Talk:2006 Gaza beach explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Video needed?

Do we really need to post snuff films on wikipedia? V. Joe 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A snuff film is not just a film where someone dies.

POV reasoning

1) The article uses loaded language and is self-titled. Calling it a massacre is probably: A) An exageration. B) A massacre usually includes intent. For example, the Kent State massacre started when a guardsman CHOSE to discharge his rifle into the protestors. The Boston Massacre started when a British soldier CHOSE to discharge his musket into the crowd/mob. I think retitling it "incident" would be a more worthwhile name. After all, even the BBC article cited doesn't call it a massacre.

2) From the BBC article, its clear that the Israeli Air Force was not involved, but rather the Israeli Army or maybe the Israeli Navy. Modern aircraft don't fire shells, they fire missiles or autocannon or drop bombs. In short, shells are almost invariably fired from cannon or arty pieces from either surface vessels, dedicated arty. pieces or combat vehicles (eg tanks)

3) The BBC is notoriously unbalanced in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Has it been covered by the Daily Telegraph, Der Spiegel or other members of the international media? 4) Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, and this article, as written is clearly anti-Israeli in tone. Short of Hezbollah writing the article, it could not be less balanced. V. Joe 20:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with point 3. BBC isn't perfect but it's far more balanced then other notoriously unbalanced media organisations such as the Daily TelegraphNil Einne 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not your place to decide who is balanced and who is not. The BBC is a news organization, a public service for the British public no less, and is a far more reliable source of accuracy than the Israeli Defense Force. How can someone in their right mind post the results of an "investigation" by the IDF on a wikipedia entry for a "blast" that was likely caused by them?--Raddy 333 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Both are equaly biased sources. Zeq 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and towards the same side. If one were to believe this article, the Palestinian family commited suicide with an explosive device, while the IDF were shelling nearby. Yes this article certainly is NPOV (Nazi Point Of View) like most wikipedia articles on the Middle East.PerDaniel 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is really fair. The BBC has shown tremendous bias. This past year, they conducted an internal investigation and even found themselves showing anti-Israel bias. I can understand the concern about relying on the IDF to investigate itself. On the other hand, they have tended to show great accuracy. In the alleged Jenin massacre international human rights groups and journalists all found that the IDFs version of those killed turned out to have been accurate and the cries of massacre published around the world for months were wrong. And the IDF version does NOT basically claim that they committed suicide. It claims that they were killed by buried ordinance. It could have been an old unexploded bomb or shell. Or, it may well have been a mine laid by Hamas. In context, combatants were firing rockets at Israel from that area for weeks. Just one week earlier, Israeli commandos hidden offshore landed ground there WHILE terrorists were firing rockets and got them. After that incident, Hamas announced that it was taking steps to make such a beach landing impossible for the IDF in the future. Israel interpreted this as laying mines.

Investigations

Preliminary reports on the IDF investigations are suggesting the official Israeli position is going to be that the Palaestinians did this to themselves. I haven't attempted to include this in the article, and perhaps we should wait for a more definitive position to emerge. — JEREMY 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Article now includes results of the IDF investigation. — JEREMY 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

My other additions are sound and should be kept, but can someone help me restore the refrences section at the bottom? I'm not sure how to fix that part, and I promise it was a mistake, not intetional vandalism. V. Joe

Joe - you had missed two > tags from two references in the article - this caused the parser to assume that the reference was never closed, and thus it didn't bother to generate a references section (since it assumed the references section was part of the references). Megapixie 09:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Landing spot

The IDF explained that six shells from a canon were fired in the vicinity. The landing spots of the first five were identified as being 250 meters away from the incident, but that of the sixth was not determined. The army is nevertheless convinced that the sixth shell, which was shot a full eight minutes prior to the fatal blast, could not have fallen on the beach almost half a kilometer away from its intended target.

Does anyone know if the IDF claims to have tracked the path of each of the first 5 shells of just found their landing spots? Also, were the first 5 shells really before the 6th 'missing' one i.e. the last shell was fired 8 minutes before the blast? Finally, does anyone know if the IDF has revealed how they established the precise timings?

Also this text:

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

Seems to conflict with the earlier text since there is at least one shell they admit they can't track. Also, does anyone know if any military experts have commentated on the likelihood of being able to track every single shell to where they hit the ground? Nil Einne 09:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shell Tracking

Off the cuff: 1) The IDF is an extremely modern millitary, more modern perhaps, than the American Army. That said, any modern army, armed with GPS guided arty can track shells if they have a mind to. Im not sure, but I think that applies even to small pieces like large mortars.

2) Indirect fire is pretty close to an exact science, particularly with the Israeli expertise at engaging targets camping in and around civillians. Before it was, the siege of Berlin or (on a vastly smaller scale) the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin can demonstrate what inaccurate arty can do to a city. If the Israelis miss, it isn't because of the inaccuracy of the guns, its the misidentification of a target.

3) Its also made easier by the fact that the battleground is relatively small, so spotters can see impact much more readily than they could in a larger theatre.

4) If they say it couldn't be that far off, they are probably right. The only way I can forsee that happening would be faulty ammunition, which is extremely unlikely, given that the field in that area is so very dry. Also, Israeli equipment isn't prone to breakage, even compared to other western equipment.

5) When it comes to tracking the path of the shells, vs. impact zone, that IS an exactly science, or as close as you can be, and has been for centuries, with the equations being taught at high school physics. I want to say the current (advanced) form was developed sometime between the American Civil War and the First World War. WWII arty was so destructive, and comparitively inaccurate because of the way it was used, like a sharpened shovel versus a switchblade. The idea before the present age (as late as Vietnam) was to place as much "weight of lead" on the target area as possible, rather than, destroy that, this indvidual house, surrounded by those other houses. (Also, some radar can track shellfire)

6) The inherent caution: I posted those quotes, and despite the contradiction, IDF General Halutz said just that. I think he was being cautious, so as not to overplay his hand. Its also possible that a little "in-service rivalry" was involved in the General's particular remarks, since Airmen customarily don't approve of Arty and vice-versa. I hope this helps... 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) ((that was my post V. Joe 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)))

Is something rotten in Denmark?

The "quote" from the Danish UN Ambassador is problematic. First, her name is wrong. She is not "Helen Margaret", but "Ellen Margrethe Løj". (If this mistake is in the original story, it casts a little doubt on its accuracy itself.) Second, the reference is in Hebrew, which many, including myself do not read. She certainly did not speak in the broken English used here, which at best is an English -> Hebrew -> English translation, and using quote marks here is thus unacceptable. I've looked for anything similar to what is claimed here, without success. Third, the quote does not sound to me like the diplomatic language the president of the UN SC would use. Perhaps it is a misattribution. So I hope other Hebrew speakers could look at this reference and check it, and hopefully find what original is referred to in this story or provide a paraphrase, not a translation, of the Hebrew translation. Without this, it should be commented out or deleted.4.234.99.105 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have condensed the (largely irrelevant) quote reference and removed the translation. — JEREMY 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But is the present text an accurate reflection of the Hebrew? - i.e. do you read Hebrew? Since the original editor or author of the article didn't even get the name right, I think it is reasonable to be a little suspicious of the statement itself.4.234.135.10 04:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't read Hebrew. However, I don't think Zeq is likely to have made the whole thing up. It would be good to find an English language link, though. (Hint, hint, Zeq.) — JEREMY 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

• In the Hebrew article, her name is spelled "Helen Margaret", which is surprising since the author of the piece, Shlomo Shamir of Haaretz, is pretty knowledgeable of such issues and names.
• The article does state that the aforementioned president of the UN security council (head of the Danish delegation) refused to bring the issue up for debate because the attack on the beach "didn't happen in a vacuum" and also that "Israel is responding to terror" (paraphrasing). However, her words were that the UN cannot debate the massacre without taking into account the 'situation in the region', but made no mention of Qassam rockets per se.
• It's interesting how no other source, including English Haaretz, reprinted her comments.

