Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1

• Note: moving some material here from the main page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter

Comment: I expect to be supporting this candidate but could you please address the following points first.

• Lede: The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place in the Palestinian territories on September 30, 2000. with something as disjoint as the territories, I think it would be natural to say it took place in the Gaza Strip and then mention the Palestinian Territories as a whole when the 2nd Intafada comes up.

• As the images were broadcast around the world, Muhammad was hailed as a Palestinian martyr and icon, and the Israeli army was condemned. The footnote only talks about Muhammad's martyr status. Not the condemnation. I would hope at least an indication on who did the condemning. Just Palestinian supporters or did this include Western governments or mainstream centre-right media such as Le Figaro or The Times?
  • I'm still unsure about the range of people who condemned Israel. "Widespread" could mean anything. Obviously the Arab world condemned Israel, but I don't know whether and which Western politicians or media did so. Was it just left-leaning ones who normally criticise Israel? Did it include center-right ones who normally don't. If press publiched condemnations, were they in leader sections putting over the papers' official stances or in opinion pieces where the authors don't necessarilly speak for the paper? Did the UNSC pass a related motion? This needs elaboration. If there were a paragraph in the body, then this could explain the sentence in the lead.

• The criticism was widespread. It caused a "furore worldwide," according to The Guardian. [1] It was played on all major networks in the U.S. and was on the front page of the New York Times. [2] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find a source that explicitly talks about widespread condemnation, so I've removed it. [3] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Background: It felt a bit jerky to me switching from the immediate history of the past few days to profiling the journalists involved. Perhaps a sparate heading for the two types of background?
  • Thanks for addressing this. I'm not quite sure of "Politics" as a heading. Reading again it appears that while the conventionally the Intafada is said to have started with Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, there was already trouble in the preceding days. The heading "Netzarim Junction" makes it seem that the incidents happenned there. Did they? Or has background material covering a wider area crept in?

• There was sporadic trouble before the visit, and a lot of trouble after it. It's the violence that took place after it that is termed the Second Intifada. It happened across the Palestinian territories. The Netzarim Junction, where the al-Durrah incident took place, was particularly troubled, because it was near an Israeli settlement. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Muhammad, born in 1988, was a fifth grade student, Fifth grade means nothing to me. Explain or at least link somewhere an explanation can be found.
  • The link says nothing about the set up in the Paletstian territories. Education in Palestine is probably a better link.

Done. [4] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The shooting Enderlin's report was first broadcast on France 2's nightly news at 8:00 pm local on September 30." The sudden mention of the date makes it sound as if it might be a different day. Make clear it's the same day. Also 8:00 pm local presumably means French time. I suggest replacing "local" with the time zone and then include the equivalent Palestinian time compared with the "1500 hours" in the quote.
  • France is 1 hour ahead of the UK. And I think both would be on summertime then. So the 8.00pm would be on GMT+2.

Thanks, added it. [5] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Controversy:two alternative narratives have emerged, the so-called "minimalist" and "maximalist" narratives. So-called by whom?
  • Please reference an author who uses those terms.

• I added one name in-text as an example. [6] The ref is at the end of that para. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• IDF investigation:they had blamed instead a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, Israel's president. He wasn't president at the time of the assassination, was he? Give an indication of what post he held.

• Personal and political impact Some journalists in France say Enderlin—who has faced death threats Ref for death threats, please.

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I think these edits] deal with most of your concerns, except that I'm not sure about France and GMT or summer time; will have to check. Otherwise, I added new subheads in the background section, linked to fifth grade, clarified that it's commentators who talk about minimalist/maximalist, added what Peres was at the time, added ref for death threats, added Gaza Strip to first sentence, made clear that the condemnation was widespread. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi SV, see further comments above. I've struck some of the points as fully addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You have anow ddressed everything I raised. Once I see where the POV issue is going and once any substantial rewrites have happenned, I'll come back again. Do feel free to prompt me on my talk page if you think I may have forgotten about this.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt 1

Comments I'm not certain whether to support or oppose. I'd note these things offhand, though:

• It is not customary to put cites in the lede, since the lede is a summary of the article and it is assumed that anything in the lede will be cited further down in the article. I am however, concerned by the "acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag." in lede. I see someone wrote that. Who is saying, however, that it acquired that significance? That strikes me as synthesis. Additionally, the word "inevitably" strikes me as an OR argument.

• Hi Wehwalt, the source is Doreen Carvajal in The New York Times: "But it is the harrowing image of a single terrified 12-year-old boy, shielded in his father's futile embrace, that possesses the iconic power of a battle flag." [7]

