sourced (if you disagree let us know)
2. "potentially untrue" – clearly not: The questions (about authenticity) exist
3. " very biased" – this is a matter of judgment. Why do ChrisO and Tarc think what was added is "biased" ? it did not say that this is a hoax it simpley added to the fact that the scene is now iconic the valuable information that there are " serious questions about its authenticity" --Julia1987 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said over and over again, that is one side's point of view. We do not state one side's POV as fact. This is a fundamental element of NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." Please answer me honestly - have you actually read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the words used a POV is stated as "fact" ? The fact is that the scene authenticity is questioned. Your answer is as if I wrote that the scene is fabricated " (which it is is but that is not what I wrote) I wrote a sourced fact. You are the first that need to read WP:NPOV--Julia1987 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead again

I've tried again with the lead, incorporating some of the points that ChrisO raised above. I'd still like to add that France 2 has lost the last nine minutes of the tape, and was only able to show the court 18 minutes, apparently ending as the boy is seen to move his arm and leg, but I've not come up with a succinct and neutral way to express it yet. I do think we need to say something about it in the lead, because the first question any reader would have in their mind is: "Why don't people just look at the remainder of the tape to see what happened to the boy?" SlimVirgin 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, when I read the article as an outsider, the first thought that comes to mind is, "Okay, where's the body?" The article mentions that the boy was buried, but has little other info. So I'd be curious about things like, "Where was he buried, who went to the funeral, what was it like, is there a memorial or statue there today," etc. Not that these things have to go into the article, but I'm just offering it as a datapoint from a neutral reader. Generally when there is a controversial death, the locals put up a memorial, grave marker, statue or other art somewhere. If there is such a memorial, a picture of it would be a good addition to the article. --Elonka 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times reported at the time that there was no autopsy and that he was buried the night he died, or the night after (Muslim custom is to bury within 24 hours, as I recall). I'm not aware of any images of his grave.

The missing footage issue is more complicated than I remember. It seems the initial report was 59 seconds out of 27 minutes. Only three minutes were made available to the media. Three prominent French journalists viewed the whole 27 minutes in 2005, and wrote that much of it consisted of apparently staged scenes: Palestinian protesters pretending to be injured etc, according to the journalists. The Paris Court of Appeal asked to view these scenes, and was told by France 2 that only 18 minutes of the footage could be found, the rest apparently destroyed. I will try to find some good sources for each of these claims. SlimVirgin 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a funeral that night apparently. It is referenced in the Fallows Atlantic article which is prominently mentioned in ours: "A boy's body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like Mohammed's in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route. A BBC TV report on the funeral began, "A Palestinian boy has been martyred." Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday." --JGGardiner (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, SlimVirgin. I think we're getting somewhere at last.

I've made a number of changes to the text while keeping (I hope) the spirit of your version. Specifically:

1) Your version mentions what happened to the boy but not what became of the father. This is an important point, not least because it's far better documented than what happened to the boy. I've added a line to rectify that.

2) It seems to me that the intro narrative breaks naturally into three parts: the basic facts of the incident as we know them; the initial reporting; and the later conspiracy theories and legal actions resulting from them. I've therefore structured the intro along these lines, in roughly chronological order.

3) There seems to be some sort of line among the conspiracy theorists that the story of the shooting is based solely on Enderlin's report. This plainly isn't true. Several of the reports over the last eight years have gone back to the people involved - the father, the mother, the cameraman, other eyewitnesses from the scene, all interviewed by different journalists. The footage was certainly solely produced by France 2 but the mass of contemporary followup reporting was not. It's therefore inaccurate to say that "The reports were based on 59 seconds of a 27-minute film" because they were actually based on much more than that. I've therefore changed this to "Enderlin's commentary and much media reporting immediately after the incident blamed Israeli forces for the shooting."

4) Don't forget the Israeli army report was only semi-official. I've added a mention of the ARD documentary too.

