` ::This is a kind offer indeed, and I would urge other editors to take it up if they feel they can do so. However, I'm not sure I want to come back in and try to work the article into something reasonable, making sense of the story's historical place in the burgeoning al-Aqsa intifada of late 2000, while avoiding going overboard on ``context``. The latter has only been abused in Paras 1,2,3 and 4 of the lead and everywhere else throughout the article at the moment - and it would be tricky to do a proper narrative under almost any circumstances.  ::First of all, I would have to strip out nearly everything about the quite trivial ``controversy`` (especially because of the BLP issues), along with many of the terrible sources being used. Only then might the remainder be useful as the basis of an article that would do justice to the project. The article has got to have the firm application of policy first with Haaretz and JPost and the Daily Mirror in, Commentary Magazine and OBL out.  ::I suppose we have to have Karsenty and the ``hoax theory`` mentioned somewhere - lets confine it to proper, encyclopaedic use of the actual French RS, translation here. (Remember, he's been convicted of defamation, so this is his second bite of the cherry, and he gets lucky). In French, the nearest Karsenty gets to any support is ``«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure»`` - that his views cannot be set aside on the basis of the film. That is ludicrously different from support for the ``hoax theory``. (Which in any case is very much a side-show to this story). Have a look - the French report of the court case mentions two points raised by Karsenty right at the end, and very nearly brushes them off as quibbles. ::I'd be fairly sure that everything from Shahaf can come out, he doesn't need mentioning. If we have to have anything from him atall I (provisionally) propose the early theory that was on German television, that a Palestinian (standing?) next to the cameraman shot al-Durrah dead from the other side of the street. I don't know why Shahaf abandoned a semi-credible theory for the contradictory ``he wasn't shot and isn't dead`` hoax theory, which is what he has desperately been trying to persuade us of ever since.  `