• Thanks for the quote, but one writer saying it does not equal "acquired". As a suggestion, since I'm probably not going to be the only one making similar comments, you might want to be proactive and use the "quote=" parameter in references. If you put the original quote in, it might forstall a lot of questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the quote to the footnote. I'm not quite following your point about "acquired." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though my point was you might want to put quotes in more generally, for the ease of reviewers, since there are likely going to be more question. You say that the incident "acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag". That is a somewhat broader statement than "one writer called the incident as having the iconic power of a battle flag". The jump in there is what I see as a bit of OR. It may simply be rhetoric, but it looks like there is a considerable expansion from the source. I should add that the fact that one writer says it doesn't make it some sort of a general theme, please see WP:UNDUE. I'd also similary question the Dreyfus reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as an expansion, sorry. And it is very much a general theme. These images became extremely powerful. All I have done with those particular words is use a nice turn of phrase from one mainstream writer, but that doesn't mean that only she would argue that. I doubt there is a single commentator on this issue, on any side, who wouldn't argue it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount: I question the need for this paragraph. However, if you are going to put this in there, you should probably include Israeli arguments that the visit had nothing to do with the outbreak of the insurrection. Now, I notice that you simply say "followed". That's a problem; if the two events had nothing to do with each other (the Yankees' World Series triumph followed Halloween), it should be omitted, if you are saying (and you are, I think) that there is a connection, you need to put all signifcant points of view to be NPOV.

• It's not something we want to get into, which is why we wrote that it was viewed as a provocation and violence followed it. It leaves the rest of the issue open. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• By mentioning it, you've gotten into it. If it is post hoc ergo promper hoc, then it should be left out. If there is relevance, all major points of view need to be included. There is a significant school of thought that Sharon's visit was a pretext for the rioting, not the cause. Take it out or be complete, you decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority view -- I would say the overwhelming majority -- is that Sharon's visit was connected to the violence, and it's beyond dispute that it directly preceded it. I think the balance of that paragraph is about right, given that we have no further space for it. It would be odd to leave it out entirely, given that it was the context of this incident, and the main sources do mention it as part of the context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think one sentence excessive, and you could no doubt easily find it by a google search.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• You refer to Suzanne Goldenberg as "Susan".

Fixed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Given Goldenberg's er, perspective on the mideast conflict, I would be looking for points of views which balance hers. Perhaps you can point out some. I would also note that foreign language references, while certainly usable, should bear notes stating what language they are in.

• Which perspective of hers in the article would you like to see balanced? I think we only used her for factual points. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Of course, the way in which facts are presented is balanced by one's perspective ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am profoundly troubled by the "Personal and political impact" section, which seems rather slanted. I note as an example, "On the other side, the French news programm, Jeudi Investigation, attributes the controversy to radical pro-Israeli commentators, for whom al-Durrah is an unbearable symbol, and their determined use of the Web to undermine Enderlin's report." Radical pro-Israeli commentators? If the source is calling them that, and stating that al-Durrah is an unbearable symbol, that needs to be spelled out.

Yes, it is the source saying that, so far as I know. I did not add that particular material, so I'll double check. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly suggest the proper use of inline attribution and quotation marks there, then. You could save a lot of bother by spending time now and using the "quote=" parameter in references to let us know what the quotes say, especially when the source is offline.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are other instances of OR and synthesis in the article; several sentences in a row on apparently different topics, but apparently being sourced to the final sentence's cite, but it is all rather unclear. I'm not going to make a judgment at present, but await other commentators, and perhaps this will be cleared up. If it isn't, I will probably oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• How is the ambulance driver leaving a widow and 11 children relevant to anything here?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it because there were two people reported to have been killed in that incident, two families badly affected, but most reports only talk about one of them. I felt it was important not to leave the driver's family unmentioned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The death of an ambulance driver might indeed seem shocking, but is it worth mentioning the use of ambulances and other vehicles bearing red cross insignia by the Palestinians to move fighters in the past?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any source mentioned that regarding the driver's death. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there are too many fair use images being used. Isn't the diagram, File:Diagram with cameraman's affidavit.JPG capable of being replaced by a user-created diagram? I'll stop firing now and await further responses.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, we'd be able to replace the diagrams, but the cameraman's diagram is part of the story, so I wanted to use the original. A Wikipedian did make a copy, which I can use if this becomes an issue, but it wasn't exactly the same. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing more, for now. I'm a bit taken aback by the background sections which state extensively the qualifications, writings, and awards of the reporter and photographer. Isn't it sufficient to link to their articles and let the interested reader decide? Since, to be blunt, their credibility is at stake in the article, it looks a bit like bolstering their credibility if you go into such detail about them and their awards and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to write in such a way that readers don't have to go back and forth between articles to work out what I'm saying, which is part of the reason for describing the players in some detail. Addressing your point, I think it's important when someone's credibility is at the centre of the story to add something about their expertise. Enderlin is one of France's most distinguished journalists. This suggests two things, depending on your POV: (a) he could be expected to know what he was doing, but also (b) it might be harder for him to admit a mistake, and harder for the French establishment to take issue with him. So who he is is crucial to how this story evolved, which is touched on again in the Personal and political impact section at the end. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that you attach the short paragraph about the controversy about the father's wounds to where his treatment is discussed, rather than sending readers down the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We wrote it that way deliberately for two reasons: (1) we have written out the story as it was first reported, and then later we report which bits of it became controversial. We did in that way to retain the structure of the different narratives: the first reportage versus the later. And (2) the view that there is a problem with the father's injuries is a minority one, with only one IDF-related source, and arguably a tiny-minority one. There are some editors who felt it did not belong in the article at all. For that reason, it was appropriate to keep it entirely in the Controversy section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple more things:

• You say in the lede "Israel accepted responsibility" In reading the article, I see one Israeli officer stating that the shots were apparently fired by Israelis, but being countermanded by another officer. That does not seem to equal a country "accepting responsibility", whatever that means. Also, it looks like in The Age, there was discussion of the distance between the Israel position and the place where the boy and his father were. The Age seemed to think that the distance of 200 metres was understated. I see no discussion of distances in this article, and the photographer's diagram would make most people think that they were on opposite corners of an intersection, i.e., a relatively short distance.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The IDF accepted responsibility at first and apologized. Others within the IDF wished that had not happened. Regarding distance, the al-Durrahs were crouched kitty corner (diagonally across) from the IDF outpost, as the diagrams show. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One IDF officer does not constitute a military force or a country taking responsibility. "wished that had not happened"? Strange way of putting it. It strikes me that giving a lot of attention to one officer who was later overruled is like giving more attention to a trial court's judgment than to the appeals court which overruled it. Is The Age incorrect when they say that the distance exceeded 200 metres and that both the Israelis and Palestinians were under fire at the time?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Age ends its article with "If nothing else, the surviving footage shows that the site of the killing was well more than 200 metres from the nearest Israeli position, and that the men shooting on both sides were under fire at the time." [8] It doesn't mention a source, and it contradicts what the cameraman said (80 metres), but I don't think the distance as such was ever an issue. Visibility was, and the angle of the shots was, but not the distance in itself, at least not with majority or significant-minority sources. I think The Age's point was simply that visibility might not have been good. Yes, it's correct that both sides were under fire. They were shooting at each other. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait others' comments before forming a judgment, though I am troubled.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The other reason Enderlin's background matters is that there's an argument from some sources, himself included, that it is in part in order to fell him that the Israeli commentators who criticize this story are so aggressive about it. Enderlin has long been a thorn in the side of certain political factions within Israel. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that in the article. Perhaps if Enderlin has been a matter of controversy for his political views, it needs to be mentioned alongside his legion d'honneur and the fact that he's Jewish. I'm continuing to see concerns elsewhere in the article. Like the image being a "potent weapon" against Israel. Surely that is a matter of opinion which should be attributed inline?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a brief paragraph to the Enderlin section, including that he arranged for some of the I/P peace talks to be held at France 2's offices. That serves to illustrate that he's an insider. [9] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that something about Enderlin should be added along those lines.

I think regarding some of your other points, I should add this. I take the NOR policy very seriously. I helped to write it, and I've helped to maintain it for several years. I was also the person who first added SYN, as I recall, so I take that seriously too. But it's clear from some of your comments that you take a stricter view of it. I don't like to see references after every sentence and part thereof. I don't agree that every word that someone might not have written themselves needs a source. Issues likely to be challenged (and it's assumed the challenges will be reasonable) and quotations must have reliable sources. That apart, I like to see editors allowed to edit, and writers allowed to write. I do a lot of background reading on the issues I write about, and I educate myself about them. I then write them up, based on that knowledge, doing my best to stick to the sources where it matters, and never straying too far from them. But I don't want to have to use their actual words, sentence after sentence. Too many I/P articles are written that way—quote after quote after quote—because people are scared to paraphrase. I didn't want this one to be written that way too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, of course. I do tend to be strict about such things. I think that in a very controversial article such as this, you need to watch every word and be rigid about the sourcing. I've been there, I was careful about every word on Jena Six. Please take my comments seriously as aimed at trying to get to a very fine, but neutral, article. You might have done better to seek a wider audience before FAC, such as PR, but it's here and we need to deal with it. I suspect there will be some more strident and less patient than me!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an extremely difficult article to find a balance on, like fighting with an octopus. We had multiple POVs represented on the talk page. Some editors felt that some of the minority views ought not to be mentioned at all, while others were saying those same views and sources ought to be in the lead. So -- highly disparate approaches, to put it mildly. Therefore, certain sentences, paragraphs and turns of phrase are the result of careful negotiation, or choosing the option that all or most could live with. I do take your point about I/P articles needing to be sourced carefully. But I also think that those articles tend to be overwritten, and neurotically so, including detail that no one other than partisans cares about or even understands. It often makes the articles unreadable. So while attention to detail is good, I very much want to avoid excessive attention to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure you will be able to avoid it. Well, let's see where it goes. It should be an interesting discussion!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed input, by the way. Even though I don't agree with it all, I do appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I obviously don't agree with everything in the article, but I'm sticking to the FA criteria in evaluating it. As a FA contributor, I'm trying to comment on one active FAC, and since Spiritual Machines got archived, this looks like the most interesting new one.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt 2

Oppose per WP:WIAFA, criteria 1(d) and also 1(c).

Please note that in this oppose , I do not mean to be accusatory. It is easy to let one's personal POV slip into an article. Possibly the way to guard against this would have been a peer review, which I still recommend for this article. No one is doing things intentionally or trying to slip one by us, and I do applaud the authors of this article for their hard work. That being said, I do not believe it meets FA criteria at this time.

