text:
Elwood, Victoria

Elwood is an inner suburb in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8 km south-east of Melbourne's Central Business District, located within the City of Port Phillip local government area. Elwood recorded a population of 15,153 at the 2021 census.

Elwood Beach is a popular bayside beach destination during summer, where the beaches are used recreationally for windsurfing, cycling, cricket and walking.

The suburb is known for its mix of Edwardian and Interwar architecture character, its beaches and its leafy streets, many of which are lined by London Plane trees.

History

The earliest inhabitants and traditional owners of the area now covered by the City of Port Phillip were the Yalukit Wilum, one of the five clans of the Boon Wurrung, known as the coastal tribe, and who were members of the Kulin nation. They inhabited the swampy areas below Emerald Hill and the sandy-ridged ti-tree covered coastline, which extended from St Kilda to Fishermans Bend (Port Melbourne). The Aboriginal inhabitants knew the St Kilda area as Euro-Yroke a name they used to describe the red-brown sandstone found along the beach. Yalukit Willam: The river people of Port Phillip, provides an Aboriginal history of the area.

On 17 April 1840, the ship Glen Huntly carrying 157 settlers, arrived in Port Phillip flying the yellow fever flag, indicating disease on board. At least 50 of its passengers were sick with typhus fever. A quarantine station, comprising two tent camps, was quickly set up at Point Ormond (then known as Little Red Bluff) for the arrivals, one camp for the sick ones and one for the others. The arrivals were release from quarantine in June. At least three arrivals died at the camp and were buried on the bluff. They were moved to St Kilda Cemetery in 1898.

Point Ormond had for centuries been the home of the Yalukit Willam clan. "The nearby Elwood swamp provided vegetables, wildfowl and eels. The reef which extends from the base of the Point into the sea provided shellfish, fish and crustaceans. Point Ormond was a very important source of seafood as Aboriginal women were visiting there three times per week in the autumn of 1840 to collect shellfish". The quarantine station was set up right alongside these wetlands. However, Aboriginal people, not aware of the establishment of the dangerous camp, made a routine visit to these wetlands to harvest shellfish. This visit was cited by then Superintendent of the Port Phillip District Charles La Trobe as a reason to expel all Aboriginal camps from Melbourne on 19 April 1840.

Originally, Elwood was swampland, with Elster Creek draining into the swamp near the beach. For most of the 19th century the wetland was viewed as a barrier to European development. Elwood Canal was constructed to connect the lower reaches of Elster Creek with Port Phillip Bay, three hundred metres north of Point Ormond. European settlement used waterways like Ester Creek for waste disposal. In 1869, because of the foul conditions of the Elwood swamp, local residents called on the St Kilda Council to remove the nearby abattoir and night soil depot.

Installation of the Elwood Canal turned Elwood into an area suitable for residential development. Elwood was initially planned around the two central geographic features of Elster Creek (now Elwood Canal) and the promontory at Point Ormond, then known as Little Red Bluff. Originally a working middle class suburb in the early part of the 20th century, Elwood has seen waves of gentrification and is now one of Melbourne's most sought after bayside suburb. Large period houses, many from the 1920s and 30s with art deco touches, along with proximity to beach and foreshore, have made the area very attractive.

In the late 1970s, like nearby St Kilda, Elwood was known for its nightlife and developed a reputation as a cabaret area. Many of these venues operated out of some of the suburb's quirkier old buildings. As the scene saw a demise in the early 1980s, many buildings, including Maison de Luxe and Moulin Rouge (which operated out of the 1880s mansion "Pladda" built for Captain A. Currie), were subsequently demolished.

Despite its history of adversity, a modern suburb now thrives by the bay in one of Melbourne's most prized locations. Café life in the Elwood village seems a long way from the flood, fire and fever of earlier days. Coloured lorikeets flock to the green corridors of shady trees, a native forest has been planted on the foreshore and the once despised canal area is undergoing rejuvenation as a haven for walkers and cyclists.

Population
In the 2016 Census, there were 15,543 people in Elwood. 65.0% of people were born in Australia. The next most common countries of birth were England 4.9%, New Zealand 2.8%, Ireland 1.1%, United States of America 1.1% and India 1.1%. 76.6% of people spoke only English at home. Other languages spoken at home included Greek 1.5%, Italian 1.4%, Russian 1.1%, Spanish 1.1% and French 1.1%. The most common responses for religion were No Religion 48.4% and Catholic 17.0%.

Local landmarks
Elwood Village consist mainly of the group of shops starting on New Street, through Ormond road to Glen Huntly Road. With many iconic restaurants and cafes, famous beauty shops and pet groomers/shop, and traditional boutique barbershops.

Parks and open space
For such an established leafy suburb, Elwood is highly built up and lacking in open space. The most popular and largest reserves are bayside, including Elwood Beach, Elwood Canal, and Point Ormond Reserve. The beach and canal are known to suffer from litter pollution and the canal has a distinctive smell resulting from the backflow of seaweed. However, the local council has strategies in place to manage these issues.

Residential architecture
Elwood is known for its mix of Victorian mansions, Edwardian cottages and interwar apartment buildings. Infill development in recent decades has changed the character of the suburb, however, some examples still remain.

 * Sherwood Hall, formerly named "Rotherfield", is a large Victorian (45 room) mansion at 14 Hennessy Avenue. It was built between 1890 and 1891 by David C. Askew of Twentyman & Askew (architects), for Joseph Cowen Syme, who was a co-owner of "The Age" newspaper, for some 12 years. Upon the death of Laura Syme (J.C. Symes' widow) in the 1920s, the mansion was turned into flats. Sherwood Hall is listed in the Port Phillip Heritage Review, 1998.
 * Woy Woy is the earliest of a small group of multi-storied modernist flats in Elwood, it is also the earliest of its kind in Melbourne. Built in 1925–1936 the flats were designed by Mewton & Grounds. Woy Woy is located at 77 Marine Parade, Elwood, Victoria, Australia. The design of the apartment block is extremely minimal. The interlocking cubic forms in the design reveal an interest in architect Willem Dudok.
 * Architect and resident Esmond Dorney, who is best known for his post war Modernist residential work in Tasmania, designed several flats in Elwood in the 1930s including St Kiernan's Flats (51 Ormond Esplanade), Antigone Flats (34 Docker Street) and Winderemere (49 Broadway).
 * La Tourelle flats, 47A Brighton Road, corner of Dickens Street, is one of the many large blocks of interwar flats in the area, around Brighton Road.
 * Belmac flats on the corner of Goldsmith Street and Mitford Street 'Belmac', designed by James Wardrop, built in 1943

Places of worship

 * St. Columba's Catholic Church and school, 26 Glen Huntly Road, opened in 1927.
 * Elwood Presbyterian, 31A Scott Street.
 * Elwood Shule, congregation established in 1938, first stage of present building at 39 Dickens Street. Opened 1957.

Education
Elwood houses a number of schools, considering its limited area. There are 2 primary schools, one offers a catholic education. Saint Columba's Primary is located adjacent to the church and has access to a large number of facilities. There is also a large public school, Elwood Primary School. Elwood is also serviced by a local secondary school, Elwood College, previously named Elwood High School.

Sport
Elwood Sailing Club was founded in 1924 as Elwood Sea Canoe Club and has since hosted many national and international championships, including 12m2 Sharpie sailing in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics and the 2005 World Formula Windsurfing Titles. ESC now boasts extensive sailing, training and social facilities and the clubrooms are available to the general public for function hire. Elwood has a full-time lifesaving club.

An active Triathlon club operates in Elwood and the main beach hosts several triathlons each year.

Elwood Park is home to a touch football club, tennis club and croquet club. Between 1881 and 1980 there was Elwood Football Club (soccer), later reforming as Elwood City Soccer Club.

Elwood Bowls club located at Elsternwick Park, in front of the Elsternwick Hotel. The demographic of the members are from all ages and the clubhouse is a good venue for your functions.

Transport
The main form of transport is the private automobile and bus. The major roads are on its periphery and include multi-lane Brighton Road, Marine Parade, Barkly Street and Glen Huntly Road.

Elwood was once serviced by two tram routes, the St Kilda to Brighton "electric street railway" which was operated by the Victorian Railways, and the route 11 tram between East Malvern and Point Ormond which was operated by MMTB. The St Kilda to Brighton route ran north-south through Elwood, via Mitford St, Broadway, Ormond Rd, and St Kilda Rd. The route 11 tram ran east-west, along Glen Huntly Rd, crossing paths with the St Kilda to Brighton route at Elwood Junction.

Elwood is serviced by the Bayside Trail bicycle path. This path is used by commuters and also recreationally and it includes a roller-skating path, used by rollerbladers.

Tram route 67 (Carnegie) runs along the northern boundary of the suburb, along Brighton Road/Nepean Highway to the city or via Elsternwick (past Elsternwick railway station) to Carnegie.

The nearest railway stations are about beyond the northern boundary of the suburb, at either Ripponlea or Elsternwick (both across Brighton Road/Nepean Highway).

Elwood is also served by a number of bus routes:

 * Number 630 runs from Ormond Road Elwood to Gardenvale Station, Ormond Station, Huntingdale to Monash University in Clayton.
 * Number 923 runs from St Kilda to Elwood, Brighton Beach, Sandringham to Westfield Southland.
 * Number 246 runs from Elsternwick railway station, via Elwood, Prahran, South Yarra, Richmond, Collingwood (all via Punt Road) and up to Clifton Hill.

