Talk:Gaza beach explosion (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead - IDF "admission"[edit]

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)

Cause of explosion, WP:BRD and WP:REDFLAG[edit]

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)
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)
I agree. It's as close to a "leftist" slant as you are gonna get in an Israeli newspaper. Incidently, WP:BRD is an essay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 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)

I've taken the whole thing to WP:BLP/N (here). Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.01.2009 16:48

Having read the above, I am amazed,that the Haaretz piece features in the lead. It is an amazing claim, and editors should insist that it complies with WP:REDFLAG.

The Haaretz piece, offered under Media Reports, apparently confirms that the explosion was not due to IDF shelling at the time of the deaths. The writer, Amir Oren, is a senior correspondent for Haaretz, and hence presumably reliable. Normally Haaretz reporting would be viewed as being WP:RS, but this report has some odd features. It refers to the account by one of the victims, the 11 year-old (at the time) Ilham Ghalia as “a story” in which she claims that her father “handled a previously unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident”. With one stroke of the pen, the IDF appears to have been absolved from any blame, notwithstanding all the previous evidence and debate.

This report appeared in Haaretz in January 2009, 2 ½ years after the tragic event, when it appears out of the blue as hearsay. No mention is made as to who did the interviewing, where or when. Ilham had seemingly remained silent up until then. Or had she? The fully registered Defence for Children International, [1] which operates a section in Palestine, published a report in May 2007 - [2] which also includes an apparently personal narrative by Ilham, but with much more detail. In it she relates how her father alerted them to impending danger and ordered them to flee. For some peculiar reason she then sat down on a chair. She mentions various exploding shells, and that the fourth one “fell amongst us”. There is no mention of her father manipulating an unexploded device while explosions were going off on the beach near to them. Just as with the Haaretz quote, no detail is provided as to the source of the text – who interviewed, where or when.

A peculiar portion of the Haaretz piece reports that “Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission, which relieved Israel of blame. “ Why – it makes no sense – presuming all was above board. Also odd is that, the Haaretz piece is not quoted by any other mainstream media sources. Was the interview undertaken by the IDF? It is also unclear how an 11 year old severely traumatised girl could identify the origin of a piece of old ordnance. Additionally odd is the HRW evidence that the shrapnel that they investigated was shiny, i.e. not old.

So here is my problem. Do I delete the Haaretz piece as being hearsay, unsupported, and inconsistent, and not complying with WP:REDFLAG, or do I add the DCI piece as counter-information so as to preserve NPOV Wiki content? Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As you note, Haarte'z is a reliable source, so no, you can't delete just because you find aspects of its reliable reporting odd. I am not familiar with DCI, but assuming it passes muster as a WP:RS, you can add details from their account. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Braad Dyer and Pedrito: - Brad, I respect your efforts to assure that edits conform to Wiki protocols, but in this case I cannot agree with you, since I too try to achieve that assurance. Just as with the NYT, blatant howlers should not be allowed, simply because they were written by a usually impeccable WP:RS source. In this specific case the Haaretz piece quotes Ilham Ghalia who "told a story" (strange wording?) in Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital. That is dubious in the extreme. Firstly, as previously noted on Talk, it comes out of the blue 2 1/2 years later with no attribution. Secondly, Ayham Galia was talking to his father seconds before the blast. He makes no mention of his father handling a 155mm shell. Although he was within speaking distance, he was not turned into hamburger - . Thirdly, it contradicts the actual accounts of the cause of the explosion by both Ayham and Ilham's sister, Huba, that incoming 'ordnance' caused the explosion. Fourthly, this is corroborated by the account of another eyewitness, Hani Asania who attributes the shredding of the bodies to 'a shell', and similarly by Annan Ghalia - , and from Gaza doctors who had ample experience of 155mm shell damage [HRW final report].
That should be more than enough for doubt as to WP:RS, but in addition, Ilham's "telling of the story" must have occurred during a seance, because various sources report that Ilhan was killed on the Beit Lahia beach - / / The Defence for Children article - - has Huda reporting that she had encountered Ilham dead in the nearby Kamal Odwan Hospital (close to the Beit Lahia beach) before she herself was transferred to hospital.
I know that what follows is Original Research, but I nonetheless find it to be extremely compelling. The Haaretz piece would have it that Ali Ghalia (the father) fiddled with an unexploded shell, which caused the blast. When I read Huba's account (DCI), she relates "I saw my father lying on the ground. It looked like he was sleeping". This is confirmed by the infamous video sequence of Huba's distress when she found her father some distance away. He was lying on his back, his eyes closed, both his hands intact and his shoes still on. My OR tells me that, if Ali had handled, and consequently set of a M107 - 155mm shell, with a blast radius of 30m, eminently sufficient to kill all the Ghalias over the radius that you can see, or even a 75mm shell, he would not have "looked like he was sleeping". See - In applying WP:COMMONSENSE I conclude that the Haaretz piece is at best dubious, and at worst, 100% unbelievable. As such it does not justify at all as WP:RS. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This says she was delivered alive (albeit in serious condition) to Sourasky Medical Center a.k.a Ichilov Hospital. WarKosign 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser. Are there two Ilhams; one clearly dead and the other 60km away in an Israeli hospital? Even more reason for non-WP:RS. But even so, how about the weight of a single purported "story" versus the half-dozen totally contradictory reports that a shell caused the blast, plus the extremely unlikely scenario that a man, who had "handled a shell causing it to explode" would end up "looking like he was sleepin"? Sorry. Just so non-WP:RS Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I really don't believe that most morals would have been inches away from causing this and still be intact: Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This Hebrew source (automatic translation) also says she was delivered to Israel after all the shards were removed from her body, it wouldn't make any sense if she was killed by the blast. WarKosign 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Two more reports say essentially the same. WarKosign 14:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I see from a portion of this Talk page which I missed, that the quotes as to what the duplicate 'Ilham' said, are all attributed to the head of the IDF investigation team, Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi (or Meir Klifi). If so, that is only one source, no matter how often it is repeated by others. The Major's recollection is still outweighed by a half-dozen Palestinian eye-witnesses, and by WP:COMMONSENSE interpretation that father Ali could not possibly have triggered the explosion, given the intact state of his body, and that of the survivor, Ayham, who was talking to his father at the time. It leaks like a sieve, especially when it seems that he or Haaretz couldn't even get her name right.
The Major had to change his version of what happened on numerous occasions. I think that a post-facto review is required to see whether the final picture supports the Major as being WP:RS. If he has played fast-and-loose with the facts, then I believe his claim can be reasonable viewed as not WP:RS. This, if validated, plus in the fact of the load of eyewitness accounts in conflict with his, plus further the wholly unlikely WP:COMMONSENSE issue of an intact body of someone who had just set off a powerful high-explosive piece of ordnance, and the survival of a man standing next to him, will almost certainly force certain NPOV conclusions. Bear with me, the review will take a while in oder to be thorough. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for a start, here is a quote from the Talk section: [ilham/elham], from the European Jewish Congress citation:

"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."

The above is practically identical to a Google:Translate version of the Haaretz detailed article - Both reflect that "The security establishment has received information that Ilham Ghalia said ...." and "According to the information received by the IDF, the injured girl, Ilham Ghalia, said ..." What on earth value does this have in terms of WP:RS?

So I investigated further, and I am utterly underwhelmed by the quality of that information. Firstly, Ilham was dead. The patient's name was Elham, her sister. But that is a minor slackness, in defense of the IDF. I thought from the discussion by Hebrew-fluent editors that the proof of Elham's purported admission was ironclad. Instead, it is a 'Chinese whisper' - unattributed hearsay. My interpretation is confirmed by the last paragraph of the Haaretz version - , which reflects critically poorly on Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi and his claims of "proof", as follows:

"However, the degree of reliability of the information is unclear. A senior General Staff admitted yesterday told "Haaretz" that this is unsubstantiated information - and that the army does not have a recording of the girl saying these things."

If that is not a self-admission by Haaretz that the claim is not WP:RS, then I would sincerely like to hear reasoning as to why not.

