→Requested move 03 November 2014: this seems to be the stable title |
Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
:I request ''first'' revert today's incorrect move. Mevarus should have followed proper procedure. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
:I request ''first'' revert today's incorrect move. Mevarus should have followed proper procedure. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
**As an uninvolved editor/admin looking at the history of moves, it appears that the current title is the stable title for the article, since it was there until early September. In both cases Mevarus's move was a reversion of a move that had not undergone a move request. The title should have been discussed after Mevarus's first reversion, and the second set of moves should not have taken place. While I think it would have been better for someone other than Mevarus to have reverted the second move, it makes sense to conduct the move request from this location. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
**As an uninvolved editor/admin looking at the history of moves, it appears that the current title is the stable title for the article, since it was there until early September. In both cases Mevarus's move was a reversion of a move that had not undergone a move request. The title should have been discussed after Mevarus's first reversion, and the second set of moves should not have taken place. While I think it would have been better for someone other than Mevarus to have reverted the second move, it makes sense to conduct the move request from this location. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I support the move and support Mevarus being blocked as his other accounts, such as User:Wlglunight93, have been. [[User:Dr. R.R. Pickles|Dr. R.R. Pickles]] ([[User talk:Dr. R.R. Pickles|talk]]) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:55, 3 November 2014
Palestine C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Lead - IDF "admission"
As far as i can tell, the consensus was fro GatoClass' version which does not include mention of the IDF "admission". That is a detail that can be discussed in the appropriate section, but does not belong in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The point is that there are too many investigations, counter-investigations and responses to investigations. The agreement reached last summer was that we mention either all or none, since the selection process (which claims to put up there and which not) would inevitably lead to edit-warring (as it had before).
- On a related point, why is the Sueddeutsche Zeitung up there in the lead with the investigations? Whereas the IDF, Human Rights Watch and The Guardian all conducted and published investigations, the SZ piece is just a report -- not even an investigative one since the author reports only from secondary sources, conducted no interviews himself and presents no new material (im übrigen möchte ich hier betonen, dass ich der deutschen Sprache mächtig bin und darum diesen Artikel auch wirklich lesen und verstehen konnte).
- Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 08:31
- The agreement was to Gatoclass' version, which is different from yours. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The SZ report is, as far as i can tell, the equivalent of the Guardian's. The Guardian did not 'conduct[ed] and publish[ed] investigations" - it published an article by a known partisan, Chris McGreal, whose previous reporting from the region has been highly criticized, on the same day as HRW made public its own investigation - which repeats the same allegations of the HRW report. There's no indication that the Guardian conducted any ""investigation", and it of course published no such "investigation". The SZ did pretty much the same thing, and in fact, contrary to your false assertion, mentions interviews the SZ conducted with the Palestinian cameramen. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The agreement was to Gatoclass' version, which is different from yours. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Cause of explosion, WP:BRD and WP:REDFLAG
I have reverted several attempts to insert the claim that the explosion was initiated by Mr. Ghaliya into the lead. Following WP:BRD, the next step after my reversion of the WP:BOLD edit would be to discuss, which has not happened, which is why I am opening this discussion here.
The claim is mentioned in passing (and without source) once in Haaretz in 2009 [1] and by the European Jewish Congress in 2006 [2]. Googling for the source of the statement according to the EJC, Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi, yields no results other than the EJC article itself "Yossi+Khalifi". Similary, the direct quote "Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion" also yields no other results [3].
As per WP:REDFLAG, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This claim has, since 2006, not been picked up by any mainstream media anywhere, making it a relatively poorly sourced claim. It does not, by any means, belong in the lead and the fact that it is graciously mentioned in the section "Media reports" should be enough.
Please get consensus here before puting this claim back into the lead.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 16:54
- He may have "caused" it, but this is not a moral or immoral difference. The very idea of landmines is to cause "accidental" explosions (incl. IEDs) and unexploded ordinance is even more touchy and dangerous and remains so for dozens if not hundreds of years (Occasionally rounds from WWI or earlier explode and kill the curious or even experts.). The moral of this part of the story is "avoid unexploded ordinance," as basic recruits are taught the world over.
- However I completely agree with you about the source. If someone can find it in a reliable source (left-right or center) I would agree in its inclusion. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haaretz is a reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haaretz makes the claim in passing in an opinion piece. You will need more than that. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 17:13
- No, that's false. Haaretz dedicates a full paragraph to this, using it to make a case for different course of action for the Israeli government. Please stop your edit war against multiple editors. 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haaretz makes the claim in passing in an opinion piece. You will need more than that. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 17:13
- Haaretz is a reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- This Haaretz news item, dated 23 June 2006, is entirely dedicated to Ilham's testimony. I have failed to find an English version for this news item, composed by Amos Harel.