Street names
Many of the streets in Elwood are named after things related to the beach. These streets include Beach Avenue, Spray Street, Wave Street, Tide Street and Foam Street. Other streets in the area are named after famous anglophone writers, essayists and poets, such as Shakespeare Grove, Dickens Street, Milton Street, Wordsworth Street, Byron Street, Keats Street, Tennyson Street, Poets Grove, Ruskin Street and Shelley Street.

Notable residents

 * Ruth Borgobello
 * Joe Camilleri
 * Rodger Corser
 * Louise Crawford
 * Brian Dixon
 * Esmond Dorney
 * Vincent Fantauzzo
 * Belle Gibson
 * Germaine Greer
 * Alex Gurney
 * Paul Hester
 * Mark Holden
 * Ken James
 * Asher Keddie
 * Bridget McKenzie
 * Brad Miller
 * Matt Parkinson
 * Roland Perry
 * Ronald Ryan
 * Magda Szubanski
 * Jane Turner
 * Sam Wood

Sunsets
Like many of the beaches in Melbourne, Elwood is known for its spectacular sunsets.

title: Elwood, Victoria


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbreak City

Heartbreak City
I created this page by accident. I moved the contents to Heartbeat City. Please delete. DCEdwards1966 03:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Robert Kahn (computer scientist)

Untitled
žI think that he is rihgt,Everyone in the computer research field calls him "Bob Kahn". Naming conventions (common names) says we're supposed to use "the most common name of a person or thing". So I have moved the article to that name. Noel 03:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Text removal
Removed the following pieces of text from the article because they were so wrong:

 * "Any computer could connect to the network without making any internal changes to it."

Anyone who was working on the project in the late 70's will remember the pain we had to go through to get TCP/IP software into the operating system on most machines. "[no] internal changes"? Pfui.

 * "TCP, which they modelled after another network protocol, the Networking Control Protocol."

NCP is so totally different from TCP that the connection is tenuous at best. (Also, NCP is usually given as "Network Control Protocol" - although the correct expansion of NCP is actually "Network Control Program" - but the latter is something even I didn't realize until I actually read the old manuals, so I'll give a pass on that).

The whole question of who should be given credit for what in the development of TCP/IP is a lot more complicated that this article makes it sound. Many of the fundamental idea (moving the ack process into the hosts) came from work down by Louis Pouzin, and the people at Xerox PARC had done important precursor work as well. What's in the article is possibly still a bit too thickly laid on, but it's reasonably close to being correct now. Noel 04:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Photograph
The photograph needs a caption as to when it it was taken. Better yet, it should be replaced with something current. That photo must be 30 years old. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC) he was gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.202.242 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://awards.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=4598637&srt=all&aw=140&ao=AMTURING&yr=2004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303030954/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219124325/http://archive.computerhistory.org/lectures/an_eveninig_with_robert_kahn.lecture.2007.01.09.wmv to http://archive.computerhistory.org/lectures/an_eveninig_with_robert_kahn.lecture.2007.01.09.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2024

 * 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.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Robert Kahn (computer scientist). Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob Kahn → Robert Kahn – (1) His Turing Award page uses 'Robert' (https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/kahn_4598637.cfm); (2) Britannica uses 'Robert' (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Elliot-Kahn); (3) His Internet Hall of Fame page uses 'Robert' (https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductee/robert-kahn/); (4) His Computer History Museum page uses 'Robert' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKxNMTVnBzM); (5) His academic publications use 'Robert' (e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1499949.1499983). The above facts strongly point to the conclusion that 'Robert' is the *more* common name under which he's known by the public (i.e. humanity at large) than 'Bob', and therefore per Naming conventions (common names) the page should be moved to 'Robert Kahn'. The fact that he's known as 'Bob' to a small subset of humanity — his family members, friends and professional colleagues — does not show that 'Bob' is the more common name. It may be the more common name among that small circle of people, but it's not more the common name simpliciter. Kwoyeu (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose, no evidence that he is the primary topic for Robert Kahn. —Kusma (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Him having a Turing award and being the only "Robert Kahn" included in Britannica (verifiable by a manual search on Britannica's website; I cannot link to it as it's on the blacklist, for some reason) is pretty good evidence that he's more notable than the other people known as "Robert Kahn". But my main point is about using "Robert" as opposed to "Bob", so I'm fine with moving to either "Robert Kahn (computer scientist)" or, say, "Robert E. Kahn". Kwoyeu (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting is his much larger page view compared to the composer and the social scientist: see here Kwoyeu (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a more complete picture. People do not seem to look for "Robert Kahn", but for "Bob Kahn". —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That link (and the pageview tool in general) has no bearing on the question of what people *look for* (i.e. what search words they use), but which pages they end up viewing. Paragonite (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources that use 'Robert':
 * As recipients of the Medal of Freedom: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/cerf-kahn-bio.html
 * National Inventors Hall of Fame: https://www.invent.org/inductees/robert-e-kahn
 * Engineering and Technology History Wiki (of which IEEE is participating member): https://ethw.org/Robert_Kahn Paragonite (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bob Kahn is both a natural disambiguation and a nice parallel with Vint Cerf. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Robert E. Kahn" naturally disambiguates just as well, and has the added advantage of better meeting the "more often seen in reliable sources" criteria (Naming conventions (common names)), as expressed in "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) [my emphasis]" and in "... the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. [my emphasis]"
 * The reliable sources include but is not limited to:
 * Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Elliot-Kahn
 * NPR: Computing Pioneers Discuss the State of the Net : NPR
 * IEEE biography: http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Robert_Kahn
 * Presidential Medal of Freedom: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/cerf-kahn-bio.html
 * National Medal of Technology: https://nationalmedals.org/laureate/robert-e-kahn/
 * ACM/Turing Award: https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/kahn_4598637.cfm
 * National Inventors Hall of Fame: https://www.invent.org/inductees/robert-e-kahn
 * Princeton: https://ece.princeton.edu/news/graduate-alumnus-robert-kahn-founder-internet-awarded-madison-medal
 * National Academy of Sciences: https://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/45251.html
 * See the References and External links sections at Bob Kahn: the use of 'Robert (E.) Kahn' vastly weighs 'Bob Kahn'. Paragonite (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So do you think Vint Cerf should be moved? —Kusma (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that's something I might suggest? The answer to that question depends on the application of reliable sources criteria cited earlier. As a matter of fact, the reliable sources criteria does *not* yield a clear winner. There's no near overwhelming preference of either over the other, as there is for 'Robert' over 'Bob':
 * https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vinton-Cerf (Britannica, identified in title as 'Vinton')
 * https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/cerf_1083211.cfm (ACM/Turing, identified in title as 'Vinton')
 * https://www.internetsociety.org/author/cerf/ (Internet Society, identified in title as 'Vint')
 * https://computerhistory.org/profile/vint-cerf/ (Computer History Museum, identified in title as 'Vint')
 * https://research.google/people/vinton-g-cerf/ (Google Research page, identified in title as 'Vinton'; author name as 'Vint' in some publications, 'Vinton' in others)
 * https://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/biography-dr-vinton-g-cerf (NIST, 'Vinton')
 * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/467941/vint-cerf (PBS, 'Vint') Paragonite (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, most sources seem to use 'Robert'. I would prefer 'Robert Kahn (computer scientist)' as opposed to 'Robert E. Kahn' because that seems to be what most people would look for, but our sources are split so I wouldn't be opposed to the initial. Readingpro256 talk to me contribs 17:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with a disambiguator, (computer scientist) is a good choice. Killuminator (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Support Robert Kahn (computer scientist). Though I also would not object to making him ptopic for the base name, since he gets orders of magnitude more views than any other Robert Kahn. Colin M (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, either with disambiguator or as main article for the name. While "Bob Kahn" is what most of us in the Internet technical community may know him by, he does go by "Robert Kahn" in most all official and formal notices, awards, etc. that I have seen. It makes more sense to me to have the article have "Robert" and then have a redirect from "Bob Kahn". - Dyork (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Kahn (computer scientist)


text:
The Guru (2002 film)

The Guru is a 2002 sex comedy film written by Tracey Jackson and directed by Daisy von Scherler Mayer. The film centers on a dance teacher who comes to the United States from India to pursue a normal career but incidentally stumbles into a brief but high-profile career as a sex guru, a career based on a philosophy he learns from a pornographic actress.

The film stars Jimi Mistry as the eponymous character, Heather Graham as the actress he learns from, and Marisa Tomei, who helps him reach his guru status among her socialite New York City friends.

Plot
Ramu Gupta (Jimi Mistry), a dance teacher, leaves his native city Delhi, India, to seek his fortune in the United States. He is lured by the exaggerations of his cousin, Vijay, who has already moved to NYC.

Seeking work as an actor, the naïve Ramu unknowingly lands a role in a pornographic film. That evening he accompanies Vijay and his roommates on a catering job at a society birthday party. When the Indian swami hired to address the party falls into drunken oblivion, Ramu takes his place. Lacking a real philosophy, he improvises by repeating advice he had been given by Sharonna (Heather Graham), an adult film actress he met earlier. Lexi (Marisa Tomei), the birthday girl, is so impressed that she promotes him as a New Age sex guru to her friends.

Ramu hires Sharonna, ostensibly for advice on how to be an actor in adult films, though what he really wants is more ideas he could use in his new role as the guru of sex. A personal relationship develops between them, though Sharonna is engaged to a firefighter who thinks she's a substitute school teacher.

