Talk:Majdal Shams attack

Cover photography is too graphic

I don't need to add more. I think is too graphic and unnecessary Sebas1953 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The photo was a likely copyright violation, but if a freely-licensed one becomes available, we should use it. WP:NOTCENSORED. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: The image does seem to be the own work of @الرجل من مجدل. The account was created right after the incident and his name translates to "The man from Majdal". He also uploaded a photograph of the funeral. Prodrummer619 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sebas1953 I think it should either be removed or blured even more. That's someone's child who died just this morning and whose head is seen disfigured. Indeed a horrible attack, and being in Israel on October 7th, I've seen enough of these scenes to be resilient to that view, but I believe it is too gruesome for general readership. Maybe blur the entire picture. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Whats the purpose of having gore like that? Is this liveleak? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov: That image is a copyright violation, this Bild article sources it to X. Repeated uploading of copyrighted material is vandalism and will be reverted and reported. RAN1 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

RAN1: Please check who uploaded it and claimed the license as I only did crop to other person's image. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The images in that Bild article, while similar, appear to be taken from a slightly different angle. I don't see any reason to believe this is a copyvio, so I've restored it for now. For now, I have no opinion on whether it should be excluded for other reasons. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov, @BilledMammal: That is clearly not the original uploader, the Bild version is a different crop of the image. It's a blatant copyright violation, and non-free war images are unacceptable. Reverting either is exempt from 1RR. Do not reinsert the image. RAN1 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Build article, but if the angle is different then IMHO there is no reason to believe he/she is not the original photographer. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The fence post is viewed from the same angle and has the same proportions. It's definitely the same image. RAN1 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case it should be delete. Could you please paste a direct link on X to the image to compare? (And you forgot to apologize for falsely accusing me.) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov: That was not an accusation, it was a warning against republishing the image. And to answer your question, see BilledMammal's post below. RAN1 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to admit being incorrect no problem. Please note that future false acquisitions will be reported. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov: I'm sorry you fail to understand me, but I do not make false acquisitions. RAN1 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a false acquisition: "That image is a copyright violation, this Bild article sources it to X. Repeated uploading of copyrighted material is vandalism and will be reverted and reported". First, so far it was not confirmed that it's a "copyright violation". Second, you have used a source which published the image after it was published in Wikipedia. Please be more careful next time. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation is not necessary. The upload has a falsified license. RAN1 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop making false acquisitions about Wikipedia users. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@RAN1: You're right, I spent some more time reviewing it and was able to get them to match up - not perfectly, but close enough that they're probably the same image.

However, the image was uploaded to Wikipedia an hour before it was posted on Twitter by AdityaRajKaul, the person the Bild article sources it to. As such, this doesn't appear to be a clear copyright violation. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The first version uploaded to Commons crops off the top, the version uploaded to X crops off the bottom, so neither of them are the original, and the license is phony. RAN1 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If Wiki had it before then X and Telegram could take it from us. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Their crop could not have possibly come from us, so we don't have the original. RAN1 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Nop. I gave you a Telegram link to an older post from Amir Tsarfati who has the earliest found (so far) uncropped photo (still published after Wiki cropped one). If he decided to crop it and upload to Wiki and then to publish full photo later then it's not a violation. To prove violation we must find the same or bigger copyrighted photo published before Wiki. So far I haven't seen it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@RAN1: We don't know where it could have come from, and it remains possible that the person who uploaded it took it - personally, given the evidence so far, I am inclined to believe their claim that they did.

Given that WP:3RRNO only applies to clear copyright violation, and this is anything but clear, I think you need to self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov, BilledMammal: The Telegram post is empty, and appears to have been blanked. The author of that post is not a photojournalist, so he did not take the photo and it's a repost. There's strong reason to suspect that the upload is yet another repost, which is sufficient for the purposes of WP:3RRNO. RAN1 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not blank. You need to use the phone and not a web client. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

His other posts show up in his channel. Regardless, he is not the original photographer. RAN1 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And you can provide proof that "he is not the original photographer"? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The proof is his post history, he clearly didn't go out to the Golan Heights to take that photo. RAN1 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Such statements are your own opinions and not facts. (Even that I have the same opinion.) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to undo your removal of the image as till now there is no clear copyvio confirmed. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