Do we really need to spend more time on Ilham/Elham's supposed utterings? But, I will show good faith by checking out the other Hebrew pieces that were quoted in Talk above, as being "proof". Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read the subsequent Talk section [Who got killed, who was hospitalized, where, etc...]. MeteorMaker (talk · contribs)'s conclusion seems to be pretty well-founded. Given the 2006 Haaretz article in which the weakness of "Ilham said ..." is clearly signalled in three contexts - unreliable; unsubstantiated; no evidence - I went to the 2009 Haaretz commentary, and encountered the following: "Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission ". Now THAT I can understand, who would want to put his name to such an unreliable claim. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of these clear evaluations as to the authenticity of the "Ilham said ...." claims by Major General Khalifi, I intend to modify the article. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your original research does not trump wikipedia policy - this is sourced material, and you may not remove it without consensus. All Rows4 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Media criticism[edit]

Found this one - [4]. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


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)[edit]

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)

Who got killed, who was hospitalized, where, etc...[edit]

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)

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
Why is it an extraordinary claim? Obviously it is not hewing to the Hamas party line but that doesn't make it extraordinary. She did not say "The world is flat".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 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)

@MeteorMaker:I couldn't agree more, MeteorMaker (talk · contribs). What disappoints me in particular is that, while quoting a Haaretz article in support of the "Ilham said ...." reasoning absolving the IDF, the Hebrew-literate editors became guilty of gross cherry-picking, if not dishonesty. We can see that now thanks to where we can all read the essence of any Hebrew article. It becomes crystal clear that the Haaretz piece contains critical information that was mutely swept under the carpet ..... as follows: "However, the degree of reliability of the information is unclear. A senior General Staff admitted yesterday told "Haaretz" that this is unsubstantiated information - and that the army does not have a recording of the girl say(ing) these things." Had that been revealed, the "Ilham said ...." 'absolution' would never have been admitted as WP:RS. That WILL be corrected now, and with it the IDF absolution goes out the window. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: which of the Hebrew sources are you quoting ? I would like to verify that this translation is accurate.
Is it this one (translation)? Here Ilham/Elham is referred to as a "girl" (a child, unlikely a 21 year-old), and it says that according to IDF sources she said while in Gaza hospital that her father touched some object prior to the explosion, before her transfer to Israel. "Since, it is not recognized and can not be impaired" in the machine translation is garbled "since then she is unconscious and cannot communicate".
This report supports 3 claims:
  • The injured girl (not young adult) was brought to Israel
  • She said that her father touched some object right before the explosion
  • She said it back in 2006, less than 2 weeks after the event
If she indeed said these things in a hospital in Gaza it's reasonable that IDF knows it through some non-quite-reliable intelligence channel and doesn't have a recording.

WarKosign 09:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: - indeed that is the link.
  • I am not disputing that one of the Ghalia girls (daughters) was taken to an Israeli hospital - I never have. Done.
  • I have previously disputed that her name was Ilham. Ilham died on the beach. Her name was in all likelihood Elham. But irrelevant. Done.
  • I disagree: She did not "Say". She is 'reported to have said' by some informant who is purported to have passed the information on to the IDF.
  • I do not dispute that the alleged admission took place soon after the deaths. Done.
The KEY issue, which is what I am focussing on and has nothing to do with any of the above points, except where you claim "She said" as though it were a proven fact, is contained in the second paragraph of the translation, which you seem to be studiously avoiding. In Haaretz quite clearly and unambiguously writes in the second paragraph the following regarding this purported abmission by the girl:

"... the degree of reliability of the information is unclear. A senior General Staff admitted yesterday told "Haaretz" that this is unsubstantiated information - and that the army does not have a recording of the girl say these things."

Did you see that piece which is the focus of my complaint about the non-WP:RS of the entry? If so, do you believe that the entire "Ilham said ..."" entry meets WP:RS criteria? If so, please explain your reasons. Many thanks for your civil tone and respect. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: Thank you too, civility is the only way to go. I think we have a WP:RS to the fact that IDF (and Israeli politicians) deny Israel being the cause for the explosion and the deaths, and provide her statement as one of the proofs. They admit that there is no recording and thus reliability of this proof is low. Here the genral says that a special lab will examine the remaining shard, Here here and here he says that it certainly did not come from a 155mm artillery shell and they are still investigating its nature.
Let me correct the machine translation: "the reliability of the information is unknown" and "a senior general staff member admitted that this is unvalidated information". Both are normal terms for military intelligence - it does not say that the information is wrong, only that it can't (at that stage) be fully relied upon. Don't forget that the statements were made during an ongoing investigation, so it's actually a good sign that they were careful in the statements rather than make swiping accusations.
I thought that Ilham was a teenager who died while Elham was a young adult who survived and was brought to Israel, yet the quote above seems to be about a surviving child.WarKosign 10:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - it is indeed a fact that the IDF and Israeli politicians denied Israel being the cause for the explosion and the deaths. But I disagree vehemently with you view that this makes the claims WP:RS. I am sure that you would not accept claims by Mashal or Nazrallah as being necessarily WP:RS. Their claims (other than to motive) need to be substantiated. So do those of the IDF. What we are in fact debating is whether the statement attributed to the Ghalia girl is WP:RS. Haaretz has clearly stated that it is not - see the bold print above for three different and distinct reasons. You too have admitted that the reliability is poor. That in itself is sufficient to demonstrate non-WP:RS, and therefore the "Ilham said ..." story should be justifiably excluded from Wiki. This is even further substantiated by the 2009 Haaretz article which admits that the Israeli authorities has "taken the (Ilham said ....) issue off the shelf". If you still disagree, we can submit the "Ilham said ...." issue for arbitration. Please advise.

In fact, on reflection, I would prefer that the "Ilham said ..." claim by the IDF General remain in the Wiki tex, but that the Haaretz conclusion as to the quality of the information on which the claim was based, be provided from the 2006 Haaretz article, and that the Israeli decision to "take the issue off the shelf" also be added to provide NPOV. That way both your preference and mine can be catered for, What say? Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: - regarding the shrapnel in the one girl's body, you provide three new sources quoting Gen. Meir Kalifi as claiming that the shrapnel from the girl's body was not an IDF fragment. They are all in fact one single source - the nGeneral. I believe that his claim should be contrasted side-by-side with other forensic analyses of blast fragments, so as to provide NPOV. Do you agree? Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I do not say that we have an WP:RS to the fact that she said so, but to the fact it was claimed that she said so. As always in wikipedia, when there is a conflict we should describe the statements by each of the sides (and by outside commentators) and let the readers make their own minds. The suggestion you made in another section of structuring the article by the subjects rather than sides (and to describe conflicting views on each of the subjects) sounds to me like a good way to achieve it. WarKosign 18:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosin: - Excellent. Good spirit. I will work on a draft. What follows is my first piece regarding "Ilham said ....", to substitute the final paragraph in the Lede. Erictheenquirer (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft: [This should go into the main text and a summary placed in the Lede .... IF warranted, given the dubious nature of the report]

Major General Meir Kalifi, head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, reported that the security establishment had received information that, while in an Israeli hospital, Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”. The IDF viewed this as supporting their contention that the Ghalia family had not been hit by an Israeli shell. [3] The Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that Ilham has said that her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident. [4] Other sources list Ilham as one of the immediate fatalities of the explosion.[5][6][7] The day after Khalifi’s claim, in a Hebrew version, the same newspaper recorded: “However, the degree of reliability of the information is unclear. A senior General Staff yesterday told "Haaretz" that this is unsubstantiated information - and that the army does not have a recording of the girl say (sic) these things.” [8] In 2009 Haaretz reported that “Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission”.[4] End of Draft Erictheenquirer (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think you can quote machine translated text, and there is certainly no need to add sic to mistakes made by a machine. I think unless an English source can be found we'd have to do with translation + paraphrasing by me and any other willing Hebrew speaking editors, and the rest can verify we didn't depart too far from the source by comparing the paraphrased text to machine translation.
  • We can deal with the contradiction between Ilham being wounded or dead and the probable confusion with Elham in another section that specifically deals with names, ages and statuses of all the victims. It is quite certain that one of the sisters was treated in Israel and it is alleged that she is the one who made this statement.
  • The source you quoted never says that the girl allegedly made the statement while in hospital in Israel: "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." I do not think any of the sources says that, and we have sources showing that the girl was unconscious and uncommunicative when she arrived in Tel Aviv.
Otherwise this paragraph looks good to me.WarKosign 22:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Then please provide a translation. It will obviously be checked against Google, Bing and Babelfish translations, and I will ask my Hebrew-speaking friends for their opinion as a measure of whether we need more translation versions.
  • Not accepted. We will not cherry-pick Khalifi's claims. It comes warts and all, including who said it, and whether that was likely. Remember - we put the data next to each other so folk can judge WP:RS. There is no section on name confusion.

So, awaiting your translation before modifying and entering the text in the lede. Once we reorganise the structure it can be moved to the main text and a summary added to the Lede - if justified as carrying sufficient WP:RS weight, which I seriously doubt, but is pending your translation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I will add another reference confirming where she was when her alleged claim was made ... it is a well-known fact.