Ramu becomes an overnight celebrity, widely known as a spiritual leader - the Guru of Sex. The fame comes at a price, however, and he must choose between his newfound fame and his feelings for Sharonna.

Ramu has a national television appearance where he admits to being a fraud, but passes the torch to Lexi, then hurries across town to stop Sharonna's wedding. At the door to the church Ramu coincides with her fiancé's secret gay lover Randy (Bobby Cannavale). They both object to the wedding, being in love with the bride and groom. The film ends with a Bollywood dance number, followed by Ramu and Sharonna getting into a car and driving off into the sky, in a parody of the ending scene of Grease.

Production
The Guru was filmed in 2001, mostly on location in New York City, though a few scenes were filmed in Delhi.

Locations in New York City included Times Square, Manhattan's Chinatown, Central Park, Hunts Point, Queens, Brooklyn, the George Washington Bridge, and close to the World Trade Center (the shot was not removed after the September 11 attacks). Ramu's Broadway debut was filmed at Reverend Ike's United Palace Theater, while the setting for the finale was Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

Music
The film features several Bollywood-style song-and-dance numbers, including one where Ramu and Sharonna sing a version of Kya Mil Gaya from Sasural that morphs into a version of "You're the One That I Want" from Grease. The song "Every Kinda People" by Jo O'Meara of S Club 7 fame is used in the film's end credits, and also included is "One Way Or Another" by Sophie Ellis-Bextor, "Don't Say Goodbye" from Paulina Rubio's Border Girl album. "Round Round" by Sugababes also features.

Release
The Guru opened in wide release in United Kingdom, and it eventually grossed $10 million - a solid box office success in United Kingdom. In the United States, the film grossed a respectful $3 million in limited theatrical release. Overall, the film grossed $24 million in worldwide box office against its budget of $11 million.

Critical reception
On the movie review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, The Guru has a 57% rating, with 50 of 88 reviewers giving the film a "fresh" rating. The site's consensus reads, "A sweetly silly but wafer-thin romantic comedy." Based on 30 reviews, the film's Metacritic score is 47 ("mixed").

After viewing it at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, Derek Elley, reviewing it for Variety, called it a "generally entertaining but rather old-fashioned sex comedy" whose "basic plot of a naive Indian stumbling through white U.S. society...shows little advance in attitudes and humor on Blake Edwards' 1968 comedy The Party." A BBC review said it "stirs together Bollywood and Hollywood, satire and romance, to create an appealing masala dish of a movie."

After its U.S. premiere, Stephen Holden of The New York Times called it a "nervy conceptual hybrid" that "lurch[es] between a loudmouthed sitcom and a crude social satire" and noted that "behind its Hollywood-meets-Bollywood banner, The Guru... is a grindingly conventional comedy that insists on tying up its subplots in pretty ribbons and bows."

title: The Guru (2002 film)


text: File:DanielAmosDisc.jpg

title: File:DanielAmosDisc.jpg


text:
Talk:Activation energy

Untitled
the activation energy of the catalyst is not equivalent with the heat, in the process that potassium chlorate produces oxygen, can we increase the temperature insteady of the catalyst -- manganese dioxide in the experiment? no!thus there is a difference between the catalyst and the energy (for example heat). though the catalyst can decrease the activation energy.

Bond information needed?
The article does not supply enough information about how the activation energy breaks the first bonds in a reactant (or similar, i forget the correct term) and how this then continues the reaction. Instead the article talks more theoretically how the Activation Energy is a point where the needed energy is supplied and the reaction continues.

Although I'm just a student learning about this, I beleive that more information about chemical bonds etc would be good. If I'm wrong or confusing all this with something else then forget it. Thanks!

84.92.204.165 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Spike

"Etc" needed?
In the first paragraph, this sentence:

 * This requires energy - activation energy - and comes from the heat of the system i.e., the translational, vibrational etc... energy of each molecule.

contains an "etc..." that I don't think is needed. First of all, "etc." and "..." is redundant (both mean "and so on"). Secondly, the heat is contained in the translations, vibrations, and rotations of the molecules. Couldn't the "etc." be replaced by "and rotational" without any loss of explanatory power. At room temperature, other degrees of freedom (such as electronic and nuclear transitions) make a negligible contribution to the heat capacity. So unless anyone objects, could the sentence instead read:

 * This requires energy - activation energy - and comes from the heat of the system, i.e. the translational, vibrational, and rotational energy of each molecule.

 * Hmm. Actually, that's wrong.  There are a number of reactions where the activation energy is not supplied by heat.  Specifically, there are electrochemcial reactions and photochemical reactions where the activation energy comes from electric fields or incident photons.  Rare, sure, but certinally important.  I'll edit the article to point out these cases. Syntax 15:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Figure 1
The article refers to Figure 1 but there doesn't appear to be a figure 1. Was this text copied from somewhere? Perhaps it needs rewriting to remove the reference, but better if a figure 1 could be sourced and supplied showing a typical transition state energy plot? ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed a lot of material
I've taken a lot of material out of this page. It wasn't vandalism (despite lots of people trying to revert me!) The info was simply wrong, or, at best, of limited relevance or misleading.

And I've taken the technical flag off.

129.16.97.227 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Aktivierungsenergie: Die Chemische Darstellung von Kleinsten Millimeter Planetenbodens

 * "Die Gesteinsproben sollen unter anderem auf rund 1000 Grad Celsius erhitzt werden, um Aufschluss über den Wassergehalt und die in der Probe enthaltenen Minerale zu erhalten.

Die Forscher suchen insbesondere nach Spuren von Kohlenstoff, Wasserstoff und Stickstoff."
 * http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/artikel/410/179858/
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetrie
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikrowaage
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktivierungsenergie
 * Der Mars besteht zu 95,3 % aus CO2

 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28Planet%29

194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bond breaking is equivalent to bond making"
This article states that the transition state is equivalent to the point on the reaction coordinate at which bond breaking and bond making are balanced. Bond making by definition would reduce the total free energy of the system, and hence this statement is patently wrong. I think the key to the problem is the word "balanced"; there is no balance, and there isn't an intermediate of "partial bonds" or any of those myths. If my understanding is correct, the transition state, if we want to speak loosely in terms of bonds, is the point at which all the bonds are broken [input of energy], but no bonds are being made —Preceding unsigned comment added by N1r4v (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 * That's not quite true either, though, is it? Consider the SN2 transition state. There is some bonding interaction between the carbon undergoing inversion and both the nucleophile and leaving group. The system is not the same as three isolated species - for example, where does the negative charge reside - on the nucleophile or the leaving group? Answer: on both.

 * Ben (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

activation energy unit
My kinetics teacher (though not being a reliable source) stated that the unit for activation energy is simply kJ (or J, whichever order of magnitude you'd like to express it in), instead of kJ/mol. I'm starting to doubt what has been said. It's true each molecule needs to be brought to the transition state in order to react (hence why it'd be energy per unit of amount), but a closed system with a known amount of mass could be seen as having a constant amount of molecules.

According to the Arrhenius_equation $$ln(k) = {{-E_a}/{RT}}$$, the activation energy has to be either kJ/mol or J/mol because of the gas constant... Redtails (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your kinetics teacher is wrong. When we measure activation energy using the Arrhenius equation, we are measuring it on a bulk system where the differences in energy of individual molecules can be averaged out (or, more accurately, represented using the Boltzmann distribution). However energy is an extensive property so, to compare values between different systems, you have to divide by the amount of substance present. This gives units of kJ/mol (in real-life cases).
 * You can use computational chemistry to calculate an "activation energy" for an individual molecule (or pair of molecules). We usually refer to this as the "energy barrier", as it is not exactly the same as the activation energy you measure on the laboratory scale. It is quoted in atomic scale energy units such as hartrees or electronvolts: you could quote it in attojoules, but nobody does because there would be an additional uncertainty in the conversion factor. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Amount of substance" is a dimensionless quantity, so "kJ/mol" are dimensionally identical to "kJ" - the dimensions are in both cases those of energy, which are Mass(Length^2)(Time^-2). Perhaps this is what your teacher was trying to express? 129.67.84.166 (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Your kinetics teacher was not wrong! just mislead you. Activation energy is energy/amount of substance but it does not have to be a mol. When they said it is expressed in kJ they meant kJ/atom or molecule. Then the Arrhenius equation is $$ln(k) = {{-E_a}/{k_B*T}} $$ where k_B is the Boltzmann constant. Recall that the gas constant is just the Boltzmann constant multiplied by Avogadro's number. Thus, if you got your answer as 40 J for the activation energy, this implicitly means 40 J per atom or molecules or particle. multiplying in by Avogadros number will convert it to J/mol. Just as dividing the activation energy in J/mol by Avogadro's number will convert the units to J or rather Joules per atom.The Lamb of God (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For instance if you look at the wikipedia page for Avogadro's number it will tell you that it is in units of mol^-1. It is however implicitly molecules per mol. It is simply convention not to right it out formally for whatever reason. So, your teacher in not trying to confuse you by explaining this, just ended up confusing you anyway.The Lamb of God (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

catalysis
I really feel that it would be more correct to say that the catalyst provides for an energetically more favorable pathway. Rather than just to say it lowers the activation energy. The activation energy is the difference between the energy at  the initial state and the energy of the transition state. So, a catalyst would therefore induce, in a sense, an alternative transition state that is lower in energy than the original transition state. Consequently, it would provide for a more energetically favorable reaction path. Its presence does not lower the energy of the transition state, but rather it participates in the formation of an alternate transition state that has a lower energy. This is admittedly nit-picky however.The Lamb of God (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with your proposed change in saying, "energetically more favorable", instead of the current, "lowers the activation energy". Both are correct in their own sense, perhaps instead offer one or the other as a secondary title. What I would propose adding to the catalysis section however is the topic of Binding Energy and how specific chemical interactions act to lower the activation energy. There is no mention of how the binding energy allows for lowering activation energy needed to achieve the transition state. Will be planning to make additions and edits regarding this topic in the near future. RockstheBlugold (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2019

I have concluded my editing of this section, mostly highlighting the specific reasons behind "why" catalysts reduce activation energy. I linked more of the confusing topics to other wiki-articles. I believe my explanation of binding energy in this section is straightforward yet in-depth enough for a common-person to grasp the topic's relation to catalytic activity.RockstheBlugold (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation under the first picture (with sparks and flame)
Quote: "The blue flame will sustain itself after the sparks are extinguished because the continued combustion of the flame is now energetically favorable."