The difficulties I list below are based only on my review of a small part of the cited references. I do not opine on what may be found in a fuller review. I am satisfied that there are serious 1(c) and 1(d) problems.

The main part of my oppose is under WIAFA criterion 1(d), neutrality, for the following reasons:

• I'm withdrawing my oppose. I'm satisfied that the other reviewers are raising enough issues that any question of POV will be addressed before the article passes, if it does. Please treat these as comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article goes to considerable trouble to build up one point of view (that the boy was most likely killed by the Israelis) at the expense of other points of view. Specifically, the second paragraph states with only slight qualification that it was Israel's fault. What SlimVirgin states in her nomination statement is now the majority view, that it is unknown who shot the boy, is buried in a laundry list of possibilities in the third paragraph under the general gamut of "offical and unofficial investigations".

• It is probably the majority view of people writing about the situation in the last couple of years. But that doesn't take into account that many of the journalists previously involved in the story have simply failed to comment on the new developments. So deciding what the majority view is is close to impossible. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I actually don't think the majority view has changed as much as SlimVirgin. Immediately following the incident, the vast majority of reports identified the Israeli soldiers as the shooters; eyewitnesses all still hold that to be the case. Since then, however, little reporting has been done on the incident, save a few articles by proponents of varying alternative theories for what happened. If you opened a modern day newspaper, you're more likely to see an article about an Elvis sighting than you are to read an article about his death. Does that mean that the majority opinion is now that Elvis is alive? No. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It contains a "background section" which discusses the professional qualifications of the newsman and photographer, an apparent means of bolstering their credibility. The section in question only contains positive information about them. Negative information on the photographer, that he has been found to have falisfied photographs in the past (present in sources) is not included. Negative information on the French reporter has to a very limited extent been included now, but there is considerable minimization apparently going on.

• Can you show me your source for saying the cameraman had falsified photographs in the past?

• I'm curious to see the source for this too. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't that what the appeals court judge found?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the closest thing to what you described is the appeals court judge overturning the lower courts ruling, noting that three journalists who had reviewed the raw footage alleged that it included unrelated scenes they thought were staged. To the best of my recollection, they described these scenes as Palestinians throwing rocks, then falling down, pretending to have been shot, and miraculously getting back up; the cameraman said the scenes showed them being shot with rubber bullets. But I'm unaware of any accusations of the cameraman falsifying photographs in the past—by the judge, or anyone else. It may have happened, and I simply don't remember, so a source would be helpful. ← George ^talk 13:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It states in the lede "Facing widespread condemnation, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) quickly accepted responsibility and apologized." This is sourced to an offline AP report. I managed to find a copy of it here and what it says is "In Jerusalem, a senior army officer said that the boy was apparently killed by Israeli fire. "This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about," Israeli Army chief of operations Giora Eiland told Israeli Radio yesterday. There is no mention of "widespread condemnation", and the characterization of Gen. Eiland's comments seems considerably broader in the candidate article than what the general actually said.

• I have removed "widespread condemnation," though anyone who recalls the incident will recall the widespread condemnation too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is this oral history or an encyclopedia?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looking past the lede to the body, the candidate article says in this regard, "Three days after the shooting, the Israeli army's chief of operations, Major-General Giora Eiland, apologized for the incident, saying the shots had apparently been fired by Israeli soldiers; the soldiers had been shooting from small slits in the wall, he said, and had not had a clear field of vision." It's possible that the candidate article authors were working from a more complete AP report than what I have, which lacks the slits in the walls part, but there still seems to be rather a variance from what is stated to what the general said. It might be wise if such characterizations were avoided in favor of quotes, given the concerns found in this oppose. The general did not apologize, he said he was sorry for it. There is a big difference there.

• He is reported by mainstream sources as having apologized. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• And others report his statement without so characterizing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• A second source is cited for this contention in the article, to the Orme article in the relevant passage seems to be "Three days later, Gen. Giora Eiland, the Israeli Army chief of operations, said, As far as we understand, the child was hit from our fire." No matter how you slice it, there is considerable poetic license, and not in a neutral way. This is somehow conflated into acceptances of responsibility and apologies. When confronted about this, SlimVirgin (see my previous dialogue with her) stated that Israeli officials "wished it (the supposed acceptance of responsibility) didn't happen".
• The authors of the article expand language taken from a single source, usually a commentary article, and generalize it to promote a point of view. One example is the statement in the lede that the image of the boy and the father "acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag". While the statement made by the writer is properly sourced, it does not say that it "acquired" anything, which is a much more generalized statement than the mere comparison in the column of the image to a battle flag.

• How could it have the power of a battle flag without having "acquired" that power? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand this argument, at all. You're harping on a single source, when numerous sources can be found to support the things you're identifying (Jerusalem Post, Feb 22, 2001 - "Although shortly afterwards the IDF accepted responsibility for Mohammed's death, some insiders felt this admission was rash and premature."; Sunday Herald, Nov 17, 2007 - "The al-Durra footage has already been the object of lengthy analysis, after the Israeli authorities first appeared to apologise for the boy's death..."). I think in some cases editors tried to limit the number of redundant sources, or to reword statements as not to plagiarize sources, but I wouldn't equate that to someone taking "considerable poetic license". ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since whether Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount caused the start of the infitada is a matter of dispute (see here), devoting a paragraph to it is POV, since the writers are thereby assuming a connection, and neglecting the opposite point of view, which is that the visit did not cause the intifada. Given what I can see is some difficulty at the Second Intifada article between the usual partisans which appears to have been compromised by bringing in two sets of sources on what caused the 2I, to bring that into this article with only one set is something of a POV fork.