- As for Maj. General Khalifi, the Hebrew Wikipedia has an article about him, which hopefully confirms his existence. In my humble opinion, Ilham Ghalia's testimony should be mentioned in the second passage of the lead, unless this passage is removed. ליאור (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wish I read Hebrew, but Haaretz, despite its sometimes pro-Israel bias is a reliable source. I therby remove objections on relaiblity grounds. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has actually often been accused of an anti-Zionist agenda. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit of mine implicitly (but reluctantly as it happens) accepted the consensus above to include this material, even though the sources are pretty thin. What it did was to improve the English, avoid the clumsy and misleading use of the word "initiated" (which does not appear in either source) and cut back an overly detailed quote. Not controversial, surely? But User:Jaakobou objects, so swoops in from nowhere to blindly revert it, twice now. For sources we have i) a passing comment about the case in an op-ed about the recent events in Gaza; and ii) a press review briefly referring second hand to reports in the Israeli media. One talks about "Daddy" touching "something", the other about him specifically touching "unexploded ordance". It really is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to then write he "touched something, possible unexploded ordnance"; nor is it unreasonable to write this up as "reported". And even if someone disagrees, as I said in the edit summary, address those points individually. Don't just revert to a version that - objectively - has its own problems. It's a really tedious pattern of behaviour. --Nickhh (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Media criticism
Found this one - [4]. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Okay, I won't bore everyone with my usual long warning about WP:ARBPIA, because all the editors here are already aware of it. But flags are being set off because of the edit-warring on this page. As a reminder, edit wars do not work. Just reverting each other back and forth is pointless. Please try to work something out? Surely there must be some form of compromise wording that is available? --Elonka 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Rename to Beit Lahia beach explosion (2006)
The explosion took place at the beach of Beit Lahia, a city in itself at the North Gaza Governorate, distinct from the city of Gaza. I thus suggest we move this article to Beit Lahia beach explosion (2006), keeping the present title as a redirect. Gaza Strip beach explosion (2006) could also work, but it's less precise. ליאור (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- All the search results I got for "Beit Lahia beach" deal with this incident. Since this incident occurred in Beit Lahia and not in Gaza, we should stick to the correct article name. I'm sure most of our readers don't look for Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) but for Moonlight Sonata, but that's just what redirects are for. Those who look for "Gaza beach explosion" will be redirected accordingly. ליאור (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Who got killed, who was hospitalized, where, etc...
Following the discussion on WP:BLP/N, there seems to be some confusion over who died and who was taken to hospital in Israel.
The Independent (here) states that "Hadeel's 15-year-old half sister, Ilham, was decapitated, and her 16-year-old half brother, Reham, was so badly wounded that medics said both his arms had to be amputated." User:ליאור noted that Ynetnews (here) marks Ilham Ghalia as alive and being treated in Tel Aviv: "Elham Ghalia, 21, is connected to a respirator at Tel Aviv's Sourasky Medical Center, where doctors said she remains in critical condition."
A second article referenced by User:ליאור from Ynetnews (here) states in 2007 that "Elham Ghalia, 17, who lost her family in Gaza beachfront incident, discharged from Israeli hospital." Yet this article directly links another article (here) which states that "Ali Ghalia, 48, his wife Raisa, 30, her one-and-a-half-year-old daughter Hanadi and her 5-month-old toddler Haitham, and his daughters from a second wife Alia, 24, Elham, 15, and Sabrin, 4, died in the strike." The article also states that "Wiham Ghalia, 20, and his two sisters, Latifa, 11, and Hadil, 8, stayed alive after the rest of their family vanished in Friday's shelling strike on a Gaza beach."
Yet another Ynetnews article (here) places a 21 year old Ayham Ghalia and 12 year old Adhan in the Sourasky Medical Center in Tel Aviv.
So is Ilham 15 and dead or 21 and in Tel Aviv? Does anybody have a copy of the HRW or IDF reports to clear this up?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 14:05
- The HRW report says "The family members killed by the fourth shell were: `Ali `Isa Ghalya, 49; Ra'issa Ghalya, 35; `Alia Ghalya, 17; Ilham Ghalya, 15; Sabrin Ghalya, 4; Hanadi Ghalya, 15 months; and Haitham Ghalya, 5 months." I have not been able to locate the IDF report yet. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- May I add to the confusion two reports by Defence For Children International (CDI):
- On 13 June 2006 the CDI lists five children killed, including "Ilham Ghalia (15 years old)".
- On 1 May 2007 the CDI picks this incident as a 'case study', listing four children killed, including "Ilham Ali Issa Ghalia, 5 years old".
- I don't know if CDI is a reliable source, especially as the testimony they cite contradicts Huda's testimony according to Sami Abu Salem. Abu Salem claims Ilham Ghalia was 7 years old, and dead.
- Physicians for Human Rights-Israel cite Ilham's hospitalization story, in which one of their workers is cited, so I take it as a credible indication that Ilham did survive the incident, and her hospitalization.
- Which leaves the basic questions open - who got killed, how old were they, who was hospitalized, etc. ליאור (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- May I add to the confusion two reports by Defence For Children International (CDI):
Interestingly, Ha'aretz' reporting is not consistent:
Auszüge aus einem Nachrichtenartikel, Ha'aretz, 11.06.2006
[...] Die 20jährige, von der Explosion betroffene Palästinenserin Ayham Ghalia sagte gegenüber Ha’aretz, zunächst sei eine leere Granate beinahe 300 Meter entfernt von ihrer Familie gelandet und habe eine lauten Knall verursacht, der die Strandbesucher dazu veranlasst habe, wegzulaufen. Ghalias Familie schaffte es jedoch nicht rechtzeitig.