Hope this helps... Ramallite ^(talk) 04:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe someone in NY call call the Danish UN delegation. Zeq 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Zeq's uncommented reversion of my considered and edit-summaried changes. If you believe my rewording is somehow misrepresenting things, please explain why and if you feel you must make your changes then please make then one at a time, not by mass-reverting. If the UNSC President's comments are to be expanded further, that should be done in a subsection lower in the article. The introduction is not the place for this kind of discursion. — JEREMY 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have failed to understand why you removed her words about "not occuring in void" - explain . Zeq 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, to reiterate, the present version is unacceptable because it claims to be the exact words of the ambassador. This is impossible, as it is in ungrammatical English. It is at best an English --> Hebrew --> English translation, so the quote marks must come off. From Ramallite's comments above, it seems that Shlomo Shamir is expanding on what Løj said, interpreting it from an Israeli perspective, saying what he thinks she really meant. That is fine, but not as a neutral statement of Løj's words or intent. I think following Ramallite- 'Løj said that the UN could not debate the massacre [or incident] without taking into account the situation in the region' would be best (based on my present understanding of the remarks, from your and Ramallite's comments). This is close to but even weaker than Jeremy's version. The aim should be to faithfully express the meaning of her words without purporting to have an English quote. 4.234.12.126 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The current translation is pure original research. If you can find a third party translation, please include it lower in the article, as it's just not relevant in the introduction. — JEREMY 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The translation is accurate. The fact that you can not read it does not make it OR. In fact what you propose is pure OR since you can not even read the source text. ramallite did read it and confirmed all but the rockets (which I removed) Zeq 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether the translation is accurate or not, you have made it and thus it is original research, as I understand it. (If there is a policy I am unaware of allowing editors to quote their own translations of sources, please point me to it.) You threats on my talk page are not appreciated. — JEREMY 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly sources in any alanguge can be used. The issue is verification. Once the source is quoted people who know the lang can be found to verify it. Stop deleting what you don';t like by using the argument that you can't read it. It is verifiableWP:V that come from good sourceWP:RS - that is all that counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs)

I am not "using the argument that [I] can't read it". The problems with the quote as you're trying to insert it are, a) it is your (original) translation has not been verified (in fact, it has been refuted), b) the quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue), and c) the quote, even if relevant, would not belong in the WP:LEAD. You seem unable or unwilling to address the important issues in this discussion, falling back on strawman accusations and talk-page threats. Please try to come back to the table on this. — JEREMY 12:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• "didn't happen in a vacuum" and also that "Israel is responding to terror" has been verified. You still removed it. This is bordering on vandalism. Zeq 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You simply won't engage on this, will you, Zeq? I can only presume your utter unwillingness to talk about the issue other than by constantly pushing your own peculiar POV is a manifestation of the "stay on message" ideology, but you must realise that it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the assumption of good faith in the face of your dogged unwillingness to actually engage in discussion. Can you please respond to my three arguments, above? — JEREMY 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk about what exactly ? I don't push any POV - this is utter nonsense. Did I suggest ant specifci POV ? I brought a quote by the president of UNSC and you reverted it 4 times already. I can not even begin to understand your above commant what it is about ? Zeq 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote is now reasonably well-verified and in the article in an appropriate location. I remain unconvinced of its relevance, but will leave it in place as a compromise, in good faith. — JEREMY 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

More articles of interest:

This Haaretz report of another piece of shrapnel from another victim that corresponds to an Israeli 155mm shell. Israeli army denies but acknowledges that it may be an older unexploded shell that landed there.

This HRW report (directly from their site) that states that they believe the blast happened at the time of the shelling, not around the time.

Ramallite ^(talk) 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi ramallite. here is the quote from haaretz: "Laboratory examinations by the IDF and then by an Israeli academic institution, the army said, proved conclusively that the shrapnel was not from a 155mm shell of the type used by the IDF in shelling targeting northern Gaza at the time. The IDF said the fragment resembled explosives used by Palestinian organizations."

as for HRW, they already agreed with IDF conculsions.

I think anyone (person or oragnization) that claim to know what really occured is not telling the truth (my personal view) Zeq 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot which should be in the article, but isn't, like the London Times report of Israeli admission of errors in the investigation, later denied by Israel, and the related controversy over timing - the HRW /British newspapers' chronology seems to have much stronger evidence than Israel's.4.231.210.1 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference - the London Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2230076,00.html . Megapixie 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz exact wording

Any Hebrew speaker is welcome to verify this translation:

ואולם נשיאת מועצת הביטחון הביעה הסתיגותה מקיום דיון רשמי והסבירה כי אי אפשר לקיים דיון כזה במנותק ממה שמתחולל באזור. "הדברים אינם קורים בחלל ריק. מישהו מחולל טרור וישראל מגיבה", אמרה

But, the president of UNSC have expressed her refusal to conduct an official hearing (on the case) and explained that such a session can not be conducted without a linkage to events that takes place in the immidate srounding area: "This (i.e. the blast) did not occur in a void, someone is instigating terror acts and Israel responds to that(terror)" she said. Zeq 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would change a few minor things for accuracy:

"...cannot be conducted while disconnected from the events that take place in the area. 'These things do not occur in a void. Someone is instigating terror and Israel is responding,' she said."

That should do it. --DLand^TALK 14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"bloody massacre"

This quote is non NPOV lang. I suggest it would be replaced by some other paraphrase of his words. Zeq 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes need not be NPOV; the article simply acknowledges his opinion without endorsing it. Pecher ^Talk 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

JEREMY argument, Zeq reply

Because you've asked nicely, I'll go over my objections again, with additional commentary:

1. The quote is your (original) translation and has not been verified (in fact, it has been refuted) — This is being addressed currently on the talk page, although I'm still to be convinced that translations by wikipedia editors aren't original research.

• Not true. It is sourced. I suggest you check (for example with Jayjg) I have been through this many times sources don't need to be in english (read WP:RS and WP:V so my translation is not WP:OR but a translation of good source.

1. The quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue) — The article is about the Gaza Beach explosion, not about what the UNSC President thinks of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in general. What she said about why she would not hear the case is relevant, but her off-topic political digressions are not.

• Clearly the material is relevant. I am sure if the UN will hold a session it would be included

"Clearly" nothing; we wouldn't be arguing if this was "clear". — JEREMY 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The quote, even if relevant, would not belong in the WP:LEAD. — The lead paragraphs in an article are designed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and (unless the article is very short) shouldn't include material that's not referenced elsewhere in the article. Thus, the quote from the UNSC President — were it relevant to the article — would be included lower in the article (eg. in the new "Reactions" section) and, again were it relevant, mentioned or briefly summarised in the lead section.

• It does belong in the WP:Lead as it is part of the summary of the event. Other quotes were at the lead when I inserted it.

The only quoted material in the lead when you added the UNSC President's quote was two words ("bloody massacre") from Mahmoud Abbas. You are wrong, and the material is not appropriate for the lead paragraphs. Since it is no longer there, though, this is moot. — JEREMY 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"I am just not that smart. explain in plain english so i will be able to understand." I hope that helps, and I'm sure you are not that dumb. — JEREMY 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• No I am not "that dumb" and should you remove/good relevant WP:RS compliant info again I will take it to arbcom. This is not an argument about content it is your wilfull behaviour to push away what does not fit your POV. G'day. Zeq 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned by your threats, as I am acting entirely in good faith according to my best understanding of the rules. — JEREMY 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• if indeed you are (and I am sure you are) than it will not be hard for you to stop arguing about use of non-english sources and find out if they can be used. Once you finish getting an aswer I will expect you apology since I never used any WOP:OR in this article. Zeq 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see from this that "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." I am satisfied that this has occurred in this situation, and that a consensus translation has now been arrived at. I apologise for my accusations of OR. — JEREMY 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• apology accepted. incident forgotten. Zeq 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

People seem to be missing something here, though I have said it several times. Was Loj speaking in Hebrew? Where and when did she say this? If she was speaking Hebrew, this is OK. If as seems most likely to me, she was speaking in English, a translation with quote marks is unacceptable, because it purports that those were her exact words in English. This like the old joke of the computer translation of "out of sight, out of mind" into Russian and then into "invisible idiot" in English. Even though there is probably no harm done here, one should either use a paraphrase, saying exactly the same thing, but not direct quotation, which is implying something which is not true, or clumsily say that this is unavailable English (or Danish) translated into Hebrew and then English. (Which is what a scholarly source would do if the original is unavailable.) Using other language sources is good, but there are many problems which can arise even in good faith efforts. As I pointed out, the article's author not getting her name right is not a good sign of its absolute accuracy.4.231.210.1 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, and the "quote" should be paraphrased instead of quoted (ie. we should remove the inverted commas). Additionally, can someone please supply a translated title and a Gregorian calendrical date for the Ha'aretz article? — JEREMY 11:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now paraphrased the quote. If anyone has an objection to the specific wording, please say so and we can address it. — JEREMY 11:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"all the surgically reachable shrapnel"

Don't do original reserach and turn the hospital report + the fact that one shrpnal was moved into "an early report by IDF".