• It is an overwhelmingly majority view that Sharon's visit triggered the Second Intifada. Whether it would have started anyway is anyone's guess, and we're not here to write alternative history, especially not about Sharon in this article, which isn't about Sharon. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't seem to be the view of the authors of the Second Intifada article, which take both perspectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• A diagram used by a party has been reproduced as a "unique historical image" (I doubt it). That makes it appear that the Israeli post was immediately catercorner from where the boy was, and ignores an artle in The Age that states that the distance was 200 metres or more, see here, at bottom.

• Why are you giving one article in The Age so much credence? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you giving it selective credence, depending on POV?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even the article by Suzanne Goldenberg, gives a distance of around 100 metres.

• And how is that inconsistent with the diagram? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The diagram has no scale, and suggests a much shorter distance.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• When I brought this to SlimVirgin's attention, she declined to insert it, stating that the article gave no source for the information. This did not, however, cause SlimVirgin to delete this source from the candidate article, where it supports the following passage (without, I might add, the source article itself citing a source) "They had met through an earlier campaign to show that Yigal Amir, the settler arrested for the 1995 assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, had not committed the crime; they had blamed instead a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minster at the time." Since the article does not discuss how Abu Rahma and Enderlin met, I think I am safe in assuming that this passage is inserted to denigrate the findings of the individuals in question. However, there is a clear inconsistency here; if the The Age article is good enough for the goose, surely it is good enough for the gander?

• No, not at all. And anyway, I still don't get your 200 meters issue. The al-Durrahs sat diagonally across from the IDF post. No one disputes that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The two documentaries that contend that the incident was to a degree faked are given short shrift in the lede.

• That's because they are given short shrift (actually, no shrift) by the sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article uses what I will kindly describe as considerable poetic license, and I believe this to be violating WP:SYNTH. For example, it describes the footage as "such a potent weapon". The source says that pictures can be potent weapons, but nowhere states that the footage is such.

• Wehwalt, you need to read more than one article about this. All the sources who have written about it in depth describe the images/footage, whatever you want to call it, as a potent weapon, using a varied vocabulary to say the same thing. What you describe as poetic licence is called writing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with SlimVirgin's assessment. You can't base your view of this incident on any single article and hope to have any grasp for what constitutes a majority view and what constitutes a minority view. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article states in the section "Length of content of raw footage" that the network was successful in its libel suit. While the section does mention an appeal and provides a link to a section below, it does not mention the fact that as it stands now, the suit was not successful. It's like saying "Oliver Brown was not successful in suing the school district. He appealed, see below". You probably would not do that except when giving a blow by blow account of Brown, and this section is not about the lawsuit. While the information does appear in the article, the further down you put it, the less likely it is to be read.

• I don't follow this point. The detailed material about the lawsuit is in the section about the lawsuit. Where else should it be? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• With respect to the coverage of the appeal, it strikes me that this source and this one would be relevant to the coverage in the appeal, since the appeal judge seems to have been pretty comprehensive in knocking down France 2's allegations.

• I see one source above, not two, and I don't see anything knowledgable about it. The appeal judge was not comprehensive about knocking down France 2's allegations. He simply ruled that Karsenty had exercised his right to criticize. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, editors should keep in mind that this was a lawsuit against Karsenty and whether or not he had the legal right to claim that France 2 faked the video, not whether or not France 2 actually did. All the appeal meant was that Karsenty had the right to state his opinion, not that it was right or wrong. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now these are in the references. However, these are only used for very innocuous points such as (footnote 5) that the lower court was reversed. Since the appeals court judge mentions in The Age article that the cameraman had been found faking photography in the past, that probably should have been in the "background" subsection regarding the cameraman.

• The article says, "when it was revealed the same person had been responsible for faking other news footage." What is the source's evidence for this? Does a knowledgable source discuss it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• See my comments on gooses and ganders.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The exclusion of derogatory (though sourced) information regarding the cameraman obviously raises systemic POV concerns about this candidate article. The choice of quote regarding the appeals court decision also raises POV questions. If you look at WSJ-Europe article cited above, the judge does more than state that the defendant was within his right of free expression. The judge found that he had a "coherent mass of evidence". A judicial finding (appeals court, no less!) goes a long way towards demolishing SlimVirgin's contention in her statement that the theory that the boy did not die is held by very few and is effectively a fringe theory.