"Plötzlich ging eine Granate über uns nieder und traf uns direkt", sagte Ghalia. "Ich stand auf und konnte es nicht glauben. Körperteile flogen überall herum. Die Hand meiner Schwester war verstümmelt. Mein Vater war bereits tot. Er lag mit dem Gesicht im Sand." [5]
So, in addition to the question if Ilham/Ayham is dead or alive (or if they are two different persons), we now have two diametrally opposed statements from her in the same publication. This one, where she says the explosion was caused by a direct hit from Israeli artillery, is based on a direct interview. The other one, where she is claimed to have said the explosion happened when "her father touched something" appears to be based on hearsay. The source for that claim is not given. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hearsay is not necessarily false; it is merely subject to certain rules as to use in a court of law, which this is not. I would say print both, with the circumstances presented in a neutral manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm, no. There's a little piece of policy called WP:REDFLAG that requires that exceptional claims (e.g. OMG! The girl admits it was all a hoax!) have exceptional sources to back them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
- Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 16:35
- Adham\Ayham is a male survivor and Ilham\Elham is a female survivor. Maybe there's a second Ilham\Elham who died, but we have to find a source that mentions both her and the living Ilham\Elham to confirm that. That their testimonies contradict each other is no major surprise, as Huda's testimony contradicts them both. Basically, one says there was an artillery barrage of fire, one says they were hit by a single rocket, and one says that her father touched something on the ground (unexploded ordnance? a booby trap?). All three stories should be mentioned, along with their inconsistencies with the findings at the scene. ליאור (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
All three stories should be mentioned down in the section "Media reports/Ha'aretz report". This is far too weak for the lead. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 15.01.2009 09:07
- Pedrito persists in misquoting WP:REDFLAG. What it says is that extraordinary claims should be sourced to high quality sources. Ha'aretz is certainly that; it is one of Israel's leading newspapers, which freely criticizes the government and takes a rather sympathetic line towards the Palestinians. It is eminently qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we have two quotes from Ha'aretz. One is from a direct interview with the female survivor (whatever the correct transliteration of her name is) two days after the incident, the other is an unsourced claim, made in the passing in a wholly different context 2 1/2 years later. In the first article, she says the family was directly hit by an incoming Israeli artillery shell. In the second, she supposedly says that the explosion occurred when her father "touched something". That she has allegedly changed the story so completely is in fact a pretty extraordinary claim, and one that indeed should be supported by something more substantial. For instance, if the allegation were true, wouldn't it have been major headline news in Israel and warranted at least one article devoted entirely to this revelation? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, turn the question on its head. Shall we assume that Ha'aretz, a well known newspaper with a good and liberal reputation, deliberately lied about a matter well known around the world? I say put the info in and let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect information finds its way into publications in many ways, we don't have to assume bad faith on Ha'aretz's part. I would just like a better source for that extraordinary claim, preferrably with more details. When was she supposed to have made this statement, for instance? Who reported it originally? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- So would I, but as it stands it is worthy of inclusion, in proper context of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, there still seems to be a misunderstanding. There is only testimony of Ilham - the one in which she says her father touched something. It was mentioned by EJC on 22 June 2006, covered by Haaretz back on 23 June 2006 and then resurfaced at Haaretz on 5 January 2009. The shelling story was not cited from Ilham but from her brother Adham. His testimony has its own problems, but don't mistake it for Ilham's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ליאור (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does say the survivor is female, but something may have been lost in the translation (apparently from English, since nouns are inflected for gender in Hebrew like in German). We have a proper source for the claim that the girl said her father may have triggered the explosion, the IDF general Yossi Khalifi. Was this statement made in the official IDF report he was in charge of? If so, an online copy would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Most sources give the IDF general's name as Meir Klifi. Still looking for the report. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still haven't found the IDF report. It was released on June 13, one week before the press conference where the IDF made the claim about the girls testimony. According to the Ha'aretz article, Ilham's admission was "shelved by decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason", so it appears it did not make it into hypothetical subsequent reports either. A press conference for Israeli media, held by IDF Gen. Klifi, seems to be the only confirmable source for the claim :
Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi, who heads the team investigating the Gaza beach tragedy, said yesterday that new evidence has come to light proving that it was not Israeli fire that hit the Ghalia family. The security establishment has received information that Ilham Ghalia, the daughter who is being treated in an Israeli hospital, said that the explosion took place when her father touched something on the beach. “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion,” the Palestinian girl said.
The army attaches great importance to Ilham’s testimony, which supports the IDF contention that the family was not hit by an Israeli shell. The IDF spokeswoman refused to comment on the new information.