IDF was right about shrepnal removal. hospital confirmed that ina medical report. look for the words "all the surgically reachable shrapnel" before you push your OR into the article. Zeq 12:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote you apparently think I just added had been in the article until Pecher removed it earlier today when he added the Shrapnel section; I merely restored it. I think I see what you were objecting to though, and I'm happy to leave it out now that Pecher has removed it again; and b) I do not believe that the Abbas quote you added is relevant — again, this is an article about a particular incident, not a general essay on the current state of the conflict — so please explain your reasoning before adding it back. — JEREMY 14:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Channel 10 report

I have removed the entire "Channel 10 report" section. Let's stick to reliable sources, avoiding blatant propagandistic websites, like "International Press Center". Pecher ^Talk 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that refers to this as a "blatant propagandistic website"? Has this website been discredited by a reputable organization? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All we need is to use reliable sources. A partisan and propagandistic website saying that a TV channel said something is not acceptable as a source. If there had been a verifiable report by expert about that, it would have been citable, but second-hand hearsay is not the stuff for Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, screw Palestinians and their sources? Anyway, the channel 10 report is originally from Haaretz, not from the IPC. Just for your information. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is the source it is clear now that Shlomi Eldar (who I know personaly and hold him in highest esteem) had vfallen a victim to bad sources. Zeq 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to say that even an Israeli channel reported abt the blast, r u scared that this channel tells the truth that the IDF fired at the beach? Robin Hood 1212 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Truth ? I have no idea what the truth in this issue is. I wish I knew but I don't. Zeq 04:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the reporter in question has been misled, Channel 10 did report this, and suppressing that fact makes someone look guilty. I've restored a minimal version based on a Ha'artz report, which I doubt anyone could object to. — JEREMY 01:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• One thing is very clear: Both the London times report (that IDF admit in the killing) and Ch. 10 report (that the IDF lab results are different from what IDf sais it is) - those reports werestrongly denied immidetly after they were published and none of these news organization have repeated them or tried to ofer any proof. It seems both of these news organizations have falln victim to bad sources, otherwise they would offer a follow up or proof to support their claims. Zeq 04:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Haaretz latest: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/729778.html Zeq 04:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems both of these news organizations have falln victim to bad sources, — Perhaps so; perhaps not. But that remains purely your opinion, unless you can find a source saying it. Yep, that Ha'aretz article adds a few interesting details (eg. HRW's unqualified call for an international investigation vs Israel's unqualified rejection of same), but it might be worth waiting a few days to see if new evidence emerges rather than adding incremental articles daily. That said, please feel free. — JEREMY 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that new "evidence" might emerge but excuse me for trutsing noone: Not the IDF, not HRW, not the palestinians.
• btw, HRW, seesm now to shift their focus from the facts to "int'l investigation" - this after their investigation (based on material given to them by Palestinians) is proven false. HRW, failed to initialy disclosed that the shrepnal they used were not collected by them at the scene but given to them by Palestinians. Only after a lab test found thse framnets to be old and un-realted to the incident did HRW change their report. Zeq 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Garlasco's Position

I think it is very inappropriate to remove Garlasco's BBC quote. For one, it is not inconsistent with anything he said later. Hell, a shell flying through the air is "unexploded ordnance" isn't it? And he was clearly trying to be respectful when interviewed in front of the office he had just left. But my assessment is unimportant: There is no evidence by either him or HRW website that retracts his earlier assessment. Quite the contrary In fact; he still called for an international inquiry. Don't make it seem like he admitted a mistake, because there is no evidence that he did. There should be no personal interpretations used to remove sourced information. Once he or HRW issue a new report or a retraction, that can be added. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "unexploded ordnance" is something that has been lying in the ground for awhile after failing to explode. A shell flying through the air and then immidiately exploding is by definition "exploded". Pecher ^Talk 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That was presented as a possibility, and it was something they both agreed was a possibility. It doesn't mean Garlasco changed is initial assessment. As far as I can tell. And unless I'm missing something, I don't see how anybody else can tell either.

In any case, here is the most recent HRW report regarding the meeting with the army - people can judge for themselves how contrite Garlasco was. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

HRW has regained consciousness after the latest debacle and has come up with more falsehoods? Not entirely unexpected, of course. Pecher ^Talk 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems HRW is attacking IDF investigation but not it's finding.... Zeq 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

source

[1] Zeq 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IDF vs. BBC vs. Haaretz: subtitle: biases versus knowledge=

1) Both the BBC and the IDF have well known biases in this conflict. The IDF wishes to defend Israeli interests, while the BBC wishes to undermine Israeli intrest. Their bias against Israel is well known. The difference is that the BBC claims to be unbiased, while the IDF makes no such claim.

2) The IDF might well be biased, but they are still experts on all thing millitary. If the BBC (or anyone else) wishes to prove differently, they are welcome to consult there own experts. Since the BBC is a UK government apparatus, (narrowly) there is surely some retired British officer/expert who could confirm or deny Israeli claims. The NYT would also consult an American officer, Der Speigel a German one and Le Monde a French one. Since nobody, to my knowledge has done that, I doubt they are lying, or some expert could be found to refute false claims. Hell, even the Israeli left would call them on open lies.

3) All sources have some kind of bias. It is our roles as readers and editors to filter them and read between the lines. Cheers V. Joe 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC makes no pretense at being unbaised. By it's own charter, the BBC World Service is defined as the propaganda arm of the British FO, and is answerable to them. [2] Isarig 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but does the BBC actually propogandize for the foreign office? How does thier position on the Iraq War support the F.O. and H.M. Government? Both Blair's government and the Conservative opposition support said war, while the BBC does not. V. Joe 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're aware of the consequences of that failure to toe the FO line: An enquiry into the BBC coverage was launched, its head (Gavyn Davies) forced to resign, and the charter was put under review. Those who pull the purse strings have made sure this will not happen again. Isarig 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA is a project of Charles Jacobs and has been described as "a zealous watchdog of the interests of the Likud government". --Ian Pitchford 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to play that game, Sourcewatch is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, which has been described as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization", and accused of radical lefwing anti-conservative bias. Are you denying that what the CAMERA article claims is true, or is this just the logical fallacy of ad hominem circumstancial? Isarig 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamas regularly violated ceasefire?

This source, used to support the statement that Hamas 'regularly violated the ceasefire', does not support the very statement. It is actually a source that 'claims' (I know I know what an ugly word to use around WP) that Hamas assembled a couple of rockets, and that it was the first time in a year that they had done so. This is not the same as 'regularly violated the ceasefire'. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, Hamas cell that was responiosble for several attacks on motorists in the south west bank (between Beit lehem to South hebron area) killed 6 jews. Also hamas have for some time now given Kasam rockets to The Islamic Jihad, those Kasam fell on israel. Zeq 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The source actually sais so: "In 2005 Hamas was also involved in a series of shooting attacks in the West Bank; most notably in Beit Hagai and the Gush Etzion Junction, during which seven Israelis were killed. Hamas was also behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli citizen Sasson Nuriel. " Zeq 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The source actaually confirms in detail that Hamas was behind the rocket attack, that it was providing assistance to non-Hamas groups firing rockets, and that it was involoved in the murder of civilians. But perhaps you'd like this source better - no "claims", a neutral 3rd party, which says "Hamas mortar shells and Qassam rockets killed three civilian workers...Hamas’s continued use of mortar and Qassam attacks against civilians ..." Isarig 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rocket attacks... murder of civilians... jeez, Israelis would never do that! In any case, thanks for the HRW link. I don't really care either way, the middle east is a typical case study of primordial human nature, anybody who pretends to be the morally superior party is actually an integral part of this case study - so I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.... Ramallite ^(talk) 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, no one here is "morally superior". the situation is insane with brutal people calling the shots. Zeq 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian's "investigation"

This review of evidence by the british newspaper The Guardian contains contains information that maybe should be included. [3] It seriously questions the IDF report, especially about the timing. Pertn 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli massacres are denied

When Arabs commit resistance attacks, they r called terrorists and criminals but when Zionists commit crimes, it's covered-up and justified. Robin Hood 1212 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with the fellow with the outlandish name. I'm sorry MCHAS, I'm not typing that out. Israeli "crimes", accidental, deliberate, or made up, are covered by hysterical media coverage. That said, MCHAS, I believe that your remarks violate WP:civility, so lets try to moderate our personal asides. However, calling Israelis "Zionists" reveals a pervasive bias that borders on hysterical. I also isn't totally accurate. Many Israeli's are in fact left-wing, and disagree with thier government's policies towards many things.

