Talk:Majdal Shams attack

Forensic evidence claims

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

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

Middle East Eye begs to differ. There's actually a total lack of evidence for a Falaq-1 strike other than the IDF statements, which is the very definition of POV in the circumstances. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No byline, conveniently unverifiable hearsay, marginal website allegedly funded by Qatar - great source!

Whereas the evidence for a Falaq-1 having been fired at the area is literally in Hizballah's own press statement, not the IDF's. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, rockets and interceptors were both fired nearby. If you think the source is unreliable, take it to RSN. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Live blog sources should be phased out and replaced with proper write ups as swiftly as possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merely stating something is "forensic evidence" without providing any evidence at all is incredibly dodgy. You'd also expect the claimed 50 kg explosives would actually leave a crater... Exactly the rationale Israel used to deflect blame for the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their edit has it that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems somewhat moot to me as the kids were presumably all Israeli nationals anyway…besides, according to that line of reasoning the 2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder would fall under the same category…I’m not buying it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Most Druze in the Golan have refused Israeli citizenship, so likely not Israeli nationals actually. nableezy - 10:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Iron Dome malfunction is widely reported in Arab media

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

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

I've reworded the lead, but I'm not totally happy with it. I'm struggling to find good sources, but we're likely facing a situation that a Hezbollah-fired missile was shot down by the Iron Dome over the football pitch. Neither Hezbollah nor Israel actually targeted the pitch, contrary to the mutual accusations. I'm assuming this based on many similar situations in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, where both sides traded blame only for investigative journalists to uncover the actual cause. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Middle East Eye has got to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis on the IDF's claims about a Falaq-1 rocket in the lead need either removing or balancing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If no sources claim the scenario where it was a Hezbollah missile shot down by the Iron Dome, we simply can't add it, whether it's likely enough. On a related note, sources are increasingly pointing out the lack of a crater, which would be assumed to be present if Israeli claims of 50 kg explosives was true. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Thanks, a good one. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for your opinion.

1. As you can see from the diff the image was not added to the infobox but to the body of the article.

2. As per the WP:CODI "Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphic depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts."

3. Not sure why do you quote "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept" as the blurred image (with all the sadness) is better representing what has happen then an empty field.

4. For anything which you see "offensive" beyond WP:CODI the blur option is there. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I specified the infobox image just to identify it and contrast it with the one that is disputed. Not sure why do you quote... I quoted that section because the article is about a rocket attack that occurred on a football pitch. A wider shot of a destroyed football pitch seems to portray that perfectly adequately, rather than a cropped and zoomed in picture of three corpses and entrails. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "the article is about a rocket attack that occurred on a football pitch" I agree but the full context is that the article is about a rocket attack that occurred on a football pitch AND killed 12 people. If the article was ONLY "about a rocket attack that occurred on a football pitch" then we would not have the article at all as it's not notable by itself. Notability here is given due to the victims. To summarize, so far I saw no valid reason why we need to try to block the picture which has both the field and the victims. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, out of respect for the boys' families? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia rule are you referring to in regards to images which are already blurred? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship of victims

The 'Victims' sections currently says "None of the victims had accepted Israeli citizenship and had identified as citizens of Syria." I assume the second part of this sentence is intended to mean "they all identified as citizens of Syria".

The linked CNN article supports only the first statement: "Most Druze there identify as Syrian and have rejected offers of Israeli citizenship. The Regional Council of Majdal Shams said Sunday that none of the 12 children killed had Israeli citizenship."

Can this line be amended to: "None of the victims had accepted Israeli citizenship. Most Druze in the Golan Heights identify as citizens of Syria." MosheDov1 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that none of the dead were Israeli citizens should also be made clear in the lead. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be attributed - most sources continue to say that it is unknown whether any had citizenship, and it’s unclear whether the Regional Council has complete knowledge considering many apply secretly.

As a general note, 25% of the Druze population of Majdal Shans has citizenship, making it unlikely that none of the 12 did. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unlikely"? Really? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