A good point. I also did some research and I see that AdityaRajKaul seems to be not the photographer as the images which he shared on X was published here before him (AdityaRajKaul's time 1:18 and Telegram's time is 12:59). So if the time is properly aligned then Telegram is still after Wikipedia. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand. I took the picture and sent it to anyone who was willing to see the atrocities that Hezbollah did to us. True, it was also published on Twitter, and I decided to obscure it a bit and upload it to Wikipedia. Those who want to see the place, I am ready to give you a tour. Maybe when you hear the alarms and explosions that Hezbollah is bombing us, you will know that I am telling the truth. الرجل من مجدل (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV background

The background section needs serious cleanup. The writing makes it seem like Hezbollah has been unilaterally attacking an innocent Israel while the rocket fire has been bilateral since 10/7. There is also no mention of the 90 Lebanese casualties, only Israeli ones, and zero mention of the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. I added an NPOV section for these concerns. Jebiguess (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I'll just say that Hezbollah hurts us Lebanese! They are not innocent. الرجل من مجدل (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I hate Hezbollah for what they're doing in Lebanon and Syria and I fully agree they're evil and not innocent. Unfortunately, we have to go by what sources say and create the page as neutral and encyclopedic as we can. Jebiguess (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So come on, let's fix it. When you put a tag it ruins the look of the article. It is better at this time to correct the text. الرجل من مجدل (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the background section need to go as far as describing what Hezbollah is and the previous conflicts it had with Israel? I think we just need to mention the ongoing tensions and possibly Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:ARBECR applies to this article, so editors who are not extended confirmed on en.Wikipedia (this includes all editors without an account) should restrict themselves to making edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Brackets

Please put brackets in Mowafaq Tarif name so his name is linked to the wiki article. 147.235.197.0 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the request. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Anytime, happy to help out :) 2A06:C701:44C0:DC00:B84E:BBB:36C3:2299 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Forensic evidence claims

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hagari-majdal-shams-death-toll-risen-to-12-hezbollah-used-iranian-made-rocket/ It is relevant to Hezbollah claims about Israeli interceptors that Israel now claims forensic evidence of the rockets proves the strike is by a Falaq-1, which is the same armament used in the other Hezbollah strikes. I would add this to the end of the Incident section along with where Ali Muhammad Yahya is mentioned now. Note this is the same rocket that Hezbollah claimed on the same day to have launched very near to the soccer stadium as mentioned earlier in the article so it could also be integrated there. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Given Hizballah's initial claim around the time of the attack to have targeted the Mt. Hermon area with a Falaq-1 missile, and the total lack of evidence for their subsequent "Iron Dome malfunction" story, the article fails NPOV for giving undue equal weight to the latter. We haven't turned every incident Israel has unconvincingly denied into a both-sides mess; we shouldn't start now. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this would be the start of both-sided messes here - Wikipedia has turned everything Axis of Resistance actors dubiously claim into both-sided messes. See for example the Mohammed Deif attack article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack where it's still not mentioned in the lead or infobox that Rafa Salama was killed (which even Hamas acknowledges), making it ambiguous whether there were any commanders in the area. Things Israeli initially denied like the Flour massacre are appropriately treated in a clear-minded way in their Wikipedia pages. But this is different, because now it's claims on the other side that are dubious. From experience, I would be willing to bet this page will be transformed from its current state (which reflects the reality that this is the SECOND rocket attack on this town, the first of which nobody denied, and that everyone agrees millitants launched rockets within 3km, and where interceptors have never been known to cause this size of explosion) into a both-siderist article. I make this comment not to antagonize anyone (I believe everyone edits in good faith) but in the hopes that editors reading this will be vigilant to prevent the approaching influx of both-sider claims. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is "Israeli civilians" in quotes?