Please also note that you have insisted that IDF claims should be permitted which have been classed as non-WP:RS by Haaretz. The same "NPOV" treatment (as you reasoned) will therefore be required of opposition claims, not only in this article. Are we sure that we want to promote this drift in WP:RS discipline? Pending: I remain very uncomfortable about claims that have been judged by an avowed WP:RS source (Haaretz) to be of unclear reliability, unsubstantiated, and with no hard evidence, being used to provide NPOV. I therefore ping some respected editors with a variety of persuasions and ask for their input - @Nishidani, Brad Dyer, Brewcrewer, Zero, KingsIndian, and Ykantor: Erictheenquirer (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of unreliable claims: Media coverage of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Hamas claims during the fighting. While the conflict was ongoing, there was a considerable pressure to include these claims as POV facts, the compromise that was achieved was to include them in a separate section. There is RS for Hamas making these claims, even though it's quite clear today they weren't true. WarKosign 06:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Girl's name is not about cherry-picking: in Hebrew Elham and Ilham can be spelled identically, so it's impossible to tell which of the names was given in the article. The fact that machine translation chose one of the names is meaningless. Even if you don't believe Khalifi, does it sound reasonable that he would intentionally confuse a dead child child in Gaza with a young adult alive in Tel Aviv? This is an easily validated fact that apparently got mixed up by all the reporters. WarKosign 07:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The two girls had different ages. But forget the names, that is just JPost's slack editing, using different spellings in the same article. The cherry-picking was to use a Haaretz article in Hebrew to support "Ilham said ... ", but to remain silent on the fact that the same article stated that the claim was of dubious quality. When combined with the IDF decision not to emphasise this claim, it is obvious that it was unlikely to have been true. But I am happy to include my draft. It does not reflect at all well on the Major General. Done. I will make the substitution, since you do not seem to be about to dispute the relative accuracy of the Google translation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Detailed text according to the talk inserted under "Investigations - Israeli Defense Forces" and removed from lede due to the dubious nature of the information. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

-Thanks for the compliment of being a respected editor. The only other "compliment" that I received so far (from Zero0000), is being one of the worst editors .
- I tried to understand what actually happened there , but still I do not have a clear view about this horrible tragedy. It is really touching to read Eyham Ghalia (The son who miraculously was not wounded or killed) words, that in Israel there are people who want peace and others who wants war. (my own translation).
- Naturally, some people (including Israelis) suspect that the army investigation was biased. It is a pity that the army investigation was not opened to some objective experts.
- The Tel Aviv Ichilov hospital , where the wounded Ilham Ghalia was hospitalized, reported that all shrapnels were removed from her body (except one inaccessible shrapnel) before her arrival to the hospital, and that the removal is against the medical practice, and never happened before, with hundreds of previous shrapnels wounded patients. In my opinion, it cast a severe doubt of an illegitimate motivation of Palestinians surgeons.
- The article does not say clearly why actually the Israeli navy gunboat fired the artillery shells at the beach. So it seems that it was sort of alleged typical Israeli cruelty. However, later it is mentioned that "On June 9, Israel responded to the rocket fire with a bombardment of launching sites on the beach where the fatalities occurred". The occasional reader would not connect it to the horrible death of the family. It is very sad, but during a war all sort of tragic mistakes can happen. BTW The army supplied an aerial photo of the beach and marked a firing rockets site within few hundred meters from the beach. It looks like the Hamas deliberately located the firing site very close to the beach, hoping for an Israeli inaccurate counter bombardment.
- Although Israel vacated the Gaza strip, the Hamas policy is to deliberately shoot rockets at Israel, trying to kill civilians. Israeli policy, on the other hand, is avoiding killing civilians. This is a big difference and relevant to the article. Ykantor (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This is how I would translate the paragraph in Haaretz: "This description of events apparently supports IDF's hypothesis that the explosion resulted from an object lying in the sand - unexploded Israeli ordinance or an IED that Palestinians planted there to disturbed IDF's attacks. However, degree of reliability of this information is unclear. A senior in the General Staff admitted yesterday in a conversation with Haaretz that this information is unverified and that the army has no recording of the girl saying these things." WarKosign 21:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, WarKosign (talk · contribs) for another constructive contribution respecting the full range of facts. I believe that the current text (22 March 2015) fairly reflects your translation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ykantor: Your sentiments show good faith - I compliment you. Indeed it is a pity that the IDF did not open the investigation. HRW asked for such an independent review on numerous occasions. The fact that Palestinian doctors removed reachable shrapnel in one victim's body is present in the current text, suggesting that those doctors had something to hide, exactly as you concluded. There are two serious problems with this: 1) It ignores the fact that there were numerous other shrapnel fragments available for examination from other victims and sources; in fact HRW highlighted the fact that at the time the IDF refused to examine sources other than their own. If the "excision of removable fragments" is to remain, then the refusal by the IDF to investigate other sources should be introduced for NPOV promotion; plus 2) that the IDF refused an independent review. I insist on a level playing field and will resist attempts to skew reliable data in a particular direction, or to cherry-pick as in this case with "suspicious" IDF actions being excluded, and a seriously bad case of malicious cherry-picking in using Haaretz to show that a victim had said that her father had "touched" something which exploded, but NOT pointing out that the same Haaretz article cast major doubt on the WP:RS nature of that claim. This deliberate imbalance is utterly unacceptable for Wiki. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ykantor:Regarding your claim that Palestinians deliberately target civilians while the IDF does not, I disagree that such a POV belongs here. It is just as marginal as quoting facts as to the number of deaths of civilian Palestinians versus Israelis over the period in question or the number of rockets versus the number of IDF shells fired. Do you want ALL of this in an article of VERY specific scope? I do not. In a similar attempt to achieve NPOV, I am working on a task to eliminate the non-NPOV of the articles under Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research in the lead[edit]

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)


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)
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, [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)

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:
"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[edit]

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)
  • 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[edit]

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)

Title - Gaza beach explosion[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Requested move 03 November 2014[edit]

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)
  • 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)
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 [22]). 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 [23]. 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)
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, [24]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [25]. -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)
  • Oppose. It is not clear that the IDF's shelling was the cause of the explosion, it may be the result of the Palestinians own actions (there were many occusions that Palestinian IEDs denoted prematurally and killed Palestinians). MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MathKnight-at-TAU (talkcontribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Comment. Mevarus has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. And note that, except for Mevarus him/herself, every single Oppose vote has come from editors canvassed by Mevarus for their support. RolandR (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The neutral POV should be in the title, not the implied slanted opinion that Israelis are guilty. We really do not know at this time exactly who did the shellings, even despite strong evidence that Israel may have done it; we shouldn't jump to conclusions with the title. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If it was an independent expert and not the perpetrator's own mother (who has a financial interest in presenting the event as an accident) - you'd have a point. WarKosign 22:23, 6 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 [26], 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.

Precursor Context[edit]

@Erictheenquirer: You added a good section, but why not simply call it "background" ?

I think this would be a better yet structure:

  • Background
  • Immediate events (missing)
This section would have to be made out of content currently in the lead, but then the question is what should remain in the lead.
  • Investigations
  • Reports
  • Reactions

WarKosign 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:Many thanks for your suggestions. Regarding the title of the subsection, as Background, I am completely happy with your suggestion. Re the issue of incorporating parts of the Lead into Background, excellent. Which parts, and what constitutes the lead will require a bit of thought. How to reorganise the article - quite a bit more thought :-) Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Before deciding on a final format, I would like to discuss the Investigations-Reports-Reactions structure. I am fine with the Reactions part.
What I don't like is the separation of the investigations and media opinions into separate sections and subsections. It disrupts the continuity. A reader needs to jump from HRW to IDF to see what the response to a piece of evidence was; back to HRW to find a rebuttal, then to Haaretz and then to the JP to find the Israeli media analysis and then to The Guardian to find a more Palestinian-friendly response. This is not useful for an encyclopaedia. I propose that the separations rather be based on themes: time; location; eyewitness reports; shrapnel; forensic explosive analysis; etc. And that under each of these topics the opposing investigations and analysis be gathered. That structure seems much neater and reader-friendly to me. Obviously nothing gets left out (other than if [original research?] or not WP:RS ) Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: Now that I read more about the subject, I see how much of a mess the current lead is.
  • The first paragraph calls Huda Ghaliya simply "Ghaliya" which may seem like it's her first name. German newspaper questioning the reliability of he video footage is undue for the lead, imo. It also omits the fact that most of the victims belong to the same family.
  • The second paragraph is a mess of arguments and counter-arguments about IDFs investigation. This paragraph should explain that there are two conflicting versions and that IDF's version has been criticized. If PA's version has been criticized by international organizations it should be mentioned as well. The rest of the material in the current lead should go under investigations.
As for the rest of the article, I see that Victims section makes a mess of the names, mentioning "Ralia Niham" (I assume it should be Niham Ghalya, although I do not see a similar name anywhere else). I would like to find some definitive source(s) that would make it clear - to have a primary version of everybody's name, age and status, to mention all the contradictions in the media reports here and to refer to the same people through the rest of the article.
I tried to imagine how Investigations and Media reports would work as a single combined section and I'm not sure it would work. Perhaps Investigations can become "Imediate Events" and under it describe each of the conflicting versions and how it was reported by each of the sides. Politicians,spokespersons and NGOs making statements can go under Reactions.WarKosign 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for contributing to seeking clarity as to who was killed and who could speak afterwards. A number are consistently mentioned as having died on the beach, so the confusion is limited. Regarding the structure, I have opened a new Talk topic. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the sub-section "Shrapnel Removal"?[edit]