5) It's important to note that the conspiracy theories only gained currency some time after the shooting. I've made this clear and made the paragraph on the theories a bit more direct (active voice!). Frankly, I think the line "Because no forensic evidence was available" goes into too much detail for an intro, so I've taken this out. I don't think it's really necessary to go into great detail about why the conspiracy theorists think as they do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the current version keeps the "spirit" of SV's version at all. Her version is balanced, the current version is not. With the exception of putting some information in about the father (lower down in the intro, not in the first paragraph), SV's version should be restored in its entirety. As for Elonka's comments above, isn't that the whole problem? There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that the boy died at all. I believe he probably did, but there is enough doubt about it that it is not a "conspiracy theory" to believe otherwise. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No reverts please. See #Conditions for editing. However, changes are encouraged to try and find a middle-ground. --Elonka 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to revert. And the middle ground is SlimVirgin's version. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is evidence - eyewitness accounts from multiple individuals, reported by multiple journalists (not just Enderlin), attesting to the killing of the boy and the wounding of the father. Not even the Israeli army or government has disputed that he was killed. But that's irrelevant - we're not here to find "the truth", we're here to report what reliable sources say, without putting undue weight on minority viewpoints or violating BLP by calling living persons liars. Now, rather than just making sweeping "I don't like it" comments, perhaps you could say what specifically you object to? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I specifically object to each of your changes to Slim's version, with the one exception I mentioned above. Her version is a compromise and should have been left alone. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin's version is a starting point, as are all good-faith edits. Don't forget, Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. We don't "leave alone" contributions - we try to improve them if we think there are improvements to be made. Remember what Elonka said above. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that BLP covers Muhammad as well. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly we don't have a policy on Biographies of persons claimed by conspiracy theorists to be living... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it would sure help if we did -- WP:BLP(?). I actually had high hopes when Elonka suggested we should try and wordsmith our way out of this one. But we've just been talking in circles about policy interpretation. So let's try this:

The French page, which is a model of unparanoid sobriety, registers, for what it was worth, that Reuters filmed the boy's body in the morgue.

'Le 18 novembre 2004, suite à l’extension de la polémique, France 2 diffuse toujours en privé des images tournées au même moment par une équipe de Reuters, des images du cadavre de l’enfant à la morgue ainsi que des images récentes du père de l’enfant montrant ses blessures. Elle maintient sa position et annonce également avoir porté plainte contre X pour diffamation.'</(blockquote>

For those interested, there are several other tidbits there that might be adapted for this English page. (such as the Israel Law Centre asking the Supreme Court of that country to cancel or withdraw both Enderlin and Talal Abou Rahma's accreditations as journalists Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. It would be good to find that Reuters footage, and to know who exactly filmed it, when and where. SlimVirgin 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The note to the morgue item is in the following link on the French page .Hope it works Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked it out myself because my computer took donkey's ages to half-load it, but that is probably my problem.

Focus on interests, not positions

I think that I noticed we were talking in circles when I saw the moon landing mentioned for the 14th time. I think the problem is we can't see the forest beyond the trees. We need to take a step back. It looks like my browser is currently displaying a 20,000 word disagreement about how we should weigh the last seven(ish) years of articles against a group of recent pieces (Slim Virgin's sources), the trial decision itself and, well, what some see as the apparent obvious truth.

Like I said above, I was hopeful when Elonka suggest that we wordsmith a solution to this one. But I think that this is a tough issue and we are an imperfect group of humans. It looks like it won't come easy. I think that before we can start to bridge our differences, we need to know what they are and reconcile that they might co-exist on the page.

I didn't enjoy it but I did take undergrad mediation. As you can see from the section heading, I did read Getting to Yes. So I'd like to know what people want, rather than hearing which policies they think other users are violating. So could you please say so below, without commenting on other users ideas for now. When we know what everyone wants, we can start to think of ways to make something work for everyone. *crosses fingers for luck* --JGGardiner (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I think that looks like a good start. Unfortunately it looks like Chris is blocked from the talk page for now so it may be a little bit difficult to proceed for the moment. That does, however, give the rest of us an opportunity for some introspection and time to consider the points that have been raised. I think that we're actually not as far apart as all of the text above might make it seem.