Historical Thought Consider that the Israeli's from 1946 are dying off, much like veterans of WWII. Most Israelis did not make the choice to settle where they are now. If their ancestors had not been able to settle, nobody else would want anything but Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Palestinians, if they were succesful in driving off the Israeli's. they would be pushed aside by the other Arabs. If they were strong, they'd have there own state. Abbas and the other Palestinian leaders must know that. In short, the whole thing is as much about money and water than it is about religon or anything else.

Old Shells

People are still occasionally killed by WWII, WWI or even earlier landmines and shells. Is it possible that somebody found an old British or German shell from the war? Its unlikely but possible, especially as many of the same types of shells are still used. Just an unlikely possibilty, but a possible one... Cheers V. Joe 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased article - needs a warning sign at top of page

This article reads like propaganda for the IDF. Creating doubt where there should be none is a well-developed tactic for covering up wrong-doing - look at tobacco companies and the effects of passive smoking, oil companies and global warming... etc... IDF internal investigations are notorious for exonerating themselves. Amnesty International (oh yeah, that's right, what an anti-semtic bunch of Arab loving terror-apologists they are)say, that a)the evidence is pointing more and more conclusively at the explosion that killed the Ghalia family memeber being from an IDF fired shell; and b)IDF internal investigations are usually about exculpating blame and deflecting international outrage, and very, very rarely accept wrong-doing by Israeli troops or leaders.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150542006?open&of=ENG-PSE

It's sad what a dominant voice the Anti-Palestinian propogandists have on here. As a school teacher I hugely value the resource that wikipedia provides, but if students of mine used this article as it now stands they would be getting a story that hides rather than reveals the truth.

Disagreement

I disagree with previous submission, but I believe that there should always be doubt about BOTH stories from a warzone. I feel that the article explores the facts as a controversy. V. Joe 20:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Two things Joe. One - there is no Palestinian side to the article as it stands. The Guardian's report, the HRW report, these are western media/organisations that don't actually represent one of the parties in the conflict. To put a Palestinian side one would have to refer to a Pelstinian news organisation.. but oh how convenient, there are none that make the grade for being 'reputable' like, say, the Jerusalem Post does. Two - your description of this as 'a controversy' shows your bias. Is it a controversy when a suicide bomber blows up a bus carrying Israeli civilians? No, it's a massacre. What's the difference? Only that the IDF are a bit more concerned with PR than AL Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or Hamas. Puddleman 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I appreciate NOT being called a racist...

I have to disagree intensly. The main difference is, nobody, even the Palestinian factions have serously suggested that the Israelis deliberately targeted a beach filled with sunbathers, whereas suicide bombers DELIBERATELY choose to massacre innocent civillians. If an investigation by the IDF were to conclude that Israeli soldiers deliberated massacred a village or other crimes, the officers and non-commisioned officers would be cashiered, jailed or executed, According to the laws of war, whereas the Palestinian handlers of a suicide bomber are promoted, the bomber's family is paid and the bomber is called a shadid or a martyr. ==Further==: I do not think that HAMAS and Al Asqa are indifferent to public relations at all, any more than the PLO was. Without support for the Palestinians, from Western countries, especially the EU and Canada, no one denies that the Israelis could be finished with the whole mess by now. Just as attacks in Viet Nam were timed so that they could be reported on the TV News, various Palestinian factions are known to carefully choose and time attacks so that they can be reported in the Western Media....

If an investigation were to conclude Israeli soldiers deliberately massacred a village...

Three words - Sabra and ChatilaPuddleman 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I should have said an Israeli court martial (obviously). Investigations by the Belgian court of human rights or the Human Right Watch don't have legal standing, and they also lack habeas corpus, literally in this case, they don't have the physical evidence, or the soldier or airman on trial. Which ALSO means that the soldier or airman isn't able to have a jury of his peers, to answer his accusers or to have his own counsel, all of which are provided in a real court. So I'd prefer citations before I get a "HA-HA" thrown in my face. V. Joe 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, correction to my own words. Enlisted personel and even officers under court-martial are not tried by a jury of peers, but rather of superior officers. V. Joe (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Um. Not quite. Israelis didn't do Sabra and Shatilla. Lebanese Christians did as revenge for the PLO slaughter of Lebanese Christians during the PLO's attempt to take over Lebanon. Israel (and specifically Sharon) WAS found guilty of negligence for not guessing that the Lebanese Christians would engage in a revenge massacre, and since he "should have" predicted it, he "should have" sent more troops there to provide protection.

Israeli Media vs. Palestinian media vs. International Sources

Concerning the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz let us consider that the Palestinian "newspapers" are about as free to express editorial opinions as Pravada was. They are controlled by one faction or another, and editors and reporters have been murdered, forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint if they don't toe the line. Whether under Abbas, as an anarchy or by Arafat has a kleptoarcy, Palestine has certainly not adopted a free media climate. [4]. To court positive media attention, the Palestinians, especially Fatah have been known to intimidate/arrest/harass reporters, withold/control access, fake evidence and general play the Western Media as fools. Recently, a Reuters stringer was arrested for assualt for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers (to quote Churchill "A most unneutral act!" )... And a Fox News team was required to convert to Islam at gunpoint, afterwhich they described Palestine as "wonderful place." So don't call me a racist or a bigot because you think I don't understand the situation. Its complicated, its known to be complicated, but until the money is cut off from the Palestinian leadership, it won't end. A wiseman (whose name escapes me) once put it like this "The Arab states are willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian." If anyone REALLY wanted to help the Palestinians, the best thing to do would be to let them move to Jordan. Except the Jordanians won't have them, and nor will the Eqyptians, so they are stuck in the middle, since they (naturally) refuse to be Israeli citzens... V. Joe 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Addressing your first point:did you read about the case of Joerg Bremer - reporter for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung? Disallowed re-entry into Israel for what he and the German Government, believe to be politically motivated reasons. So much for 'free' press in Israel. Olaf Wiig, one of the kidnapped Fox news team said "In some ways, I feel such sympathy for the Palestinian cause." [5] after his release... which by the way was not about influencing their reporting, but getting prisoners released. Secondly: your statement that begins, "If anyone really wanted to help the Palestinians..." shows that you do not believe the Palestinians are actually a people or a nation. If you philosophically do not believe in nations at all, fine, a very worthy internationalist sentiment... but if you simply deny the right of one particular people to exist... then that is racism. Puddleman 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC) ---

What does "race" have to do with anything?