What is this section all about? What is it's encyclopaedic added-value? Is it really odd that doctors remove shrapnel from a victim? Or is it odd that they left one (unreachable) piece behind? I personally would hope that, were I to have been caught in a bomb blast, my doctors would try to remove as much of the 'reachable' shrapnel as possible. So why were the hospital authorities surprised. Was this meant to imply ulterior motives on the part of the doctors, which the source in fact denies? If so, it has failed any credibility test. Clarity from editors from the time would be welcome. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See this, the heading is "PA doctors cut victim needlessly". Apparently in such cases it is medically safe and presumably better for the patient to leave some of the shrapnel harmlessly in, and the suspicion is that the removal was done for reasons other than patient's well-being, presumably to hide the nature of the shrapnel that contradicts PA's version of the story.
BTW, this article speaks about Raliya Niham, 21 - which is very similar to the name used in the Hebrew articles - "איהאם ראליה, בת 21" - which I would transcribe to English as "Iham/Eyham Raliya". I know that R and Gh are sometimes swapped when switching between Hebrew and Arabic like for example in Maghar that is called "Mrar" in Hebrew. Chances are this kind of careless transcription is responsible for confusing the (admittedly similar) names of the two sisters. WarKosign 21:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - what you describe is classic "innuendo". A journalist provides a hearsay report from a purported Israeli doctor, that not all shrapnel should necessarily be removed. And it wasn't .... an unreachable piece was left behind. Then later in the article, in full contradiction, it is erroneously claimed that ALL shrapnel was removed, creating the false implication that Palestinian doctors were trying to hide something. This is classic 'innuendo', and deserves to be rooted out surgically from Wiki. Even worse, the JP piece implies that reachable shrapnel should sometimes be left in the patient's body, something that you appear to believe. Given that "original research" by critics of the Palestinian doctors, I will apply some of my own OR. Why leave contaminated foreign matter (that can be reached) in a patient's body? I contacted a trauma surgeon friend of mine and his one-word reaction started with B ... and ended in T, unless, as he continued, removing it would place life at risk, and no evidence whatsoever for that was provided. It all is just SOOOOO unacceptably conjectural and OR. You, yourself, use the word "presumably" in referring to motives of Palestinian surgeons to "hide" evidence. What proof do you have? More importantly, there was no need to hide anything. That is just more "innuendo" being piled on, because more than enough shrapnel pieces were available from elsewhere, from other bodies; from the car; so .... please enlighten me ..... why "hide" shrapnel by excising removable pieces from a patient. In fact Palestinian doctors and the HRW complained that the Israeli investigations deliberately avoided examining other evidence. This article is being shown to be a crock of bias on a daily basis. I will correct it by editing out Innuendo and conjectural shrapnel, but out of respect I will first await your response to show that there is no speculation but all is based on solid proof, and that Israeli forensic exerts tried to get other shrapnel pieces but failed or were refused. Hint: Earlier on they already examined shrapnel from another patient. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: It's not just innuendo or heresy: the article says explicitly "Military sources say that according to the medical evidence at Ichilov, Palestinian doctors performed the girl's body cuts unnecessary to remove shrapnel from her body, in order to obscure the fact that these are not hit by an Israeli shell. "
I wrote "apparently" and "supposedly" because I am not a medical professional and even if I was I can only know what the article says. This article says repeatedly that the problem is not the removal of the shards but in how it was performed. The shards apparently were removed before arrival at the hospital, presumably not in a proper operation room. According to the article the cuts that were were performed (to remove the shards) do not match the nature of her injuries. A doctor is quoted saying that in such cases it's customary not to remove (immediately) shards that do not pose an immediate threat. The treatment that Iham received reportedly does not match what was done in hundreds of other cases. WarKosign 10:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: there were more than enough samples of the shrapnel available from many other sources other than from this one girl's body. Do you deny this? In fact Israeli experts denied the opportunity to examine them. The article that you quote - - offers as its most damning evidence that removal of shrapnel before the victim goes to hospital is "not customary", and uses words such as "usually". Big deal; major conspiracy? The article admits that the removal of shrapnel was done by Palestinian doctors. Do only Israeli doctors have the right to do so? Just take another look at this piece from your quoted source: "Military sources say that according to the medical evidence at Ichilov, Palestinian doctors performed the girl's body cuts unnecessary to remove shrapnel from her body, in order to obscure the fact that these are not hit by an Israeli shell.". WOW!!! Those miñlitary sources are mind readers!!. I repeat once more: There were many samples, offered to the Israelis for examination, but the offers were refused. Were the peices in this girl's bodt the only ones available? Are you sure you want to rely on this "Israeli military" speculation as to intentions, if we take this to WP Arbitration? Your choice; your reputation as an editor. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I am not saying that these statements are necessarily the truth, but they are sourced and per WP:NPOV we need to report them too.
Here is how I see the logic behind these statements: any shrapnel sample that were not embedded inside the victim's bodies could be planted by the PA, the fragments removed from the victim's bodies are much more reliable evidence. The only reason the girl was transferred to Tel Aviv is that the doctors there have more resources and are more capable than the doctors in Gaza, so it makes perfect sense for a less equipped doctor to avoid performing any cuts until complete examination of the shard with as advanced imaging equipment as possible, to determine the least dangerous and damaging way to remove the fragments or perhaps to determine that it's safer leave some of them. If indeed the cuts were not justified by an urgent medical need it looks suspicious and it is our duty as editors to represent this claim too. WarKosign 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry but I cannot agree to speculation being placed in Wiki, because it is a POV that the work of Gaza doctors removing shrapnel "looks suspicious" as you put it. As mentioned at least twice before, there were more that enough shrapnel samples available from the blast. Removing most of them from just one of the victimes would have achieved nothing. As I said ... much too POV-ish. Erictheenquirer (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you. You do not have to believe this POV in order to represent it. Of course it has to be attributed properly to IDF and doctors from Ihilov and not presented in WP voice, but it is very important to say that these allegations were made. Here IDF complained about lack of cooperation by PA with the investigation, so I'm not certain about shrapnel availability.WarKosign 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Structure of Main Text[edit]