About 0.75^12 unlikely, ~3% chance, that none of them had Israeli citizenship I guess, assuming the 25% figure is correct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland your calculation only holds if we assume statistical independence of each of the variables. The 12 people killed constituted a cluster, they were not randomly selected from the entire Druze population, and it's likely that people's choice of citizenship is not truly random but influenced by their network of family and friends. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely wrong, we can say that with confidence, but we can't say how wrong based on the information available. We can say the Regional Council of Majdal Shams said that none of the 12 children killed had Israeli citizenship. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland analogy: 80% of Golan Druze have not accepted Israeli citizenship. 80% of Israelis are Jews. Suppose there was an attack in Israel that killed 12 people. Is it really that hard to believe if all 12 victims were Jews? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Vice regent, I'm not sure that analogy works well because of the relationship between location and ethnicity in Israel i.e. your clustering point. But it seems reasonable to assume that that isn't the case for the Druze population in Majdal Shams wrt to Israeli citizenship (actually I have no idea whether this is true) i.e. to assume Druze with Israeli citizenship are not spatially clustered, they are distributed throughout the Majdal Shams population.
• As for believing, it's easy to believe that the number is any integer from 0 to 12. They are all possible, but they are obviously not all equally likely, and if spatial clustering is not a factor, it's trivial to calculate the probability mass function for the possible outcomes. For your analogy, with the population of 9.9 million and a 0.8 probability, the likelihood for 12 is just under 7% and the pmf will look something like this.
• But really, the only reason I mentioned this in the first place, is because probability can be a bit counterintuitive and to show that BilledMammal's statement "making it unlikely that none of the 12 did" is more reasonable than our intuitions tell us. Either way, the only information we have is the published statement and that is what matters from a wiki-perspective. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess my general point is about assigning credence when we read media reporting. For me, a 'huh?' reaction to a report saying that none of the boys had Israeli citizenship is a healthy response from a media literacy perspective because it is grounded in the math. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ayoob Kara

Yes, David O. Johnson, Kara is indeed Druze. He is however not from the Golan, and the Israeli Druze and the Syrian Druze have very different relationships with Israel. Regardless though, why would a former MK be quoted here? He isn't a representative of the Druze community in either Majdal Shams or in the Golan Heights, he is from Daliyat al-Karmel near Haifa. And why the quick revert without even an attempt at discussing on the talk page? nableezy - 15:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

Why do we have a listing of the victims here? nableezy - 15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have seen similar listings in West Bank localities (for example: Nabi Salih#Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in/from Nabi Salih), Is this against Wiki rules? HaOfa (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

They were separate incidents, the page registering a sequence of Israeli killings in one village. We do not typically name everyone in a single incident. Were we to do that, nearly every page on the Gaza war strikes, where in the first 17 days night 3000 people were killed, mostly civilians, whose names have been verified and cross-checked, would clutter the pages. The practice was very common with mass Israeli victims of suicide bombings (Maxim's, Sbarro) but they were, from memory eventually removed per this policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Id get rid of the list of names there too, only keeping an overview and listing notable incidents. And yes, the rule is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. nableezy - 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I support removal. A listing of names is virtually useless for a typical reader. BTW, I'd also get rid of names in Nabi Salih#Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in/from Nabi Salih. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the names again. 6 pertain to members of the same kinship clan, one of whom has a link to the specifics of the killing. Take those names out and you deprive the reader of significant information which has nothing to do with memorializing. Each time an incident occurred I gave the name and age of the victim, but while the age is important, the focus is on how they were each shot dead. I'm opposed to memorialization. But the names here are not instances of that, despite appearances.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have found similar lists also here: Beita, Nablus#May–September 2021 series of protester killings, Beit Ummar#Post-1967. I believe I have seen more besides this and the Nabi Salih#Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in/from Nabi Salih one mentioned above. Many other articles make extensive usage of names (two examples Halhul#Israeli occupation of Palestine. Ni'ilin#Barrier protests). Looks like a really experienced editor are adding those to articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beit_Ummar&diff=1159687967&oldid=1149875569), (User:Huldra) can somebody make sure they are familiar with the policy? If casualities lists, names, and detailed info about non-notable are not accepted on Wikipedia, someone should do a cleanup on all the articles relating to the Arab Israeli conflict. HaOfa (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Which point of WP:NOTMEMORIAL do you feel it violates and why do we have this list: List of Palestinian athletes killed in the Israel–Hamas war? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The part where it is memorializing the dead. Imagine having a listing of all the Palestinian children killed in Gaza by Israeli forces in the article on the war. As far as the link, dont think it qualifies as that list is itself covering a notable topic. But feel free to nominate it for deletion. But here in this article, the corollary would be a listing of the thousands and thousands of children killed by Israel in Gaza the last ten months. nableezy - 19:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Palestinian athletes killed in the Israel–Hamas war That is encyclopedically important because, it gives a list of names (in an area where all Hamas data are immediately subject to querying) that can be verified or challenged. When we get a good secondary source that provides a synthetic analysis of the devastation of every category of person and profession in the Gaza Strip, these names can go, but not beforehand. Since Airwars is now compiling a data base for each victim, the figures by category should be available, if not at war's end, then by the end of the year, and specialists will supply us with those statistical breakdowns. It is not the names that are being memorialized but the data for deaths by category. Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Syria's Reaction

Syrian reaction can be added [3] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Jebiguess (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Suwayda

