Talk:Petra László incident

Norden1990, I welcome your counter-arguments here

@Norden1990: You have reverted, and as a reason you stated 'non-free image'. I have just put back the version that does not include the non-free image. However, in your revert you also undid the textual edits. Kindly refrain yourself from deleting, re-ordering or marginalising events. If you have disagreements, I would like to ask you to present your counter-arguments here on the Talk page before making any changes. Amin (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have uploaded an image with false license, which thus violated copyright. I just reverted your act of vandalism. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you also reverted text-edits that had nothing to do with the unlicensed photograph. I am currently looking to find the image with a clear license that permits it on Wikipedia. The original video footage was filmed by Agence France-Presse, which is a public press agency of the French government, so I think my efforts will be fruitful. Amin (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The AFP photo on the right is totally misleading. It gives the impression that Petra László tripped Mohsen. In reality it did not happen: http://freedomdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/momento-que-petra-laszlo-hizo-zancadilla-osama-abdul-mohsen-que-corria-con-hijo-pequeno-cuestas-cerca-frontera-hungara-1442397018320.jpg. She is standing on her left leg - which is too far to kick him - when he starts to loose balance.She was found not guilty of this. However no objection to the left one.--Ltbuni (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A photo is a photo. If you believe she did not tackel Mohsen, then you should not be afraid of any photos of the incident. If you believe the photo suggest anything that counters your political agenda, than perhaps it is time to the accept reality of the incident, instead of trying to censor photos from Wikipedia. Amin (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No one denies here that she kicked kids.As I wrote "no objection to the left one" But she did NOT kick Mohsen. It is a FACT. Why would that be censorship? Giving false impression of a person is libellous. The text is covering both the fact of the incident, both the different narratives. --Ltbuni (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia do not allow to use only non-commercial images, please read Commons:Licensing. Otherwise please avoid personal attacks and speculations about my political views. For instance, I was not curious, why this topic is so important for you, a Westernized immigrant from Iran. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I will go trough the Commons link that you provided. Regarding to why this is important to me, I would like to ask you the same. I randomly came by this article and found it to be very biased. When I went trough the history of the page, I noted that people, (including you) wanted the page deleted, or marginalised the events to be unimportant, almost as if you are protecting Petra Laszlo. I oppose dogma in general. #TheTruthWillSetYouFree Amin (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this event is marginal and unimportant (for instance, we have no article about those migrant who were massacred by Libyan soldiers etc.), but I accepted the community's decision. However there is need to create a balanced article with opinions from all parties. Wikipedia is not the place for Two Minutes Hate against a camerawoman. I oppose dogma too, whether it anti-immigrant or liberal. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Heti Válasz/in fact

1. Why is it relevant, that it is a Hungarian CONSERVATIVE weekly? What does it mean in this context? Shall we insert "LIBERAL media something claims, that she tripped Mohsen" as well? BTW, it is overlink now, 'cause clicking on the Heti Válasz, its own article pops up. So I can't find any reason to insert this specific word.

2. "In fact" is important, because one the one hand there was an allegation, on the other hand we have a fact. I don'feel it "overkill" - it just put things in order. --Ltbuni (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

1. In this occasion it is relevant because it adds context that might influence their conclusion. If a thinktank concludes that Palestinians are not oppressed at all, is not worth mentioning that the think tank in question is a conservative Jewish think tank that fiercely supports Zionism?

2. The term "in fact" is unnecessary and overkill. Do you think t hat for every verdict or conclusion on Wikipedia the terms 'in fact' is added? No. Furthermore, not everyone agrees that Laszlo did not trip Mohsen. I want to remind you about this photo on the right.

I will await any counter-argument that you might have, before I put 'conservative' back into the article.