I am very much against the current structure. It does not facilitate the core Wiki principle, NPOV, since it is organised around separate and individual investigators and analysts. Rebuttals for any particular claim need to be sought (if existing) in another section, instead of adjacent to each other so as to provide immediate [NPOV] contrast. This lends itself to a lack of clarity and perhaps even to obfuscation and cherry-picking. I therefore propose that the entire issue of investigation and analysis be organised along themes. An initial idea for such themes include: a) Location of Shell Impacts; b) Timing; c) Shrapnel Evidence and Analysis; d) Crater evidence; e) Nature of Injuries; f) Eyewitness accounts [including "Ilham said ..."]. Where appropriate, external analyst and media reactions can be included where these pertain to the provision of expert views or opinions as to weight of evidence. Otherwise, where more general or only POVs, they can be allocated to [Outside Opinions and Reactions]. Support for this concept has been previously received from WarKosign (talk · contribs) Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I am not certain anymore this structure can work. Each of the themes you listed is interconnected with others. For example, where would you put an eye witness' description of the location and the time of explosions ? There are two main versions of events, so perhaps we could begin with one (probably the PA), describe it together will all the evidence, then have a section dedicated to the other version together with all its evidence. Criticism of each version can go in its section or it can all go under reactions.WarKosign 09:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:Indeed, there might be some duplications, but I cannot identify them right now. Using your example, the main evidence regarding the time is based on video and hospital records and not on eyewitness accounts. I will prepare a draft over the coming week, and ping you. Thanks once again for the logical debate (avoiding "I suspect ..." type 'evidence' and reasoning) and the civil nature. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: You revert timestamped 16:47, 29 March 2015: You reinstated text which in essence is "Major General Meir Kalifi 'reported that' ... 'information had been received that' (note the passive voice) ... 'someone had said something', and you appear to be fully convinced that this meets Wiki WP:RS standards. I have two issues with that. 1) Whereas "someone said" could be justified as a weak Wiki substantiation, it needs to relate to facts that they were intimately involved with, e.g. "a local IDF commander said that the man had been shot in response to the killing of an Israeli citizen". That seems OK, if weak, because it depends on the trustworthiness and involvement of the person reporting the motives. Another example is "The IJ said the rockets had been fired in response to an IAF bombing of a training base." But in this case the Major wasn't even party to the alleged hearing of what someone said. That is super-weak WP:RS in my opinion. 2) The major must in addition be trustworthy on the topic. If it can be shown that he had previously bent the truth on the issue concerned, then his statement becomes non-WP:RS. If he did this on a few occasions, then his statement fails all WP:RS tests, even if his statement was reported by a normally WP:RS source. It is the Major who is being evaluated, not the media source. This article is destined for restructuring (see this Talk page). If is transpires that the Major was not fully open or honest, then I will be reverting your addition, especially if you do not participate in Talk on the matter. Fair enough? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your personal analysis of the reliability of Kalifi does not trump wikipedia policy. If a reliable source quotes him , we can do teh same. All Rows4 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I will them reflect verbatim what the Palestinian eyewitnesses said caused the deaths - also as quoted by reliable sources, and there were many such quotes and sources, and, maintaining a level playing field, they will be acceptable without question. Right? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
properly attributed to the witnesses, and coming from reliable sources, there should be no problem with that. In fact , there are numerous such testimonies already in the article. All Rows4 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign, All Rows4, Nishidani, Kendrick7, and Gouncbeatduke: - Finally finish the proposed rewrite. Please see below.

Restructuring of Article The original Wiki article adopted the format taken from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ - As noted initially in this Talk section, and so far not disputed, the current article's format in Wiki groups the topic's evidence according to the source (e.g. HRW; IDF; German newspaper; etc.), and not according to the various controversial themes (e.g. shrapnel; craters; timing of shelling; etc.). As such the format is not conducive to facilitating a core Wiki objective, namely to provide for a convenient contrasting of various facets of a controversy. The draft below accordingly rewrites the event by theme, not source. By the very nature of this reorganization, the propsed edit is almost totally intrusive. In the process numerous inconsistencies came to light which required further text and sources. In the media section I have included controversial sources. This was done deliberately to show the continuing support for the Israeli version. Other than for HRW, I have not been able to locate "after the fact" syntheses, more sympathetic to the HRW version. It therefore remains weak. If anyone has access to such sources, please add.


Eyewitness Reports[edit]

Eyewitnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch described between five and six explosions on the beach between 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., the general timeframe during which the IDF fired artillery shells onto the beach and when the seven civilians were killed. Survivors said they heard the sound of an incoming projectile and saw a blur of motion in the sky before the explosion that killed the seven civilians. Residents of northern Gaza are familiar with the sounds of regular artillery fire. [9]

Sayid Abu Rabia, a 46-year-old construction worker, had taken 14 members of his family to the beach that day. As he was preparing for prayers, the first shell fell. “When the first shell hit…we left the car behind, we left our cell phones, and ran away,” When the shell that killed the Ghalyas exploded, he was about 20 meters away.[10]

Huda Ghalia, one of the surviving Ghalias, related the events:

"While I was swimming with my siblings I heard the sound of an explosion. I looked to the north and saw dust blowing approximately 100 metres away. My father started shouting to us “Get out of the sea quickly! We want to go back.” ... Then about another four shells fell, the second of which was about 100 metres away from us- closer than the first one. We were confused. Some of the ships were approaching the beach. The fourth artillery fell while I was sitting on the chair. I couldn't move and I didn’t know what was going on. It fell amongst us. I didn't see anything because there was dust everywhere. ... I looked towards the place where my father had been standing with my brother in law. There was a small hill to the south. I looked towards it and I saw my father lying on the ground. It looked like he was sleeping so I rushed towards him. I was trembling not because of the cold but because I was so scared. I saw his intestines outside his stomach."[11]

Major General Kalifi, the IDF spokesperson, discounted these reports, saying that Palestinians “have no problem lying,” [12]

Video Recording of the Aftermath[edit]

Zakaria Abu Harbid (Arabid) filmed video footage of the immediate aftermath. ““I found people’s flesh scattered everywhere. I didn’t know what to do, but I immediately began filming the child (Huda) hysterically crying. I cried while I was filming, seeing children’s clothes and all things mixed with flesh and blood”. A section of the video, showing 12-year old Huda running hysterically looking for her father and finding him lying on his back with his eyes closed, was shown around the world. [13][14]

On 16 June 2006, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage following the incident, alleging that one of the dead bodies next to Huda's father is later seen alive and carrying a gun. Citing alleged cases of Palestinian doctoring of video footage, the report suggested that both the footage and the site of the blast may have been manipulated. [15] An American pro-Israel pressure group, Camera, went so far as to suggest that the film of Huda Ghalia's trauma was faked.[16] Some media commentators criticized the video by suggesting that there was no crater at the site of the deaths,[17] whereas Human Rights Watch subsequently published an analysis of the fatal crater, including position, size and explosive compound coating.[9]

Haaretz showed that commentary was flawed. “The German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung cast doubt on the authenticity of the picture and made its own determinations without checking the facts: Why were bodies covered with sheets?, it asked - although they were not. Why were Huda's clothes dry? - although they were actually wet." Abu Harbid, the video cameraman, commented, "If a foreign photographer had taken the pictures, no one would have had doubts. Because we are Palestinian journalists they immediately claimed we staged it," Abu Harbid's boss added: "How can one stage such horror?" [18]

Claims, Counterclaims and Investigations[edit]

The Israeli army claimed it was targeting Qassam rocket launchers, shelling the beach 250 metres away from the blast, ten minutes prior to it. Its initial response was that the shelling did not come from a gunship, but was more likely to have been fired by Israeli ground forces. The Israeli military said it “regretted the harm done to innocent civilians”. [19][20][21]

The initial IDF acknowledgement was changed in a meeting four days later, on 13 June 2006, when an IDF committee, with Major General Meir Kalifi (also Khalifi and Klifi) as spokesperson, concluded that the deaths were not caused by an errant IDF artillery shell:

"We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident. We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track each and every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground. … The probe concludes that the blast was probably caused by an explosive device buried in the sand." …No clear explanation was provided for what caused the explosion, but Kalifi suggested Palestinian militants might have been responsible.[19]

The IDF committee acknowledged that the army had fired six shells on and around Beit Lahia beach from artillery inside Israel. But it said that by coincidence a separate explosion - probably a mine planted by Hamas or a buried old shell - occurred in the same area at about the same time, killing the family. [16] The IDF justification for this conclusion was multiple.[22] The presentation concluded, “So, all possibilities that the cause of the explosion was an artillery shell fired on that Friday have been disproved.” Defense Minister Amir Perez repeated the findings, the evidence being presented first to the Israeli people. He said “We owe it to ourselves to know that we did not cause these deaths.”

This conclusion was to be challenged on multiple grounds by an on-site Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigation[21] led by its senior military advisor, Marc Garlasco, an ex-defense contractor and later senior professional with the Pentagon,[23] and by other on-site investigations.[24]

Number of IDF shells fired[edit]

During the 13 June meeting, Maj Gen Kalifi of the IDF explained that six artillery shells were fired around the time of the ‘incident’, but they landed 580-600 meters north of the target. The location of the first shell was not determined, but it was launched at 16:30, well before the time of the ‘incident’, and that “naval shells were only fired between 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon”. “We have documentation of where all the (naval) shells landed. It proves that all shells were launched approximately four hours before the incident.” [22] This conclusion was repeated by Major General Dan Halutz, IDF Chief of Staff and former Israeli Air Force Commander "We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident," and that, "We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground."[25]

On 17 June the IDF admitted that the revised analysis presented by Kalifi was flawed. Instead of only six artillery shells, “Israeli officials have now told The Times that two naval shells were fired at about the time of the deaths 'at 4.24pm and 4.55pm' but that they were too far away to matter." [26] HRW subsequently reported that Khalifi acknowledged that two 76mm naval shells had also been fired.[10]

Shrapnel identification[edit]