"Energetically favorable"? - Isn't it simply because the constant stream of incoming volatile gas runs into already burning gas...
 * At the higher temperature it is favorable where at the lower temperature it is not. Favorable refers to a formula (a mathematical inequality). What you say is true, but omits the reference to a numerical test.

 * Actually, I see that there is an ambiguity. "Energetically favorable" could refer either to thermodynamically favorable, or to the reaction rate (kinetics). Thermodynamically favorable means the sign of the Gibbs free energy difference of the two end states, which changes with temperature. The reaction rate depends on the supply of energetic particles, which increases at higher temperature, as well as the activation energy, which I'm reading this article to find out about. So both of these kinds of "favorable" can change with temperature. But I don't know which effect dominates in common situations.

 * 178.38.83.75 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Generalization of Activation Energy
In physics, materials science, and nuclear science there are significant uses of the phrase "activation energy" each of which have a similar physical meaning as is used for the chemical reaction application. I believe that this page should be significantly modified to reflect these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antwan718 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The following text,

Activation energy may also be defined as the minimum energy required to start a chemical reaction or ignite a combustible vapor, gas or dust cloud.

is scientifically incorrect.

The use here would more adequately be expressed as the minimum ignition energy for a given mixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antwan718 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Activation energy is not Ignition energy
This entire statement is scientifically incorrect as ignition energy and activation energy describe two different quantities. .

Explosives, hydrogen, unsaturated hydrocarbons and alkanes in oxygen have the lowest activation energy: in the range of 1 to 100 μJ. Alkanes in air, distillate fuels, hybrid mixtures and extremely sensitive dusts have a activation energyrange of 0.1 to 10 mJ. Combustible dusts have a activation energy range of 0.01 to 10 J.

For most materials the stoichiometric concentration can be calculated from the carbon and hydrogen content and is typically about twice the lower flammable limit. The lowest ignition energy value rarely occurs at the stoichiometric combustion concentration. For heavier gasses, the minimum usually occurs slightly above stoichiometric concentration and for lighter gasses such as Hydrogen, slightly below.

Section - "Relationship with Gibbs Energy of Activation"
I have added a small concluded blurb at the bottom of this section to wrap things up. This blurb is meant to affirm activation's energy relation to overall reaction energy - them being independent of each other. Perhaps the wording can be altered slightly, though I think this piece wraps up the section nicely in understanding activation energy's role in a whole process.RockstheBlugold (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Standard States
The entropy and enthalpy of activation are typically the standard enthalpy of activation and standard entropy of activation. The standard state symbol should also be there. This is not actually just a question of semantics, it is a common misconception that the tabulated values are free from standard states. Usually they are not free from standard states. http://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/E02142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashi Starshade (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now included this point in the section Relationship with Gibbs energy of activation. Dirac66 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Activation energy in a 2D potential energy surface
See commits: Special:Diff/1000520950, Special:Diff/1182119303

I'm removing this section. Potential energy surfaces enable the estimation of activation enthalpy/entropy in transition state theory, the successor to the Arrhenius theory of reaction rates. The transition state theory article already includes a short discussion of the connection (PES saddle point energy determines enthalpy); it's less relevant to this article.

Moreover, this section appears to be an edited copy of the Fig. 3 images and text in

It includes several errors which suggest the wiki author may not be one of the paper authors, contrary to the copyright statement in File:Comparative_between_1D_and_2D_PES_for_tungsten_and_hydrogen_gas_reaction.jpg:
 * The 2D PES maps the energy of hydrogen adatoms (relative to gas-phase ) bound to a W(110) surface - it's not a PES for the surface binding/dissociation of.
 * Likewise, the 1D reaction coordinate diagram is for the minimum-energy path of hydrogen adatoms between W(110) surface binding sites, not for "the reaction of hydrogen gas and tungsten".
 * The non-word "depics" in the sentence "The depics correspond to the trajectories" appears to be a misphrasing of the paper's sentence beginning "Fig. 3 depicts that the trajectories corresponding to the one Cu has, have somewhat symmetrical shape".

So even if we conclude that a section on potential energy surfaces is appropriate in this article, I think we'll have to write one from scratch, rather than reworking this one. Preimage (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 * . I don't understand any of that, but I just want to say that I appreciate you using your subject matter expertise to improve the encyclopedia. I support your efforts and I hope you stick around! Happy editing :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Activation energy


text: User talk:63.197.235.94

title: User talk:63.197.235.94


text:
Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

On 30 September 2000, the second day of the Second Intifada, 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah (محمد الدرة) was killed in the Gaza Strip during widespread protests and riots across the Palestinian territories against Israeli military occupation. Jamal al-Durrah and his son Muhammad were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian television cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they were caught in crossfire between the Israeli military and Palestinian security forces. Footage shows them crouching behind a concrete cylinder, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust. Muhammad is shown slumping as he is mortally wounded by gunfire, dying soon after.

Fifty-nine seconds of the footage were broadcast on television in France with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, the station's bureau chief in Israel. Based on information from the cameraman, Enderlin told viewers that the al-Durrahs had been the target of fire from the Israeli positions and that the boy had died. After an emotional public funeral, Muhammad was hailed throughout the Muslim world as a martyr.

Initially, the Israel Defense Forces accepted responsibility for the shooting, but claimed that Palestinians used children as human shields, but later retracted responsbility. In 2000, the IDF commissioned Nahum Shahaf to investigate, but that report provoked widespread criticism. One of the Israeli investigators even claimed the incident had been staged by Palestinian gunmen, cameraman and Muhammad's own father. The report eventually concluded that Muhammad was possibly killed by Palestinian fire. However, a Palestinian investigation that same year concluded Muhammad was killed by bullets that came from the Israeli post. In 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned another investigation. In 2013, that report concluded that not only was Muhammad not hit by IDF fire, Muhammad was perhaps never shot nor killed. Jamal al-Durrah rejected the idea that his son was somehow not dead and offered to exhume Muhammad's grave. The report was criticized by Charles Enderlin and France 2, Reporters Without Borders and Barak Ravid. In France, Philippe Karsenty, a media commentator, also alleged that the scene had been staged by France 2; France 2 successfully sued him for libel in 2006, with Karsenty ordered to pay symbolic damages of €1, while in 2013 Karsenty was convicted for defamation for the allegation and fined €7,000 by a Paris court.

The footage of the father and son acquired what one writer called the power of a battle flag. Postage stamps in the Middle East carried the images. Abu Rahma's coverage of the al-Durrah shooting brought him several journalism awards, including the Rory Peck Award in 2001.

Background
On 28 September 2000, two days before the shooting, the Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, a holy site in both Judaism and Islam with contested rules of access. The violence that followed had its roots in several events, but the visit was provocative and triggered protests that escalated into rioting across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The uprising became known as the Second Intifada; it lasted over four years and cost around 4,000 lives, over 3,000 of them Palestinian.

The Netzarim junction, where the shooting took place, is known locally as the al-Shohada (martyrs') junction. It lies on Saladin Road, a few kilometres south of Gaza City. The source of conflict at the junction was the nearby Netzarim settlement, where 60 Israeli families lived until Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. A military escort accompanied the settlers whenever they left or arrived at the settlement, and an Israeli military outpost, Magen-3, guarded the approach. The area had been the scene of violent incidents in the days before the shooting.

Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah
Jamal al-Durrah (جمال الدرة; born c. 1963) was a carpenter and house painter before the shooting. Since then, because of his injuries, he has worked as a truck driver. He and his wife, Amal, live in the UNRWA-run Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. As of 2013 they had four daughters and six sons, including a boy, Muhammad, born two years after the shooting.

Until the shooting, Jamal had worked for Moshe Tamam, an Israeli contractor, for 20 years, since he was 14. Writer Helen Schary Motro came to know Jamal when she employed him to help build her house in Tel Aviv. She described his years of rising at 3:30 am to catch the bus to the border crossing at four, then a second bus out of Gaza so he could be at work by six. Tamam called him a "terrific man," someone he trusted to work alone in his customers' homes.

During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, both of Jamal Al-Durrah’s brothers were killed by Israeli airstrikes, and he was seen mourning next to their body bags.

Muhammad Jamal Al-Durrah (born 1988) was in fifth grade, but his school was closed on 30 September 2000; the Palestinian Authority had called for a general strike and day of mourning following violence in Jerusalem the day before. His mother said he had been watching the rioting on television and asked if he could join in. Father and son decided instead to go to a car auction. Jamal had just sold his 1974 Fiat, Motro wrote, and Muhammad loved cars, so they went to the auction together.