Ilham’s testimony is currently being examined and is part of the intelligence which Khalifi mentioned yesterday at the news conference, when he said : “The findings determine unequivocally that the Ghalia family was not hit by IDF fire,” the general said at the news conference. [6] - So, the IDF says their information was received from a source that they refused to discuss further. The information was not included in any official report and appears to not have been substantiated by anything. There is one alleged direct quote by the girl, but it does not mention her father "handling unexploded ordnance", and the conclusion the IDF investigators draw from it seems to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still haven't found the IDF report. It was released on June 13, one week before the press conference where the IDF made the claim about the girls testimony. According to the Ha'aretz article, Ilham's admission was "shelved by decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason", so it appears it did not make it into hypothetical subsequent reports either. A press conference for Israeli media, held by IDF Gen. Klifi, seems to be the only confirmable source for the claim :
- Update: Most sources give the IDF general's name as Meir Klifi. Still looking for the report. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does say the survivor is female, but something may have been lost in the translation (apparently from English, since nouns are inflected for gender in Hebrew like in German). We have a proper source for the claim that the girl said her father may have triggered the explosion, the IDF general Yossi Khalifi. Was this statement made in the official IDF report he was in charge of? If so, an online copy would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, there still seems to be a misunderstanding. There is only testimony of Ilham - the one in which she says her father touched something. It was mentioned by EJC on 22 June 2006, covered by Haaretz back on 23 June 2006 and then resurfaced at Haaretz on 5 January 2009. The shelling story was not cited from Ilham but from her brother Adham. His testimony has its own problems, but don't mistake it for Ilham's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ליאור (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- So would I, but as it stands it is worthy of inclusion, in proper context of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect information finds its way into publications in many ways, we don't have to assume bad faith on Ha'aretz's part. I would just like a better source for that extraordinary claim, preferrably with more details. When was she supposed to have made this statement, for instance? Who reported it originally? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, turn the question on its head. Shall we assume that Ha'aretz, a well known newspaper with a good and liberal reputation, deliberately lied about a matter well known around the world? I say put the info in and let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we have two quotes from Ha'aretz. One is from a direct interview with the female survivor (whatever the correct transliteration of her name is) two days after the incident, the other is an unsourced claim, made in the passing in a wholly different context 2 1/2 years later. In the first article, she says the family was directly hit by an incoming Israeli artillery shell. In the second, she supposedly says that the explosion occurred when her father "touched something". That she has allegedly changed the story so completely is in fact a pretty extraordinary claim, and one that indeed should be supported by something more substantial. For instance, if the allegation were true, wouldn't it have been major headline news in Israel and warranted at least one article devoted entirely to this revelation? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pedrito persists in misquoting WP:REDFLAG. What it says is that extraordinary claims should be sourced to high quality sources. Ha'aretz is certainly that; it is one of Israel's leading newspapers, which freely criticizes the government and takes a rather sympathetic line towards the Palestinians. It is eminently qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Original research in the lead
The lead currently has a sentence that reads 'Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away'. However, none of the cited sources for this statement actually blame the blast on 'the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach '. There are sources that, based on Palestinian eyewitnesses, blame the blast on land-based artillery. There is another source, which does not blame the blast on the IDF at all, which mentions naval shelling. The sentence as it stands appears to be original research, which combines a fact in one source with other facts in different sources, in order to promote a claim which no source has made. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- They blamed the blast on an Israeli shelling (uncontested and verified), and the shelling in question was a combined naval and artillery operation (uncontested and verified). No original research, it's all in the sources. Hope that cleared it up for you. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which source blames it on "a combined naval and artillery operation"? if you have no such single source, it is original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you could point out the exact passage in WP:OR that you think the lead violates? Again, both facts in the sentence are superbly well-documented and entirely uncontested. Since it's not a quote, it does not need to be an exact sequence of words. If you believe it's necessary (I don't), it can easily be broken down to two sentences, but the readability may suffer with no gain in accuracy. For the record, the sentence "Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage", also from the lead, cannot be found anywhere else than Wikipedia either, so if the whole article were rewritten to the high standards regarding OR you aspire to, hardly anything would remain. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have already linked to the relevant section of WP:NOR, but let me spell it out for you: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, ... then the editor is engaged in original research.."
- Once again, which source makes the statement 'Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away'? Specifically, which single source blames the attack on "a combined naval and artillery operation"? If there is no such single source, you are engaged in original research, per the very clear section I've quoted above, and linked to previously. . Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- That, I'm afraid, applies only to novel conclusions. That is not a novel conclusion, it's in the HRW report for instance, albeit not grouped neatly in one sentence. Are you saying it's contested by anybody? Is there a source that says another shelling than this one was initially blamed? Are we in any way misleading the readers by not keeping that remote possibility, unsupported by known sources, open? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- That the blast was initially blamed on a combined naval and artillery attack is a novel conclusion - no source, other than you, has made it. The footnote you have cited makes an altogether different claim - that an 8th person drowned on the beach that day, having been frightened by naval shelling. The footnote says he was erroneously reported to have been killed by the same blast that killed the others. Since you seem to concede that no single source made that claim, I am removing it, per WP policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- You apparently read neither my above post nor the report it links to. The HRW report says:
MeteorMaker (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"Persons who were on the beach that day described the incident to Human Rights Watch and provided some clues to the cause of the explosion. They reported hearing or seeing three to five explosions coming increasingly closer to the place where members of the Ghalya family were killed. The IDF stated that it launched eight shells toward an area on the beach "routinely used for rocket launching" between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m.-six from artillery across the border in Israel and two from an Israeli warship. Several witnesses who were on the beach said they heard the whine of incoming shells. Sayid Abu Rabia said, "We have experience with these shells. There is a sound, then it hits. I heard the sound [of the shell that killed the Ghalyas]. I have heard that sound before." Isma`il Ghanim, a 20-year-old worker who was close enough to the incident to be injured himself, said, "I don't think [the explosion that killed the Ghalyas] was from [an unexploded shell in] the ground because I heard it coming. I'm familiar with them." [...] Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital log books, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling. "