During the 13 June meeting, Major General Kalifi of the IDF reported: “In addition a piece of shrapnel was found in the wound of one of the Palestinians who was injured and received medical treatment in Israel. The shrapnel was taken for examination in a laboratory. The examination showed that, without a doubt, the shrapnel was not a part of an IDF artillery shell.” [9] The IDF said the fragment resembled explosives used by Palestinian organizations. [27]

Human Rights Watch (HRW) offered rebuttal to this key IDF claim of absolution. The organization had investigated the blast site and had examined shrapnel from four sources:

  • First, it found an approximately 15-centimeter piece of shrapnel near a crater on the beach itself. It was stamped “155mm.” The fact that it had not yet oxidized indicated that it was fresh and not from an earlier attack. A week later, the shell fragment had begun to oxidize.
  • Second, HRW found a small copper shell fragment deep in the back of the front seat of Hani Azanin’s car. The explosion on the beach that killed the Ghalyas had seriously damaged the vehicle. By the time Human Rights Watch talked to Hani Azanin, three days after the incident, he had cleaned the car of human flesh and most of the shrapnel. The copper fragment found by Human Rights Watch definitely came from the blast that killed the Ghalyas because this was the blast that caused all the damage to the Azanin car. In all likelihood it came from the copper ring of an artillery shell.
  • The third piece of shrapnel evidence had been removed from the body of Mahmud Abu Rabia, the 19-year-old-who suffered severe internal injuries, by doctors at the Kamal `Udwan Hospital. HRW reported that this piece, covered in blood, was a range setting for the timing of an artillery shell fuze.
  • The explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team of the Palestinian police found dozens of pieces of shrapnel in the crater of the explosion that killed the Ghalyas. “From our experience and analysis, the [shell fragments] we found belong to 155mm Israeli artillery. It is used by artillery every day in northern Gaza,” said Gen. Salah Abu `Azum, head of the EOD team.259 He and his staff had matched up each fragment with a part of a 155mm shell. For comparison, General Abu `Azum also showed Human Rights Watch Qassam-type rocket fragments, which are visibly much thinner. The EOD team, which was trained in the United States and Europe, indicated it had a high level of familiarity with these and other types of munitions.[10]

Palestinian doctors additionally confirmed that the injuries from the attack, which were primarily to the head and torso, were consistent with the heavy shrapnel of artillery shells used by the IDF.[9]

During a 19 June 2006 meeting, Major General Kalifi confirmed that the IDF had removed and tested one piece of shrapnel from one of three injured Palestinians moved to Israel and that the test results revealed that it was weapons-grade alloy, but not from a 155mm shell. He stated that the IDF was not removing shrapnel from the other injured Palestinians. However, that night an Israeli news report contradicted this information, stating that the IDF had removed two additional pieces of shrapnel from one of the other injured and found them likely to have come from a 155mm shell. The next day Kalifi acknowledged the removal and testing of one additional piece of shrapnel, but claimed that there were no test results yet. [12]

On the evening of the same day, 19 June 2006, Israeli Channel 10's Shlomo Eldar reported that a second fragment, removed the previous week by Israeli doctors from a different Palestinian wounded in the incident, was from a 155mm shell. [28] Kalifi rejected the Channel 10 report as a "falsehood".[27] On 22 June, he reported that a second piece of shrapnel, removed from Adham Ralya, had proved conclusively that this was not a 155mm shell … based on analysis of the composition and content of the shrapnel, and of the explosive compound found on it. [22]

A fragment of shrapnel, marked with numbers and two letters, was removed by Palestinian doctors from the abdomen of a teenage boy caught up in the blast. Garlasco identified it as “definitely part of an artillery fuse”.[29] The IDF’s Kalifi also dismissed the artillery fuse shrapnel evidence, questioning the chain of custody, stating that anyone could take shrapnel and dip it into the blood of the injured.

HRW's battlefield expert, Garlasco, responded in rebuttal: “If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data. The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim’s blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly.” [12]

On 21 June, Maj.-Gen. Kalifi reported the test results on the additional fragment. While the shrapnel did not match artillery shells fired by the IDF that day, it did, he said, match other types of ordnance in IDF use.[30] During the shelling on the fatal afternoon, an Israeli gunboat fired two 76mm rounds.[10] According to Khalifi, "The examination of a second piece of shrapnel retrieved from the body of a boy who was wounded in the blast unequivocally shows that the explosion was not caused by a 155 mm artillery shell."[30]

Shrapnel removal[edit]

Kalifi questioned the decision of Palestinian doctors to remove shrapnel from the injured, who were later sent to Israel, saying he assumed it was to “cover evidence” that might help the IDF. [12] The victims had initially been treated by Palestinian doctors who removed almost all shrapnel from the bodies of victims before they arrived at Israeli hospitals for treatment.[31] Representatives of the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center said that Palestinian doctors at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, who had treated a woman wounded during the blast, had made unnecessary cuts all over her body in an effort to remove all the surgically reachable shrapnel. The Israeli hospital said they had never before received a patient from which all possible shrapnel had been removed." The hospital stopped short of accusing Shifa’s doctors directly of removing shrapnel for no medical reason.[32]

The Relative timing of bombardment and the fatal explosion[edit]

All parties believed that the timing of the IDF shelling was a key issue, Major General Meir Kalifi of the IDF confirming in the meeting of 13 June that the time span of the IDF shelling was the most important factor absolving the IDF of responsibility. According to Kalifi, the eight civilians were killed after the IDF shelling ceased at 4:50 p.m. on June 9, 2006.[12] In support of these claims, Kalifi produced IDF surveillance videos, three of which were published. These were viewed by HRW, which concluded that there were a range of possible hypotheses. The HRW report mentions specifically that video footage from the time of the blast was not provided by the IDF.[33]

The Times (quoted by YNet) reported a UN radio call recording that IDF shelling had started at 04:33pm and that by 04:43 one shell had fallen at the coast west of the old Dugit settlement, causing “casualties among the people spending their day at the … .” [34] Presented with the evidence of the UN transmission, Maj Gen Kalifi said the 4:33 P.M. report was an earlier incident, near the abandoned settlement of Dugit.[12] Israeli sources had previously reported that the fatal beach shelling had started at 4:30pm. [34] Evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. HRW concluded: “That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. This evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.”

A Guardian investigation into the sequence of events on 16 June 2006, reached similar conclusions as to those of HRW, namely that the fatal explosion must have occurred just before 5.00pm:

The Alwada's anaesthetist, Dr Ahmed Mouhana, was woken by a call from a fellow doctor calling him to the hospital. "I looked at the time. That's what you do when someone wakes you up. It was 4.55pm. Dr Nasser couldn't tell me what was going on so I called Abu Jihad [Mr Abu Sada] and asked him. He said he didn't know but I should get to the hospital quickly as it sounded bad," he said. Mr Abu Sada remembered receiving the call while driving to the beach. Dr Mouhana left for the hospital immediately. "It only takes 10 minutes from my house so I was there by 5.10pm or 5.15pm at the latest. I went to reception and they had already done triage on the children," he said.[24]

YNET News synthesized the various claims. The IDF’s version was that the last shell had landed at 4.48pm and that between 4:54 and 4:57 there was normal activity on the beach, with the first ambulance arriving at 5:15pm. The ‘Palestinian’ version was that at 4:45-4:46 Palestinian paramedic Khaled Abu Sada telephoned confirmation of an emergency. At 4:50 Abu Sada drove to the beach, his ambulance arriving at 5:00. IDF officials said that the army shelled the area between 4:30 p.m. and 4:48 p.m., while the deadly blast occurred between 4:57 p.m. and 5:10 p.m. However, according to hospital records and testimonies given by doctors and ambulance crews and obtained by the two newspapers, the blast which killed the Ghalia family members took place earlier than the army reported, while the shelling was still underway. [34]

The next day, 17 June, The Times reported that the IDF had admitted the firing of the naval shell at 4:55pm.[26] Major General Kalifi rejected the report, saying that naval shelling had only taken place earlier in the day, and that “the Times made use of incomplete information, and added that the quote in its story attributed to an IDF officer was inaccurate and taken out of context.” [35]

At the 18 June meeting, HRW provided evidence[24] which contradicted the IDF claim regarding the timing. The evidence demonstrated that the time of firing of the ultimate IDF shell was consistent with the fatal blast. It included digital and hand-written hospital records, the UN recording, telephone records reporting the incident, the ambulance driver's testimony, and various eye-witness reports,[36][37] Three days later, on 21 June, the IDF spokesperson, Maj.-Gen. Kalifi, repeated the conclusion that the fatal explosion occurred 10-15 minutes after artillery cannons had stopped firing shells at a target next to the beach - "conclusively exonerating the IDF from responsibility for the blast".[38] A Knight Ridder review of medical logs, cell phone records and other evidence suggested that the explosion took place during the barrage and probably was due to an artillery round, supporting the HRW conclusion.[37][21]