Moving forward, I think the next step is for dialogue. In a real mediation I’d want everyone to honestly consider the concerns expressed by the other editors and think about how they could be fulfilled. That might mean incorporating or removing things from the article or it could just be calming their worries. I know that it is easy to simply dismiss other opinions as violating policy and it may come to that but for now we should think of reasonable alternatives that don’t violate policy. I know this sounds like the kind of thing that we'd have already done mentally but sometimes it is to counter another user's argument without really considering the concerns which prompted it. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

JGGardiner, I really appreciate your attempts to mediate here. Misplaced Pages can always use more mediators! If you'd like to set up a separate page for mediation, ChrisO would be free to participate there, as currently his ban only applies to the article and its talkpage. I recommend looking at something such as WP:MEDCAB, which allows for informal mediation. More formal mediation is also available at WP:MEDCOM. --Elonka 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't really trying to mediate per se; I just thought that some mediation techniques might help us get the ball rolling again. I think that creating a mediation page sounds like a good idea. I would like for Chris to be involved as well. But I don't have much mediation experience and none at all with Misplaced Pages. Maybe somebody a little more knowledgeable than I am should handle that. But I'd be happy to give a try myself if nobody else wants to do that. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the instructions at WP:MEDCAB, it's fairly straightforward to open a case, I'd start there. --Elonka 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia1987

We are dealing here with a case in which 1/2 of the world think it is a true news story and the other half thinks this is the biggest staged fabricated story. In between those we must keep NPOV – which means that we can not use the photos from this "news" story or the story itself as facts we must present them as what they are: One sided view with an alternative view which claim it is a fabrication.

We can not judge between the two – all we can is bring each side, each "evidence" or what is claimed as evidence. That is it. The reader will decide ... . --Julia1987 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

Thank you for the constructive question, JGG. I would like to see a well-written, nuanced article that succinctly addresses all the questions a reader immediately thinks of (insofar as these have been addressed by reliable sources): (a) who actually witnessed the incident, (b) who else was present, (c) who has seen the tape, (d) what does the last scene of the footage show, (e) why did the tape end there, (e) who saw the boy's injuries, (f) was there an autopsy, and if not, why not, (g) where and when was he buried and who was present, (h) was there any forensic evidence, and if not, why not, (i) what were the political consequences?

I'd like to see these issues addressed within a narrative that flows naturally and intelligently, describing the incident as reported at the time, then as reported later on. I'd like to see it written sensitively, bearing in mind that, if the boy died as France 2 described, it is deeply offensive to his family to imply otherwise. But we should also bear in mind, with each sentence we write, that if he didn't die as described (or even didn't die at all), this is a major media scandal that led to many deaths on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, because the stories about the boy helped to fuel the Second Intifada.

The alternative theories can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories, because there are too many serious commentators with doubts about France 2's reporting. The writing needs to be such that we don't endorse the France 2 view, but also don't undermine it by weaving the shadow of the alternative theories throughout the entire article. That will take a lot of careful wordsmithing. SlimVirgin 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO

The conspiracy theories have certainly attracted a small (emphasize small) degree of support from commentators in a small (emphasize small) number of mainstream sources. This is a very long way from saying that they have any kind of widespread mainstream support. As I've said ad nauseum on this talk page, only a relatively small number of mainstream sources have even mentioned the conspiracy theory, let alone spoken out in support of it. You will have noticed that only a small number of mainstream sources bothered to report on the recent verdict. If it's such a "major media scandal", how come it's only been covered by a minority of media outlets? Several editors, not just myself, have repeatedly pointed out that policy - heck, Jimmy Wales himself - tells us that we cannot treat minority viewpoints as deserving as much attention as a majority view. That is a standing, non-negotiable rule.

I'm certainly not arguing for endorsing anyone's POV but let's not beat about the bush. This controversy is being driven primarily by right-wing activists for overtly political reasons. As a Guardian report has put it, "For some of Israel's supporters, a primary aim of their war on the web is an attempt to discredit what they see as hostile foreign media reports, especially those containing iconic visual images. One particular target has been the respected French TV correspondent, Charles Enderlin." Let's not forget that Enderlin himself has been the target of death threats and vilification like this edit. We cannot allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a tool in an ongoing political campaign, particularly if that involves violating our most basic principles. As long as we can agree on that point, I'm happy to work with you in good faith to ensure that the article is as comprehensive and fair as we can make it.