Charles Enderlin
Charles Enderlin was born in 1945 in Paris; his grandparents were Austrian Jews who had left the country in 1938 when Germany invaded. After briefly studying medicine, he moved to Jerusalem in 1968 where he became an Israeli national. He began working for France 2 in 1981, serving as their bureau chief in Israel from 1990 until his retirement in 2015. Enderlin is the author of several books about the Middle East, including one about Muhammad al-Durrah, Un Enfant est Mort: Netzarim, 30 Septembre 2000 (2010). Highly regarded among his peers and within the French establishment, he submitted a letter from Jacques Chirac, during the Philippe Karsenty libel action, who wrote in flattering terms of Enderlin's integrity. In 2009, he was awarded France's highest decoration, the Légion d'honneur.

According to French journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, Enderlin's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was respected by other journalists but was regularly criticized by pro-Israel groups. As a result of the al-Durrah case, he received death threats, his wife was assaulted in the street, his children were threatened, the family had to move home, and at one point they considered emigrating to the United States.

Talal Abu Rahma
Talal Hassan Abu Rahma studied business administration in the United States, and began working as a freelance cameraman for France 2 in Gaza in 1988. At the time of the shooting, he ran his own press office, the National News Center, contributed to CNN through the Al-Wataneya Press Office, and was a board member of the Palestinian Journalists' Association. His coverage of the al-Durrah shooting brought him several journalism awards, including the Rory Peck Award in 2001. According to France 2 correspondent Gérard Grizbec, Abu Rahma had never been a member of a Palestinian political group, had twice been arrested by Palestinian police for filming images that did not meet the approval of Yasser Arafat, and had never been accused of security breaches by Israel.

Before shooting
On the day of the shooting—Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year—the two-story Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outpost at the Netzarim junction was manned by Israeli soldiers from the Givati Brigade Engineering Platoon and the Herev Battalion. According to Enderlin, the soldiers were Druze.

The two-story IDF outpost sat northwest of the junction. Two six-story Palestinian blocks (known as the twins or twin towers and described variously as offices or apartments) lay directly behind it. South of the junction, diagonally across from the IDF, there was a Palestinian National Security Forces outpost under the command of Brigadier-General Osama al-Ali, a member of the Palestine National Council. The concrete wall that Jamal and Muhammad crouched against was in front of this building; the spot was less than 120 metres from the most northerly point of the Israeli outpost.

In addition to France 2, the Associated Press and Reuters also had camera crews at the junction. They captured brief footage of the al-Durrahs and Abu Rahma. Abu Rahma was the only journalist to film the moment the al-Durrahs were shot.

Arrival at the junction
Jamal and Muhammad arrived at the junction in a cab around midday, on their way back from the car auction. There had been a protest, demonstrators had thrown stones, and the IDF had responded with tear gas. Abu Rahma was filming events and interviewing protesters, including Abdel Hakim Awad, head of the Fatah youth movement in Gaza. Because of the protest, a police officer stopped Jamal and Muhammad's cab from going any further, so father and son proceeded on foot across the junction. It was at that point, according to Jamal, that the live fire started. Enderlin said the first shots were fired from the Palestinian positions and returned by the Israeli soldiers.

Jamal, Muhammad, the Associated Press cameraman, and Shams Oudeh, the Reuters cameraman, took cover against the concrete wall in the south-east quadrant of the crossroads, diagonally across from the Israeli outpost. Jamal, Muhammad and Shams Oudeh crouched behind a three-foot-tall (0.91 m) concrete drum, apparently part of a culvert, that was sitting against the wall. A thick paving stone sat on top of the drum, which offered further protection. Abu Rahma hid behind a white minibus parked across the road about 15 metres away from the wall. The Reuters and Associated Press cameramen briefly filmed over Jamal and Muhammad's shoulders—the cameras pointing toward the Israeli outpost—before the men moved away. Jamal and Muhammad did not move away, but stayed behind the drum for 45 minutes. In Enderlin's view, they were frozen in fear.

France 2 report
In an affidavit three days after the shooting, Abu Rahma said shots had been fired for about 45 minutes and that he had filmed around 27 minutes of it. (How much film was shot became a bone of contention in 2007 when France 2 told a court that only 18 minutes of film existed.) He began filming Jamal and Muhammad when he heard Muhammad cry and saw that the boy had been shot in the right leg. He said he filmed the scene containing the father and son for about six minutes. He sent those six minutes to Enderlin in Jerusalem via satellite. Enderlin edited the footage down to 59 seconds and added a voiceover:

"1500 hours. Everything has just erupted near the settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have shot live bullets, the Israelis are responding. Paramedics, journalists, passersby are caught in the crossfire. Here, Jamal and his son Mohammed are the target of fire from the Israeli positions. Mohammed is twelve, his father is trying to protect him. He is motioning. Another burst of fire. Mohammed is dead and his father seriously wounded."

The footage shows Jamal and Muhammad crouching behind the cylinder, the child screaming and the father shielding him. Jamal appears to shout something in the direction of the cameraman, then waves and shouts in the direction of the Israeli outpost. There is a burst of gunfire and the camera goes out of focus. When the gunfire subsides, Jamal is sitting upright and injured and Muhammad is lying over his legs. Enderlin cut a final few seconds from the footage that shows Muhammad lift his hand from his face. This cut became the basis of much of the controversy over the film.

The raw footage stops suddenly at this point and begins again with unidentified people being loaded into an ambulance. (At that point in his report, Enderlin said: "A Palestinian policeman and an ambulance driver have also lost their lives in the course of this battle.") Bassam al-Bilbeisi, an ambulance driver on his way to the scene, was reported to have been shot and killed, leaving a widow and eleven children. Abu Rahma said Muhammad lay bleeding for at least 17 minutes before an ambulance picked up father and son together. He said he did not film them being picked up because he was worried about having only one battery. Abu Rahma remained at the junction for 30–40 minutes until he felt it was safe to leave, then drove to his studio in Gaza City to send the footage to Enderlin. The 59 seconds of footage were first broadcast on France 2's nightly news at 8:00 pm local time (GMT+2), after which France 2 distributed several minutes of raw footage around the world without charge.

Funeral
Jamal and Muhammad were taken by ambulance to the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Abu Rahma telephoned the hospital and was told that three bodies had arrived there: that of a jeep driver, an ambulance driver, and a boy, initially mistakenly identified as Rami Al-Durrah.

According to Abed El-Razeq El Masry, the pathologist who examined Muhammed, the boy had received a fatal injury to the abdomen. In 2002, he showed Esther Schapira, a German journalist, post-mortem images of Muhammad next to identity cards identifying him by name. Schapira also obtained, from a Palestinian journalist, footage of Muhammad arriving at Al-Shifa Hospital on a stretcher.

During an emotional public funeral in Bureij, Muhammad was wrapped in a Palestinian flag and buried before sundown on the day of his death, in accordance with Muslim tradition.

Jamal was taken at first to the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza. One of the surgeons who operated on him, Ahmed Ghadeel, said Jamal had received multiple wounds from high-velocity bullets striking his right elbow, right thigh and the lower part of both legs; his femoral artery was also cut. Talal Abu Rahma interviewed Jamal and the doctor there on camera the day after the shooting; Ghadeel displayed x-rays of Jamal's right elbow and right pelvis. Moshe Tamam, Jamal's Israeli employer, offered to have him taken to hospital in Tel Aviv, but the Palestinian Authority declined the offer. He was transferred instead to the King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, Jordan, where he was visited by King Abdullah. Jamal reportedly told Tamam that he had been hit by nine bullets; he said five were removed from his body in a hospital in Gaza and four in Amman.

Abu Rahma's account
Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for Enderlin, alleged that the IDF had shot Muhammad and his father. Abu Rahma was clear in interviews that the Israelis had fired the shots. For example, he told The Guardian: "They were cleaning the area. Of course they saw the father. They were aiming at the boy, and that is what surprised me, yes, because they were shooting at him, not only one time, but many times." He said shooting was also coming from the Palestinian National Security Forces outpost, but that they were not shooting when Muhammad was hit. The Israeli fire was being directed at this Palestinian outpost, he said. He told National Public Radio:

"I saw the boy getting injured in his leg, and the father asking for help. Then I saw him getting injured in his arm, the father. The father was asking the ambulances to help him, because he could see the ambulances. I cannot see the ambulance ... I wasn't far away, maybe from them [Jamal and Muhammad] face to face about 15 meters, 17 meters. But the father didn't succeed to get the ambulance by waving to them. He looked at me and he said, 'Help me.' I said, 'I cannot, I can't help you.' The shooting till then was really heavy ... It was really raining bullets, for more than for 45 minutes. Then ... I hear something, 'boom!' Really is coming with a lot of dust. I looked at the boy, I filmed the boy lying down in the father's lap, and the father really, getting really injured, and he was really dizzy. I said, 'Oh my god, the boy's got killed, the boy's got killed,' I was screaming, I was losing my mind. While I was filming, the boy got killed ... I was very afraid, I was very upset, I was crying, and I was remembering my children ... This was the most terrible thing that has happened to me as a journalist."

Abu Rahma said in an affidavit that "the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army." The affidavit was given to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza and signed by Abu Rahma in the presence of Raji Sourani, a human rights lawyer.

Abu Rahma said there was intense exchange of fire between Israelis and Palestinians, but the Durrahs had not been shot during that period. Instead, after that exchange of fire, there was sustained fire from the Israeli outpost for around 30 minutes and it is during that time that both the father and son had been shot.

