Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Gaza beach explosion/Archive 2

< Talk:2006 Gaza beach explosion
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Wbm1058 in topic Title - Gaza beach explosion
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Lead - IDF "admission"

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

I'd agree with you. Admission is a loaded term, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 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)

Media criticism

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found this one - [1]. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Original research in the lead

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

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:

"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. "

MeteorMaker (talk) 20:51, 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)
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)

(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)
I wonder how many French went and picknicked on Omaha Beach. I've made one change, which I've explained in my edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Beit Lahia beach explosion (2006)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Do you have any sources calling it that? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 07:35
I'd be inclined to oppose the suggestion. That is not the most obvious search term.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 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)
Disagree. It is the Gaza Strip, which is all the readers have to know. We name by the most common search term where we can. Most people won't know Beit Lahia from a pineapple.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ilham/elham

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

sources (with just a quick news search) that list her among the dead: [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]

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)
Ditto. It's about time this bogus dispute was cleared. Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 10.03.2009 07:42
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)
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, [12] 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)

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 [13]. The claim that she said “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion" [14] 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:
"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)

Tightening up of the first paragraph

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

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,[15][16] 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)
  • 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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)

Requested move 03 November 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago49 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: request withdrawn/no nominator. Another move discussion in the future may be warranted, but the present discussion was marred by procedural issues. The reason for maintaining the present title is not to reward reversions, canvassing, or sockpuppeting, but to restore the title that was stable for six years prior to September 2014, when the page was moved without discussion. Future moves of this page should be treated as controversial and should be preceded by move discussions on this talk page. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
re Dekimasu Your conclusion "it makes sense to conduct ..." does not follow your description. As you say, the title was stable for two months, and then Mevarus twice did move twice withput starting a request - that's move warring, plus a 32hrs-is-not-WP:1RR trick. I also note that Anthony Appleyard decided not to revert (as an admin), and then entered the discussion here (as an editor) arguing for that same outcome (with no response when asked about [17]). For this very fact alone, I'd expect and uninvolved editor to react. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It does follow my description; I did not say the title was stable for two months. Rather, it was stable for several years at this title before it was moved without a move discussion, and then that move was reverted. The move discussion should have taken place after the first "move reversion," which was the move by Mevarus back to this title. The fact that no one noticed the move that had taken place without discussion right away does not make the new title the "stable title." You could be perfectly correct about what the title should be, but it is a misrepresentation of the circumstances to call the other title the "stable title." Dekimasuよ! 06:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Two months, is the indication that there was no contestant. 2. Then Mevarus disagreed and so should have started the process. They did not. 3. Instead, after 32h29m (not WP:1RR, really?) redid the move. That is called move warring.
4. And now you conclude that "it makes sense" to reward the move warrior.
Also, you still have not said anything about the admin deciding to act according to their own involved !vote. Great. (Why is it that admins cannot or dare not criticising admins? And forget about acting) -DePiep (talk)
Two months with no intervening edits is an indication that the move was not noticed, not that it wasn't contested. The person who disagreed with the original move is not the one who starts the move request process. The reverter is not being "rewarded." The move request is fine for determining the title. Dekimasuよ! 01:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Or would have been fine, if not for the canvassing. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