- Yes, I have read it. Note that this report, dated June 30th, is not "initial reports". Also, please point out where it says there was a "a combined naval and artillery operation", or where it says that naval shelling was responsible. The IDF statement that the HRW report is referring to quite clearly says the naval shelling took place much earlier than the artillery attack which was blamed for the blast, and does not blame the IDF for the shelling at all. If you want to state that 'Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away' - you must find a single source that explicitly says that. You may not combine one source that says 'The blast was caused by Israeli artillery shelling" with another source that says "The IDF shelled from land and sea, at different times, but that shelling did not kill the family", to conclude that "Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away" .Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read it again, twice if necessary. All of your objections are addressed in the report. Also note that I have offered to split up the sentence in two to satisfy your exceptionally high standards regarding OR, but I doubt other editors find that edit immediately called for. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read it. Note that this report, dated June 30th, is not "initial reports". Also, please point out where it says there was a "a combined naval and artillery operation", or where it says that naval shelling was responsible. The IDF statement that the HRW report is referring to quite clearly says the naval shelling took place much earlier than the artillery attack which was blamed for the blast, and does not blame the IDF for the shelling at all. If you want to state that 'Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away' - you must find a single source that explicitly says that. You may not combine one source that says 'The blast was caused by Israeli artillery shelling" with another source that says "The IDF shelled from land and sea, at different times, but that shelling did not kill the family", to conclude that "Initial reports, relying on Palestinian eyewitnesses and hospital logs, blamed the blast on the simultaneous naval and artillery shelling of the beach 200 meters away" .Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you could point out the exact passage in WP:OR that you think the lead violates? Again, both facts in the sentence are superbly well-documented and entirely uncontested. Since it's not a quote, it does not need to be an exact sequence of words. If you believe it's necessary (I don't), it can easily be broken down to two sentences, but the readability may suffer with no gain in accuracy. For the record, the sentence "Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage", also from the lead, cannot be found anywhere else than Wikipedia either, so if the whole article were rewritten to the high standards regarding OR you aspire to, hardly anything would remain. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which source blames it on "a combined naval and artillery operation"? if you have no such single source, it is original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'd like to see it hew strictly to the sources. It almost sounds, with MM's version, like D Day was going on out there, though I must have missed the paratroopers!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- It probably wasn't too different from D-day for those involved. Is there anything in particular you think the sources don't support? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
ilham/elham
sources (with just a quick news search) that list her among the dead: [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]
one haaretz story, in the lead as well as in the article, is presented with more weight than the follow up statement ("however other sources list her as one of the immediate victims of the explosion") which is backed by many more sources.
per WP:NPOV (i am referring specifically to the sections which state that information must not be "made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing" and that "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each")
1. this should not be in the lead.
2. this aspect should be covered in the article, but with the plethora of sources stating that she died given more weight and a brief mention of the contradictory report.
i noticed that this had come up before on talk, but i didn't see a resolution that addressed this important issue. untwirl(talk) 18:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- i propose to remove the entire thing from the lead, and set up the haaretz section with a statement to the effect of, "Contradicting worldwide reports of her immediate death in the shelling, Haaretz reported . . ." untwirl(talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fine with me. That would improve the article tremendously. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- i propose to remove the entire thing from the lead, and set up the haaretz section with a statement to the effect of, "Contradicting worldwide reports of her immediate death in the shelling, Haaretz reported . . ." untwirl(talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- There were dozens of news stories immediately after the incident circulating inaccurate information. Later in-depth reports are more likely to correct these inaccuracies. Since both the Israelies and the Palestenians eventually reported Ilham to be alive, I find it hard to believe that they both lied all along. This news story covers Ilham's hospitalization, citing both Palestenians and Israelies. It was replicated by PHR Israel, who might be blamed by some for spreading anti-Israeli propaganda, but certainly not pro-Israeli propaganda. If you can't find a news source covering both Ilham's hospitatlization and the death of another Ilham\Elham, we can't tell if Ilham really died or was just seriously injured and fortunately recovered. ליאור (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think her hospitalization story is relevant to this article. We can dedicate a small section for it, mentioning both Ilham's testimonies and the refusal of both Israelies and Palestenians to finance her recovery. This section could also cite conflicting reports, such as the "case study" I mentioned previously in this talk page. ליאור (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- My main problem with Ilham's alleged testimony is that
- 1) ultimately, we have no neutral source for it — the IDF is the alleged perpetrator here, remember.
- 2) apparently, the claim never made it into an official report.
- 3) it contradicts most other accounts, and is not supported by the evidence.
- 4) it strikes me as extremely far-fetched that Ilham's father would dig up old unexploded ordnance (conveniently close to the picknick spot) and "touch" it, while artillery shells were raining down 200 meters away.
- 5) even if Ilham actually did say that, correlation does not prove causation. She may have seen her father "touch something" the moment before the shell hit, and either she or the IDF investigator drew the faulty conclusion that one caused the other.
- MeteorMaker (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- exceptional claims require exceptional sources. human rights watch and all of the other uninvolved sources, such as the guardian, independent, new york times, etc, list her as dead or decapitated at the scene. if there were only palestinian sources holding that position i would say, "equal weight." however, since the only sources stating to the contrary are involved in the incident, it only deserves a brief, neutrally phrased sentence that reflects its proportionality to the preponderance of sources. you claim that the uninvolved sources were circulating inaccurate information, but unless you can provide a retraction or clarification from those sources, that is simply your opinion. untwirl(talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think her hospitalization story is relevant to this article. We can dedicate a small section for it, mentioning both Ilham's testimonies and the refusal of both Israelies and Palestenians to finance her recovery. This section could also cite conflicting reports, such as the "case study" I mentioned previously in this talk page. ליאור (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why do you think PHR Israel were involved in the incident and Human Rights Watch were not? Both bodies criticize Israeli actions on a rather constant basis, and none of them would have the interest of reviving a dead Ilham. Please carefully inspect the sources I've provided previously.