Regarding SlimVirgin's comments about structuring the article, I have some reservations about the points that she mentions. I notice that virtually all of the points she mentions relate to issues raised by the conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure it's appropriate to delve that deeply - after all, we're trying to write a summary overview with links to relevant reliable sources, not a thesis describing every possible point. We are not in the business of trying to determine the "truth" about this affair, despite what some editors apparently believe. I think it would be appropriate to get some input from others on how much detail we should include, and to that end I've posted a request for advice on the fringe theories noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you call it a "conspiracy theories" show how far are you yourself a representative of a fringe view. In the name of this view you have edit-war endlessly and disrupted this aerticle ever since the verdict in france was announced. There is no other alternative but to suggest that you will be banned from this article so that others will be able to edit it and get an updated version based on the most recent sources. --Julia1987 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That kind of language is just not helpful on the talk page. If you have a problem with something specific that another editor says, try to let them know only that. If we want to make progress on the article we are going to have to work together. I think that it would be a good start if we could all respect the other editors even if we disagree with them. I think that everyone here is working for what they feel are the best interests for the article and the project. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to secong JGG here, Julia (with repect), and ask you to help lower the temperature. I know it's a highly emotional issue, but all the more reason, really, to hew to AGF. I'd also like to suggest that Elonka has a good idea in terms of mediation. Neutral (and deliberative) opinions are often a breath of fresh air. IronDuke 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved from the prior section

I think ChrisO suggestion that people will actually read WP:NPOV is great one as he needs to be the first to follow his own advice.--Julia1987 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you by "1/2 of the world" you refer to 50% then you are so very wrong. The number of people believing in the conspiracy theories is utterly small seen on a global scale. It's just some highly vocal conspiracy theorist on the far right. // Liftarn (talk)

Comment - would be best to stop calling either the Talal/Enderlin or the Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian perspectives as conspiracies. Stick to the known facts and let the readers decide. Jaakobou 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that they can't be dismissed as 9/11-type conspiracy theories. They should be dismissed as "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theories. // Liftarn (talk)

I would appreciate if everyone could keep focused on actual changes to the article. If there is disagreement on specific text, then please suggest different text, or make changes yourself, if they are in line with the current #Conditions for editing. --Elonka 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What is not clear in the words "no reverts" ?

is a revert. it is followed by a misleading edit summary: "self-rv - sorry," which did not restored back any of the reverted info: . Elkona: You either enforce your own rules or this article will again have to be protected. I am sure that some editors would prefer protection – as long as they can make sure that the protected version fits their fringe minority view about "conspirac theories" etc… --Julia1987 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you check User talk:ChrisO, it can be seen that I'd already banned him for that. Now, I'd appreciate if everyone could get back to discussing the article, instead of other editors. If there are further concerns about someone's behavior, please take them to my talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

?