Regarding this edit, the reference says in its own voice that it was a protest against Hezbollah. But it doesn't quote the protestors themselves mentioning Hezbollah.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an overall tilt towards using Israeli sources in the article, many strictly in Hebrew and thus hard to verify, that claim the Druze in general follow the Israeli narrative, but when looking at non-Israeli sources, this becomes much more unclear, and the Druze either reject the visiting Israeli authorities or insist the incident should not be taken advantage of and politicised. So I suggest we use more neutral sources when it comes to Druze sentiments, as the attack didn't even happen in an area legally recognised as part of Israel, didn't kill any Israelis, and Israeli sources are inherently biased. FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It does. "Party of the devil" (Hizb ash-Shaytan) is an epithet for Hizballah ("the party of God"). PrimaPrime (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the sources for that in this context? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The author of the article in question has helpfully made the interpretive connection for readers without the necessary background knowledge, something you can see for yourself Hizballah's opponents in Suwayda alone doing in a variety of Arabic outlets. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

“According to a news website, a news channel said that a paramedic said that witnesses said"

@Iskandar323: This is the sort of thing conspiracy theories thrive in, and a chain of unreliable and marginally reliable sourcing isn’t the sort of sourcing we expect for such an extraordinary claim. If you can find a reliable source that directly talked to those witnesses then we can include it (although the claim that non-experts can distinguish from a basic visual inspection between two types of rockets is dubious), but until then it is WP:UNDUE - do you have such a source? BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The MEE piece links directly to the Al Araby on-site reporting – it's not some sort of mysterious chain of reporting. It's just some real journalism, in contrast to the far from independent verbiage being put out by the IDF. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And Al Araby doesn’t get this from a witness, but from an unidentified paramedic who supposedly talked to witnesses. Can you find a source that talked to the witnesses? BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We have to assume that journalists can do their job in interviewing a key witness on site. It's not our job to second-guess journalists without cause. I'll note they haven't been banned from operating, despite the extremely prejudicial stance of Israel towards any source that it has major issues with. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Except in this case they didn’t. They talked to someone who claimed to have talked to witnesses.

If you can find a source that actually talked to witnesses we can use that - but until then, the sourcing for this is insufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue when nothing is being stated in wikivoice, but instead it is fully attributed. And the sourcing here is two-fold: the original TV interview, and MEE's reporting of it. Also, you're talking as if a paramedic is some sort of remote source, when they're not. A paramedic is someone on scene, absorbing the on-hand evidence, including, yes, the word of witnesses, but in the immediate context, a paramedic is more akin to a primary source absorbing first-hand information than a secondary one. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Things can be undue without being stated in Wikivoice.

And the paramedic is a remote source, because they’re not saying they saw this, they’re saying they were told this - and because the paramedic isn’t a reliable source, that is where this stops being sufficiently reliable to include. (I’m also generally sceptical of including the opinion of non-experts on a topic that requires experts for the opinion to be meaningful)

Let’s focus on the key element. Do you have a reliable source that directly talked to people who claimed the fragments were from an interceptor? BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Who says the paramedic isn't reliable? Did you track them down and find out they have a track record of false testimony? In any case, the only reliability we care about is the rubber stamp of an RS on the attributed statements. The source I have added lends some much needed balance to the otherwise sad procession of Israeli and Western sources parroting IDF statements, which we all know are not worth much these days – hence no actual evidence, and hence no independent investigations. And no foreign press in Gaza! Perish the thought of genuine scrutiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is extremely weak: MEE says that Al Araby says that an anonymous paramedic says that some unnamed persons told them that ... it was a certain kind of projectile. This is not WP:DUE for inclusion absent other RSes reporting it. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit – I had been thinking some corroboration might pop up in another source, but it's been unforthcoming. Happy to defer to WP:30 here and not object to its removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have barely read any news reporting about this so there may very well be corroboration or similar reporting from other sources. I'm thinking something more high-level/general like "witnesses reported...", sourced to a couple sources, might be better than a my-aunt's-cousin's-girlfriend's-nephew-said kind of thing from one source. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Unconvincingly

@Iskandar323: If this could be attributed why did you remove it? Further, I don’t think it needs be attributed - a highly reliable source put it in their own voice, and no such sources contest that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

One source may not be enough to demonstrate due weight for an exceptional claim. Are there additional sources that use this type of wording? Left guide (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Denial of atrocity by terrorist group is unconvincing" is not an exceptional claim.

The BBC also isn’t the only source to reject Hezbollah’s claims or find them unconvincing. For example, see this CNN article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an obvious POV, just as regional media, from their POV, find Israeli and US denials "unconvincing". The statement that "a POV voice finds other POV voice unconvincing" isn't one that ever needs making. It's a clear given. And of course, "terrorist group" is itself a POV, and one that, in almost all instances, goes entirely unrecognised by the majority of the world. So the premise that a West-defined "terror group" is somehow automatically less convincing than the oh-so noble Western countries that have designated it as such is a warped lense. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to that find the Israeli (and now expert and US) position that Hezbollah was responsible "unconvincing"? Are any of the calibre of the BBC? BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The BBC's record and bias in this conflict has not only been terrible; it has been specifically called out as being terrible. Aside from being blatant editorialization, language like "unconvincing" is incredibly unencyclopedic, and shouldn't be in wikivoice. If some source says something is "unconvincing", that's its opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; it is encyclopedic to assess the veracity of claims made by parties to the conflict, and we assess it based on the assessment of reliable sources.