- As for MeteorMaker's assertions, there is no evidence that "artillery shells were raining down 200 meters away" at the time of the incident. Israeli special forces used to invade the Gaza Strip from desolate beaches, in order to conduct arrests or kill rocket launching squads. It is thus understandable that Hamas would try to lay boobytraps on uninhibited Gaza Strip beaches, to defend itself from future Israeli invasions. Hezbollah used a similar ambush to thwart Operation Poplar Song (אסון השייטת, [17] back in 1997. At another incident in the Gaza Strip a few years earlier, five kids died after touching a boobytrap, but this story was not picked up by global media (at least as far as my Google search could tell). On September 23 2005, 19 Palestenians were killed and more than eighty wounded when Hamas rockets exploded during a military parade through Gaza city (see photo at page 20). All in all, more Palestenians than Israelies were killed by inaccurate Palestenian munitions. The tragic demise of Ghaliya family reached global attention because of its video footage, not because of its uniqueness. ליאור (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- disregarding the unrelated items, phr did not do an independent report, they reprinted ynet's article. if you would like to remove human rights watch, then we are still left with the guardian, independent, new york times, and more uninvolved parties that state she died, with no retraction. this should receive more weight in the article for that reason. i'm not saying these reports shouldn't be included, but it has to be in the context of the overwhelming number of contradicting sourcesuntwirl(talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- None of the sources you have provided explicitly deals with Ilham, they just mention her name en passant among the other victims. The sources I provided cover Ilham's story in depth, and it is highly unlikely that they could make it all up. Ilham's uncle, Hassan Ghalia, is cited saying that "She can't walk and can't move her hands. There are no rehabilitation services in Gaza to help her. We are concerned that if she returns to Gaza, she will stay in this condition for a long time." Why should he be concerned about Ilham's walking problems if she was decapitated? ליאור (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- policy insists that we " should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." unless one of the uninvolved sources retracts or clarifies their story, we need to reflect the views proportionally, which mean more weight on the view with more reliable sources. we should definitely add this, but with less weight and prominence than it currently stands. untwirl(talk) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the policy, and the sources I provided are indeed more prominent than ten sources who only say "Ilham, 15". Moreover, according to your interpretation we have to tell our readers that the Ghalia family, Ichilov hospital, ynet, Haaretz and Physicians for Human Rights are all a bunch of filthy liars who make up stories about a dead girl. You did not provide a single source supporting this extraordinary claim, not a single article claiming that "despite conflicting reports, Ilham died at the incident". Instead, you suggest that a bunch of preliminary news reports, which contradict each other in details, are more reliable than later in-depth reports of poor Ilham. You may ask for arbitration on this one, if you still think the concensus should follow your viewpoint. Have a nice day, ליאור (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- wow. how did you extract "the Ghalia family, Ichilov hospital, ynet, Haaretz and Physicians for Human Rights are all a bunch of filthy liars who make up stories about a dead girl" and "despite conflicting reports, Ilham died at the incident," from my actual suggestion: "Contradicting worldwide reports of her immediate death in the shelling, Haaretz reported . . ."??? please try not to warp my arguments. many of the reports are contradictory. the ynet article itself links to another story (on ynet) which says she died. both sides should be stated neutrally. i dont have regular computer access right now, but i'll check back in as soon as i can. lets discuss this dispassionately and without putting offensive and untrue statements in each others mouths. just because there are conflicting stories doesn't mean that one side is a "filthy liar." untwirl(talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the policy, and the sources I provided are indeed more prominent than ten sources who only say "Ilham, 15". Moreover, according to your interpretation we have to tell our readers that the Ghalia family, Ichilov hospital, ynet, Haaretz and Physicians for Human Rights are all a bunch of filthy liars who make up stories about a dead girl. You did not provide a single source supporting this extraordinary claim, not a single article claiming that "despite conflicting reports, Ilham died at the incident". Instead, you suggest that a bunch of preliminary news reports, which contradict each other in details, are more reliable than later in-depth reports of poor Ilham. You may ask for arbitration on this one, if you still think the concensus should follow your viewpoint. Have a nice day, ליאור (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- policy insists that we " should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." unless one of the uninvolved sources retracts or clarifies their story, we need to reflect the views proportionally, which mean more weight on the view with more reliable sources. we should definitely add this, but with less weight and prominence than it currently stands. untwirl(talk) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- None of the sources you have provided explicitly deals with Ilham, they just mention her name en passant among the other victims. The sources I provided cover Ilham's story in depth, and it is highly unlikely that they could make it all up. Ilham's uncle, Hassan Ghalia, is cited saying that "She can't walk and can't move her hands. There are no rehabilitation services in Gaza to help her. We are concerned that if she returns to Gaza, she will stay in this condition for a long time." Why should he be concerned about Ilham's walking problems if she was decapitated? ליאור (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- disregarding the unrelated items, phr did not do an independent report, they reprinted ynet's article. if you would like to remove human rights watch, then we are still left with the guardian, independent, new york times, and more uninvolved parties that state she died, with no retraction. this should receive more weight in the article for that reason. i'm not saying these reports shouldn't be included, but it has to be in the context of the overwhelming number of contradicting sourcesuntwirl(talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Ilham is dead or alive, the claim that she "was reported in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz as saying her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident" has only one source, what appears to be an op-ed in Ha'aretz [18]. The claim that she said “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion" [19] is attributed to the head of the IDF investigation team, Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi (or Meir Klifi). Shouldn't the article at least mention that it's the IDF's version? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Ilham reportedly said that back in Gaza, before being transported to an Israeli hospital. It is understandable why journalists in Gaza did not report that, due to the limited freedom of journalism there, but we have to tell our readers this citation was only mentioned by Israeli sources. ליאור (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- When you say "reportedly", do you mean you have access to a source for that? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's what's reported in the Hebrew Haaretz article I previously mentioned. I can't find an English version of it. ליאור (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. A robot translation:
- That's what's reported in the Hebrew Haaretz article I previously mentioned. I can't find an English version of it. ליאור (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- When you say "reportedly", do you mean you have access to a source for that? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- "IDF in recent days relying on additional evidence, that may strengthen the army's version that the deaths of the family real two weeks ago not caused by an Israeli shell. On - according to information reaching the army, said a wounded girl אילהאם real, Hmaosfzt today at the hospital Aichilov Tel Aviv, that her father had touched object on the ground and then the explosion occurred. Said the real things in the hospital in Gaza, which has been moved and was hospitalized before the country. Since then, it is not and can not be conscious vision. "
- "This description of the occurrence allegedly strengthens the IDF suppose that the explosion occurred as a result of his desire term sand - fell an old Israeli ammunition or an explosive device instead put the Palestinians in order to disrupt attack by the IDF. However, the degree of reliable information is not clear. Senior makes Bmtc"l admitted yesterday in a conversation with "country" that this is an information check - by the military and that no recording of the girl, saying these things"
- This article also attributes the claim exclusively to the IDF (unless the garbled part in the first paragraph means someone at the Gaza hospital passed Ilham's words on to the IDF), and adds a disclaimer about the reliability of the claim. Is there any information if this was in Klifi's official report? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The garbled "Senior makes Bmtc"l " is actually "Senior sources at the General Staff" which usually refers to the Israeli Chief of Staff. Since this claim resurfaced in 2009, I guess it was not refuted after Ilham regained consciousness. But Amir Oren's email is provided in this article, so we can simply ask him. Let's formulate a list of open questions and hope he could substantiate his answers with reliable sources. ליאור (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I'm a little busy ATM but will return to this shortly. Op-eds are not considered good sources per WP:RS, so it could be argued that the Amir Oren one has to go, but since you have provided a news source in Hebrew that states the same thing, I will not be a wikilawyer. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The garbled "Senior makes Bmtc"l " is actually "Senior sources at the General Staff" which usually refers to the Israeli Chief of Staff. Since this claim resurfaced in 2009, I guess it was not refuted after Ilham regained consciousness. But Amir Oren's email is provided in this article, so we can simply ask him. Let's formulate a list of open questions and hope he could substantiate his answers with reliable sources. ליאור (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- This article also attributes the claim exclusively to the IDF (unless the garbled part in the first paragraph means someone at the Gaza hospital passed Ilham's words on to the IDF), and adds a disclaimer about the reliability of the claim. Is there any information if this was in Klifi's official report? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Tightening up of the first paragraph
The first paragraph has a few superfluous repetitions and it would be more encyclopedic to have it tightened up a tad. I've made a couple tried but as there seems to be some resistance,[20][21] I'm moving the attempts to the talk page. MeteorMaker, Could you please clarify the objections so that we can discuss them and possibly suggest a tightened up version that works for you?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've explained in the edit summaries why your changes don't work (confusing tense, unsupported claims). I'm open to suggestions that don't have these basic faults. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which issues do you consider to be "basic faults"? I'm unclear as my knowledge on the subject goes beyond the scope of the article text and I had not chnaged that much content in the first place. Also, if you see something that you're unsure of, there's also the option of looking it up on Google or even just tagging it as {{fact}} which appears as [citation needed]. Please consider, that I'm not a first time editor and try to collaborate with me rather than just the revert method.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then, I assume you have no problem with having faults in your edits pointed out. Is there anything in particular that you want made more clear? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please clarify the issues within the change of text that you consider to be "basic faults". I'm open to other rephrase suggestions as well that will help condense the excess in words on the intro. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- When you're done moving the attempts to the talk page, it will be much easier. EDIT: Misunderstood, thought you were going to move your suggested version here. I'll do that instead, hang on... MeteorMaker (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please clarify the issues within the change of text that you consider to be "basic faults". I'm open to other rephrase suggestions as well that will help condense the excess in words on the intro. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then, I assume you have no problem with having faults in your edits pointed out. Is there anything in particular that you want made more clear? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Existing version:
The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed eleven year old girl, Huda Ghaliya, mourning the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya's grief, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering.[3] The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage.
- Jaak's version:
In the aftermath of the incident, media attention focused on released footage presenting eleven year old girl, Huda Ghaliya, as a symbol of Palestinian suffering as she was mourning the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident.[3] Several media sources including the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, however, questioned the reliability of the video footage.
OK. My objections again:
- "In the aftermath of the incident, media attention focused on released footage" would seem to mean media was reporting during the aftermath of the explosion. The existing version is much less confusing. It also makes clear that the footage is of the immediate aftermath, which is not obvious from your version.
- I'm not aware of any media sources that have questioned the reliability of the video footage besides Süddeutsche Zeitung. The article does not mention them in any case. Your "however" also seems misplaced as it does not modify anything already stated — it's true regardless of what SZ reports.