• With respect, I think you have misunderstood what you're reading. The judge was not commenting on the substantial issue, but whether Karsenty had a right to publish his evidence. And the view that the boy is alive is very much a fringe one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, concur with SlimVirgin. With all due respect Wehwalt, you should broaden your source review. The court case involved a matter of freedom of speech versus libel - whether Karsenty had a legal right to say what he said, not whether or not it was correct. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article is cited (footnote 9) for the proposition that in the footage not initially shown, the "boy appears to lift his hand," The Atlantic, the source in question, says that "Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead?" The minimization of move in the father's lap and clasp a hand over his eyes to lift his hand strikes me as rather POV. Interestingly, a second article is also cited for this sentence, but does not mention the hand or moving at all here. Presumably it is only cited for the proposition that several seconds were cut from the original tape, but it is poor citation practice if so. Oddly, a fairly lengthy caption to one of the many fair use photographs in the article minimizes the clasp/move in lap even more, to "move his hand", discussed in connection with death throes. The reader might easily be misled by the statements.

• Sorry, I don't understand this point. Nothing is minimized. Have you watched the footage yourself? The movement is very slight. There, but slight. Bear in mind that very few sources believe the boy is alive. That view is regarded as fringe, almost lunatic fringe. Some editors see it as a tiny-minority view, a conspiracy theory, that doesn't even belong in the article. I argued strongly that it did belong, but it is nevertheless true that it's a marginal view. You seem to want it upfront and trumpeted. That would leave the article distorted and inaccurate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• No I have not and don't intend to. If you have and are making judgments based on that, that is OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• You're contending that the "boy appears to lift his hand" is somehow more POV than the boy "clasp[s] a hand over his eyes"? Come again? ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have no idea if it is POV. The point is, you've changed what was said. In the direction of the same POV every time, every time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Personal and Political Impact" section, the article states "The Arab street felt confirmed in its view that Israel's brutality toward the Palestinians knew no bounds." This sentence is obviously problematic (it assumes Israeli brutality towards the Palestinians, for example) ...

• So you're saying you don't know if the change is POV, and then say we're changing the POV in a particular direction. I'm totally lost. I have no problem using the exact wording Fallows used, but the whole thing seems rather nitpicky. When citing sources we often reword what they say as not to plagiarize them. In this case I see no distinction between the "boy appears to lift his hand" and the boy "clasp[s] a hand over his eyes". ← George ^talk 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. "Felt confirmed in its view...." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• ... but what is more serious is that the next citation in the article (after the next sentence) is to this article. I find nothing in the cited source which justifies the sentence in the candidate article.

• You don't say which sentence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The next cited sentence, come on. Where is your source which discusses the Arab street?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's relatively minor, but for the article to state with respect to the further appeal to France's highest court that ", a case that continues" is mildly POV, given that the court does not rule on matters of fact, and so the final factual findings in the case have been made. It only rules on matters of law. Thus the case is not continuing in the sense that new evidence is being presented, the record is simply being reviewed by an appellate court. Possibly better to say "the case is on appeal". That may my lawyer self objecting!

There are many more examples, but this is sufficient to support my point that this article should not pass without considerable rewriting to remove POV.

• Were it to be rewritten in the direction you suggest, it would elevate a fringe view and would not represent the mass of sources from 2000 to the present, which is what we must do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond elevating a fringe view, Wehwalt's suggestions would result in an article that is unmanageably long and full of copyright violations. ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose based on 1(c), that the research on this article represents a comprehensive survey of the field and are drawn from high quality reliable sources. There is a considerable bias towards mixed news/opinion pieces like those of Suzanne Goldenberg, and to British sources generally.

• Wehwalt, with respect, that is quite wrong-headed. Goldenberg writes for The Guardian. She's an excellent journalist writing for an excellent publication. That you disagree with her does not change that. And what is wrong with British sources? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

• Surprisingly, I count only five articles from Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post, less than that by the BBC.

• The Jerusalem Post takes a very extreme view on this, as it does with many things. In writing about the Karsenty case in 2007, the BBC continued to state that the boy was dead: "The 12-year-old Muhammad was killed during the incident in September 2000." [10] They have not wavered from that position since 2000, so far as I know. Are they also too biased? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• And how many sources do you see from Palestinian news outlets, since you're so concerned with things being balanced? And why would you single out the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz as being more reliable sources than the BBC, or worthy of being cited more? ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• If there are Palestinian news sources, you should by all means include them. Why haven't you? A bit concerned you are rejecting a newspaper because of the "view" you think it takes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• When did I ever "reject a newspaper because of the 'view'... it takes"? As far as I can tell, the bullet point I replied to wasn't a suggestion to use any particular article, just a complaint that there weren't enough Israeli sources cited. I found it odd that you would choose to complain about a lack of Israeli sourcing, given that there are more Israeli sources cited than Palestinian ones. Personally, I favor using a varety if sources from all over the world to give a more neutral, balanced tone to the article, and help avoid systematic bias. I find the use of international sources you're criticizing to be a boon. ← George ^talk 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Presumably this was extensively covered in Israel. In addition, according to this article, there is an extant book on the shooting by Gérard Huber, called Contre expertise d'une mise en scène. That strikes me as an important source.