BBC is rated generally reliable at RSN. If you disagree with that assessment, you should open a discussion at RSN. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the BBC has A) been critiqued by other RS for its coverage of the conflict, and B) it is the state-owned media outlet of a country complicit in the conflict, and is thus less independent than most. Independence layers on top of reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you believe there are problems with the BBC, then please open a discussion. You keep repeating these objections, but they don’t align with current consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Western media is, surprise, inherently biased towards American and Israeli claims. Anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge about the region knows that Hezbollah has no interest in intentionally attacking Arabs in Israeli-occupied territories. That of course doesn't rule out mistakes/misfires, but that's something quite different than motive. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved the biased BBC editorialization to the end of the sentence with attribution; do not state claims as "facts" in Wikipedia's voice. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For me the biggest issue is that these sources are being misquoted. Even American officials have conceded the possibility that Hezbollah may have misfired or that the football pitch is within the margin of error of an Israeli military base. Not including those views in the lead is a violation of npov.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you can feel free to add the suggestions of a misfire to the intro too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Syria as Domestic

@Supreme Deliciousness: Putting Syria as Domestic is misleading; it doesn’t control the site, and isn’t the one the local population is calling on to retaliate for the attack.

Can you explain why you made this change? BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Area is internationally recognized as part of Syria, so how can Syria be in "international" when the area is part of it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it doesn’t control the area, which is why putting it as "domestic" is misleading.

It would also be misleading to put Israel as "domestic", but that wasn’t the situation before your edit. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Domestic" means within the country so its correct for Syria. "International" for Syria is Israeli view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the prevailing view among reliable sources? Left guide (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What about using "Israel" "Hezbollah" and "Other"? That should avoid this issue, while still emphasising the relevant parties. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't be using "Domestic" and "International" as section titles. RAN1 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

But Syria is not "other".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why aren’t they? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Because the attack happened inside Syria, as per international law.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• You could argue that the Druze response should be listed before any national response, as they're the ones actually affected, and other actors are simply taking advantage of the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Quote

@Supreme Deliciousness: Can you explain why that quote is WP:DUE? BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Gideon Levy is a well known and award winning journalist and author. The quote is directly connected to the ministers that visited Majdal Shams. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of authors who have met that description have written about this and other topics, but as a general rule we don’t quote them. What is special about his article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are notable quotes from notable journalists, you are free to ad them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is notable it would be appropriate to add, but that isn’t self-evident; can you provide evidence that the quote is notable? BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The evidence that the quote is notable is its author Gideon Levy and his analysis of the situation. And it seems others here agree with me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the quote is a good juxtaposition with the IDF photo above it. RAN1 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree. Images tend to amplify certain POVs, as do quotes. This article currently contains an abundance of Israeli POVs but lacks Arab POVs even though they are well represented in RS. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t make the quote WP:DUE, which is why I’m asking for evidence of Supreme Deliciousness’ claim that the quote is notable. Do you have such evidence? BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with article content. NPOV requires all significant views be included. nableezy - 01:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What I’m asking is for you - or any other editor - to demonstrate that this quote is a significant aspect. Do other reliable sources quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that specific quote, but Levy has been quoted by Al-Jazeera regarding this attack here. nableezy - 13:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And the connection between children in Majdal Shams and children in Gaza have been made by others[4][5][6][7].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, we'd need to balance this with why the images in question are DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I quite like the wording proposed in this diff. There are two issues with the implementation of the quote in the article, at current:

1. It belongs in the 'Reactions' section - the 'Aftermath' section is more about the actual actions that have been taken (by the IDF, Hezbollah, etc.) in the wake of the strike.
2. It places undue emphasis. Why would we have a quote from a reporter in a quote box, but not any quotes from Syrian or Israeli officials? Or any of the other nations' diplomats who have made statements?

PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk to your point, 'Reactions' and 'Analysis' are incredibly similar section titles. But the analysis section currently includes primarily technical analyses of the strike itself - how it happened, who did it, etc. (paragraph 1 - "evidence that a rocket from Lebanon hit the field"; paragraph 2 - "claims ranging from blaming Israeli anti-rocket interceptors to outright rejecting involvement. These actions are aimed at preventing further conflict"; paragraph 3 - analysis of Hezbollah's motive; paragraph 4 - "claims ranging from blaming Israeli anti-rocket interceptors to outright rejecting involvement. These actions are aimed at preventing further conflict...")