- Also, your version is considerably clunkier and lacks the flow of the original.
MeteorMaker (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- the original version is definitely better and reflects the sources. it would be better to remove the second paragraph from the lead and make it into a section called "timeline" or "explosion." also, if one german newspaper is the only one that questions the video, why is that statement in the lead? seems like undue weight. untwirl(talk) 15:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is not undue weight to briefly mention that the reliability of the footage has been questioned, when we have 3+ sentences describing that footage, and noting that the footage was the source of media attention. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Two sentences actually, plus the Süddeutsche one. It's definitely undue in the lead (being based on only one newspaper article) but should be kept in the Media reports section. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The incident's notability is to a large extent based on the video. If its reliability has been questioned by a respectable media source, it warrants mention in the lead, as well as a paragraph in the Media reports section fo the main article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- out of all of the sources used in this article, only one - a german newspaper - has called the video into question. the idf, hrw, bbc, haaretz, ynet, independent, reuters, etc. have not. yes, it deserves a mention in the article; not in the lead. untwirl(talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The SZ report was significant enough to be picked up and covered by secondary sources - two of which I have added to the article. That alone would be sufficient indication of the SZ report's notability - which warrants a brief mention in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- We should remove some of the excess details from the lead and keep it to a more summerized version of all the POVs. There is enough weight for the "problematic footage" perspective to appear in the lead, but this is not relevant specifically to the German source as it was supported by a few others, such as media analysts CAMERA and NGO-Monitor. MeteorMaker, I can see where your concern comes to life about my phrasing of the reports focussing on the Palestinian made footage. Would you be willing to suggest a new, shortened phrasing that puts this issue into writing without giving undue weight and also shortens the current version which is just repetitive?
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggested one way to shorten it above, you may have missed it. I don't share your concerns about "repetitiveness". Do you mean the sentence "[...] which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world"? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Currently, there are two sentences which could be easily merged into one without any loss of input or clarity. I'm hoping to reduce the first paragraph in that aspect. The rest of the lead could use some contracting as well on the details and only present the POVs in a generic manner rather than dive in with excess details. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, suggest something. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've given it a couple, unsuccessful, tries and would appreciate it if give it a try as well so that we can work out a version that works best. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the problems you see with the existing version. If the length is excessive, we can, as suggested above, remove the sentence "The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage", which currently gives undue weight to an extreme minority viewpoint. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've given it a couple, unsuccessful, tries and would appreciate it if give it a try as well so that we can work out a version that works best. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, suggest something. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Currently, there are two sentences which could be easily merged into one without any loss of input or clarity. I'm hoping to reduce the first paragraph in that aspect. The rest of the lead could use some contracting as well on the details and only present the POVs in a generic manner rather than dive in with excess details. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggested one way to shorten it above, you may have missed it. I don't share your concerns about "repetitiveness". Do you mean the sentence "[...] which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world"? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The SZ report was significant enough to be picked up and covered by secondary sources - two of which I have added to the article. That alone would be sufficient indication of the SZ report's notability - which warrants a brief mention in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- out of all of the sources used in this article, only one - a german newspaper - has called the video into question. the idf, hrw, bbc, haaretz, ynet, independent, reuters, etc. have not. yes, it deserves a mention in the article; not in the lead. untwirl(talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The incident's notability is to a large extent based on the video. If its reliability has been questioned by a respectable media source, it warrants mention in the lead, as well as a paragraph in the Media reports section fo the main article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Two sentences actually, plus the Süddeutsche one. It's definitely undue in the lead (being based on only one newspaper article) but should be kept in the Media reports section. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is not undue weight to briefly mention that the reliability of the footage has been questioned, when we have 3+ sentences describing that footage, and noting that the footage was the source of media attention. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Title - Gaza beach explosion
I propose to change this. If explosions warranted their own Wiki article .... need I say more. The importance of this event is that 7 DEATHS were caused in one single explosion, all during a declared ceasefire. So I propose that the title be changed to "Gaza beach deaths (2006)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 15:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 03 November 2014
Gaza beach explosion (2006) → Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006) – Same editor did this move two days before (was reverted). "No answer in talk" as their editsummary says is not enough. – DePiep (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- This move depends on who was the culprit for the explosion, which is controversial. The name "Gaza beach explosion" is neutral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard there is nothing neutral about absolving antagonist of their responsibilities. I Support the use of 1929 Palestine riots, List of Palestinian suicide attacks and 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign in the same way as I support the use of Criticism of the Israeli government. The situation in Israel is not neutral and it does no-one any favours to gloss over realities.
- Support the current title significantly fails WP:AT Otherwise use Israeli shelling of the Gaza beach and related explosion (2006) this opens both sides to question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Mevarus is gaming the system. They made this move twice these days. The es said "no answer on the talkpage" (see the section above), which is a crippled way of concluding a move proposal.
- I request first revert today's incorrect move. Mevarus should have followed proper procedure. -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor/admin looking at the history of moves, it appears that the current title is the stable title for the article, since it was there until early September. In both cases Mevarus's move was a reversion of a move that had not undergone a move request. The title should have been discussed after Mevarus's first reversion, and the second set of moves should not have taken place. While I think it would have been better for someone other than Mevarus to have reverted the second move, it makes sense to conduct the move request from this location. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support the move and support Mevarus being blocked as his other accounts, such as User:Wlglunight93, have been. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)