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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Phyllis Chesler (2020-04-27). "Palestinian Lies Never Die; Wikipedia and Google Keep Them Alive". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved 2020-04-29. Although Google continues to automatically link to Wikipedia, it eventually included the fact that a controversy about what happened to al-Dura actually exists. However, the controversy section appears at the very end of the Wikipedia entry, long after the false narrative has had its way with most readers.
Omer Benjakob (2020-10-01). "The Second Intifada Still Rages on Wikipedia". Haaretz. Retrieved 2020-10-02. As the debate swelled, it was decided that the entire Muhammad al-Durrah incident would be afforded an article of its own – a common solution on Wikipedia, meant to quell the growth of contentious articles.
As this is a featured article about a complex and sensitive issue, before making a substantive change to it—one that might reasonably attract an objection—please consider doing the following:
Post the proposed edit on this talk page as you would like to make it, and say where in the article you're proposing to place it.
Post details of the source (name, title, publication, date, page number if appropriate), and if it's offline, type up here what it says. Consider posting what the source says even if it's online.
Explain why you feel the edit would improve the article.
Post only one such suggestion at a time, and wait until it's accepted or not before posting another.
Open each of your suggestions in a new section.
If a change you make is reverted, please do not restore it unless there is a clear consensus in support of it.
Please keep your proposals and any responses succinct. Many thanks.
Some of the wording in the third paragraph is a bit off.
"Over the months and years that followed, commentators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report."
Doesn't this kind of sound like a trend? Like a lot of people didn't question it at first but then started questioning it, and that opinions decidedly changed after this? Especially as the first sentence of the lead's longest paragraph, this sets the tone.
"French journalists who saw the raw footage confirmed that France 2 had cut a final few seconds in which Muhammad appeared to lift his hand from his face; they acknowledged that he had died, but said the footage alone did not show it. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could be sure who fired the shots."
I don't understand how this could be taken from the source provided. That article is about how frustrated people from Channel 2 were that every time they address a rumor or accusation and disprove it, another one pops up. The full quote is this: "Every time we address one question, then another question surfaces. It's very difficult to fight a rumor. The point is that four years later, no one can say for certain who killed him, Palestinians or Israelis." In context, this specific part of the quote is more ambiguous than it would be on its own and should probably not be attributed to them in a way that makes it sound official or "Channel 2's view". In any case, while it is still not agreed upon what killed him, the "staged" argument is pretty groundless. In light of the circumstances it should really be handled more carefully than it is now. It reeks of those reports about people saying Sandy Hook was "staged" and the kids are still alive. Since there's no way to disprove such rumours, don't expect these theories to ever be refuted. Media reported on it as they do with many fringe theories without necessarily endorsing them, but that doesn't mean it should be featured in the lead along with the main view. By the way:
"Postage stamps in the Middle East carried the images; one of the images was visible in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002."
Unless it's just me who can't find any prominent media attention for this... notability? Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm fine with that. Other voters: feel free to indicate whether you prefer killing of or shooting of. ImTheIP (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this request, YES, the boy was killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.--Imad_J (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The event is most commonly known as "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" and the article should stay at that title. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would prefer this page just be titled "Muhammad al-Durrah", but the proposed "Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah" is better than the current "Muhammad al-Durrah incident". Looking at Google books, ngrams, scholar, news, and web, I cannot find evidence that "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" is the common name, or even a common name, for this. I can find almost no examples in RSes, and those that I can find seem to be the product of WP:CITOGENESIS originating in this article. "Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah" seems equally as prevalent, and I think it's a better choice than "incident", based on other "Killing of..." article titles for articles about homicides. "Incident" obscures what it is, and is euphemistic. However, I'm persuadable if there is evidence of common name. I notified WP:Palestine and WP:Israel of this RM. I oppose "Shooting of" for reasons detailed at the concurrent discussion at WT:AT#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? (from whence I came). Lev!vich 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – No evidence the current title is the clear COMMONNAME. Looking through GBooks, it appears both "Death of ..." and "Killing of ..." are more prevalent. I can't tell which of the two is more common. As an apparent homicide with video footage to confirm, this is should be titled as Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}