I think reactions to the strike, or analysis of Israel/Syria's reactions to the strike, belong in the reactions section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what gives the idea that the analysis section is strictly for technical aspects, and it isn't, it also goes into motivations, consequences, and other issues. The scope of that section is really just that, analysis of various aspects by journalists and experts. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The analysis section is before the reactions section, so the context for the quote isn't there. RAN1 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's just a logical way to lay out this article, whose main focus is the attack. Talk about the attack, go into details about the attack, discuss the immediate aftermath, and discuss further reactions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it just didn't read well in sequence. I'm thinking maybe the media reactions should be brought under the international/worldwide section. RAN1 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think keeping reactions from the media and from official national diplomats separate makes sense. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant something like this, is that all right? RAN1 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me 👍 PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

New and corrected forensic evidence and analysis

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

1. AP News has now released an analysis concluding that the blast site is consistent with the warhead size of the Falaq-1; this should be presented near where Middle East Eye says it's not... something along the lines of "An investigation by AP News stated that interviewed experts considered the fragmentation and impact patterns most consistent with a Falaq-1 warhead, with Richard Weir, weapons researcher for Human Rights Watch, stating 'The evidence that we can see from the ground ... is much more consistent with that of a rocket artillery of the type and size of the Falaq'. It is also important enough to be mentioned in lead. EDIT: Since posting this originally, the citation has been included in analysis in a half-sentence, but it needs a far fuller inclusion as along with CNN it's the first on-the-record analysis from recognized experts. EDIT 2: (I thought less disruptive to addend it here than make new edit request): WAPO now comes to same conclusion as AP and CNN using overlapping but not clear if identical experts (the article is different but writers are AP-affiliates); this should be cited together with AP in lead, attack, and analysis sections.

2. The line "The Israeli army posted pictures of Falaq-1 shrapnel that it said was found at the scene of the attack, but with no apparent pictures of the shrapnel in situ at the blast site." should be changed to "The Israeli army posted pictures of Falaq-1 shrapnel that it said was found at the scene of the attack. It is unclear if the pictures were taken in situ at the blast site." I have seen no other source claim the pictures weren't taken in situ, so it's unnecessary to copy the leading unsourced (no byline) wording of the source "no apparent" as opposed to "it is unclear", which properly conveys the uncertainty emphasized in the Middle East Eye article. If the wording is kept it should be quoted as a POV from Middle East Eye Staff.

3. The minister of foreign affairs in Canada has posted a statement that "Canada assesses that Hizbollah, an Iran-backed terrorist organization, is responsible for the rocket attack". This can go in the infobox and the country claims part. In this case, the tweet is a report of the government's own belief by a Foreign minister with no reason to doubt its authenticity, so it satisfies the 5 criteria at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves (note the source should not be used as a claim about the attack, for which it would be inappropriate, but rather a claim about the position of the Canadian government for which she is the representative and presents herself as such).

• Why it should be changed: 1 is claim from extremely RS sources relevant to article. 2 enforces neutral wording of Wikivoice statements. 3 is an update to a country's opinion based on a verifiable statement of their foreign minister.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): 1. https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/30/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained/a16fa900-4e38-11ef-9728-3037305a6b0f_story.html 2. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majdal-shams-claims-and-counterclaims-deadly-attack; 3. https://twitter.com/melaniejoly/status/1817761076311699899.

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Partly done:

1. I don't think you're portraying the article accurately, which mostly focuses on where the launch originated from. I don't see how "interviewed experts considered the fragmentation and impact patterns most consistent with a Falaq-1 warhead" is supported in the citation. There are a few relevant statements mentioned, the Israeli military Chief of Staff and the HRW (neither of which mention an impact pattern), also another weapons analyst who says "without independent verification of the munition’s remnants it is impossible to say who is to blame"
2. I have seen no other source claim the pictures weren't taken in situ - Your AP citation states: "The AP was unable to verify that the fragments were found on-site. No ordinance debris was visible when AP reporters visited the site on Monday" along with the analyst quote above
3. Added in the international response – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I am honestly unsure if I'm allowed to reply in this context via ECR but I think otherwise there's a substantial element of confusion because the AP article has changed since I posted which is causing incredible confusion here and I want to clarify I agree with you here. See at https://web.archive.org/web/20240730123817/https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4 includes the topic sentence "Experts say the fragmentation and impact patterns are consistent with a rocket attack," which I was just paraphrasing (I assume impact pattern is via Cobb quote). For whatever reason that seems to have been rewritten as "From satellite images, pictures and videos from the scene and analysis of previous launches, experts said the evidence fits with a rocket attack." The paraphrasing should thus change accordingly but still I think you agree is relevant (as did the editors who made this change in the hours following this request). And 2 I don't think I'm allowed to engage with more than to say that's why I advocated for neutral ambiguous wording similar to the AP source. Thank you! Scienceturtle1 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended protected request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): "Al-Mayadeen stated that the blast site..." should be "Middle East Eye writes that "Al-Mayadeen, a Lebanese media outlet with close ties to Hezbollah stated that the blast site..". Or similar wording that maintains the qualifications with which Middle East Eye cited Al-Mayadeen.
• Why it should be changed: This is the way that the cited Middle East Eye article refers to Al-Mayadeen. The exact wording of Middle East Eye is "Al-Mayadeen, a Lebanese media outlet with close ties to Hezbollah, published an article saying the blast site in Majdal Shams was not consistent with the kind expected after the impact of a Falaq-1 rocket, which it said would have made a larger crater." Wikipedia should not launder the claim without qualificaiton. Claims from Al-Mayadeen are usually EXCLUDED as reliable sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - and have no place on Wikipedia, but in this case it's acceptable only as a POV cited in Middle East Eye. But given that readers don't know what Al-Mayadeen is, it is inappropriate to attribute their POV from Middle East Eye without including the description of Al-Mayadeen from Middle East Eye. When an RS includes a caveat when quoting a source that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, it inaccurately reflects the cited article to remove this caveat. It certainly is not well-poisoning to include a qualification when Wikipedia's own guidance recommends against using this source and Middle East Eye includes the same qualification.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majdal-shams-claims-and-counterclaims-deadly-attack