Although there are many "white" Israelis, Israel is a fairly diverse nations, that included many persons of Arabic descent, some Jewish, some Christian, some Muslims. The Palestinian part of Palestine (pardon the pun) is less diverse, but there are some Christians and Druze that reside there, equally ethnically Arabic, but with a certain amount of diversity blended in. 2) I do believe that they are a people... Jordanian people, mostly. However, nobody has a "right" to an independence they can't keep. The Israeli's have a right to independence because they can keep it (so far anyway). I sort of believe in nations, but I don't believe that ethnicity defines a nation. Let us consider Germany or France, both lilly white in 1950, but both nations of immigrants now. The sons and even grandsons of poor Algerian immigrants are more French then they are Algerians, and that is even more true of French-Chinese, French-Poles and French-Vietnamese. Let us also consider that virtually everyone among Israel's "founding fathers" are dead or ancient, and that the grandsons of those "founding fathers" were born in Israel and know nowhere else. No, I believe in nations, but I don't believe that they are defined by blood, as you seem to, I believe that nations, be they France, Ireland, Germany or Canada are defined by law, by custom and by existence. Palestine, or the parts of it occuied by Fatah and Hamas are failed states, because they have no law, no because Palestinias are genetically inferior, of different religon or any such bullshit. Palestinine is a failed state because people like Arafat are the government, it is exhausted by endless war, and doesn't have a solid currency or the ability to expel foreign invaders. (i.e. Israel, Eqypt and Hamas.) Fix all of those things, and Palestine could be as harmless and as productive as Delaware or New Jersey. 3) I do not think it matters who he had sympathy with, or with what cause. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Wiig was still forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. I wouldn't appreciate that, but maybe Wiig does. Israel doesn't have perfect media freedom either, but reporters are never forced to become Jewish, nor are they hung, tortured or executed. Perhaps the reason this German wasn't permitted into Israel because he was acting as an enemy propagandist? I wouldn't let him in either! The first thing a Western soldier learns, especially in the United States, France and Great Britain, is the media is NOT your friend' . I assume Israeli soldiers and police recieve the same instructions. V. Joe 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about your definition of a nation - I don't beleive that they are defined by blood either, rather they are largely self-defined, and it's impossible to say that the Palestinians think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, ... or Israelis. Are countries or nations that existed independently in 1948 allowed, but anything that comes later not? The reason Palestine is a failed state is beacuse Israel will not let it exist as a state, not because it is lacks some key component of nationality. And about the media in Palestine, can you give a single example of journalists being 'hung, tortured or executed.'? I've heard of kidnappings, but they have always ended in the journalists being released.Puddleman 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Puddleman, I don't think the issue of pre or post 1948, especially regarding Jordan. There was no country of Palestine. And those who lived there were predominantly Arab and rejected the notion of any Palestinian entity. Pretty much only Jews identified as Palesitnians. Then, the British took 80% of Palestine and gave it independence and renamed it Jordan. The remaning 20% was to be divided into 2 states with govt and boundaries based on demographic majority. Jews accepted it; Arabs rejected it. But for that, they would have had a (second) independent state in 1948. Between 48 and 67 it was Jordanian. Israel only won it in a war started by Arab neighbors and after Jordan attacked Israel before Israel attacked Jordan. Then, Israel offered to trade all the WB and Gaza for peace. No takers. I don't think it is fair to blame their lack of a second state on Israel. Peace. Salaam.

Victims

I am adding a section naming the victims of the blast, as is common in other such articles. I couldn't find the name of the eighth person killed, who was not a member of the Ghalia family. Do I need to make a link to verify these names? I see that on pages such as that for the Sbarro restaurant massacrethere is no reference for the list of victims. Puddleman 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. V. Joe 13:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This was posted in another article in reference to this; don't know if it was incorporated or not... Tewfik^Talk 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Victims section back to the top of the article. Following the format of other incidents when civilians have been killed in this conflict (see my link above) this seems to be the standard, and I'd agree that the people who died are more important than the ass-covering of the IDF.Puddleman 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Define: Irony

I agree, except I don't really think the IDF is known for "ass covering," or at least as much as you seem to think. Of course, that might just be a POV... (irony alert!). That said, I agree, the name of the victims is important, but I am about 30-70 whodunit, and I suspect it was an accident of some kind. We shall probably never know 100% whose shell it was for certain.V. Joe 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) In the meantime, might I suggest that you try some additional reading about the History of Israel and the Middle East, especially the part about Israel being an imperfect Democracy and Palestine being alternating absolutism, kleptoarchy and anarchy. Personally, I'd rather live in East Germany circa 1970 then live in the PLA. Personally, I am sick of the whole mess, which I why my primary field is warfare between 1770-1890. Check out my improvements on the Battle of Groix Island or Battle of Grand Port to see what I mean. V. Joe 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and of-course all this has been POV, but that's what the talk pages are for aren't they? Of course I don't want to live in the Palestinian Occupied Territories either... but that to me seems like even more reason to try and understand them clearly, and make sure information relating to them is honest and accurate, if people know what's going on there then that can only help, right? Thanks for your suggestion; why don't you check out The Gun and the Olive Branch (David Hirst) for some background on this particular conflict.I don't really understand your political analysis of Palestine, when have the Palestinian people ever had the chance to have a functioning state of their own?Puddleman 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

Quite, I'm glad that this has been limited to the talk page. I don't blame anyone for the plight of the Palestine people, except Arafat, et al, not to mention the Jordanian and Egyptians who refuse to accept Palestinian "refugees" back into thier country, AFTER they had encouraged them to flee from thier homes, and then taken a shellacking during '48 and the 6 days wars. The fact that they are still considered refugees and aren't allowed to be naturalized Egyptians or Jordanians is simply outrageous. They wouldn't want to be Israelis... or maybe they would, given how wealthy Israel really is. The arabs who stayed in the territory that is now Israel are Israeli citizens, and serve in the Army. It reminds me of the negative history between Mexico and the United States, with the exception that neither the United States nor Mexico are relative basket cases to the degree than the Palestinian territories are. (To be sure, the United States suffers from a variety of problems, and Mexico is usually on the verge of a civl war and American (or French or British!) intervention.. but I digress.). I'll look into that particular book, but I recommend a little Victor Davis Hansen or Max Hastings as a rebuttal...

Cheers V. Joe 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

references

maybe a usefull link --Striver 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"IDF account cannot be contradicted" Quote a lie

Mark Garlasco never said that the IDF's account cannot be contradicted. That quote was taken from some crackpot blog that claimed that's what Garlasco said. I went to the original article that the blogger used to support it's claim and nowhere in the article is there any quote from Garlasco like this. Why is it that there are some many biased people towards Israel at wikipedia. It's really starting to piss me off. annoynmous 11:26, 14 December (UTC)

Zakarija Abu Harbed

I may get into this in the future when i find time, but i find it odd that there's no mention of Zakarija Abu Harbed, the Gaza city photographer on the scene, in the article. Jaakobou 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

shrapnel text

First of all, it's from a single source which is a little slanted with it's remarks like "stopped short of accusing" (stopped short == some people say). The JPost is an RS, so, like it or not I don't challenge it. Then it gets moved from a by the way at the bottom of the article into the top page. I challenge that, because I don't see it being relevant up there. For that, I'm subjected to remarks about Human Rights Watch (instead of a discussion on the placement of the text). Finally, I'm expected to accept the EXACT SAME text, word for word, twice in the article? No, thats too far. Pick a place for it and leave it there. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1) on the sub-sub section, they are placed in order of importance. surely the body examinations is more relevant then hearsay repeated by HRW.

2) due to the extent of the materials/examinations, each segment was mentioned briefly in the intro.. hence, the repetition - it's called "intro" and "body". either we remove the entire intro or we keep a proper balanced intro. Thank you. Jaakobou 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

3) and please don't remove sourced material from the article. it's borderline vandalism. Jaakobou 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1) I tend to trust and respect HRW investigations, including interviews with witnesses

2) It wasn't in the intro until 48 hours ago...