"The incident became the subject of controversy when... (conspiracy theories follow)". This is quite clearly wrong. The incident was already massively controversial long before the "is he dead?" questions arose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the problem on this page is that there is an editorial attempt to write down what is believed by the mainstream views as "truth" while I'm not so certain that the mainstream media has made a conclusive decision to what is the truth. There are two "blood libel/conspiracy" perspectives/narratives here. The Talal/Jamal version: "The Israelis shot at the boy intentionally for 45 minutes and wouldn't stop killing him in cold blood" and the Shahaf/Karcenty version: "Talal and Jamal are lying and the scene is clearly staged. There are no bullets and the boy is moving - it's even possible to say that he was not killed". At least, this is my perception of both "conspiracy" allegations. Thoughts?
p.s. I hear the father is claiming he is planning on suing Israel, now that he's being accused of lying (by showing scars from the past), and suggesting he's got "great surprises in store". Personally, I can't see any new evidence coming from exhuming the body of the boy 8 years later (assuming that's his "great surprise"), but I'm not a forensics expert. Jaakobou 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
p.p.s. I think editors here should stop using the word 'conspiracy' since it degrades the quality of the debate. Jaakobou 10:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not sure I do agree with that framing of the debate. There are far more questions. Did the Israelis kill him intentionally? Or was it an accident during a shootout? Or were the Israelis the only ones with guns? Or did the Palestinians kill him during a shootout? Or did they do so intentionally to frame the Israelis? Lastly, did anyone kill him at all? Our article devotes a massive amount of space to the last question, when all the others have received just as much - and probably more - investigation and reporting. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Were the Israelis the only ones with guns?" - I'm not aware that this was even raised as a possibility. Maybe I haven't read the article for a long period, but is the last question really getting too much space? (linkme please) Jaakobou 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's in the Atlantic Monthly article that's linked to in the references section. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • My goodness, isn't this a bit of too much weight to 'James Fallows' attacking Shahaf (possible BLP breach)? Fallows seems to be changing Shahaf's points as he attacks them and he is just a regular reporter no? certainly non of the documentaries or the people at the scene even suggest that there weren't any armed Palestinian militants at the scene so if he makes this into an actual point, I would promote that we exclude it being that no one else even suggests this while others report a different account. Jaakobou 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that to suggest that Al Durrah is not dead, and that a whole bunch of people including his friends and family, the Palestinian and Jordanian medical services and the world's media are somehow concealing this fact fits the definition of "conspiracy theory" perfectly. And Jaakobou the nature of what is in dispute has been explained endlessly above, by myself and others - there is no serious doubt in mainstream news reports as to whether he is dead or not. There is doubt as to who might have fired the actual bullets that killed him, ie was it the IDF as initially claimed by France 2? If so, was that deliberate? Or alternatively was it Palestinian gunfire that killed him? It's not as simple as one version against another, and no-one here has ever attempted to say that the mainstream media has made a "conclusive decision" as to what actually happened - and I repeat that point here for the benefit of editors who keep avoiding it and/or pretending that the article does not reflect that debate. And also of course, writing to what mainstream reliable sources say is not an "editorial attempt" to find the "truth", it's just Misplaced Pages policy. I don't know what the truth is. Other editors here seem to think they do and are trying to give that version huge and undue prominence in the article, based on their own analysis of what they've seen on Youtube, or on what they've read in blogs and a couple of op-eds. --Nickhh (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I disagree that the media has not expressed doubts that "whether he is dead or not." I've seen quite a number of reports that sound like "Initially reported that XXX, but now we hear that YYY". Regardless, and as I've stated before, the issue of his death is unimportant to both sides of the discussion - one alleges Israeli intentional cruelty, and the other alleges Palestinian intentional fabrication, the living status is a side issue here, certainly when you put this story within the perspective of the entire conflict and all the casualties on both sides. I believe that both "conspiracy" allegations should be written as they are presented by both sides without us trying to determine which is the supposedly accepted version - I don't believe any of them were accepted anymore once the second perspective was raised.

