Talk:2006 Gaza beach explosion/Archive 4

Discussion of the draft
I object to this draft, which h as you concede is a very intrusive near-toatl rewrite. Please introduce specific issues you have with the current text. All Rows4 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - I have highlighted very specific issues on numerous occasions - the main one being a high-level criticism that the current version does not facilitate comparisons of contrasting views so as to achieve NPOV, nor even their completeness. Various topics and opposing sources are randomly distributed between various section headings. For instance, 'shrapnel' is discussed under 7 different headings. Yes .... seven (including 'fragments). Under such a structure, how can NPOV on 'shrapnel' be achieved? Answer - it obviously cannot. Even worse, the IDF is quoted under HRW, and vice-versa. The Guardian appears under media reports even though it conducted on-site investigations and research. It is all incoherent.


 * The current version is therefore merely an unordered list of what various sources found, randomly placed under different headings, ranging from evidence types to who-said-what. The draft complies with Wiki objectives of providing for judgements leading to NPOV. Do you not want that facility for reaching NPOV or for a much more logical, coherent, and useful structuring of information? Perhaps not? Does it make it too clear exactly what happened? Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "shrapnel" may appear in 7 sections, but the controversial issue of "shrapnel removal" - was it done as part of normal medical procedures, or as a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence - is discussed in exactly one section, dedicated to that topic. If these are the kind of issues your draft is intended to address, it is clearly not needed, at least not at such an intrusive scale. The article, as is , complies with Wiki's NPOV requirements, for the most part. If you have specific issues you want to fix - list them out, and we can address them , one by one, without re-writing the whole thing. All Rows4 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue of 'shrapnel removal' is a red herring, and THAT is why it was controversial. Do you deny that the Palestinian authorities offered the IDF shrapnel fragments for analysis; that HRW also did so, with full guarantee of security of the evidence trail (e.g. the piece found in the car upholstery)? Do you deny that the IDF at first accepted the offers, and then later declined? So there was no lack whatsoever of samples of shrapnel. So, please tell me, exactly what is so suspicious about medical doctors removing shrapnel ASAP, that was within surgical reach, from an injured victim? And exactly what were they trying to hide from the IDF, that the IDF had not already rejected? This is exactly the type of BS that I want to see balanced. when all the pertinent data to the 'removed shrapnel' are put side-by-side, then it all becomes a whole lot less 'controversial'. By rejecting this organisation, you appear to be in favour of maintaining 'fuzziness' regarding all these issues. I wonder why. Care to share reasons with us? Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, or rather, original research, into what is or isn't BS, is of little interest to me. We have reliable sources quoting  medical experts that say  the shrapnel removal was atypical, and done w/o any apparent medical need. Whether  or not the Palestinians were trying  to hide something is open to specualtion, but if reliable  sources mention it in this context, it belongs  the article, in it's  section All Rows4 (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still reading through the draft, one quick comment: ' "IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell". Haaretz' is quoted twice, attributing the same quote once to Dan Halutz and once to Kalifi. In the source it's attributed only to Kalifi.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I can't see what's the logic of the division into sections nor in their order. There are several different sections dedicated to criticism of IDF investigations: There are several sections discussing the timing: Injures are discussed in: If the goal of this edit is to make information easily available to the reader, I do not think that it achieves it. I see that you've put a considerable effort into this draft, but I do not believe that it is an improvement compared to the existing article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ~
 * Claims, Counterclaims and Investigations
 * Completeness of evidence examined by IDF
 * Contrasting ultimate analysis and Interpretations
 * Reversal of Positions
 * Eyewitness Reports
 * The Relative timing of bombardment and the fatal explosion
 * Craters
 * Nature of the Injuries
 * Firstly, my apologies for my absence. I have a medical condition and needed therapy. I cannot foretell when this might happen.
 * WarKosign|All Rows4The attribution and ‘claim’ issues are easily addressed.
 * I am dedicated to achieving POV and other balance in this article. I still firmly believe that this can best be achieved by organising the article based on Issues, rather than on “Who-said-what” (which inherently promotes unbalanced POVs). But it is obvious that you both intend to resist the contrasting of positions and evidence on the various POVs. I can understand why. It makes the weakness of the Israeli position much clearer, and such clarity seems not to be desired. Am I correct?
 * I hope not. So the alternative is to insert balancing text throughout the article. This will be very messy compared to my proposal - incredibly messy. Shall we try it and see what happens so as to preserve the current format which you desire? Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No you are not correct, and your assumptions of bad faith seem to be little more than projection. As I wrote before, I object to the massive POV rewrite you have done. Please suggest small change, one by one, and see if we can address your issues. All Rows4 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ilham & Elham mix up needs a clean up
Ilham or Elham survived and was treated in Israel. She confirmed that her father set off the mine. This article needs a serious cleaning.

Whoever wrote this should be able to decipher that there was an Ilham and an Elham, one of whom survived.

The line "other sources" said that Ilham/Elham was immediately killed is incredibly biased as it is attempting to discount the IDF investigation that interviewed the lone survivor daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B15A:4E51:B031:7B7E:F8EE:7EA7 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Gaza beach explosion (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926235158/http://www.abc.es/20060610/internacional-oriente-medio/hamas-finalizada-tregua-lanza_200606101147.html to http://www.abc.es/20060610/internacional-oriente-medio/hamas-finalizada-tregua-lanza_200606101147.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121025212718/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060618/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelpalestinianbeachinquiry_060618134935 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060618/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelpalestinianbeachinquiry_060618134935
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110108011832/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,29867,19465042-2703.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,29867,19465042-2703.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gaza beach explosion (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035838991&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619000000/http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/315/78237/ to http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/315/78237/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaza beach explosion (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424030344/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2005/Victims/Bi+Shude.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2005/Victims/Bi+Shude.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gaza beach explosion (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035838991&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130706010207/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150191574202&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150191574202&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408043141/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355528023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355528023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/315/78237/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)