3) I wasn't removing anything that isn't allready in the article, WORD FOR WORD. If anything, I think pushing an exact replica of certain content is more like vandalism. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

HRW didn't make an on-sight inspection and that they're "investigation" is based on hear say by partizan palestinians. I agree with Jaakobou that either the intro is removed or that the information is included in it. In no event, should the full extended information should be deleted the way it has been. Maybe I'll try rephrasing the intro later, but I'm readding the shrapnel subcategory to the article since it's certainly should be there. Lizrael 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? Keep it in the article, I don't care. I just don't see the need to include it twice. Can someone address that please? --Uncle Bungle 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

there's a number of "repetitions in that "intro to the investigations"... leaving out this one while including HRW, makes for a bias display. Jaakobou 13:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not against fixing up the repetativness, however (1) i do see room for a short intro before the full texts on each body's investigation. and (2) removing just one side of the POV from the text makes for a bias dispkay. Jaakobou 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of victims

Is this strictly necessary? In its current location? I reckon it cuts the article from the intro text. --Asterion^talk 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian bomb squad

Both sources cited are now defunct. The two sentences which make up this sub section seem totally unrelated. Reccomend removal. Comments? --Uncle Bungle 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest name change

The event is no longer current, so I think a name change is in order. Suggest June 2006 Gaza beach explosion or something to that effect. Comments? --Uncle Bungle 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "Beach blast" sound like a party? I suggest a change of name to Gaza beach explosion (2006)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated section

Right I have now reverted twice, and am not keen to get into a pointless revert war, so can someone please explain to me how it is "NPOV" to have the same section - word for word - TWICE in this (indeed, in any) article? It just seems stupid! But if it has reasons then maybe it's time to back down. Batmanand | Talk 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Gaza beach blast#shrapnel text. -- Jaakobou 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not explain anything. It seems that the only reason to keep it is because there are "other repetitions". So get rid of them all! This is NOT an NPOV debate - this is a commonsense debate. Unless someone can give a real, concrete reason for keeping anything in an article twice, word for word, WP:IAR demands making the simple, obvious step of removing all the repetition in this article. Batmanand | Talk 10:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK it has been almost a week, and no reply, so I am going to remove the repetitive section. Batmanand | Talk 09:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Raised concerns about too much information for the lead

Per the following diff - [6].

I'd appreciate a policy based explanation to why there's been raised a concern that the lead should not hold material to the results of the IDF and international investigations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, your summary of the investigations is not only biased and difficult to read, it's also wrong. What are "Palestinian based reports" (other than poisoning the well)? What "future attacks on Israel" on a Gaza beach? Subsequent international investigations cleared Israel? There are no such investigations in the text... Where did you get that from?

Seriously, WP:LEAD says we should mention "notable controversies", which the lead does as is. Trying to state any conclusions as fact would be misleading and WP:UNDUE at best and stating all conclusions, criticisms and compromises would make the lead as big as the text.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 10.06.2008 11:51

I'm not following why I'm being accused of poisoning the well for registering the source of the initial reports or adding the Israeli official statements. I was citing the Israeli foreign minister's response, noting her perspective which was shared by other Israeli officials, that Palestinian militants might be responsible.

• The source from My edit

I believe that discussions work better when not Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility. Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking).

The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I support shortening Jaakobou's version a bit (a few words here and there), but overall I support his general idea - his version is better-sourced and offers a clearer picture and context. It includes all notable sides of the argument, summarizing the rest of the viewpoints presented in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, if you're going to accuse me of incivility (more than half your last post), you should probably point out where the supposed incivility happened.

To answer your questions point by point,

• "Palestinian based reports": The first two reports we cite in the article are from the BBC, hardly a Palestinian media outlet.
• "Israeli official statement": This is the lead, not the article. Too much detail. Too much WP:UNDUE, considering that no counter-statement is given.

You did not address the following

• "Subsequent international investigations": What international investigations supposedly cleared Israel? In the article, we only have the IDF's own investigation and HRW, which did not clear Israel.

Please, try to stay on track and don't float accusations of incivility if you don't have anything to back them up.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 07:09

Ok, I've re-worked the intro, keeping in the specifics yet removing the some bits and pieces as per my comments above. I will proceed to add the HRW conclusions and that of the various media reports. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 06:38

Done. Comments? pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 07:03

The BBC are reporting what the Palestinians told them and it would be best if you don't misrepresent the sources to claim that the BBC reports are not based on the Palestinians.

• [7] - "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." (BBC)
• [8] - "Gaza journalist Sami Yousef was at the beach in the north of the territory on Friday, when a series of artillery shells hit the sands, killing seven people and injuring dozens." (BBC)

You should not have reverted again without getting some semblance of consensus; There is clearly no agreement that my version was false as you suggested.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Revert diffs:
  • Pedrito, 10:02, 10 June 2008
  • Pedrito, 06:30, 12 June 2008

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert anything. I modified your statements and added the counter-claims. I waited here for you to address my main concern (the unsourced "international investigations") and neither you nor User:Ynhockey decided to comment on that, so I changed it.

As for initial reports, the BBC also quotes Dan Halutz saying it may have been a ground-based artillery shell. According to Halutz's Wikipedia article, he doesn't seem to be a Palestinian source.

Oh, and telling me what would be best to do or not to do is just the "judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors" you were decrying a few paragraphs farther up. Let's keep things calm and objective, shall we?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 10:28

The note by Halutz that he is certain that it was not a naval artillery as the Palestinians claimed does not mean the reports of the attack were not Palestinian based.

BBC clearly cites Palestinians as the source for their reports and unless you can find evidence, not speculation by an IDF/Guardian member, that the event was reported based on anyone other than Palestinian sources, then you have no case for removing the "Palestinian based reports" text.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Jaakobou, the blasts were first reported by the Palestinians, but the cause of the blast were based on Israel's own admission of having been shelling the vicinity. Had Israel not said a word about shelling anywhere, any serious news outlet would have reported it as speculation. However, since Dan Halutz said it was a possibility that it may have been an Israeli shell, the story got credence.

On another note, can you explain what adding the phrase "Palestinian-based" adds to the article?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 06:27

Halutz said that he is certain that it was not a naval artillery - so the story did not get credence from him and this would be WP:OR in any event. BBC states it quite clearly on who were their sources for the reports. i.e. Palestinian officials, and Gaza journalist Sami Yousef. There seems to be no case for removing the "Palestinian based reports" text other than claiming that the speculation section of Halutz statement somehow gave credence to the Palestinian based reports. (see WP:OR)

Since you're asking, can you explain what removing the accurate phrase "Palestinian-based" adds to the article?

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already made quit clear that I consider the "Palestinian-based" tag to be poisoning the well, as it frames the possibility of artillery fire being the cause as a Palestinian thing, despite Israel admitting they had been shelling the vicinity at about the same time. It makes the argument sound partisan when in fact even the United Nations thought Israel was responsible. It's trying to add a partisan spin to something -- the event itself -- which is not partisan at all.

Your turn now: what does the addition of the phrase "Palestinian-based" add to the article?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 07:28

Actually, you know, if this is the only thing bugging you about the lead, then fine, for the sake of compromise, add the phrase and we can leave the article alone. This isn't really worth the time and effort to fight over. Deal? pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 07:32

Thank you for admitting that the reports were based on the Palestinians. We can now move on to other issues. As for the UN - there is certainly a possibly that they accepted the Palestinian claims, but this is WP:OR as long as you don't provide relevant sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the opening

Since this article is in arbitration etc. I'll address it on here instead of simply doing the edits.

• Making use of HRW, an organization with a noted strong anti-Israel bias [9][10] in the lead is highly inappropriate. If they are to be used at all, it should only be prefacing it with their biased POV. Specifically, dealing with this topic, HRW: [11]
• The Times Online columns mentioned appear to similarly have a strongly anti-Israel POV, and the opening thus is transformed into being anti-Israel. It'd be better if the last sentence was removed. Trilemma (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Trilemma,

Human Rights Watch has already been used as a reliable source in more than one article criticising both Israelis and Palestinians. Furthermore, we are not using it as a source for a given statement, but are mentioning a report they published. Given that the report was quoted by many media outlets, it is noteworthy per se.