Israel's response
The position of the IDF changed over time, from accepting responsibility in 2000 to retracting the admission in 2005. The IDF's first response, when Enderlin contacted them before his broadcast, was that the Palestinians "make cynical use of women and children," which he decided not to air.

On 3 October 2000, the IDF's chief of operations, Major-General Giora Eiland, said an internal investigation indicated the shots had apparently been fired by Israeli soldiers. The soldiers, under fire, had been shooting from small slits in the wall of their outpost; General Yom-Tov Samia, then head of the IDF's Southern Command said they may not have had a clear field of vision, and had fired in the direction from which they believed the fire was coming. Eiland issued an apology: "This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about."

The Israelis had been trying for hours to speak to Palestinian commanders, according to Israel's Cabinet Secretary, Isaac Herzog; he added that Palestinian security forces could have intervened to stop the fire.

After the shooting, the Israeli army proceeded to destroy much of the physical evidence, including razing the wall behind Muhammad al-Durrah. The IDF justified this by arguing it needed to remove hiding places for Palestinian gunmen.

Controversy
Three mainstream narratives emerged after the shooting. The early view that Israeli gunfire had killed the boy developed into the position that, because of the trajectory of the shots, Palestinian gunfire was more likely to have been responsible. This view was expressed in 2005 by Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, a former France 2 correspondent, who viewed the raw footage. A third perspective, held by Arlette Chabot, France 2's news editor, is that no one can know who fired the shots.

A fourth, minority, position held that the scene was staged by Palestinian protesters to produce a child martyr or at least the appearance of one. This is known by those who follow the case as the "maximalist" view, as opposed to the "minimalist" view that the shots were probably not fired by the IDF. The maximalist view takes the form either that the al-Durrahs were not shot and Muhammad did not die, or that he was killed intentionally by Palestinians.

The view that the scene was a media hoax of some kind emerged from an Israeli government enquiry in November 2000. It was most persistently pursued by Stéphane Juffa, editor-in-chief of the Metula News Agency (Mena), a French-Israeli company; Luc Rosenzweig, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde and a Mena contributor; Richard Landes, an American historian who became involved after Enderlin showed him the raw footage during a visit to Jerusalem in 2003; and Philippe Karsenty, founder of a French media-watchdog site, Media-Ratings. It was also supported by Gérard Huber, a French psychoanalyst, and Pierre-André Taguieff, a French philosopher who specializes in antisemitism, both of whom wrote books about the affair. The hoax view gained further support in 2013 from a second Israeli government report, the Kuperwasser report. Several commentators regard it as a right-wing conspiracy theory and smear campaign.

Key issues
Several commentators questioned what time the shooting occurred; what time Muhammad arrived at the hospital; why there seemed to be little blood on the ground where they were shot; and whether any bullets were collected. Several alleged that, in other scenes in the raw footage, it is clear that protesters are play acting. One physician maintained that Jamal's scars were not from bullet wounds, but dated back to an injury he sustained in the early 1990s.

There was no criminal inquiry. Palestinian police allowed journalists to photograph the scene the following day, but they gathered no forensic evidence. According to a Palestinian general, there was no Palestinian investigation because there was no doubt that the Israelis had killed the boy. General Yom Tov Samia of the IDF said the presence of protesters meant the Israelis were unable to examine and take photographs of the scene. The increase in violence at the junction cut off the Nezarim settlers, so the IDF evacuated them and, a week after the shooting, blew up everything within 500 metres of the IDF outpost, thereby destroying the crime scene.

A pathologist examined the boy's body, but there was no full autopsy. It is unclear whether bullets were recovered from the scene or from Jamal and Muhammad. In 2002 Abu Rahma implied to Esther Schapira that he had collected bullets at the scene, adding: "We have some secrets for ourselves. We cannot give anything ... everything." According to Jamal al-Durrah, five bullets were recovered from his body by physicians in Gaza and four in Amman. In 2013 he said, without elaborating: "The bullets the Israelis fired are in the possession of the Palestinian Authority."

Length and content
Questions arose about how much footage existed and whether it showed the boy had died. Abu Rahma said in an affidavit that the gunfight had lasted 45 minutes and that he had filmed about 27 minutes of it. Doreen Carvajal of the International Herald Tribune said in 2005 that France 2 had shown the newspaper "the original 27-minute tape of the incident." When the Court of Appeal of Paris asked, in 2007, to see all the footage, during France 2's libel case against Philippe Karsenty, France 2 presented the court with 18 minutes of film, saying the rest had been destroyed because it had not been about the shooting. Enderlin then said only 18 minutes of footage had been shot.

According to Abu Rahma, six minutes of his footage focused on the al-Durrahs. France 2 broadcast 59 seconds of that scene and released another few seconds of it. No part of the footage shows the boy dead. Enderlin cut a final few seconds from the end, during which Muhammad appears to lift his hand away from his face. Enderlin said he had cut this scene in accordance with the France 2 ethical charter, because it showed the boy in his death throes ("agonie"), the final struggle before death, which he said was "unbearable" ("J'ai coupé l'agonie de l'enfant. C'était insupportable ... Cela n'aurait rien apporté de plus).

Footage cut off
Another issue is why France 2, the Associated Press and Reuters did not film the scene directly after the shooting, including the shooting death of the ambulance driver who arrived to pick up Jamal and Muhammad. Abu Rahma's footage stops suddenly after the shooting of the father and son, then begins again—from the same position, with the white minibus behind which Abu Rahma was standing visible in the shot—with other people being loaded into an ambulance.

Abu Rahma said Muhammad lay bleeding for at least 17 minutes before an ambulance picked up Jamal and Muhammad together, but he did not film any of it. When Esther Schapira asked why not, he replied: "Because when the ambulance came it closed on them, you know?" When asked why he had not filmed the ambulance arriving and leaving, he replied that he had only one battery. Enderlin reportedly told the Paris Court of Appeal that Abu Rahma changed batteries at that point. Enderlin wrote in 2008 that "footage filmed by a cameraman under fire is not the equivalent of a surveillance camera in a supermarket." Abu Rahma "filmed what circumstances permitted."

French reaction to the footage
In October 2004 France 2 allowed three French journalists to view the raw footage—Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of L'Express; Daniel Leconte, former France 2 correspondent and head of news documentaries at Arte, a state-run television network; and Luc Rosenzweig, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde. They also asked to speak to the cameraman, Abu Rahma, who was in Paris at the time, but France 2 apparently told them he did not speak French and that his English was not good enough.

Jeambar and Leconte wrote a report about the viewing for Le Figaro in January 2005. None of the scenes showed that the boy had died, they wrote. They rejected the position that the scene had been staged, but when Enderlin's voiceover said Muhammad was dead, Enderlin "had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers." They said the footage did not show the boy's death throes: "This famous 'agonie' that Enderlin insisted was cut from the montage does not exist."

Several minutes of the film showed Palestinians playing at war for the cameras, they wrote, falling down as if wounded, then getting up and walking away. Jeambar and Leconte concluded that the shots had come from the Palestinian positions, given the trajectory of the bullets.

The idea of writing about the raw footage had been Luc Rosenzweig's; he had initially offered a story about it to L'Express, which is how Jeambar (editor of L'Express) had become involved. But Jeambar and Leconte ended up distancing themselves from Rosenzweig. He was involved with the Israeli-French Metula News Agency (known as Mena), which was pushing the view that the scene was a fake. Rosenzweig later called it "an almost perfect media crime." When Jeambar and Leconte wrote up their report about the raw footage, they initially offered it to Le Monde, not Le Figaro, but Le Monde refused to publish it because Mena had been involved at an earlier stage. Jeambar and Leconte made clear in Le Figaro that they gave no credence to the staging hypothesis:

"To those who, like Mena, tried to use us to support the theory that the child's death was staged by the Palestinians, we say they are misleading us and their readers. Not only do we not share that point of view, but we attest that, given our present knowledge of the case, nothing supports that conclusion. In fact, the reverse is true.'"

Enderlin's response
Enderlin responded to Leconte and Jeambar in January 2005 in Le Figaro. He thanked them for rejecting that the scene had been staged. He had reported that the shots were fired by the Israelis because, he wrote, he trusted the cameraman, who had worked for France 2 since 1988. In the days following the shooting, other witnesses, including other journalists, offered some confirmation, he said. He added that the Israeli army had not responded to France 2's offers to cooperate with their investigation.

Another reason he had attributed the shooting to Israel, he wrote, was that "the image corresponded to the reality of the situation not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank." Citing Ben Kaspi in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, he wrote that, during the first months of the Second Intifada, the IDF had fired one million rounds of ammunition—700,000 in the West Bank and 300,000 in Gaza; from 29 September to late October 2000, 118 Palestinians had been killed, including 33 under the age of 18, compared to 11 adult Israelis killed during the same period.

Confusion about timeline
Confusion arose about the timeline. Abu Rahma said the shooting began at noon and continued for 45 minutes. Jamal's account matched his: he and Muhammad arrived at the junction around noon, and were under fire for 45 minutes.

Enderlin's France 2 report placed the shooting later in the day. His voiceover said that Jamal and Muhammad were shot around 3:00 pm local time (GMT+3). James Fallows agreed that Jamal and Muhammad first made an appearance in the footage around 3:00 pm, judging by comments from Jamal and some journalists on the scene. Abu Rahma said he remained at the junction for 30–40 minutes after the shooting. According to Schapira, he left for his studio in Gaza at around 4 pm, where he sent the footage to Enderlin in Jerusalem at around 6 pm. The news first arrived in London from the Associated Press at 6:00 pm BST (GMT+1), followed minutes later by a similar report from Reuters.