During the original 13 June meeting, Kalifi had stated that the six IDF artillery shells had targeted an area 580 to 600 meters away (from the fatal site), with earlier midday naval bombardments taking place 2.5 kilometers away. "Using a special system we can precisely account for the places where five of the six shells landed." [22] But according to readings from a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) taken by Human Rights Watch, one crater was 100 meters away from the fatal crater, and the rest were 250 to 300 meters away. The crater where the victims were killed was therefore within the vicinity of the other artillery craters created by the IDF’s June 9 artillery attack, and was also the same shape and size.[9] While the powder in the many old craters in the area had grayed over time, the powder in the crater of June 9 was bright white, indicating its freshness. [10]

The second issue concerned the nature of the craters. During the 13 June meeting, Kalifi reported that "the probe (the IDF investigation) concludes that the blast was probably caused by an explosive device buried in the sand, but does not determine categorically whether it was planted by Palestinians or was an old IDF dud."[22] Haaretz elaborated: "Based on photographs, the crater left on the beach by the blast seems to have been made by an explosion from below (a mine), not a hit from above (a shell).[19] But the HRW investigation found that, not only were the craters in the same general location, but the fatal crater was also the same shape and size.[9] The Guardian reported that the HRW battlefield analyst believed that the crater size, shrapnel, types of injuries and their location on the victims' bodies (particularly to the head and torso) pointed to a shell dropping from the sky, not explosives under the sand. Witnesses spoke of hearing other blasts at the time, consistent with a pattern of shells falling at the beach. [39][40]

Nature of the Injuries[edit]

Doctors who attended the injured in Gaza confirmed to Human Rights Watch researchers that the injuries from the attack were primarily to the head and torso. The IDF said that aerial pictures of the blast crater show it is more likely to have been made by a mine under the sand than an explosion from above, with some Israeli officials suggesting that such a mine was placed by Palestinian militants, rather than by one of its artillery shells. However, according to on-site investigations by Human Rights Watch, the size of the craters and the type of injuries to the victims are not consistent with the theory that a mine caused the explosion. [9] After investigating the scene, Mr Garlasco concluded that the army's explanation was deeply flawed. The head and torso injuries were consistent with a shell exploding above the ground not a mine under it. If it were a mine or kids playing with an old shell you would expect severe leg injuries as well, even legs blown off." [40]

The craters were too large to be made by bounding mines, the only type of landmines capable of producing head and torso injuries of the type suffered by the victims on 9 June. Additionally, Palestinian armed groups are not known to have, or to have used, bounding mines; the Palestinian government bomb squad said it has never uncovered a bounding mine in any explosive incident.[9]

Completeness of evidence examined by IDF[edit]

In a meeting on 19 June between HRW and Major-General Meir Kalifi, the latter revealed that the IDF’s conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Marc Garlasco, chief military advisor for HRW commented: “An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible.” Kalifi told HRW that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it. The IDF also dismissed as “unimportant” evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch indicating that the IDF’s suggested timeline surrounding the fatal incident is flawed, which thee IDF originally claimed was the most important factor absolving it of responsibility. [12]

Report that a Victim set off the Explosion[edit]

Israeli dailies reported that, on 21 June, Major General Kalifi said that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia had said that the explosion took place when her father touched something on the beach. Kalifi concluded that the new evidence proved that “it was not Israeli fire that had hit the Ghalia family”.[41] Ilham Ghalia was widely reported to have been one of the original fatalities. [42][21] On 23 June Haaretz reported that the statement attributed to Ilham had been made while hospitalized at Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv. Although this new information strengthened the IDF’s version of events, that the deaths were not caused by an Israeli shell, the degree of reliability of the information was unclear: “A senior General Staff (member) admitted yesterday that this is unsubstantiated information, and that the army does not have a recording of the girl saying these things.” [43] Three years later Haaretz observed that: “Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved (Ilham’s) admission”. [44]

Reversal of Positions[edit]

In contrast to previous Israeli claims that the shrapnel recovered by Israeli doctors from victims definitely did not come from a 155mm shell,[34][22] during a two-and-a-half hour meeting between HRW and Major General Kalifi on 18 June, the IDF agreed with Human Rights Watch that it was possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries. The IDF fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area of the beach on the morning of the incident. Sand would increase the possibility of a fuse malfunction leading to a dud shell that may have sat in the sand waiting to be set off. The shelling between 4:31 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. could have triggered a dud shell, as could the human traffic on the beach that afternoon. [12] This IDF agreement that 155mm ordnance could have been responsible for the fatal blast contradicted Kalifi’s previous claims that the shrapnel analysis showed it was not from a 155mm shell[22][9], that the blast was not caused by an IDF shell[22], that shrapnel removal from a victim by Palestinian doctors was done so as to “cover evidence” [12], and that the IDF had not been shelling at the time of the blast. [22][34][45]

According to The Jerusalem Post (19 June), in agreeing to the possibility, Garlasco had ”conceded for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings”, and that it was Galasco who had reversed his opinion after further examination of the evidence, concluding that the blast was "most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordinance left laying on the beach." [46] Silverstein criticized the Jerusalem Post article, in particular for writing that HRW had conceded that it could not contradict the IDF’s exonerating findings, for ignoring that the HRW had instead said that it was ‘possible’ that a piece of unexploded IDF ordnance had killed the Palestinians, and also for ignoring the contrary evidence. He pointed to a new HRW report of 19 June which contained the HRW version of the meeting, which had as its main theme that the IDF ignored all evidence gathered by other sources, and which concluded that the deaths occurred during the period of shelling of the beach by the IDF. [45][12]

Contrasting ultimate analysis and Interpretations[edit]

On 22 June the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided its last summary, declaring that “All new evidence obtained to date thus confirms the central conclusion of the Investigative Committee: that the event did not result from IDF fire during the day's operations.” [22]

In contrast to the last IDF summary, the HRW 2007 synthesis was more in line with the mutual agreement from the 18 June IDF/HRW meeting, concluding that the two most likely scenarios, which could explain the shell’s explosion on the beach that afternoon, were:

  • It could have been a live shell that exploded on the beach as it struck.
  • It could have been an unexploded artillery shell fired earlier that lay in the sand before being detonated by the reverberations of nearby shelling that afternoon—the IDF had shelled the beach area on previous occasions. [10]

A third hypothesis, advanced by the IDF, is that Palestinian militants may have taken an unexploded IDF shell they found elsewhere and rigged it up as an improvised explosive device (IED) that then exploded, with fatal consequences, on June 9. The IDF suggested that militants might have placed an IED on the beach in order to thwart an IDF landing from the sea. Major General Kalifi did not suggest, however, why the Palestinians might fear an amphibious landing when the IDF has unrestricted access across the 51 kilometer Israel/Gaza land border. The nature of the injuries casts further doubt on the IED explanation.[10]

In a report dated 1 July 2007 in which the Gaza beach explosion (2006) was used as a case study, Human Rights Watch summarized the opposing views, and concluded that: “The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident.” The Palestinian Authority welcomed such an investigation, while the Israeli government did not support it, saying “We don't need the assistance of anyone”. [21]

Media Reporting and Opinion[edit]

Initially the foreign media unequivocally blamed Israel for the deaths, and the Israel media tended to do the same.[19][47] After the 13 June meeting, in which the results of the IDF investigation were made known, Israeli and Western media outlets switched to acceptance of the IDF version.[19][48]

Some current affairs commentators branded the Palestinian version as "Pallywood", going so far as to refer to this opposing version as 'libel'.[47] Three years later, an organization dedicated to monitoring NGO's discounted all of the HRW evidence and criticisms, concluding that "HRW reported 'facts' based only on Palestinian claims and pseudo-technical analysis".[49]

Electronic Intifada reported that “the US corporate media has highlighted Israeli denials of responsibility for the Gaza beach killings, while providing much less space to Palestinian and third party assertions of Israeli responsibility.” [50]


Following the IDF assassination on 8th June of the recently appointed Palestinian head of the security forces of Hamas' Interior Ministry, Jamal Abu Samhadana, and three others, and the 9th June Palestinian beach deaths, described in this article, Hamas broke its self-proclaimed February 2005 ceasefire on 10th June and, together with Islamic Jihad, recommenced rocket attacks on southern Israel. This 'chronology of crisis' evolved into mutual responses, with rocket fire from Gaza increasing. On 13 June Israel responded further when an IAF aircraft fired a missile into a busy Gaza City street, killing 11 people, including two children and two medics. Subsequent responses led to the IDF increasing incursions into Gaza, and on 23 August abducting two Palestinians alleged to be Hamas militants. In response Hamas and others abducted IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June, which led to the IDF's Operation Summer Rains, in which 416 Palestinians were killed versus 11 Israelis.[51][52][53]