In any case, to clear-up any uncertainties, I have posted the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Human Rights Watch to get a broader opinion.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 14:37

P.S. As for The Times, they are without doubt a reliable source. Furthermore, we are not citing the Times' opinion, but using them to source comments from the IDF themselves. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 14:40

Thanks for the rapid response, and good idea bringing it up on RS. I still disagree with the inclusion of the Times article, in part because it's not up to date. Subsequent analysis [12] would be better put in the opening. Trilemma (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Newer sources are always better, but your source makes no mention of the IDF admitting to flaws in the report... That is the crucial bit from the Times' article. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 15:08

Yes but I see no reason why admitted flaws in an initial report are significant enough to mention when laboratory tests confirmed that the IDF wasn't responsible. At the very least, I think, a sentence detailing this should be added, but in order to get a more concise lead expressing the most significant details of the incident, the Times' article could be placed elsewhere in the article. Trilemma (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The JPost article and the Times article are not mutually exclusive. The JPost article says that the shrapnel was not from the boats that fired on the Kassam launchers whereas the Times says the report is flawed because it doesn't consider the two gunboats that were firing at the same time. The JPost article also no specific mention of the reported flaws and does not explicitly deny them. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 15:26

But it's widely accepted [13] that gunboats were uninvolved with the beach incident. Trilemma (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the whole question circulates around which gunboats where there when... Can you find a source specifically stating that the Times is wrong on that account? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 15:32

So far as I can tell, this revolves around an initial, and errant, acceptance of misinformation using stock footage of Israeli boats to allege that they were in the area at the time....I'm looking into this further, but this far most of what I've seen is early accounts on non-RS sites alleging Israeli 'atrocities' based on a fallacious boat contention. Trilemma (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, here's a proposed compromise text:

• The Gaza beach blast[1] was an event on June 9, 2006 in which eight Palestinians were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya — and at least thirty others were injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip.[2] The incident received considerable attention from news media worldwide, with the Israeli army and officials denying initial reports that Israel was to blame and suggesting it was possibly an explosive that was put on the beach.[3] A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that Israel did not shell the beach, but that the explosion may have been the result of unexploded Israeli ordnance.[4] Subsequent laboratory tests confirmed that Israeli artillery was not to blame for the incident. [14] Trilemma (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start (see also the debate above). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but one doesn't take findings by a party to the conflict at face value. At the very least, that last statement would have to be attributed. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just checked the reference and it plainly doesn't clear IDF ordnance for the blast. But the way you have constructed the account makes it appear as though that is what the laboratory did. So that would have to be fixed as well. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to make an assessment to the version Pedrito inserted into the article?[15]

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't time to do that right now, maybe tomorrow. But at a glance it looks to me as though the differences between the various versions aren't that great. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty big difference IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The gun boat claim was based on misinformation, and was quickly and widely discredited. The other claim was that it was an Israeli mortar, and the Jpost article documents how that has been refuted. Trilemma (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going on the source you yourself provided in the post above, from the laboratory, which says it can't rule out that the explosion was caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance from a prior occasion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Gatoclass is correct here. The investigations agreed that Israel did not shell the beach as the Palestinians claimed, however they noted that it remains a possibility that an unexploded Israeli ordnance might have been the cause of the incident. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, going off this subsequent bit of info [16] I think it'd be reasonable to conclude the opening with, "the source of the blast has yet to be determined, though lab tests proved that Israeli mortar fire was not to blame." Trilemma (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Trilemma, how do you justify removing all criticism of the investigation from the lead? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 06:28

Intro Suggestion 2 - by Jaakobou

The Gaza beach blast was an event on June 9, 2006 in which eight Palestinians were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya — and at least thirty others were injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip. The media reported Palestinian accusations against the Israeli army, of shelling the beach with the Israeli army and officials denying these reports that Israel was to blame and suggesting the incident was likely caused by a land mine planted by Palestinians rather than a result of Israeli fire. The event resulted in some disagreement between Israel, which concluded that they could not have shelled the beach and Human Rights Watch who alleged that the Israeli probe was partisan and demanded an independent investigation. The Israeli investigation and Human Rights Watch officials did agree that that the explosion had a high probability of resulting from unexploded Israeli ordnance rather than an errant IDF shell.

Continued discussions

First draft 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) , thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many points with which I disagree:

• "The media reported Palestinian accusations against the Israeli army": This is just plain incorrect. The media not only reported accusations, they themselves accused Israel, based on Palestinian reports. The the whole discussion above.
• "The event resulted in some disagreement between Israel [..] and Human Rights Watch [..]": disagreement is hardly the right wording here and there were more parties than that involved. Why not simply state that HRW disagreed, as it is now?
• The Guardian report has been nuked. Why?
• Garlasco's subsequent retraction from his agreement with the IDF investigation is not mentioned (btw, he is one "official" and not "officials"). Why mention only the agreement and not the almost immediate retraction?
• The IDF's own admission that the report was flawed is also gone. Why?

In summary, it's all too wordy and removed a number of well-sourced statements, all of which are critical of the IDF's investigation. I have proposed a compromise above (aka "Palestinian-based reports"), what about that? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 08:38

P.S. If you want to insist on your version, could you please respond to my concerns (above) point-by-point? Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 08:38

I removed unsupported fringe perspectives which had no clear reference to back them up and the currently suggested version is clearly more accurate and neutral than was before. i.e. a few simple misunderstandings of the sources with a claim that the IDF made a point of saying it's report was flawed; it did no such thing. IDF agreed with a point made by HRW and that was the entire "flaw"; suggested version gives more than enough credence to the HRW perspectives which take in Palestinian "eye-witness" accounts as true while the IDF takes them as false. The starting points for both inspecting bodies are conflicting - but this is offtopic for the introduction and both perspectives were given due presentation.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Lucy Mair is also a HRW official. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so The Guardian and The Times are just unsupported fringe perspectives... No, sorry, no agreement there. As for your disqualification of the HRW report, unless you can find a WP:RS backing it up, just let it be.

HRW, The Guardian and The Times fault the IDF's report, yet stating that HRW disagreed and then agreed (no mention of the retractal) is "due presentation"? No, no agreement there either.

I suggest we cut this short and ask for comment. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 09:11

The Guardian making any claims on the case would be of equal value as Arutz Sheva making a claim. The Times did not make any claims. I most certainly did give due representation to HRW's criticism on the IDF investigation as far as the lead is concerned. Anyways, I've asked Moreschi to mediate.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest a tweaked alternative to Jaakobou's proposal above:

The Gaza beach blast was an event on June 9, 2006 in which eight Palestinians were killed - including most of the immediate family of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya - and at least thirty others injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian eyewitnesses accused the IDF of shelling the beach, a charge which the IDF denied, suggesting instead that the blast may have been caused by a Palestinian landmine. An IDF probe later concluded that the explosion was not caused by Israeli shellfire that day, but Human Rights Watch and other groups argued that the IDF investigation was flawed and demanded an independent investigation. The IDF and HRW eventually agreed that the most likely cause of the explosion was unexploded Israeli ordnance from an earlier time.

I'm not sure the last statement is correct, I'm just taking it from Jaakobou's version. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Gatoclass and thanks for the input!

The last statement is somewhat flawed in the sense that two HRW officials agreed with the IDF report, only to recant a day later. Also, HRW and "other groups" did their own investigations, they didn't just comment on that of the IDF...

The reason I wanted to avoid having specifics in the lead is that there are many investigations, claims, counter-investigations, rebuttals, reversals and all... And having the most significant there to uphold WP:UNDUE is a huge can of worms.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 14:49

I like Gatoclass's version, the only suggestion being changing 'most' to 'multiple' for Huda Ghaliya's family members (unless there's an RS specifically saying 'most'). This version is more neutral than anything I've seen so far, and avoids talking about the many investigations and accusations, which is precisely what we do not want in the lead. Those can be covered later in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yn. On the issue of Ghaliya though, I strongly feel that mention must be made of the fact that she lost most of her immediate family, because "multiple" is awkward usage in this context and sounds weaselly, and because the fact that she lost so many family members is part of what gave the story its emotional impact. I see it as much the same issue as the Netanya bombing, I saw recently that someone was trying to remove the fact that the victims were Holocaust survivors from that article on the grounds that it wasn't relevant, but I do believe their status in that respect was similarly an important part of the story.