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor appears has performed this edit if someone wants to mark this as answered to clean up the Talk. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

References

The preperators of the attack

The attempt to create an objective impression regarding the claimed uncertainity as for identity of the attack's preperator - is very misleading, and has the potential to raise conspirative speculations about israel allegedly attacking its own civilians in order to have an excuse for its "aggression" towards hezbollah. The conclusions which inevitably arise relying on this impression, are not objective, (the very claim of an uncertainity regarding the preperator's side is unobjective, as it fuels the unbased claim of israel committing a war crime against its own civilians in order to have an excuse for starting a war) ans let alone, factually based; No visual evidence backs the claim of hezbollah, and considering the evident presence of bias in emphasizing unbased claims of an organization charactrized in significant ideological extremism, on top of the very misleading impression stemming from the whole description consequently - in my opinion, the claim of hezbollah, that israel is resonsible for the attack - should be removed from the article. טוראי פייל (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Comment struck per WP:ARBECR RAN1 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah is one of the involved parties and whether you believe them or not, their view is very notable and must be mentioned, it is also presented as a Hezbollah and Syria view, according to the sources. Regarding "raise conspirative speculations about israel allegedly attacking its own civilians", the killed are not Israeli civilians as not one of them had Israeli citizenship. There is also a large amount of official Syrian sources that blame Israel for the attack, which I am going to ad soon. Since the attack happened within Syrias borders, Syrias view is very notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Syrias view is very notable That has to be established with reference to reliable and independent sources. From what I’ve seen, reliable sources are mostly ignoring Syria’s position, meaning that giving it any coverage beyond a brief mention is "Reactions" would be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of RS give coverage to the Syrian view[8][9][10][11][12] etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a new article, so keep in mind there's no WP:DEADLINE for getting everything "right." For now, we should be concerned with what is verifiable. We should follow RS' lead regarding assigning responsibility for the attack, and much at this time is uncertain.

From what I've read, there's a pretty clear demarcation already between Western opinions and Middle Eastern opinions - with most Western nations believing a Hezbollah rocket is responsible. As the story evolves, we should strive to include all international viewpoints relative to their WP:DUE weight. From a brief read of this article, it's doing an alright job of that already. It seems things are shifting more toward majority acceptance of the western view, which we may see with RS sources as time goes on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Most western nation have not expressed their opinion of who is behind the attack, only a few pro-Israel nations. All western media have mentioned the Hezbollah position. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I was speaking of general sentiment in the West. We've got the United States and Canada attributing the attack to Hezbollah, and The BBC remarking on the "unconvincing" nature of Hezbollah's counter-claims.

And RS "mentioning" a certain claim or position really only gets us as far as establishing notability for inclusion. Weighing how the RS treat the claim is how we'll figure out what's DUE in this article going forward. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

its presented as a Hezbollah pov in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Important to note that US and other Western sources have allowed for the possibility that a Hezbollah rocket may have simply overshot a military target[13]. That's not the same as Israel accusing Hezbollah of "massacre".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but collateral damage from a military strike still falls at the feet of those who launched the attack. Just look around the world for reactions to Israel's actions in Gaza. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

AP analysis

@RAN1: Can you explain this edit? Your edit downplays the underlying AP position, which is that a Hezbollah missile, likely by accident, hit the field. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The exact quote is, "[Chris Cobb-Smith] said that without independent verification of the munition’s remnants it is impossible to say who is to blame." RAN1 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It also prominently said:

Weapons experts told The Associated Press that evidence points to a rocket from Lebanon hitting the field. But they raised the possibility that the hit on civilians was an accident.

Why did you remove this aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Weir says the attack was much more consistent with Falaq-like rocket artillery, and Cobb-Smith says the rocket came from the north but has unknown responsibility. That seems to contradict the AP's claim that they say the evidence points to Lebanon. RAN1 (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how it contradicts the claim, but it’s not our place to assess that - it is WP:OR. If a source says something we can’t use the source to make a different claim. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with attributing that to the AP's consultations, so I restored it as such. RAN1 (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Permanent residents but not citizens

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Change "None of those killed were Israeli citizens" to "Those killed were Israeli permanent residents but did not hold citizenship." in the lead.