Why are the words "Israeli civilians" in quotes that seem to be suggestion that Israeli civilians are not civilians? The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See here, removed 3 minutes after you posted. RAN1 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

why does it say teenagers and young adults and not children

The current text says killing 12 teenagers and young adults, all aged between 10 and 20, since when are children aged 10 teenagers or young adults? I think children, teenagers and young adults makes more sense 141.226.8.123 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"teenagers and young adults" is misleading, just "children" is a more fitting description

I'll provide a source if i can find it, but I remember reading that the oldest person was 19, whilst the rest were 8-12 years old

referring to them as "teenagers and young adults" is misleading/derogatory as it makes it seem less severe then reality. Joeseph Fields (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the wording a few hours ago (see the previous Talk page section). David O. Johnson (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

page didnt refresh for me, didnt realize, sorry for the unnecessary topic! Joeseph Fields (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing

Majdal Shams is being misreported even in Israeli liberal newspapers like Haaretz (Yossi Verter,12 Children Killed in Northern Israel, but as Far as Netanyahu Is Concerned There's No Rush Haaretz 28 July 2024: ‘the northern Israeli Druze town of Majdal Shams’) as an Israeli town.

The BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, the New York Times etc., in reporting the strike all use ‘Israeli-occupied’ or variants thereof. Attempts to use that precise definition are being systematically reverted, by User:ABHammad and User:האופה on multiple pages. Every attempt in this and an associated article to link Golan Heights to Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, such as here and and here suffers an immediate revert.

The Golan Heights in International Law are a Syrian territory under belligerent occupation, and it is irrelevant that Israel disputes this, or proceeds with an unilateral annexation, recognized only by Donald Trump. The rocket struck Syrian soil, not Israel, and the distinction is all the more important given the probable imminence of full-scale war between Lebanon and Israel, where this is taken to be ‘crossing a red line’ and therefore, as an ostensible attack on Israeli citizens in Israel, ergo a legitimate casus belli. ABHammad’s revert is particularly POV-charged because he changes the status of the town from one in the Golan Heights, to an Israeli town with his edit that states it is a Druze town in Israel which is blatantly contrafactual and once more suggests he is rewriting text to fit a particular nationalistic narrative that contradicts the legal realities. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

At no point I claimed that Majdal Shams is "a Druze town in Israel", I supported its description as being in the Golan Heights. Reliable sources vary in how they describe the status of the Golan Heights: some use 'Israeli-controlled,' others 'Israeli-occupied,' and some 'Israeli-annexed.' Claiming this is solely due to 'Donald Trump' is problematic, the recognition has not been reversed by the Biden Administration. To avoid violating the neutrality policy by choosing one term, I agree with previous edits that provide a detailed explanation of the Golan Heights' status in a comment. Readers can refer to the Golan Heights article for a comprehensive understanding of its current status. ABHammad (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Come on.Everyone can check. You edit had it that

On 27 July 2024, an explosive projectile hit the Druze in Israel town of Majdal Shams in the northern Golan Heights.

Your link shows you are associating the Golan Druze in Majdal Shama, as Israeli Druze. You may contradict yourself ( Walt Whitman wrote:'Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes'), but the record contradicts your latest claim. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Their edit has it that

On 27 July 2024, an explosive projectile hit the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the northern Golan Heights

Given the scope of that article includes the Druze in the Golan heights, it appears to be an appropriate target. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point ABHammad stated in his link that we are dealing with an attack on Druze in Israel. :::And Israel is the only country in the world that claims the Golan it occupied is in Israel. Trump recognized the annexation, but these political judgments do not make it 'disputed'. International law is what defines the status of such territories, and they are Syrian, just as many Druze there retain Syrian citizenship and are not all 'Druze in Israel'. Please don't second edits that affirm a falsehood. Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misread you, but what is 'an appropriate target', and which article? Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The United States recognised it - while Trump was President, it isn’t accurate to claim that only he recognised it.

What I mean is that Druze in Israel appears to be an appropriate article to link to when discussing the Druze in the Golan Heights, given its scope. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli move, however, has not obtained international recognition except for that of the US under president Donald Trump in 2019. . . .The Druze of the Golan zealously maintained their Syrian identity after 1967 and have resisted and refused offers of Israeli citizenship.Gianluca Pacchiani, Majdal Shams massacre highlights Solomonic predicament of Golan’s Druze community The Times of Israel 28 July 2024

All careful readers of I/P news know what I underlined re the Druze in the Golan to be accurate. And that is why the distortion introduced by ABHammad is not only a fabrication, but a WP:OR violation.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Nishdiani, it should say Israeli-occupied for accuracy and neutrality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Agree with Nishdiani, it should say Israeli-occupied for accuracy and neutrality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, just linking to Golan Heights without qualification doesn't cut it, because Israel doesn't occupy all of it. Syrian forces still control a sliver, alongside the UN mediated portion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the title "Majdal Shams massacre"?