Discussion of the draft[edit]

I object to this draft, which h as you concede is a very intrusive near-toatl rewrite. Please introduce specific issues you have with the current text. All Rows4 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: - I have highlighted very specific issues on numerous occasions - the main one being a high-level criticism that the current version does not facilitate comparisons of contrasting views so as to achieve NPOV, nor even their completeness. Various topics and opposing sources are randomly distributed between various section headings. For instance, 'shrapnel' is discussed under 7 different headings. Yes .... seven (including 'fragments). Under such a structure, how can NPOV on 'shrapnel' be achieved? Answer - it obviously cannot. Even worse, the IDF is quoted under HRW, and vice-versa. The Guardian appears under media reports even though it conducted on-site investigations and research. It is all incoherent.
The current version is therefore merely an unordered list of what various sources found, randomly placed under different headings, ranging from evidence types to who-said-what. The draft complies with Wiki objectives of providing for judgements leading to NPOV. Do you not want that facility for reaching NPOV or for a much more logical, coherent, and useful structuring of information? Perhaps not? Does it make it too clear exactly what happened? Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The word "shrapnel" may appear in 7 sections, but the controversial issue of "shrapnel removal" - was it done as part of normal medical procedures, or as a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence - is discussed in exactly one section, dedicated to that topic. If these are the kind of issues your draft is intended to address, it is clearly not needed, at least not at such an intrusive scale. The article , as is , complies with Wiki's NPOV requirements, for the most part. If you have specific issues you want to fix - list them out, and we can address them , one by one, without re-writing the whole thing. All Rows4 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm still reading through the draft, one quick comment: ' "IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell". Haaretz' is quoted twice, attributing the same quote once to Dan Halutz and once to Kalifi. In the source it's attributed only to Kalifi.WarKosign 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Another comment - there are serious violations of WP:CLAIM. The word "claimed" is used exclusively for statements by the IDF, while HRW "found" many things it said, and some of them are written in wikipedia voice. Same voice is used for some of the eyewitness reports, lending them undue credibility.

I can't see what's the logic of the division into sections nor in their order. There are several different sections dedicated to criticism of IDF investigations:

  • Claims, Counterclaims and Investigations
  • Completeness of evidence examined by IDF
  • Contrasting ultimate analysis and Interpretations
  • Reversal of Positions

There are several sections discussing the timing:

  • Eyewitness Reports
  • The Relative timing of bombardment and the fatal explosion

Injures are discussed in:

  • Craters
  • Nature of the Injuries

If the goal of this edit is to make information easily available to the reader, I do not think that it achieves it. I see that you've put a considerable effort into this draft, but I do not believe that it is an improvement compared to the existing article. WarKosign 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations - dead Links and accuracy[edit]

In the section [Media Reports – sub-section Guardian report], there is a piece accredited to The Times about the HRW’s Garlasco reversing his opinion. Firstly, the citation is not easily accessible. Secondly, it is based on information from blogs and a quotation from The Jerusalem Post, as being the primary source. As a result, I changed the citation and also the text to reflect the JPost primary source. The essence of the text remains intact Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ "Israeli Press Review of 22/6/06". European Jewish Congress. 2006. 
  4. ^ a b Amir Oren (2009). "Not really a war". Haaretz. 
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW_Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ilham was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Mohammed Omer (2006). "Israel Incites Violence With Massacre on Gaza Beach". Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 
  8. ^ Amos Harel (2006). "IDF: Ilham Ghalia girl told her father touched the object before the explosion at the beach". Haaretz. 
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings". Human Rights Watch. 2006. 
  10. ^ a b c d e f g "Appendix I. Case Study: The Gaza Beach Incident". Human Rights Watch. 2006. 
  11. ^ "Palestinian Child Fatalities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory during 2006" (PDF). Defence for Children International / Palestine Section. Retrieved 15 April 2015. 
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence". Human Rightsw Watch. 2006. 
  13. ^ Israel Incites Violence With Massacre on Gaza Beach (2006). "Israel Incites Violence With Massacre on Gaza Beach". Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 
  14. ^ George Azar (2006). "Errant Shell Turns Girl Into Palestinian Icon". The New York Times. 
  15. ^ Der Krieg der Bilder, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16 June 2006
  16. ^ a b Chris McGreal. "The battle of Huda Ghalia - who really killed girl's family on Gaza beach?". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2014. 
  17. ^ Itmar Marcus and Barbara Crook (2006). "PMW PA TV falsifies video of Gaza deaths". Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - June 12, 2006. 
  18. ^ Avi Issacharoff (2006). "The harshest images were edited for TV". Haaretz. 
  19. ^ a b c d e Amos Harel (13 June 2006). "IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell". Haaretz. 
  20. ^ "Israeli shells kill five children on Gaza beach". Defence for Children International – Palestine section. 10 June 2006. 
  21. ^ a b c d e "Indiscriminate Fire: Case Study - The GazaBeach Incident". Human Rights Watch. 1 July 2007. 
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Maj Gen. Meir Kalifi (13 June 2006). "Summary of IDF investigation of incident on the Gaza beach (9 June 2006)". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
  23. ^ Susanne Koelbl (2009). "Human Rights Watch Analyst Marc Garlasco: The Pentagon Official Who Came in From the Cold". Spiegel Online International. 
  24. ^ a b c Chris McGreal (in Beit Lahia (16 June 2006). "Who really killed Huda Ghalia's family?". The Guardian. 
  25. ^ IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell, Ha'aretz, June 13, 2006
  26. ^ a b Stephen Farrell (2006). "Israel admits shell report flaws". The Times. 
  27. ^ a b Amos Harel (2006). "IDF rejects as 'lie' new report linking shelling, Gaza beach deaths". Haaretz. 
  28. ^ Saed Bannoura (2006). "Israeli TV Channel 10: Israeli shell fragments found in body of a victim Gaza beach shelling". International Middle East Media Center. 
  29. ^ Tim Butcher (2006). "Shrapnel clue to Gaza beach shelling". The Telegraph. 
  30. ^ a b Yaakov Katz (2006). "'IDF not behind Gaza beach blast'". The Jerusalem Post. 
  31. ^ Gaza beach blast: Possible scenarios, 11 June 2006
  32. ^ Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy (June 21, 2006). "PA doctors cut victim needlessly". Retrieved 2006-06-21. 
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ a b c d e "Gaza blast: Doubt over IDF's version". YNet News. 2006. 
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haaretz18June was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW21July was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ a b Deon Nissenbaum (2006). "New evidence raises questions about Israel's role in beach explosion". Knight Ridder. 
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference JP21June was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ Rory McCarthy (2007). "'I try to forget - but i can't'". The Guardian. 
  40. ^ a b Chris McGreal (2006). "Israel blames Hamas for beach deaths". The Guardian. 
  41. ^ "Israeli Press Review of 22/6/06 - Gaza beach tragedy". European Jewish Congress. 2006. 
  42. ^ Cite error: The named reference DCI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  43. ^ Amos Harel (2006). "IDF: Elham Ghalia girl said her father touched the object before the explosion at the beach". Haaretz. 
  44. ^ Amir Oren (2009). "Not really a war". Haaretz. 
  45. ^ a b Richard Silverstein (2006). "Human Rights Watch Suggests Unexploded Israeli Shell May’ve Caused Gaza Beach Massacre". 
  46. ^ Yaakov Katz and Judy Siegel-Itzkovich (2006). "Gaza beach blast victim wakes". The Jerusalem Post. 
  47. ^ a b "Gaza Beach Libel". Honest Reporting. 2006. 
  48. ^ Charles Krauthammer (2006). "Who Is to Blame for Grief on a Beach?". Washington Post. 
  49. ^ [xxxx "Experts or Ideologues? The Gaza Beach Incident 2006"] Check |url= scheme (help). NGO Monitor. 2009. 
  50. ^ Patrick O'Connor (2006). "US Corporate Media Misses Target in Israel’s Aerial Assault on Gaza". The Electronic Intifada. 
  51. ^ "PRELUDE TO OPERATION CAST LEAD ISRAEL’S UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT TO THE EVE OF WAR" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 148–149, ISSN 0377-919X. 2009. 
  52. ^ Sharit G. Lin (2006). "Who started it? - Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East". Counterpunch. 
  53. ^ "Blaming the Victim in Gaza". Media Lens. 2006.