Amin (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would not put the word "conservative" there, as these labels are a bit obscure and oversimplifying (what does "conservative" means exactly and who labeled that newspaper as conservative?). Amin's example seems misleading to me, since even in that case we could only add that the think tank is regarded by source X (could be itself) as Y. I might be a bit overcautious, though. Anyway, my view is that we should stick with the (more solid) facts, and a newspaper being conservative (whatever it means) seems a bit vague to me, while it is a solid fact that they wrote such a claim. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So your argument is that the term 'conservative' is 'obscure' and 'oversimplifying' ? Maybe to you. Here is link to Wiktionary, hope that clarifies. I think it's well established that this weekly magazine is 'conservative' in any sense of the word. Amin (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First, Wiki products are not considered proper sources here, second, we should also avoid original research, so it is not that important if that newspaper looks conservative to you. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You are drifting off topic. The point is: Heti Válasz's conservative leanings are relevant to the context. If you are not sure what 'conservative' means, use any means to find out the definition. Amin (Talk) 22:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"might influence their conclusion" - or might not. No suggestions! Facts! Ok? Again: shall we add "liberal" to other media which claimed that she tripped? Or reference to authors nationality/religion/migrant background etc every time? From the angle most of the photos were taken, only one thing could not be identified: how far Petra Laszlo was standing from Mohsen. I linked another one: she was pretty far. BTW, the official investigation - after analysing ALL of the photos - also proved that she did not trip. Even Osama started to debate with the policeman, not with PL - he knew that he lost balance because the policeman let him go. --Ltbuni (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: Every major news outlet here concludes that Mohsen did not trip due to the policemen but due to Laszlo's foot. However, you want to highlight this conservative weekly magazine. Why is that? The magazine happens to have close links to right wing populist party Fidesz. Yet you still claim that the fact that this magazine is 'conservative' is not relevant? I have put the word back where it belongs. Alternatively, I propose leaving the line out altogether. Amin (Talk) 03:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"The magazine happens to have close links to right wing populist party Fidesz" -in reality it is highly critical of the Fidesz party, some of the editors popularized the vote against the Fidesz in the last referendum.... :)--Ltbuni (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Labels, like "conservative", "populist", etc., express opinions (trying to influence the reader towards a certain point of view) and as such they should not be stated as facts, cf. WP:NPOV. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP's 37.76.x.x

Two IP addresses are editing this article maliciously.
For what it's worth, both IP's start with 37.76.x.x, and both ping to Budapest, Hungary.

I hereby invite the IP addresses to take part in discussion on the Talk page here.
Amin (Talk) 22:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tripping

Seriously? International media can not be wrong? http://dzrhnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/head057.jpg --Ltbuni (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No one said that.

Here on Wikipedia, we provide information based on reliable sources (Please see WP:RS). The incident in this article has been covered by large amounts of reliable sources. If you think those sources are wrong, it is not fair practice to remove that information from Wikipedia.

I welcome discussion, but I'd like to ask you to refrain from reverting contributions that are well referenced. Amin (Talk) 19:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually You SAID that.I gave You above the Reuters (How could she trip him that far, with her left leg...http://rcnews.hu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lpetra.jpg?) I gave You official documents (Hungarian Prosecution). This article is about a living person, please stop smearing her: You accuse her of a crime, she did not commit. Why would not be these reliable sources? "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". I don't find Your article reliable, nor Neutral ... What is more, I can't understand, why on Earth You removed Osama from the lead - he was the most famous "victim".--Ltbuni (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I find your English hard to follow. But if I understand correctly, you do not trust Reuters? That is another discussion.

Also, you said "You accuse her of a crime". This isn't true, I personally do not accuse. I just state information as it is reported by other sources, as we all are supposed to do here on Wikipedia.

I have no problem with keeping Mohsen in the lead. But you do seem to have a problem having the fact that she was recorded kicking two teenage refugees, in the lead. Both are significant in this incident, and both should be in the lead. Amin (Talk) 20:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my keyboard played havoc, but now! In simple English:

"I have no problem with keeping Mohsen in the lead" - Actually You were the one, who kept deleting him, by reverting my edit... You focus in the lead only on the kicking of migrants. You did not do the slightest effort to insert Osama in the lead.You also deleted that small tiny little fact, that they wanted to enter Hungary ILLEGALY.

" You accuse her of a crime". I just state information" - Biggest LOL ever... I will send these to other editors. You really made my day!!!!!! First, I just stated information as well, inserting "illegally". Then You said: she tripped him. I said and proved (with the Photos of the Reuters) she did not trip him. I think, Your sources are not reliable/not neutral - I copied the VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE "Reliable source" rule of the Wikipedia. This is NOT met by most of the international media. I found media bias regarding the Migration Crisis. Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sv3oXGLNVY

So, I find it repulsive, when we say that, she tripped him, when the Hungarian Judiciary system came to the conclusion that she did not. So, she has an OFFICIAL document that she did not do that, but You say that she did, because of the CNN/others.

Randomly chosen pics were used to smear her - no oned cared about the truth: what happened before etc. I cited Reuters as a RELIABLE source, and inserted its photos, TAKEN BY ANOTHER ANGLE/VIEWPOINT which clearly prove SHE COULD NOT TRIP HIM. So, we can NOT state in the lead, that she was recorded, because it was impossible. Instead of "allegedly", we can use: X claims, or she seemed to be doing or sg..