The same way it's always used regarding events in Gaza, even when the perpetrators are unknown? 2A02:5080:130C:7100:E196:822C:5FD5:D0DC (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Iron Dome malfunction is widely reported in Arab media

The article somehow pretends that only Iranian media is reporting that the explosion was due to an Israeli Iron Dome malfunction, but this view is increasingly prevalent in Arab media, and the article is currently extremely one-sided in favour of IDF claims, which have turned out to be false numerous times (in regard to "40 beheaded babies", killing of relief volunteers, widespread Israeli friendly fire, etc.). Either way, even Israeli media states it's not only Iranian media reporting this view.[1] The Guardian has also reported the claim[2], so ignoring it is POV. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Other media wasn't reporting it initially. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Sorry I don't know how to give this it's own section if someone could fix it :). "From 7 October 2023 to 21 June 2024, Israel attacked Lebanon 6,124 times. Hezbollah and other Lebanese forces attacked Israel 1,258 times" SHOULD BE "From satellite imagery and local reports, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project identified 6,124 Israeli strikes on Lebanon and 1,258 strikes from Lebanon into Israel, which excludes rockets intercepted by Israeli missile defenses."
• Why it should be changed: When claims are made from satellite imagery which often yields different conclusions, they should ALWAYS be attributed. Further, there is no indication that Lebanese millitants "attacked" Israel and Israeli-occupied territory "1,258" times; the source clearly indicates its conclusions were based on satellite imagery (confirmed by local reports), which would not detect interceptions. In fact, it's plainly implausible that Lebanese militants has launched 1,258 attacks total, given that they claimed to launch 200 in one day alone this week (https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-rocket-5358640d72d7bbbe59b1a0f21dc713ba). The wording needs to be shifted to note that these are 1,258 successful "strikes", not "attacks", of which uncontroversially there is a much larger number. I should also note that while the source does use the word "attack", we at Wikipedia do not parrot wordings but rather data in those sources, and are sure to present data from sources in a way that does not risk confusing our readers.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2gj544x65o - the BBC Arabic source of the data.

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — You seem to be doing a bit of original research. while the source does use the word "attack", we at Wikipedia do not parrot wordings but rather data in those sources - This is incorrect. We should not be interpreting or extrapolating from the data. The fact is the sources do not define what an "attack" is - it could be a barrage of rockets or a single 'strike' - so we have to report what they say. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect I'm shocked by your reply, I cited BBC and AP news. It is the job of Wikipedia to accurately describe the content of articles so that they understand what is said unambiguously; it is common to use different words when the original words are ambiguous. It is DIRECTLY from BBC that they tracked strikes visible in satellites. We should not be using language that is likely to be misinterpreted by the reader. And attributing the source and method of research for controversial topics should be UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Further I think you misunderstand me; the article used the word attack while contextualizing how the data was collected. I am not going beyond thr source. If you don't provide the exact context then it is necessary to use more precise language to accurately portray what was said in the article as opposed to parroting vague words without their context. As written the sentence is crude and misleading and simply does not reflect the content of the BBC arabic article which attributed and contextualized the methods. Also, more fundamentally, "original research" refers to synthesizing sources to draw conclusions, for example if one were to speculate that the cited strike number misses a large number of intercepted attacks. It does not refer to adding relevant context based solely on the words of RS without inserting original analysis; indeed that is the entire Wikipedia... Scienceturtle1 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing the image of the attack due to alleged "unnecessarily gruesome picture"

Hi. I'd like to discuss this removal. Does anyone else believes that there is an "unnecessarily gruesome picture"? Do we need to blur more the image or can we use it? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. While Wikipedia is not censored, that doesn't mean anything goes. I think the infobox image is much more useful, which clearly shows a devastated sports field. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)