Talk:2006 Gaza beach explosion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Relevance of the sub-section "Shrapnel Removal"?

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 - http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/438/248.html - 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)

Precursor Context

@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 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)

Who got killed, who was hospitalized, where, etc...

Following the discussion on WP:BLP/N, there seems to be some confusion over who died and who was taken to hospital in Israel.

The Independent (here) states that "Hadeel's 15-year-old half sister, Ilham, was decapitated, and her 16-year-old half brother, Reham, was so badly wounded that medics said both his arms had to be amputated." User:ליאור noted that Ynetnews (here) marks Ilham Ghalia as alive and being treated in Tel Aviv: "Elham Ghalia, 21, is connected to a respirator at Tel Aviv's Sourasky Medical Center, where doctors said she remains in critical condition."

A second article referenced by User:ליאור from Ynetnews (here) states in 2007 that "Elham Ghalia, 17, who lost her family in Gaza beachfront incident, discharged from Israeli hospital." Yet this article directly links another article (here) which states that "Ali Ghalia, 48, his wife Raisa, 30, her one-and-a-half-year-old daughter Hanadi and her 5-month-old toddler Haitham, and his daughters from a second wife Alia, 24, Elham, 15, and Sabrin, 4, died in the strike." The article also states that "Wiham Ghalia, 20, and his two sisters, Latifa, 11, and Hadil, 8, stayed alive after the rest of their family vanished in Friday's shelling strike on a Gaza beach."

Yet another Ynetnews article (here) places a 21 year old Ayham Ghalia and 12 year old Adhan in the Sourasky Medical Center in Tel Aviv.

So is Ilham 15 and dead or 21 and in Tel Aviv? Does anybody have a copy of the HRW or IDF reports to clear this up?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 14:05

The HRW report says "The family members killed by the fourth shell were: `Ali `Isa Ghalya, 49; Ra'issa Ghalya, 35; `Alia Ghalya, 17; Ilham Ghalya, 15; Sabrin Ghalya, 4; Hanadi Ghalya, 15 months; and Haitham Ghalya, 5 months." I have not been able to locate the IDF report yet. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

May I add to the confusion two reports by Defence For Children International (CDI):

• On 13 June 2006 the CDI lists five children killed, including "Ilham Ghalia (15 years old)".
• On 1 May 2007 the CDI picks this incident as a 'case study', listing four children killed, including "Ilham Ali Issa Ghalia, 5 years old".

I don't know if CDI is a reliable source, especially as the testimony they cite contradicts Huda's testimony according to Sami Abu Salem. Abu Salem claims Ilham Ghalia was 7 years old, and dead.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel cite Ilham's hospitalization story, in which one of their workers is cited, so I take it as a credible indication that Ilham did survive the incident, and her hospitalization.

Which leaves the basic questions open - who got killed, how old were they, who was hospitalized, etc. ליאור (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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." [1]

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 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does say the survivor is female, but something may have been lost in the translation (apparently from English, since nouns are inflected for gender in Hebrew like in German). We have a proper source for the claim that the girl said her father may have triggered the explosion, the IDF general Yossi Khalifi. Was this statement made in the official IDF report he was in charge of? If so, an online copy would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Most sources give the IDF general's name as Meir Klifi. Still looking for the report. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Still haven't found the IDF report. It was released on June 13, one week before the press conference where the IDF made the claim about the girls testimony. According to the Ha'aretz article, Ilham's admission was "shelved by decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason", so it appears it did not make it into hypothetical subsequent reports either. A press conference for Israeli media, held by IDF Gen. Klifi, seems to be the only confirmable source for the claim :

Maj. Gen. Yossi Khalifi, who heads the team investigating the Gaza beach tragedy, said yesterday that new evidence has come to light proving that it was not Israeli fire that hit the Ghalia family. The security establishment has received information that Ilham Ghalia, the daughter who is being treated in an Israeli hospital, said that the explosion took place when her father touched something on the beach. “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion,” the Palestinian girl said.
The army attaches great importance to Ilham’s testimony, which supports the IDF contention that the family was not hit by an Israeli shell. The IDF spokeswoman refused to comment on the new information.
Ilham’s testimony is currently being examined and is part of the intelligence which Khalifi mentioned yesterday at the news conference, when he said : “The findings determine unequivocally that the Ghalia family was not hit by IDF fire,” the general said at the news conference. [2]

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 Translate.google.com 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 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.co.il%2Fmisc%2F1.1114972&edit-text=&act=url%20translation 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. 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. Other sources list Ilham as one of the immediate fatalities of the explosion. 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.” In 2009 Haaretz reported that “Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission”. 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)

Cause of explosion, WP:BRD and WP:REDFLAG

I have reverted several attempts to insert the claim that the explosion was initiated by Mr. Ghaliya into the lead. Following WP:BRD, the next step after my reversion of the WP:BOLD edit would be to discuss, which has not happened, which is why I am opening this discussion here.

The claim is mentioned in passing (and without source) once in Haaretz in 2009 [3] and by the European Jewish Congress in 2006 [4]. 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 [5].

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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, which operates a section in Palestine, published a report in May 2007 - 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 - http://electronicintifada.net/content/black-weekend-bloody-mud-and-white-sand/6017 . 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 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/16/israel , 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 - http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10911/section/9 / http://www.dci-palestine.org/documents/israeli-shells-kill-five-children-gaza-beach / http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/july2006/articles/israel.htm. The Defence for Children article - http://www.dci-pal.org./english/display.cfm?DocId=574&CategoryId=2 - 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEwEjgXTsOk 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 - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/1.htm 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaJBmyDxtYE 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 - http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1114972. 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 - http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1114972 , 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)

Citations - dead Links and accuracy

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)

Structure of Main Text

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™ - http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/gaza_beach_explosion_%282006%29#cite_note-HRW_Report-2. 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.

Actually, it did not originally take the format from the so-called "World Heritage Encyclopedia™", as that page is a mirror of wikipedia! Batternut (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)