Contradicting the noon and 3 pm timelines, Mohammed Tawil, the doctor who admitted Muhammad to the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, told Esther Schapira that the boy had been admitted around 10:00 am local time, along with the ambulance driver, who had been shot through the heart. Tawil later said that he could not recall what he had told reporters about this. Records from the Al-Shifa Hospital reportedly show that a young boy was examined in the pathology department at midday. The pathologist, Dr. Abed El-Razeq El Masry, examined him for half an hour. He told Schapira that the boy's abdominal organs were lying outside his body, and he showed Schapira images of the body, with a card identifying the boy as Muhammad. A watch on a pathologist's wrist in one of the images appeared to say 3:50.

Interview with soldiers
In 2002 Schapira interviewed three anonymous Israeli soldiers, "Ariel, Alexej and Idan," who said they had been on duty at the IDF post that day. They knew something was about to happen, one said, because of the camera crews that had gathered. One soldier said the live fire started from the high-rise Palestinian blocks known as "the twins"; the shooter was firing at the IDF post, he said. The soldier added that he had not seen the al-Durrahs. The Israelis returned fire on a Palestinian station 30 metres to the left of the al-Durrahs. Their weapons were equipped with optics that allowed them to fire accurately, according to the soldier, and none of them had switched to automatic fire. In the view of the soldier, the shooting of Jamal and Muhammad was no accident. The shots did not come from the Israeli position, he said.

Father's injuries
In 2007 Yehuda David, a hand surgeon at Tel Hashomer Hospital, told Israel's Channel 10 that he had treated Jamal Al-Durrah in 1994 for knife and axe wounds to his arms and legs, injuries sustained during a gang attack. David maintained that the scars Jamal had presented as bullet wounds were in fact scars from a tendon-repair operation David had performed in the early 90s. When David repeated his allegations in an interview with a "Daniel Vavinsky," published in 2008 in Actualité Juive in Paris, Jamal filed a complaint with the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris for defamation and breach of doctor-patient confidentiality.

The court established that "Daniel Vavinsky" was a pseudonym for Clément Weill-Raynal, a deputy editor at France 3. In 2011 it ruled that David and Actualité Juive had defamed Jamal. David, Weill-Raynal and Serge Benattar, the managing editor of Actualité Juive, were fined €5,000 each, and Actualité Juive was ordered to print a retraction. The Israeli government said it would fund David's appeal. The appeal was upheld in 2012; David was acquitted of defamation and breach of confidentiality. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli's prime minister, telephoned David to congratulate him. Jamal Al-Durrah said he would appeal the court's decision.

In 2012 Rafi Walden, deputy director of the Tel Hashomer hospital and board member of Physicians for Human Rights, wrote in Haaretz that he had received Jamal's 50-page medical file from Amman's King Hussein Hospital and examined it. The file shows the injuries from the 2000 shooting were "completely different wounds" from the 1994 injuries. The medical files showed "a gunshot wound in the right wrist, a shattered forearm bone, multiple fragment wounds in a palm, gunshot wounds in the right thigh, a fractured pelvis, an exit wound in the buttocks, a tear in the main nerve of the right thigh, tears in the main groin arteries and veins, and two gunshot wounds in the left lower leg." The medical reports corroborated this diagnosis with photographs, x-rays, surgery reports, and expert consultation reports.

2000: Shahaf report
Major General Yom Tov Samia, the IDF's southern commander, set up an inquiry soon after the shooting. According to James Fallows, Israeli commentators questioned its legitimacy as soon as it started; Haaretz called it "almost a pirate endeavour." The team was led by Nahum Shahaf, a physicist, and Joseph Doriel, an engineer, both of whom had been involved in the Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. Other investigators included Meir Danino, chief scientist at Elisra Systems; Bernie Schechter, a ballistics expert, formerly with the Israeli police's criminal identification laboratory; and Chief Superintendent Elliot Springer, also from the criminal identification lab. A full list of names was never released.

Shahaf and Doriel built models of the wall, concrete drum and IDF post, and tried to reenact the shooting. A mark on the drum from the Israeli Bureau of Standards allowed them to determine its size and composition. They concluded that the shots may have come from a position behind Abu Rahma, where Palestinian police were alleged to have been standing.

On 23 October 2000, Shahaf and Doriel invited CBS 60 Minutes to film the reenactment. Doriel told the correspondent, Bob Simon, that he believed the boy's death was real, but that it had been staged to damage Israel. Doriel said the actors in this staged incident included the Palestinian gunmen, the cameraman Abu Rahma and even the boy's own father "who apparently didn't understand that the act would end in the murder of his son". When General Samia heard about the interview, he removed Doriel from the investigation.

The investigators' report was shown to the head of Israeli military intelligence and the key points were published in November 2000. The investigation concluded that while it is possible that Muhammad had been killed by the IDF, it was also "quite plausible" that he had been hit by Palestinian bullets aimed at the IDF post. The report did not include Doriel's allegation that the Palestinians had staged the entire incident. The inquiry provoked widespread criticism. A Haaretz editorial said, "it is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation."

Palestinian criticism
The reports conclusions were criticized by the Palestinians. Palestinians pointed out that the Israeli army had destroyed most of the physical evidence, including the wall behind the Durrahs that contained the bullet holes, saying it needed to remove hiding places for Palestinian gunmen. Cameraman Talal Abu Rahma said that there had been a period of intense gunfire exchange between the IDF and Palestinian militants, followed by a period in which only the IDF was firing, and that Muhammad was killed during this latter period. Palestinians also criticized the report for concluding that Muhammad had been shot in the back; doctors in Al-Shifa Hospital had concluded that Muhammad had been shot in the abdomen and the back wound was an exit injury.

An investigation by the Palestinian Authority ruled out the possibility that Muhammad was killed by Palestinian fire. Major General Abdel-Razek al-Majaydeh said Muhammad was not shot from behind and the Palestinian investigation concluded the bullets came from the Israeli post.

2005: Retraction of earlier position
In 2005 Major-General Giora Eiland publicly retracted the IDF's admission of responsibility, and a statement to that effect was approved by the prime minister's office in September 2007. The following year an IDF spokesman, Col. Shlomi Am-Shalom, said that the Shahaf report had shown the IDF could not have shot Muhammad. He asked France 2 to send the IDF the unedited 27 minutes of raw footage, as well as footage Abu Rahma shot the following day.

2013: Kuperwasser report
In September 2012 the Israeli government set up another inquiry at the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, led by Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry. In May 2013 it published a 44-page report concluding that the al-Durrahs had not been hit by IDF fire and may not have been shot at all. Muhammad al-Durrah's father strongly challenged Israel's claim that his son was somehow still alive and offered to have his son's grave exhumed for DNA analysis.

While Netanyahu called the report's conclusions "the truth", the report was criticized by Reporters Without Borders and Israeli journalist Barak Ravid.

Report's conclusions
The Kuperwasser report said that France 2's central claims were not substantiated by the material the station had in its possession at the time; that the boy was alive at the end of the video; that there was no evidence that Jamal or Muhammad were injured in the manner reported by France 2 or that Jamal was seriously injured; and that they may not have been shot at all. The report claimed that the body at Muhammad's funeral was different from the boy behind the barrel in France 2's footage.

The Kuperwasser did not contact Muhammad al-Durrah's father during the course of the investigation. Nor did it contact cameraman Abu Rahma or Enderlin – both witnesses to the shooting. It included a medical opinion from Yehuda David, the doctor who treated Jamal in 1994. The report said it is "highly doubtful that bullet holes in the vicinity of the two could have had their source in fire from the Israeli position," and that the France 2 report was "edited and narrated in such a way as to create the misleading impression that it substantiated the claims made therein." The France 2 narrative relied entirely on Abu Rahma's testimony, the report said. Yuval Steinitz, Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence, called the affair a "modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel."

Criticism of the report
France 2, Charles Enderlin and Jamal al-Durrah rejected the report's conclusions and said they would cooperate with an independent international investigation. France 2 and Enderlin asked the Israeli government to supply the commission's letter of appointment, membership and evidence, including photographs and the names of witnesses. Enderlin said the commission had failed to speak to him, France 2, al-Durrah or other eyewitnesses, and had consulted no independent experts. According to Enderlin, France 2 stood ready to help al-Durrah have his son's body exhumed; he and al-Durrah said they were willing to take polygraph tests.

American-Israeli journalist Larry Derfner questioned the report's conclusions of a coverup: "[If] it was all a hoax, how many people would have to be covering it up all this time? Start with the al-Dura family, then the people near the scene of the shooting, at least some of the people at the funeral, plus doctors and nurses at the Gaza hospital and the Amman hospital, plus the Jordanian ambassador to Israel who brought Jamal al-Dura to Amman for treatment...Each and every one of them would have had to keep this incredible secret for 13 years. Yet with all the legions of Palestinian collaborators Israel has managed to conscript over the years despite the danger to their lives, not one Palestinian has ever been found to corroborate the al-Dura conspiracy theory."Israeli journalist Barak Ravid called it "probably one of the least convincing documents produced by the Israeli government in recent years".