FINALLY: YOU insist on inserting the kicking of the two kids in the lead? No problem. But the NAME of the article is TRIPPING incident, and not "Kicking and Tripping". What is more, most of Your sources also have the case of Osama in mind, when they speak about this incident, and not the kicking of kids.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We have to go with reliable sources. Ltbuni, if you have reliable sources, then present them here before making further contentious edits. This isn't the place for political tirades - if that's what you're interested in, there are plenty of other fora on the internet for you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already added at least 3 in the article, and on the talk page... (REuters picture, I linked another 2 Hungarian Journals, Indictment)... What is more, I succesfully questionned the reliablility of the sources of the opponent (media bias!!). More on this later: his sources were out-of-date (!), no further investigation/developments were mentioned in them (for example, that Osama was fired from his job can not be found on the BBC, CNN etc - but the fact, that she was indicted, was covered in the international media, click on the links http://24.hu/kozelet/2016/09/07/tele-van-a-nemzetkozi-sajto-a-laszlo-petra-elleni-vademelessel/).

http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20150924-a-heti-valasz-virtualis-lincselesrol-ir-laszlo-petra-roszke-menekultek.html

http://valasz.hu/vilag/nem-gancsolt-laszlo-petra-erdemtelenul-dicsoult-meg-a-szir-fociedzo-115186

The photos, proving that she did not trip him, are in the later, but You can see them here: http://dzrhnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/head057.jpg http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150912/images/12fortrip1_214203.jpg etc. She is too far...

Why aren't these reliable sources, and why the CCN - which totally omits the facts that shed light on the other side of the story (he was fired, she did not trip) - is? --Ltbuni (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Excerpt from the indictement document: A felvételek készítése közben vádlott egy fiatal férfit jobb lábbal, egy gyors mozdulattal, talppal lábszáron rúgott, majd egy kiskorú lányt is jobb lábbal, térdmagasságban megrúgott. A vádlott röviddel ezt követően egy gyermeket a kezében tartó férfi felé is rúgott, azonban a rúgás a férfit nem érte el. http://index.hu/belfold/2016/09/07/vademeles_laszlo_petra_menekult_felrugott_fociedzo/ In English: her kick did not reach Mohsen. So, she's gonna have an official document, proving her innocence in the tripping, but we insist on claiming the opposite, because the CNN/BBC etc did not take an effort to follow the events? Or was biased? Nonsense...--Ltbuni (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I speak only English, so some of the provided sources are beyond me, but I'll say this much for my own part: Wikipedia does not use primary sources such as candid videos and pictures to extrapolate what actually happened. This is considered original research and is against policy. Pictures like this or this for example, are meaningless for the purposes of Wikipedia, because policy requires that we Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

This is why the interpretation of a secondary source, like CNN or Reuters, is not only preferred, but is required if we are to draw any meaning from pictures or videos. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

These are not valid arguments! Nor responses to my complaints. I questionned the reliablilty, of the CNN, and others as well, what is more they were outdated. I added a bunch of sources, not only primary - You deleted basic and underpinned info, 'cause You can't speak the language of the source? I translated the most important part of them on the Talk page. If Your Hungarian is poor, there is the Embassy of Hungary on the Wikipedia - they will help You. As I wrote and linked at least 4 times, there are newspapers reporting on the indictment. With Your version, Petra is libelled with commiting a crime she did not do.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

First, the source for the first sentence of the investigation claim, Heti Válasz, is apparently a "pro-government organ" according to this, which isn't exactly a stunning review in terms of reliability. Second, the entire things doesn't seems to make very much sense, that is, to claim that the prosecutors in 2015 decided nothing was wrong, but then in 2016 decided to indict. Finally, the source this all is supposed to come through, has apparently sparked its own controversy and protests for firing its editor for political reasons, which does cast significant doubt as to their editorial integrity.

The out-of-date argument makes even less sense considering she appears to yet garner substantial up-to-date coverage in reliable sources. For example, The Washington Post covers the indictment Sept 6 of this year and says nothing about anyone deciding she was innocent. The most up-to-date source I can find, the Associate Press, through Business Insider reports on the situation Oct 19, mentions an award she won from a documentary, as well as the indictment, but nothing about anyone deciding she was innocent (the very people who have indicted her), and nothing about the apparent authoritative decision of a mid-level weekly Hungarian paper.

So yes, you will have to provide better sourcing beyond a 14 month old article to contradict the more recent and by all measures more reliable reports that are easily found by simply running web searches. I have reverted your changes for two reasons: 1) the sources in the lead to not say alleged, they state the incident as fact, and so that it what Wikipedia does until the sources say otherwise, and 2) the WP:ONUS is on you to justify and gain consensus for the changes you would like made, not on everyone else to demonstrate otherwise.