p.s. I don't believe that the question of the boy's "possibly living" point made by the Shachaf/Karcenty/Enderlin side was really made as their main argument - to me it seemed like a side argument - something like: "with all the Palestinian lies we caught, we can't even be sure that the boy is actually dead". Shahaf did some actual exploration into raising this as remote/dubious/conspiracy/etc. possibility which is more than we can say to Enderlin before he agreed with his stinger cameraman's "evil J00s", "they kept shooting and shooting at them" version. Anyways, I'm certainly not suggesting that the boy is alive, but rather suggesting we focus on what each side alleges and write the article with both "conspiracy/blood-libel" narratives without writing as though the global media decided which story is correct. Jaakobou 12:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Once more ....It's not as simple as one version against another, and no-one here has ever attempted to say that the mainstream media has made a "conclusive decision" as to what actually happened - and I repeat that point here for the benefit of editors who keep avoiding it and/or pretending that the article does not reflect that debate.--Nickhh (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe I read your earlier comment wrong, but I believe it said: "there is no serious doubt in mainstream news reports as to whether he is dead or not." which was a statement that I disagreed with. I therefore explained my disagreement and reiterated my suggestion to change the focus of the article. I also believe that the "Israeli conspiracy theories" version is more subtle than you have chosen to present it and that there is an actual research behind it, unlike the "Palestinian blood-libel fabrications" version (I'd prefer if we stop the "conspiracy" language). Jaakobou 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did say that there is no serious doubt about his death, that's precisely the point. Yes some people - none of who are forensic analysts or were present at the scene - have questioned whether he is dead, but they are by definition conspiracy theorists, since (as I also pointed out above) it would require a conspiracy of silence to keep the secret. However there is widespread doubt about how he died and exactly what happened that day, as is reflected in most media coverage and hence in this article. Can I stop repeating this point now? --Nickhh (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, who exactly is questioning that MaD is dead? Please show me some unambiguous quotes to that effect. Beit Or 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not very many people at all. That's the point, it's a fringe theory that some editors here seem to believe and want to have given equal weight to in this article, as if it were a valid point of view. --Nickhh (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, who are these people, if they exist? Name names and provide quotes. Beit Or 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Best I'm aware, this is not a main point in the raised arguments and only made as a side comment with Shahaf explaining on why he's willing to suggest something so unexpected. However, I believe this side point has been raised by enough people that the media is actually repeating this suggestion (without taking sides). Jaakobou 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We've still got plenty of op-eds and partisan sources being used as references, something else I'm not especially pleased about. FrontPage magazine, for instance apparently runs a "Jihad Watch" (Obama is a Muslim, and hence a clear threat to the Constitution!) and so is clearly a good and fair source for Israeli-Palestinian issues. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From Jihad Watch: "And that's why the mounting evidence that he was indeed known as a Muslim in his youth in Indonesia matters -- not because of some paranoid fantasy that Obama is a Manchurian candidate, a secret Muslim who will tell Americans on January 20, 2009, "Surprise! I'm imposing Sharia!" (I have never credited any of that nonsense) -- but because it raises questions about his honesty." In addition, FrontPage Magazine, which is affiliated with David Horowitz, does not run the Jihad Watch, which is affiliated with Robert Spencer (though neither of them qualifies as a reliable source). This is off-topic, of course, but doing some reading before arguing never hurts. Beit Or 12:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see new editors, or ones that have previously participated on this page but have gone missing for a week or so, comment on this page at this point in time without bothering to get fully up to speed on what has been discussed and presented so far. Editors claiming "there is no serious doubt about his death ", or asking 'who exactly is questioning that MaD is dead?' are invited to read the section above, "Sources from Slim Virgin", which lists 20+ reliable sources, from Ha'aretz to Aftenposten, all of which either express doubts, or directly say "the video is a likely hoax". Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this page is scrolling very fast. Some of the heavily involved editors are definitely keeping up with things "edit by edit", but others are just going to dip in with occasional comments. In such cases, it's better to just give them a polite pointer to what they may wish to be aware of, rather than chastising anyone for not reading the several hundred K of archives. --Elonka 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because I haven't contributed to discussion for a week doesn't mean I haven't been reading it you know (I like the rather grand idea as well that everything's now been sorted out, that you've been proven right and I'm just, like, way behind). I also looked through most of the posted sources at the time anyway, and as discussed back then most of them do not quite make the point you want them to make. Yes some of them discuss the hoax theory, but virtually none - even the op-eds - explicitly endorse it.--Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a way of improving the tone of the discussions here, I encourage everyone to place posts in the third-person (avoid the words "you" and "your"). Also, for best results, it would be preferable if all comments could be focused on specific changes to the article, especially with specific suggestions on wording. Thanks, --Elonka 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nature of conspiracy theory

Can I ask, please (again), that people stop referring to other views as "conspiracy theories"? A conspiracy theory is something that can't be proven false no matter what evidence is produced, because it keeps evolving to accommodate any new evidence. It is an ideology, a cognitive error.