• Why does it strike you as an important source? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is the author, a psychoanalyst. [11] He is associated with MENA, a controversial Israeli French-language news agency that has been pushing the fringe view that the whole thing was staged and al-Durrah is still alive. He has no background that would confer expertise, and is barely mentioned by any of the other sources. In fact, he's barely mentioned even by the sources who might agree with him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• So therefore you reject the source unread because of whom the author is "associated with".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is not in the bibliography, however. That leads me to the conclusion that the sources cited for the article are not comprehensive.

• I believe this to be an actionable oppose. It would no doubt be a bit of work for the authors to go to a more neutral tone, but it could be done, and the article will be the better for it. It may require some time at peer review, however, that probably should have been done already. Unless there are serious time constraints (say an upcoming centennial to be commemorated at TFA), FAC should not be the first stop in the article improvement process. This article badly needs some leisurely time at Peer Review, with comprehensive review of how sources are translated into the article. I do believe this article has the potential to pass. It is not there yet, for the reasons stated, but I hope the authors will be persistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• We will not take the article in the direction you recommend, sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with SlimVirgin. Reading through your complaints, I didn't see anything actionable that wasn't based on a too-narrow understanding of the sources cited in the article, and those published worldwide. Your comments regarding a "bias towards... British sources generally" is particularly disconcerting. Why wouldn't we attempt to find the most neutral sources, from authors who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian, when attempting to write a NPOV article? Why are you surprised that we cite the BBC more often than the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz? Are Israeli publications somehow more reliable sources? ← George ^talk 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, if there is anything actionable in your comments, maybe consider taking it up on the talk page so it doesn't get lost in the discussion bloat. ← George ^talk 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know whether British sources are neutral or not neutral. I simply point out that by using them to excess, you are neglecting a part of the available sources. Not being one myself, I assume both Palestinians and Israelis are capable of telling the truth in a newspaper article. I'm not going to neglect New York sports coverage in writing an article about the Yankees, even though the newspaper may be biased pro or con.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If your concern isn't neutrality, then why the complaint about the use of British sources? I just don't understand. I prefer to use reliable sources from all over the world, and balance the various viewpoints based on their weight worldwide, limited by the fact that I'm only fluent in English. Oftentimes on these issues, the majority viewpoint in any single place—be it Israel, the Palestinian Territories, or other countries in the Middle East—does not match with the majority viewpoint held worldwide, so it's beneficial to fall back to sources a step back from the conflict itself. ← George ^talk 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to do as you do. I leave it in the hands of the Featured Article Director's delegate, and she can decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Switching to Strong Oppose per comments of SlimVirgin and George, which seem to make it clear that any choice of POV was intended. My comments got rather chopped up, in full they can be read here. I'm not going to get into a discussion and may unwatch this page. I've made my point and decline to get into an argument. Despite the comments of the conoms, I believe each of my points is actionable, and urge reviewers and the delegate to randomly select cited sources (I did not have time to do more than a small fraction) and see how they compare with what is said in the article, and if any variance desplays a nationalistic bias. If you wish me to review my oppose, please leave a note on my talk. Thanks and good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my strong oppose. I am still opposing, but I am very open to switching to neutral or (though probably not likely) even supporting as the FAC continues.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly minor point, but I'm not a conom. I'm an editor who has been deeply involved on the article's talk page to try to achieve consensus for neutral phrasing in this highly controversial subject article. I've made 38 non-minor edits to the article ever (the last being over a month ago; many of them being reverts, I would wager), while having made 251 non-minor edits to the talk page. I believe that SlimVirgin noted me at the top of the nomination as one of the editors with significant contributions to the discussion, as I'm pretty familiar with the sources and controversies surrounding this topic, the discussions that have taken place around those controversies, and the consensus outcomes of those discussions.

Also, I wouldn't say that I intended any particular POV. I favor a neutral POV, but I just didn't feel that your comments and suggestions would result in that. ← George ^talk 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a follow up comment, I think you could defuse a lot of the POV concerns if you restated the lede somewhat to insert a sentence such as "It is uncertain who shot al-Durrah" and possibly mention the point of view that he was not shot, prior to mentioning acceptances of responsiblity or apologies. I do understand your desire to work in chronological order, however, we should present the current state of affairs to the reader first, rather than possibly leaving him with the an incorrect or incomplete impression. It is well known that readers often do not read articles in their entirety, this is why the lede is so important. By mentioning the Israeli "apology" first and mentioning the current state of uncertaintly somewhat later, the order of presentation may well prejudice the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt 3