Finally, please review WP:EW and note that edit warring may result in the loss of editing privileges. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not follow You. On the one hand, You warn me to seek consensus on the talk page, but actually You were the one, who delete, without waiting for my answer.

Heti Válasz is a pro-govmnt organ? LOL. You are not following the news here... The owner of the Heti Valasz is Lajos Simicska, who is the greatest opponent of Viktor Orbán. Their conflict even have a wikipedia article (Orbán-Simicska conflict): http://hu.wiki.x.io/wiki/Orb%C3%A1n%E2%80%93Simicska-konfliktus

Hungarian Free Press is NOT a reliable source for anything - it is an anti-Orbanist English language propganda site. Its authors came from the radical leftist Kanadai Magyar Hírlap. For example: http://hungarianfreepress.com/2015/12/09/canadian-hungarian-democratic-charter-congratulates-senator-cardin/ The author is András Göllner, founder of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter or György Lázár from the former radical leftist galamus.hu. Also starring: http://kanadaihirlap.com/author/eszteredler/ proud member of one of the Hungarian Liberal Parties, etc. If we drop Heti Valasz, as a biased something, why don't we do the same in this case?

I never said that international media did not cover the indictment - I said, that either they omitted it or were biased. Could You please give me at least 3 sources from English language mainstream media which tells us the story how Mr. Osama was fired from his job?

"You should provide more sources beyond a 14 month old article to contradict the more recent etc" What are You talking about? I gave You updated sources from September. Please take a look above: Excerpt from the indictement document: A felvételek készítése közben vádlott egy fiatal férfit jobb lábbal, egy gyors mozdulattal, talppal lábszáron rúgott, majd egy kiskorú lányt is jobb lábbal, térdmagasságban megrúgott. A vádlott röviddel ezt követően egy gyermeket a kezében tartó férfi felé is rúgott, azonban a rúgás a férfit nem érte el. http://index.hu/belfold/2016/09/07/vademeles_laszlo_petra_menekult_felrugott_fociedzo/ In English: her kick did not reach Mohsen. So, she's gonna have an official document, proving her innocence in the tripping, but we insist on claiming the opposite, because the CNN/BBC etc did not take an effort to follow the events? Or was biased? Nonsense...--Ltbuni (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added the clarification from the official English translation of the press release, specifying that she is being charged with kicking a young man and minor girl, and attempting but failing to kick the man with the child. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The tripping accusation is also now a direct quote from the source. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I tried something similar before, but Amin reverted the edits, if I am not mistaken. I did not insist on "allegedly recorded" - I also proposed that "she seemed to be kicking, or it gave the impression of kicking or something like this. Now, I feel discrepancy between the title of the article, and the content, because she kicked and not tripped. Should we change it to "Petra László kicking incident" or simply "Petra László incident" or " Incident at Röszke" or something similar?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Wikipedia should call the event whatever the preponderance of sources call it. If there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME (note: this policy takes into account English language sources), then a descriptive title must be agreed upon by editors. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ltbuni:, I always felt that "tripping incident" sounded a bit odd. I think changing the title to Petra László kicking incident will be better . It will indeed remove the discrepancy. Amin (Talk) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it Petra László incident at Röszke seems as neutral a wording as possible, given that there doesn't really seem to have been a proper name coined for the event in the sources. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, who is gonna rename it?--Ltbuni (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Amin: to follow up and see if they have any issues or further suggestions. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: @Ltbuni: I approve of the title Petra László incident at Röszke, although I think Petra László Röszke incident sounds slightly better. If we can get consensus on either one, I can change it. It will be my first title change on Wikipedia. Amin (Talk) 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Good suggestion. I prefer the shorter of the two. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I support Petra László incident. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Even better, indeed. Petra László incident #clean #minimal. I suggest we make it happen! Amin (Talk) 22:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Petra László incident is OK. --Ltbuni (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems well enough. It's not as if there are more than one László incidents that need disambiguation. Any objections? I'm not going to ping. I assume everyone is surely follow the page by now. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No objection.--Ltbuni (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I just changed the title by moving the page to Petra László incident. I hope I did it right. Amin (Talk) 12:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Redirect seems to be working just fine. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Err, the very first sentence is still "tripping incident". Is it just an accident, or is it on purpose? BTW, I would like to express my appreciation to TimothyJosephWood for resolving the dispute over the canvassing thing in a very civilized and constructive way.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Changed it per WP:BOLDTITLE. Also happy to help. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Osama Abdul Mohsen

Osama Abdul Mohsen is suddenly mentioned but from what I can tell it isn't actually mentioned who he is or his relevence (the person she tried to trip). Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: He was involved in the aftermath of the incident. Fox News reported that Laszlo wanted to file a lawsuit against Mohsen. Later, other media reported on his well being, job prospects and plans to move.