In this case, there is no evidence, and never was. What is being alleged by journalists in France who have looked into this carefully is that the France 2 story was, at best, poorly presented — because when Enderlin said the boy was dead he apparently did not know it to be true; and when he said the IDF had shot him, he had no reason to say that; and when he said the raw footage had been cut to avoid the boy's "death throes," it transpires the footage had never shown any death throes — and that this poor presentation continued after the fact, and continues today, with the cameraman laughing when asked if any bullets were found, and with bits of the tape even going missing. To raise serious questions about these very serious discrepancies, in a situation where people have died because of this tape, is not what it is to be a conspiracy theorist. SlimVirgin 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no, a conspiracy theory is a theory that there was some secret conspiracy among a group of people to do something that is then kept hidden, as part of that conspiracy, from the unsuspecting public. In this case, that is the idea that some Palestinians and France 2 plotted together to pretend that this boy was killed, to produce fake video evidence of that and then to broadcast it - and throughout all the years that followed to conceal the "fact" that he is in fact alive and well and now living in Ramallah or wherever. This is what some people are claiming happened. They are not simply noting a couple of discrepancies or "raising questions", they are constructing theories around those questions. And claiming that people have died purely because of this tape - which is a questionable assertion anyway - does not of course make any difference as to whether they are conspiracy theories or not. --Nickhh (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A "conspiracy theory" involves more than just a bunch of people doing something, or being alleged to have done something, and keeping it quiet. Iran-Contra, for example, is not a conspiracy theory. A "conspiracy theory" is a narrative — usually a secret plot by powerful conspirators — with an epistemological flaw, namely that nothing can contradict it, because it evolves to incorporate its inconsistencies. It is a closed system. What we have here is a controversy, not a conspiracy theory.

BTW, there is no need to involve France 2 in any of this, except that they have not been as open or as rigorous as they could. The maximalist claim is that the cameraman, a local freelance, was involved, not France 2. SlimVirgin 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is not tantamount to a logical fallacy, and it isn't necessarily non-falsifiable. The idea that the al-Durrah death is a "hoax" alleges complicity and cover-up at multiple levels, and it's been propounded by a small number of marginal and ideological pundits, many of whom have taken to using an ethnic slur ("Pallywood") to allege a larger phenomenon of which this is supposedly an instance. Calling this a "conspiracy theory" is fair comment – debatable, of course, but fair comment.

But the term certainly isn't necessary to make the (extremely important) point that ChrisO was making before he was temporarily banned from this article – to wit, that letting the marginal theory of a "hoax" piggyback onto more general criticism of France 2's handling of the al-Durrah episode violates WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with WP:UNDUE, of course, is that it assumes that there is a consensus as to how much weight to give a particular theory or view of events. No such consensus exists here. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead, yet again

Per Elonka's suggestion above, back to some specific changes to the article. The lead, post ChrisO's edits, reads much differently than the last version which appeared to have a consensus (or at least, a plurality of editors supporting it) - which was Slim Virgin's. One element that was present in Slim Virgin's version but is missing form the current lead is the issue of the FT 2 footage - 57 seconds published out of 3 minutes released out of a total of 27 filmed, and subsequently the refusal of FT 2 to release the rest of the footage, until the recent court case. I propose we re-introduce SV's summary of this important fact, which contributed to the controversy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is felt that the lead would be strengthened with this information, and it complies with WP:LEAD, go ahead and put the information in (while of course ensuring that it is kept scrupulously sourced). However, rather than "restoring SlimVirgin's wording", I recommend trying to find a slightly different way of saying it, which keeps things neutral and addresses some of the other concerns that have been raised, which caused it to be removed by someone else. --Elonka 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that significant, and certainly not significant enough for the lead. It's kind of obvious that broadcast news reports use edited and cut down versions of what was originally filmed. What happened in this case is that people pushing the "hoax" theory have siezed on this totally normal practice as if it were evidence that somehow backs up their allegations (ie that France 2 were hiding something). Putting that in the lead gives tacit backing to that claim. It only needs mentioning as part of the broader detail, further down. --Nickhh (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is of course common to use edited and cut down versions of what was originally filmed. It is not common to refuse to release the unedited footage when it is requested, and it is not common to edit the raw footage so as to completely eliminate the context - which in this case was 20+ minutes of staged scenes and play acting. But this is really not about what you and I think is common practice, but about what reliable sources say about th editing. If reliable sources say that France 2's editing was problematic and contributed to the controversy - I don't see why we wouldn't mention it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the footage, and who saw what, is essential to this article. France 2 filmed for 27 minutes. Of these, only 59 seconds were shown, purportedly including the boy's death. The media was given access to three minutes. The scenes shown did not include the scene with the boy moving at the end. Enderlin said this was to spare the audience the boy in "agony" or his "death throes." Two senior, independent French journalists were given access to the whole 27 minutes in 2005. They said that there was no agony, and there were no death throes. So far as I know, France 2 has never explained this discrepancy. The journalists also said it was obvious that, before the scenes of the shooting, Palestinians were play-acting at being injured.