I would propose that SV strongly consider adding the following sentence at the start of the second paragraph "The question of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians shot the boy remains a matter of ongoing dispute." That clues in the reader that there's an argument before the reader is told much else about the positions of the various parties. I think that would go a long way towards allaying the various POV concerns expressed in this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't sit well with the writing at the start of the second paragraph, so I've added it to the end of the first paragraph. "France 2 declared that the shooting had come from the Israeli position, an issue that, ten years later, remains at the center of an ongoing dispute." [12] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't affect the writing in the least. Putting it at the end of a sentence like that not only makes it less clear what the dispute is, but also downplays the dispute. I would again suggest that you strongly consider what I have said. The fact that I haven't banked my strong oppose and gone away means I'm trying to work with you to improve the article, and give you a chance to get this FAC passed. The fact that there is a dispute about who shot the boy is a major point in the article. It needs to be set before the reader clearly and in a prominent position.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it. [13] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You've moved it, but you've kept the sentence, so again the dispute is at the end of the sentence, and there is still a lack of clarity. What is wrong with the language I proposed? It is entirely factual and as near as I can tell is NPOV.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we haven't said anything about who shot whom until that point. It needs to be introduced. The writing matters too, not just POV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You've already said there was an I/P firefight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it doesn't flow so well. [14] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead has crept from a chronological series of events, inherently unbiased because it was based on the verifiable order in which events happened, into a narrative that highlights and goes into great detail about what is essentially a minority view, albeit significant. The introduction to the second paragraph doesn't summarize the paragraph at all, sounding almost the same as the introduction to the third (badly bloated) paragraph that discusses the controversy. ← George ^talk 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would make sense for now to stop focusing on the lead, and to start evaluating the rest of the article. The lead can be decided after the rest is done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

Old and new leads side by side

Lead before the FAC nom

Current lead

The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place in the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian territories on September 30, 2000, when Jamal al-Durrah and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were caught in crossfire during a clash between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian Security Forces. Initial reports said the boy had been killed and the father wounded by Israeli gunfire. Muhammad was subsequently hailed as a Palestinian martyr and icon throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Palestinian Authority had declared the day—the second day of the Second Intifada, and the first of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year—a general strike. As Palestinian protesters gathered to throw stones and Molotov cocktails at an IDF outpost at the Netzarim junction, filmed by cameramen from several news agencies, shots were exchanged between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen and police. Talal Abu Rahma, a freelance Palestinian cameraman working for France 2, was the only one to film what happened to the al-Durrahs, who had arrived at the junction on their way home from a car auction. Abu Rahma's footage shows them seeking cover behind a concrete cylinder, then after a burst of gunfire, the boy slumps forward and his father appears injured. A voice-over from Charles Enderlin, the network's bureau chief in Israel, who was not present during the incident, said they had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions," and that the boy had died. An ambulance driver who arrived to help them, Bassem al-Bilbeisi, was also reported to have been killed. Israel accepted responsibility and apologized, but later official and unofficial investigations suggested variously that the IDF could not have shot the al-Durrahs, that they may have been hit by Palestinian bullets, that it remains unclear whether the boy died, or that the entire incident had been staged as a propaganda exercise. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots. A French media commentator, Philippe Karsenty, was sued by France 2 for defamation after he accused them of having broadcast a staged scene, but a verdict in 2006 in the network's favour was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal in 2008. France 2 has appealed to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court, in a case that is ongoing. The footage of Jamal and Muhammad acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, the image of a father trying to protect his son from Israeli bullets confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For the Israelis, it amounted to a modern blood libel, an example of the ancient allegation that Jews sacrifice other people's children. Inevitably, the scene has been evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah on October 12, 2000, and for the burning of synagogues in France. It could be seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, an American Jewish journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in Pakistan in 2002. Suicide bombers have invoked Muhammad's name, as has Osama bin Laden. The power of the footage alone has ensured that, as James Fallows argues in The Atlantic, no version of the truth about it that all sides might consider believable will ever emerge. It has become what Charles Enderlin has called a "cultural prism." Its viewers will see what they want to see.

The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories. Jamal al-Durrah and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they sought cover behind a concrete cylinder after finding themselves caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces. The footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen slumped across his father's legs. The question of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians shot the boy is a matter of ongoing dispute. Fifty-nine seconds of the scene were broadcast in France with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, France 2's bureau chief in Israel, who did not witness the incident, telling viewers that the al-Durrahs had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions," and that the boy had died. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) quickly accepted responsibility. Muhammad was buried in an emotional public funeral and hailed throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds as a Palestinian martyr. Streets and parks were named after him, and postage stamps bore his image. Over the following months and years, several official and unofficial investigations questioned the accuracy of France 2's report. A controversial IDF investigation in November 2000 concluded that the IDF had probably not shot the al-Durrahs. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, acknowledged in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots. Three senior French journalists who saw the raw footage in 2004 argued that it is not clear from the footage alone that the boy died, and that France 2 cut a final few seconds in which he appears to lift his head. Other commentators, including the director of the Israeli government's press office, said the scenes had been staged by Palestinian protesters as propaganda aimed at the news agencies filming in the area that day. Philippe Karsenty, a French media commentator, was successfully sued by France 2 for suggesting this; a ruling against him in 2006 was overturned by the Paris Court of Appeal in 2008, after which France 2 appealed to the Cour de cassation, France's highest court, in a case that is ongoing. The footage has acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For the Israelis, the world's willingness to believe they killed the boy amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old anti-Semitic association of Jews with child sacrifice. The scene has been evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah in October 2000, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002. Osama bin Laden invoked Muhammad's name, as did a suicide bomber who tried to attack an Israeli hospital. James Fallows writes that no version of the truth about the footage will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

I was asked on my talk page whether I have an unresolved oppose. I do mention opposing in the text, but I do not see the point of striking through all that text. My only operative position is my weak support. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)