So I think there are enough reports to include it in the aftermath Amin (Talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Looking at the article as it was on 13 November, it did offer a brief explanation of who Mohsen was and that seems to have been lost in my reshuffling yesterday. I have readded a brief explanation of his relevance in the aftermath section. I'm open to suggestion if anyone thinks there is a more elegant way of explaining this in the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you have it right. I'm not personally commenting on whether we should mention him in the aftermath. Instead just saying if we do jthere needs to be some explaination of who Osama Abdul Mohsen is rather than a vaguely hinted at connection. Your change seems good enough. (But I'm not going to object if someone finds an alternative method.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What do the videos and photos show?

The article does not really describe what supposedly happened, in two separate incidents. There are at least three videos, and some photos from another angle. It seems hard to find permanent links to them. So I try to describe what can been seen.

Kicking incident

A video (unknown videographer?), for example this video "by Reuters" hosted by New York Times, shows that a line of police officers retaining immigrants is broken, and some of them run towards several media people which stand nearby, holding cameras. One of them is the woman dressed in blue later identified as Petra Laszlo. She is turned to the left, holding her large probably professional, expensive, heavy, battery-powered Video/TV camera up. A man in a white shirt is running past her back, ducking, and apparently at least touching her with his right shoulder under her right shoulder (0:00). As a result, she lowers the camera, which is in her right hand. She seems to take a stance that can be described as defensive or offensive, lifting her right leg while more people run towards her. A teenage boy also runs past her back, she seems to kick backwards, maybe hitting him (0:01). Next up is a man who has a girl at his right hand while looking to his left. She sidesteps the two to her left, kicking her right foot forward towards the right leg of the girl (0:02) which continues to run, but then turns around, possibly due to the kick, or to look for others (0:03). This video section ends (0:04) with Laszlo standing some 2 meters away from others, camera still lowered. Longer video here, 0:29-0:46. More here

Tripping incident

This apparently happened a few moments later. Most of the immigrants seem to have already gotten away from the Police, over the railway line, with other immigrants, police officers and media following. Laszlo is apparently doing her job filming, next to a man in grey shirt doing the same, and a photographer in black (seemingly Marko Djurica for Corbis / Reuters) also covers the scene, so that three additional views have been recorded.

• Video from Stephan Richter. At 0:11, from the left, the man identified as Osama Mohsen(?) enters the screen, carrying a child on his right arm, and a bag in his left hand. He is shouting something while a police man holds his jacket. At 0:13 the officer lets Mohsen go, who is moving forward towards the gap between the camera persons. Laszlo, on his left, makes an evasive move, turns (0:14) as Mohsen comes past her, and extends her left leg. Mohsen and child are falling to the ground 0:15 about 2 meters away from Laszlo. While getting up, Mohsen seems to shout angrily, apparently towards the policeman, ignoring nearby Laszlo. Video ends (0:17).

• Photos from the other angle, taken by Marko Djurica, in 2015 hosted at Corbis, later Reuters. Three photos are shown by IBTimes [1]. The first shows Mohsen running right to left, already leaning forward, on his left foot, right foot behind him up in the air. The policeman is not in the picture, the grey shirt man stands on the opposite side, behind Mohsen. Laszlo is on the left side of the photo, at least 1 meter away from Mohsen. She has lowered her camera, and again seems to take a stance that can be described as defensive or offensive, her left hand like a fist. This is well before the alleged tripping, which is supposedly done with her left leg while she keeps turning counterclockwise, away from Mohsen. On the next photo, father and child are already well past Laszlo, falling. The child is already on the ground, Mohsen seems to fall on it, with his right leg up in the air.

• Video apparently from grey shirt man leak.com/view?i=321_1441948936 was on Liveleak and a screenshot is archived (Interarchive, blocked by WP, please remove the space). Titled "Hungarian camera woman NOT tripping the refugee... cleared of that charge", it showed the incident. Mohsen running towards camera, turning his head to the left, yelling and not quite seeing where he is running, then falling, yelling again, getting up and running away over the rails. A short part can be found here but it ends too early at 0:51. This shows the incident from 0:31 to 0:37 but with other footage put in between.

• Laszlos own video? If her camera was running and recording anything useful, it would be most interesting. Any information on that?

It would be helpful if good videos and pictures could be found, unedited and with better quality, and maybe even uploaded to Wikimedia under fair use policy. Maybe the court case in Hungary has provided evidence that can be used? 2003:C6:371F:C06A:10F8:FCB6:741F:8467 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)