Then, in 2008, the Paris Court of Appeal asked to view those 27 minutes. However (if I have understood things correctly), nine minutes of the tape has apparently been destroyed, and only 18 minutes could be found for the court. This in itself is very unusual. News organizations do not destroy parts of sensitive footage that court cases hinge on, and that journalists all over the world want to view.

What is also odd is why there is nothing on the tape that shows what happened to the boy after the shooting -- no scenes showing his removal to an ambulance, no one shown tending to him, nothing. Or if there is, I have not seen or read about it.

There are basically two views, what journalists are calling the minimalist and maximalist views. The former is that there may have been a shooting and the boy may indeed have died, but there is something fishy about the way France 2 filmed and presented it, and there is no evidence that the shots came from the IDF. The maximalist view is that it was entirely staged with the cooperation of the cameraman. Both these views hinge on the doubts surrounding the footage, so not even to touch on those issues in the lead would be obtuse of us. SlimVirgin 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant to the lead. The lead has to say there is a dispute about the accuracy of the reporting, and then it can expand on why, and the arguments of those who are challenging the authenticity (which as you've summarised them above are pretty weak, but that's another point), in the main body of the article. This is more or less what it does currently. I don't think we need the detail about what is or isn't in the video itself right from the start. --Nickhh (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But we should restore that 59 seconds were broadcast, three minutes distributed, 27 minutes in total filmed. SlimVirgin 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Video of doctor

Someone raised a question about the video of the doctor that Julia1987 wanted to use as a source, saying it couldn't be used because we didn't know the original source or when it was broadcast.

I believe this is the original, which was broadcast on Israel's Channel 10 on December 13, 2007. It's an interview with a doctor saying he treated Jamal al-Durrah in 1994 for the injuries the latter says were sustained in the 2000 shooting. SlimVirgin 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a link to the same interview on another website that Julia1987 added. SlimVirgin 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag at the top

What is it doing there? There is no consensus that this person is still alive, and, as it has been pointed out above, this article is not actually a biography. Beit Or 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's there to remind us that Phillip Karsenty, Richard Landes, Nidra Poller, Steve Silver and other are living people, and that editors should be very very careful about smearing them as "right wing fantasists", "loony conspiracy theorists" and other similar terms that seem to be used quite liberally on this talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

and Charles Enderlin, Talal Abu Rahma, and Jamal al-Durrah...--G-Dett (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Making of a martyr", The Guardian, October 3, 2000.
2. "Framing the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", Tamar Liebes & Anat First, in Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, eds. Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, Marion R. Just. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415947189
3. ^ Carvajal, Doreen. "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", International Herald Tribune, Monday, February 7 2005.
4. Enderlin, Charles. "Non à la censure à la source", ("No to censorship at the source") Le Figaro, January 27, 2005. Reproduced on the site of Kol Shalom].
5. "Eyewitness: Anger and mourning in Gaza", BBC News, October 4, 2000.
6. Gelernter, David. "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12 2005.
7. "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", BBC News, October 1, 2000
8. "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy". New York Times, November 28, 2000
9. Elkaim, Stephane. "French TV station wins al-Dura case", The Jerusalem Post, October 20, 2006.
10. Durand-Souffland, Stéphane. "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada". Le Figaro, October 20, 2006.
11. Robert-Diard, Pascale. "Reportage enfant Palestinien; Charles Enderlin et France 2 gagnent leur procès". Le Monde, October 20, 2006.
12. Glick, Caroline. "Our World: Prime-time blood libels", The Jerusalem Post, October 23 2006.
13. "Al-Durra case revisited", Wall Street Journal Europe, May 28, 2008.
14. "Reportage sur la mort d'un enfant palestinien: Charles Enderlin débouté en appel", Libération, May 21, 2008.

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Biography articles of living people