In regards to the issues Pedrito has raised, I confess I'm not fully across the nuances of this story yet and have mainly been going on what I've picked up from the talk page. I'll try to take a closer look over the weekend, but at this stage the differences of opinion don't look all that great to me. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One last comment before leaving for the weekend: If we report only on investigations and statements that support the IDF's conclusion in the lead, then it does not satisfy WP:UNDUE. As I have said from the beginning of this discussion: either we include a brief mention of all the investigations or none thereof. Anything else violates WP:UNDUE.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 15:30

Considering that 100% of the accusations were leveled at the IDF, it's clear that the IDF's response is the only important one. Everything else can go into the main article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of "most" vs. "multiple", do we know how many family members there were? I see material indicating that one of the women killed was "one of the wives" of the father. How large was this family? And, alternatively, why are we mentioning the girl in the first sentence? Can't we just say that seven of the people killed were from one family, and go into the details, such as the survivors, later?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Language!

eight Palestinians were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya —

Just a note chaps, to tell you this is not acceptable English. 'family members of' cannot take a 'person' (Huda). The family are not members of the surviving girl (indeed the phrasing only makes sense if, bizarrely, 'members' here takes on the secondary meaning of 'limbs', an hallucinated implication I'm sure you'll all wish to avoid). One must say something like 'including seven members of the Huda family' etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or just use "several" instead of "multiple"? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 09:39

No, it doesn't work, elder people are never 'members' of young people, be they 'several' or 'multiple. Hate to niggle, but syntax is sintax. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mis-understanding of your mis-understanding... I read this as "family members" being something like a composite noun, and is hence not a problem. Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 09:52

'including several members of surviving seven-year old Huda G's family' seems to be what was intended? Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but still doesn't seem like an easy read... pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 10:25

Nishidani,
Are you certain that elders can't be described as "family members" of young people? I'm open for different phrasings. Perhaps "multiple relatives"? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I occasionally do suffer from Altzheimer-related memory lapses, but the text is not, I assure you, English as it stands. At least I bridled and grit my teeth (or what's left of them) instinctively on reading it. Don't trust me. Ask around among other (literate) native speakers by all means.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify again: 'you can't be a member of another person, unless member refers to limbs. Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps for the scientifically minded, I could put this in terms of set theory. A set is a whole, composed of constituent elements or members. A family corresponds to a set, members are elements of the set. To make all but one member of a set members of the one remaining member of that set (the family) is a complete nonsense, in set theory, as is the linguistic form that illustrates the paradox, which has been adoptedd here. Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked with Peter cohen on this, being English, and Oxford-educated, he came to mind as a natural source to check my natural feel for the point. And, in a note on my page, he corroborates exactly the argument I made, so it does indeed look like unacceptable English. I've suggested my version, Peter provided his own, i.e., 'Eight Palestinians were killed, including several members of one family of which only seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya survived'.

So let me know which is acceptable, if you want me to edit the passage, or otherwise, suggest a change yourselves. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "seven members of the same family"? As it stands now, there is no particular reason why the lede is focusing on a seven year old, and it looks POV. It may not be--I understand there is footage of her running from corpse to corpse, but as the article stands now, there is no reason cited why we are mentioning the seven year old. A little revision may be in order here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable question. As I said to Ynhockey above, it's for the same reason that I support mention of the fact that the victims were Holocaust survivors in the Netanya bombing article. Given that practically every media outlet saw fit to report this detail, it would look remarkably strange for us to leave it out. And it's exactly the same here. The whole world saw a little girl lose almost her entire family in an instant. One cannot pretend that this was not a vital part of the story. If we leave it out, we are effectively filtering out a major part of what made the story so big in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not proposing that we do so. My point is, there has to be some mention of why the kid is significant. As of right now, assuming the reader has not seen the footage, it sounds over the top. I suggest we add a little bit explaining that she was filmed, or whatever, and that attention focused on her. As opposed to the two other survivors from her family on the beach. Then it makes sense to have discussion of her as a person. Right now, there is no stated reason why this kid is significant.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I have done as you suggested. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs

As per this edit, why do you quote the article in the footnotes? I removed that because a) it's unnecessary and b) I supposed you were only doing it to drive home a point in our discussion, which is not necessary either and c) because the same references are used from more than one place in the text.

What are your arguments?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 10:47

If I'm not mistaken, you stated earlier that the Palestinians are not the source of reports. Did I miss something or did you not accuse me of "poisoning the well" (10.06.2008 11:51)? Clearly, a note should be made within the references so that similar uncivil occurrences won't repeat.

p.s. I believe that discussions work better when not Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility. Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors, such as claiming an editor is trying to "drive home a point", detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking).

The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so my assumption in b) was correct. The normal way of handling this would be to not add stuff in the article to drive home the point, but to engage anybody who wants to change it back in discussion, pointing to this discussion here. I conceded this point (although the Palestinians were not the only source) to avoid a long, fruitless edit-war. You seem to have missed that subtlety, which I made quite clear in my comments above.

This is the second time you're calling WP:CIVIL with pretty-much the same text. If you really mean it, please tell me how I have been uncivil and we can talk about it. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 11:16

Citation issue

If memory serves, Pedrito made a statement that adding "Palestinian based" was well poisoning.[17] A concern which explains why a citation quote is neccesary to show that BBC indeed said this. Therefore, it would be best if Pedrito would stop removing this citation quote from the article,[18], [19] at least as long as you don't have consensus to do this.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC) diffs. 11:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

First of all, we agreed to disagree on the "Palestinian-based" wording, and I had even re-inserted it into the text. As for the quotes, please read Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references. Quoting the source directly, as you have done, is a copyright violation. This is a policy issue. If you don't remove the quotes, I will as per WP:COPYVIO.

Secondly "Initial Palestinian-based reports identified Israeli shelling of the beach as the cause of the blast" is not POV -- it's pretty much exactly what the source says. It does not say that Israeli shelling was the cause, but that Palestinian-based reports stated that this was the cause. No POV here.

Thirdly, the phrase "At the time, reports were pointing the cause to be an Israeli shelling of the beach while relying on primary sources for their report" is grammatical nonsense.

Please have a second look and re-consider your revert.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.06.2008 11:35

Ok, now with User:Gatoclass' edits (thanks), the direct quotes make no sense at all. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.06.2008 11:42

Sorry, are you saying you disagree with my edits? What's the problem with them? Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not in the least! I had done pretty much the same edits just before and Jack reverted them a few minutes later. I'm actually glad someone with a third opinion stepped-in.

What I meant is that the discussion on the merit of the direct quotes is now moot since they are not even at the right place any more.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 26.06.2008 11:51

Hi, Pedrito could you explain how you interpret this as a copyright violation? As you know I mentor Jaakobou with policy and process issues. He asked me to review this discussion and I don't follow your objection; it looks like a normal citation to me. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova,

If you click on the "(c) BBC" at the bottom of the articles, you get this page that states:

Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.

This is also what Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references refers to.

If I have misunderstood anything here, please, by all means, correct me.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.06.2008 05:56

Pedrito, this is a clear misunderstanding of the differnece between copyvio's and citing of sources. Please stop removing the cited material, it is a one liner partial citation (not a copyvio) in reference to the wikipedia text. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) clarify. 09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why yes, it seems it was so clear that nobody bothered countering my explanation, which User:Durova requested. Please explain how your direct quote does not violate the above-mentionned BBC copyright statement. As per WP:COPYVIO, I will continue to revert on sight.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.07.2008 07:53

P.S. If the changes proposed here come through, you might also want to make the case as to what the quotes add to the article and why they are not simply repetition, as well as why they are not a copyright violation. pedrito - talk - 08.07.2008 07:53

As I noted just now, you have a clear misunderstanding of the copyvio policies and if you continue to edit-war on this after you've previously contested the material, then you are breaking policy yourself. I'd suggest moving this issue to a copyvio forum rather than repeatedly edit war this citation out of the page when it's clear that you have a problem with understanding policies (per previous issues with page protection and BRD). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly suggest taking this question to a noticeboard for an independent opinion. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just suggested the copyvio noticeboard (if it exists) and other forums are welcome as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted a notice here and here. pedrito - talk - 08.07.2008 09:13

Responded. Frankly, the claim that this might be a copyvio is a little silly: It's one sentence, clearly identified as a quote - that's well within protected usage. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

• Investigating issues listed at WP:CP, I came upon this article. It seems, based on the article's history, that the debate here consists of the use of one sentence from a BBC article. From Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim." The sentence follows these guidelines and is not too extensive. It represents a small portion of the articles. Such use is within US law, which governs Wikipedia. No violation has been identified. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest change of name

I propose we change the name to Gaza beach explosion (2006), simply because a beach blast can be slang for a party at the beach.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on the face of it that sounds reasonable, but I think it might depend upon how it is usually referred to in reliable sources, which is how these things are usually determined. Has anyone done any research into that? Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to seek a consensus before we make that sort of name change V. Joe (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I've put it on talk page. And no, I haven't checked to see how reputable publications refer to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)