• Why it should be changed: As written it is confusing why many Israeli Druze were so upset by Israel not preventing the attack, as detailed elsewhere in the article already. This edit maintains the important point that the victims did not hold Israeli citizenship, but should be a consensus edit that clarifies their position vis-a-vis Israel. For example, given they were born while the area was administered by Israel, and offered full rights, if this were an American territory, the best analogy would be the term "American nationals." However, "nationals" is an ambiguous/controversial/legal term (and not quite the same here because citizenship was offered), with permanent resident giving a more direct and uncontroversially accurate characterization of their status. Contextualizing why this is globally and controversially seen as an attack on Israeli civilians is important. And again, this edit would not remove any of the present information in the lead, just add an important deal to clarifying their status. Any similar wording is fine but it should be consensus that the LEGAL STATUS of the victims is worthy of being in the lead

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/when-war-came-to-a-soccer-field-there-was-no-time-to-flee-c2b82549 (supporting "permanent resident" classifier).

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: this is something that would require consensus, and given that you're mot allowed to participate in the consensus building process, I suggest you leave it until you become extended confirmed. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• This makes it seem like they came from elsewhere, when they are in fact the natives. That they're "permanent residents" should go without saying. Just make it clear from the get go that they're natives on occupied land, and avoid the mental gymnastics. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

why does it say that the Falq 1 is advanced? it is a simple artillery rocket - a big one, yes, but no advanced features — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston UnCommon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Uncited claim of UNIFIL attribution

At the time of writing, the page says "UNIFIL, Israel and the United States said Hezbollah carried out the attack." however the cited source (Reuters) does not mention UNIFIL, and UNIFIL has since explicitly stated that they do not attribute the attack to any party in particular. Hope to see this corrected by someone with the appropriate permissions. Thanks! --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this claim is cited to the current ref 30 " @SkyNewsArabia_B (2 August 2024). "Our sources: A UNIFIL investigation says that Hezbollah is responsible for launching the missile that caused the Majdal Shams incident" (Tweet) – via Twitter." Seems dubious, especially since it's just a tweet, so if others agree it's inadequate, I'll remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Syrian citizenship

@BilledMammal: They are Syrian citizens. [14] [15] Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I might have missed it, but I’m not seeing anything in those articles saying that these children were?

If they aren’t Israeli citizens they probably are, but we don’t know that none are Israeli citizens, and even if we did without reliable sources saying they are Syrian it would be WP:SYNTH for us to assume they are. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: We actually do CNN: "none of the 12 children killed had Israeli citizenship.". Also more explicitly, LA Times "killed a dozen Syrian children and young adults in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You missed a key part of that quote; The Regional Council of Majdal Shams said Sunday that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The LA Times makes it clear that they were Syrians. M.Bitton (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Very few sources mention their citizenship, and the vast majority of those that do merely say, attributed, that the regional council said they didn’t. LA Times is an exception to that, and it would be undue to give them excessive emphasis. We’re already likely violating UNDUE by mentioning the regional council’s claims in the lede, and I’m tempted to remove it.

The LA Times source - which wasn’t in the article when you made the edit - would address the SYNTH issue, but not the UNDUE issue. BilledMammal (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources either mention that they were Syrians or not Israelis and nobody is disputing that. Also, there is more to being Syrian than citizenship. M.Bitton (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the sources tend to not mention anything - showing their citizenship is a minor aspect, not DUE for the lede - and when they do mention they almost always attribute.

Further, why does their citizenship matter? Do their lives matter less than Israeli citizens, or Israel have less of a responsibility to defend them and respond to their deaths? BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Do their lives matter less than Israeli citizens only the government of Israel can answer that, but the fact that they are not Israeli citizens matters a lot to them and to their community. M.Bitton (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding a gigantic sentence "According to the Regional Council of Majdal Shams none of those killed were Israeli citizens." to the opening paragraph was due but not the word "Syrian"? Sorry, no one is going to take this argument seriously. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Three sources state that they are Syrian citizens, one that the very settler governing council of the area notes that they lack Israeli citizenship. That alone is enough to register the fact in the lead. The fact that they were not Israeli children is very important, for Israel responded to the incident by a succession of strikes and assassinations in part referring back to Hezbollah's missile strike not only on the Golan Heights (Syria but occupied) but on children, We even had an article from Israel Hayom, "Outrage in the Arab World following Majdal Shams massacre: Hezbollah enjoys killing children. Israel Hayom, 28 July 2024, and that with 9-15,000 children killed from Israeli strikes in the Gaza Strip . . . No one seems to have found that pathetic source or its screaming title problematic. Precisely because of the very widespread assertion that this strike affected 'Israel' and 'its citizens' from day 1 onwards, clarity over this in the lead is crucial. It doesn't further need attribution (Regional Council of Majdal Shams), because that is authoritative being an official israeli administrative body that has all of the relevant documentation, and the point was independently corroborated by two other mainstream sources. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Which three?