"The move request is fine for determining the title." Sigh. I did not even start this move discussion. My quote and my signature were abusively used [18]. Of course, my nom argument has been turned into irrelevance this way. In that same abusing edit, the supposedly 'uninvolved' admin entered their !vote opinion — that surprisingly happened to support their decision. When I asked the admin about it (as is good practice), they did not even respond. When I complained about this at ANI, the discussion was run OT by that same admin, that speedily made into a closing conclusion by another uninvolved admin (another admin whitewashed their own mistake by editing after closure, and so after the damage had spread. Of course, had I edited a closed ANI discussion admins would have reacted differently). By moving twice in 34 hrs, the mover did breach rules. The mover is a sockpuppet. The canvasser is the sockpuppet (no admin took action; why was they not blocked right away for this?). But for the rest, yeah, everything is fine (accusing me of bad faith, Lisa below, does not count does it?). -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I have warned the user. I am sorry that you are upset with the outcome here. Your concerns about the sockpuppet and canvassing were clearly valid. I don't believe that the actions of Anthony Appleyard were inappropriate; they reflected usual procedure at WP:RM. It was clear that the present request (or whatever this was) was not going to show a consensus for the new title, but I hope that you can review what happened here and try to understand that the reversion of your original move indicated the need for a full move discussion from the original title. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 10 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)
Support the move from Gaza beach explosion (2006) → Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I could also support a move to Israeli shelling of the Gaza beach and related explosion (2006) ....but that is a rather cumbersome title. Mevarus is being rather disingenuous in his edit-summaries when he said there was no answer on talk; you cannot expect a full discussion in 2-3 days. (And some of us were kept occupied elsewhere.) Finally: User:Dr. R.R. Pickles: please never, ever make accusations about socking *outside* SI. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Deviation: Huldra re: "please never". Can sock-puppet situations be mentioned on talk pages? Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Gregkaye: if so, only to factually point to a SI-report. You are playing with fire if you do anything else. Note that WP:ASPERSIONS is enforced with gusto over at WP:AE. So when some "new" editor comes along, and knows every rule within 3 edits ("I have edited as an IP") ...just act cool, and try to pin-point which sock it is. (They pretend they are new editors, and you pretend that you believe them....: it is the game of Wikipedia.) --Huldra (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
TY, wise words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Article history (relevance?)
Why do you copy paste the history page? To be clear:
First you decided as admin to not-revert the warring move (could have checked for 1RR too), then you come here and !vote for your own action. You could have replied to my question (and my surprise when I discovered these steps). -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
How is this c/p a contribution to the topic? I propose to fold it. (btw, will you also do the closing of this proposal?). -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I still no reason not to use the suggestions mentioned. I like Israeli shelling of the Gaza beach and related explosion (2006). Massacre, incident, blast, and explosion all seem to me to offer fairly meagre information. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a reason to explain why this title was stable for four years. In addition to the fact that it's still unclear whether it was a land mine, an explosive device or artillery/naval shells fired by Israeli forces what caused the explosion (Israel didn't acknowledge that bombed the place), B'Tselem – which is a reliable source for statistics about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – doesn't register those eight Palestinians allegedly killed by the IDF. The only casualties of that day belong to a different incident in Beit Hanun (3 killed), as you can see here. Again, it's not completely clear that this was an Israeli bombing, therefore the title shouldn't be changed.--Mevarus (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking sources. First, of course, Israel & IDF are a party it it. Any statement by them carries no weight. Such statements are not tested against facts, and so are not a RS. They are partial opinions for a section OK, but not fit to decide a title (suggested title, acceptable for IDF: "Something happened in Gaza in 2006 but we don't know what"). Then, the very link you give here is talks only. It is not about a report, just more opinions. Even then, with all those cherry-picked quotes, there is no proof that IDF/Israel was uninvolved. Where is the proof in your cherries? Next step: read the first source in the article. (Note that "people killed" is not in the bad title at all; it could be a gas tank). -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
How difficult can it be. From reference #1, BBC:

Friday, 9 June 2006, 18:28 GMT

The shelling has caused outrage among Palestinians. Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say. At least 30 people were wounded in the shelling, they say.

The Israeli military says it has halted all shelling of Gaza and has launched an inquiry into whether ground-based artillery could have been involved."

— BBC, Palestinians killed on Gaza beach, [19]
Note that shelling was "halted". So actually still has not proven that this explosion was not part of by their shelling at the time. But hey, you'd call BBC not a RS - this time. Cherries. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Mevarus has asked his friends to all come here so below you can expect a stream of opposes denying that Israel's bombing of the beach was related to the bombing of the beach. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My first instinct was that I didn't like the title. But reading not just the article, but the refs, indicates why such an awkward title is appropriate. Just "who" caused the explosion is a highly contentious point, with evidence on both sides. For now, for wp to blame it on either side would only likely be done for POV reasons, because the facts are unclear. Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Epeefleche (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Oppose. From all the sources it is certain that an explosion happened. It is not certain that it was as a result of an Israeli bombing. The article is about the explosion, its victims, possible causes and the media reactions. One possible (and even likely) cause is Israeli bombing. There are other possible causes as well. Using 'massacre' or 'bombing' as title would mislead the reader into thinking that there is absolute certainty what happened. “WarKosign” 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that WarKosign (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Oppose. Per said above. Flayer (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Flayer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Support move to the more accurate title proposed, Also, it should be noted that many of the above Oppose votes came after Mevarus canvassed a large number of presumably sympathetic editors, but no presumed opponents. See also this open SPI. RolandR (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Canvassing. Move warrior and process breacher Mevarus had to be warned against canvassing [20]. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Points altready mentioned. Given that admins do not use arguments here (don't read/acting without/for themselves), I don't feel the need to add one. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This vote is irrevocably poisoned by Mevarus' massive breach of WP:CANVAS, see here. Zerotalk 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But the result is: more of the same, Mevarus gets their way. Mevarus' 2nd move was, by choice, not reverted by two admins. Move warring rewarded. Then canvassing can lead to an admin blocking the editor (don't wait for it to happen), but does not change the status of this discussion at all. That's another reward for the warrior. Expect next step: Mevarus might as well close & conclude this thread by themselves. -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Canvasing can be mostly negated by advertising this !vote on neutral pages and waiting a longer than usual time for comments. Counter-canvasing may be tempting but two wrongs do not make one right. Either way, "Mevarus getting their way" may be (and in my opinion is) the right thing to do. The article was under an agreed name for years, so there has to be a consensus for a change.“WarKosign” 13:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
... says the one who was canvassed at at 01:48 and !voted here at 04:37 (in fact, you copy-pasted the text provided to you in the canvas). "(in my opinion is) the right thing to do". Given your copy/paste source of ideas, I doubt if you have an opinion at all. But sure, if the outcome of an abused process is to your preference, it must be OK. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith and avoiding a personal attack. I assure you that I'm capable of typing the word "opinion" on my own without copy-pasting it. Is there anything else you believe I copy-pasted ? It's curious how you bothered to look at my talk page yet failed to notice the reply I left Mevarus prompting them to avoid potential canvassing. I am unfamiliar with most of the editors that Mevarus invited, even if I was indeed canvased - I'm not aware of any rule preventing me from expressing my opinion. Perhaps you are upset because your attempt at renaming the article against the consensus was undone ? “WarKosign” 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop trolling Warkosign, no one likes your politician, "I am the consensus", "you mad bro?" shit. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then considering that no independent expert, no one without an interest in not being responsible for having blown up children, you agree it is ridiculous for us to place the killers denial on par with those experts who pulled pieces of Israel bombs out of the victims. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. So long as it's a matter of controversy who was responsible, it is not Wikipedia's place to make claims about it. I suggest that the move request is not in good faith, but is rather an attempt to use Wikipedia as a propaganda mechanism. WP:AGF does not require us to believe something is in good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You accuse me of bad faith. Prove it or strike it. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this Requested Move. It was opened by someone else anyway, using my signature [21], instead of using the basic process. I was not notified, and my questions for clarification were not reacted upon. A 'please revert vandalism' request is worded different from a talkpage RM, but no one noticed. My ANI post was closed before any talk evolved, using the non sequiturs as argument without even connecting to the original post. Did you know that capitalisation is a decisive argument in this? Also another self-serving admin got involved: did you ever even try to edit a closed ANI discussion? (I do not bother to add all the diffs, since they are not read anyway. Maybe if you ask me). Meanwhile the offensive move warrior was blocked. But for being a sockpuppet, not for move warring or for canvassing this thread beyond breaking (so far for ackting upon "it would have been better if someone else ..."). Now I am supposed to defend my miscopied request against canvassing sockpuppets and OT-posting involved admins? I cannot even count on a closing admin to clearly throw out Lisa's bad-faith accusation they choose to make. Given the habit of admins in this case to evade discussion content and picking their own outcome without accountability I do not see any use in having a conclusion at all. Then if I had the indecent brutality to ask an admin for clarification or correction later, who would read it? Maybe later a request can be made on more sound basics. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title - Gaza beach explosion

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Page moved. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't have moved the page. Israel didn't acknowledge that bombed the place, as you can see from the sources of the article. It's still unclear whether it was a land mine, an explosive device or artillery/naval shells fired by Israel.--Mevarus (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that the page was not moved to Gaza beach deaths (2006), which remains a red-link as of today. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Gaza_beach_explosion/Archive_2&oldid=1166645461"