2006: Enderlin-France 2 v. Karsenty
In response to claims that it had broadcast a staged scene, Enderlin and France 2 filed three defamation suits in 2004 and 2005, seeking symbolic damages of €1. The most notable lawsuit was against Philippe Karsenty, who ran a media watchdog, Media-Ratings. France 2 and Enderlin issued a writ two days later.

The case began in September 2006. Enderlin submitted as evidence a February 2004 letter from Jacques Chirac, then president of France, which spoke of Enderlin's integrity. The court upheld the complaint on 19 October 2006, fining Karsenty €1,000 and ordering him to pay €3,000 in costs. He lodged an appeal that day.

2007: Karsenty v. Enderlin-France 2
The first appeal opened in September 2007 in the Court of Appeal of Paris, before a three-judge panel led by Judge Laurence Trébucq. The court asked France 2 to turn over the 27 minutes of raw footage Abu Rahma said he had shot, to be shown during a public hearing. France 2 produced 18 minutes; Enderlin said that only 18 minutes had been shot.

During the screening, the court heard that Muhammad had raised his hand to his forehead and moved his leg after Abu Rahma had said he was dead, and that there was no blood on his shirt. Enderlin argued that Abu Rahma had not said the boy was dead, but that he was dying. A report prepared for the court by Jean-Claude Schlinger, a ballistics expert commissioned by Karsenty, said that had the shots come from the Israeli position, Muhammad would have been hit in the lower limbs only.

France 2's lawyer, Francis Szpiner, counsel to former President of France Jacques Chirac, called Karsenty "the Jew who pays a second Jew to pay a third Jew to fight to the last drop of Israeli blood," comparing him to 9/11 conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Karsenty had it in for Enderlin, Szpiner argued, because of Enderlin's even-handed coverage of the Middle East.

The judges overturned the ruling against Karsenty in May 2008 in a 13-page decision. They ruled that he had exercised in good faith his right to criticize and had shown the court a "coherent body of evidence." The court noted inconsistencies in Enderlin's statements and said that Abu Rahma's statements were not "perfectly credible either in form or content." There were calls for a public inquiry from historian Élie Barnavi, a former Israeli ambassador to France, and Richard Prasquier, president of the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France. The left-leaning Le Nouvel Observateur began a petition in support of Enderlin that was signed by 300 French writers, accusing Karsenty of a seven-year smear campaign.

2013: Defamation ruling
France 2 appealed to the Court of Cassation (supreme court). In February 2012 it quashed the decision of the appeal court to overturn the conviction, ruling that the court should not have asked France 2 to provide the raw footage. The case was sent back to the appeal court, which convicted Karsenty of defamation in 2013 and fined him €7,000.

Impact of the footage
The footage of Muhammad was compared to other iconic images of children under attack: the boy in the Warsaw ghetto (1943), the Vietnamese girl doused with napalm (1972), and the firefighter carrying the dying baby in Oklahoma (1995). Catherine Nay, a French journalist, argued that Muhammad's death "cancels, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air before the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto."

Palestinian children were distressed by the repeated broadcasting of the footage, according to a therapist in Gaza, and were re-enacting the scene in playgrounds. Arab countries issued postage stamps bearing the images. Parks and streets were named in Muhammad's honour, and Osama bin Laden mentioned him in a "warning" to President George Bush after 9/11. The images were blamed for the 2000 Ramallah lynching and a rise in antisemitism in France. One image could be seen in the background when journalist Daniel Pearl, an American Jew, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in February 2002.

Sections of the Jewish and Israeli communities, including the Israeli government in 2013, described the statements that IDF soldiers had killed the boy as a "blood libel," a reference to the centuries-old allegation that Jews sacrifice Christian children for their blood. Comparisons were made with the Dreyfus affair of 1894, when a French-Jewish army captain was found guilty of treason based on a forgery. In the view of Charles Enderlin, the controversy is a smear campaign intended to undermine footage coming out of the occupied Palestinian territories. Doreen Carvjal wrote in The New York Times that the footage is "a cultural prism, with viewers seeing what they want to see." The footage of al-Durrah's death re-emerged in political discourse during the Israel–Hamas war after his siblings were killed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

title: Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah


text:
William Armstrong

William Armstrong and its variations may refer to:

Politicians

 * William Armstrong (corn merchant) (1778–1857), local politician and corn merchant
 * Bill Armstrong (Australian politician) (1909–1982), member of the Parliament of Australia
 * Billy Armstrong (born 1943), politician in Northern Ireland
 * William Armstrong (Virginia politician) (1782–1865), U.S. Representative from Virginia
 * William Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Sanderstead (1915–1980), British civil servant
 * William Boardman Armstrong (1883–1954), lawyer and political figure in Nova Scotia, Canada
 * William Drayton Armstrong (1862–1936), member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly
 * William H. Armstrong (Wisconsin politician) (1840/41–1916), Wisconsin legislator
 * William Hepburn Armstrong (1824–1919), U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania
 * William James Armstrong (1826–1915), merchant, miller and politician in British Columbia
 * William L. Armstrong (1937–2016), U.S. Senator from Colorado
 * William Armstrong (Tennessee politician) (1795–1847), mayor of Nashville, Tennessee
 * William W. Armstrong (journalist) (1833–1905), American journalist and politician from Ohio
 * William W. Armstrong (politician) (1864–1944), American lawyer and politician in New York state

Artists

 * William Armstrong (Canadian artist) (1822–1914), Canadian artist
 * Bill Armstrong (photographer), American fine art photographer

Sports

 * Bill Armstrong (announcer) (1932–2000), game show announcer
 * Bill Armstrong (Australian footballer) (born 1936), former Australian rules footballer
 * Bill Armstrong (coach) (1873–1938), American college football coach
 * Bill Armstrong (English footballer) (1913–1995), English footballer
 * Bill Armstrong (guard) (1920–1976), American football player
 * Bill Armstrong (defensive back) (born 1955), American football player
 * Bill Armstrong (ice hockey, born 1966), ice hockey player
 * Bill Armstrong (ice hockey, born 1970), ice hockey player, coach, and executive
 * William Armstrong (cricketer) (1885–1955), Australian cricketer
 * William Armstrong (footballer) (1892–1968), Australian rules footballer
 * William Armstrong (rugby league), rugby league footballer of the 1920s

Music

 * Bill Armstrong (music producer) (born 1929), Australian music producer
 * William Armstrong (music critic) (1858–1942), American music critic
 * Billie Joe Armstrong (born 1972), American rock musician with Green Day
 * Willie Armstrong (1804–?), Newcastle upon Tyne-born singer-songwriter

Others

 * William Armstrong (Christie's Will) (1565–1649), Scottish border freebooter, known as "Christie's Will"
 * William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong (1810–1900), British industrialist
 * William "Duff" Armstrong (William Armstrong, 1833–1899), 1858 defendant for the murder of James Preston Metzker in Mason County, Illinois
 * William H. Armstrong (author) (1911–1999), author of the children's book Sounder
 * William Nevins Armstrong (1835–1905), Attorney General of Hawaii
 * William Armstrong (pilot) (1924–1945), member of the Tuskegee Airmen
 * William T. Armstrong (1929–2005), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation executive
 * William Ward Armstrong, Canadian mathematician and computer scientist
 * William Park Armstrong (1874–1944), theologian and New Testament scholar
 * William Armstrong (theatre director) (1882–1952), British actor, theatre manager and director
 * Billy Armstrong (actor) (1891–1924), British actor
 * William Goodfellow Armstrong (1792–1879), English-born Upper Canadian farmer, soldier, hotelier and settler of Markham Village, Ontario

title: William Armstrong


text: User talk:66.63.76.7

title: User talk:66.63.76.7


text:
Rebels (song)

"Rebels" is a song by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. It appeared on the 1985 album Southern Accents and was released as a single in the same year. Although it only reached #74 on the Billboard Hot 100 pop chart, it fared much better on the Billboard Album Rock Tracks chart, where it peaked at #5.

"Rebels" and Petty's broken hand
The track was recorded in 1984. It was during the recording of this track that Petty broke his hand. Petty remembers being so high on drugs that he could not get an arrangement he liked. Petty went into the control room, and put the original demo tape on, which featured just him and a Rickenbacker 12-string guitar. He believed that they had yet to record an arrangement better than this demo, which made him so furious that he stormed up the stairs into his house, and punched the wall, causing severe damage to his left hand. After taking time off for his hand to heal, Petty called Jimmy Iovine in to help him finish "Rebels" along with some other tracks on Southern Accents. Alan "Bugs" Weidel, Tom's roadie, considers "Rebels" a least favorite of his due to Petty's broken hand.

Reception
Cash Box said that it's "another strong outing from Petty And The Heartbreakers" and highlighted "Petty’s urgent vocal and lyrics of alienation."

Personnel
Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
 * Tom Petty – 12-string guitar, lead vocals
 * Mike Campbell – guitars, bass, keyboards
 * Benmont Tench – keyboards, backing vocals
 * Stan Lynch – drums, backing vocals
 * Howie Epstein – backing vocals

Additional musicians
 * William Bergman – horn, tenor saxophone, backing vocals
 * John Berry Jr. – trumpet, horn
 * Dick Braun – trumpet, horn, backing vocals
 * Jim Coile – horn, tenor saxophone, backing vocals
 * Kurt McGettrick – horn, backing vocals
 * Molly Duncan – saxophone
 * Dave Plews – trumpet
 * Bobbye Hall – percussion

Cover versions
The Drive-By Truckers released a cover version of Rebels on their compilation The Fine Print: A Collection of Oddities and Rarities in 2009.

title: Rebels (song)