And the vast majority of sources decline to mention the claim, whether attributed or in their own voice - given that, why is it WP:DUE for the lede? BilledMammal (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding a gigantic sentence "According to the Regional Council of Majdal Shams none of those killed were Israeli citizens." to the opening paragraph was due

That’s what I’m saying, I don’t think it was. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

'Which three?' Read my edit.

'the vast majority of sources decline to mention the claim.' We use multiple sources because no one source covers all bases. Even were your claim true (which i doubt), an argument from (relative) silence gets us nowhere for this reason (and would have no policy grounds). The recent ICJ ruling was ignored, or downplayed by numerous mainstream media, including the NYTs. Not for that reason has anyone editing ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories studiously ignored what other or some RS report.

We also have a secondary source which reads:

Across international mainstream media, the people of Majdal Shams have been referred to as everything from “Druze Arabs,” to “Druze Israelis,” and their town has been referenced both by the media and by Israeli politicians as just another “Israeli” town. Similar to Netanyahu’s reference to “our children,” these titles and designations obscure the national identity of the Druze people who live in the occupied Golan Heights and their political reality. Saturday’s killing of the 12 Syrian children in the Golan.’ Qassam Muaddi, Who are the Syrian Druze of Majdal Shams? Mondoweiss 30 July 2024.

This shows that many media struggled to give a precise or accurate description of the nationality of the victims which was however known. It shows that those media even distorted their Syrian identity (following a political POV i.e., 'our children') to the point of suggesting, falsely, that they were, in various guises, 'Israelis'.

Precisely because (a)some sources suggest falsely that they were Israeli while (b) other sources suppress their known identity, we can identify a POV in the omissions or errors. We have a fact, attested amply, and it clarifies a widespread confusion. That is why it goes into the lead.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The only source your comment mentions doesn’t say they are Syrian. Your new comment now mentions Mondoweiss, but that isn’t a generally reliable source.

We use multiple sources because no one source covers all bases.

Yes, and it may be due for the body - although at the moment I think all that is due is the attributed claim that they are not Israeli - but if very few sources on a topic mentions something then it is clearly WP:UNDUE to include that in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The only source your comment mentions doesn’t say they are Syrian'BM

Israel conducted an airstrike Tuesday, targeting what it said was the senior Hezbollah commander responsible for a rocket attack over the weekend that killed a dozen Syrian children and young adults in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. (Los Angeles Times)

(a) A very reliable local Israeli source states that they were not Israeli citizens (b) the Los Angeles Times states that they were Syrian children (b) Mondoweiss, a legitimate source that provides a pro-Palestinian perspective, (as the Jerusalem Post, Ynet, The Times of Israel and Haaretz provide an Israeli perspective, and (therefore) understandably don't mention their specific identity as Syrians) likewise states that they were Syrian children. (a) and (b) are saying the same thing, in positive and negative terms, as we all know. If they are Syrian Druze in an annexed territory who have refused Israeli citizenship, they remain Syrian in international and Syrian law.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Argufying therefore as has been done above is pointless. You have stated your view, no point repeating it, esp. if as, in the last comment, these counter-arguments fly in the face of the evidence given from RS.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You said three sources. Even counting the not generally reliable mondoweiss - which you mentioned after saying there were three - that’s only two. What’s the third? BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is comical. Stating that a fact is a POV.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Including it in the lede, when we only have two sub-par sources saying it, is a POV issue - we’re giving it excessive weight.

And, given we only have sub-par sources saying it, I’m not convinced it’s accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice, well, comical, to see the Los Angeles Times called a sub-par source. Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We’ve identified it has factual issues in this context, meaning that in this context it is sub-par.

However, you’re missing the point, which is that given almost all sources exclude this claim, it’s undue to include in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't see this excellent neutral source being used in assessing various claims

Julia Frankel, Sarah El Deeb, A cratered field, a mangled fence. Clues emerge from strike that killed 12 children in Golan Heights Los Angeles Times 30 July 2024. Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That source makes some factual errors - for example, it appears they took the figure for the entire Golan Heights when they said only 20% of residents in Majdal Shams, part of the Golan Heights annexed by Israel in 1981, have accepted Israeli citizenship, when the figure of Majdal Shams is 25%.

Given that, I’m less inclined to trust the LA Times for their assessment of citizenship in general in the area (related to the above discussion), but I’m also not seeing anything major in that article that is not included in our current article? BilledMammal (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

LA Times is a RS per WP. Even the Times of Israel says they identify as Syrian citizens. Drop the stick and allow us to focus on better things. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Which made a factual error, demonstrating that while it may be generally reliable it isn’t reliable on the question of the citizenship of the Druze population of the Golan Heights.

Can you link the ToI article? As far as I can tell, none has been provided which says these children were Syrian. BilledMammal (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the town’s Syrian Druze community" [16]

Legally, the town is in Syria, so it's perfectly legitimate to describe its residents as Syrians. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)