[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiamut (talk | contribs) at 13:06, 26 January 2009 (→ISM casualty photos are self-evident: r to Skapperod). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral


References

child casualty and total death toll

child casulties have been estimated to 159 according to cnn.com

[1] 

quote from cnn.com

"Among the dead were 159 children, two of whom died in an UNRWA school that was shelled Saturday, Ging said."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

old. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy/respect of the dead

I think the article should not show the faces of dead people, on either sides. This is for maintaining the privacy/respect of those individuals who were killed. Loss of human lives is unfotunate, but displaying a dead girl's face, from either sides, is not an ethical thing to do here. John Hyams (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugghh, you cannot seriously say that we should, in effect, cover up the loss of life that this conflict has caused and say we should do it in the name of ethics. Nableezy (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can he not say such a thing? It is a reasonable viewpoint to respect the privacy of the dead (who cannot give consent to being photographed). I think that the picture of the dead girl is acceptable, but I do not think JHs viewpoint is unreasonable, even though I mildly disagree. V. Joe (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to oppose it on ethical grounds. Morals vary from culture to culture, and religion to religion, but ethics in this case means standards of professional conduct. As we are 'editors of an encyclopedia' our ethics should be based on that mission. It cannot be seen as unethical to display these pictures in an encyclopedia. You might think it is immoral, but that also cannot be a valid argument for inclusion or exclusion of material. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that, as far as valid goes, but it is by no means unreasonable. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy means 'the sphere of life opposed to public life'. One withdraws from public life to enjoy one's life in private. The dead have no privacy in this sense, since they have no life, having had their lives, public and private, denied them. The dead only 'exist' in commemoration, which is, as often as not, public. Were the dead to have natural private rights, the genre of biography would die on its feet, or its practitioners languish in gaol for many a violation of the deceased's ostensible right not to have his private life written.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the point behind displaying images of dead people of any side and in any time. the graveness of destruction can be adressed in numbers, and if doing so through photographs is necessary, images of destroyed houses, hospitals, mosques, bridges, police stations, and so on with the list as further as not to show the images of the dead, and specially the faces. The human being should be respected dead and alive as well, and as dead people cannot tell whether they agree that people see their dead bodies -noting that "people" here means those who live the other way across the globe where they never met before, or virtually any and every one- or not, specially, when that means showing their burned up, sliced, and deformed bodies, and the favorite media coverage of showing the suffering expression on the faces of the dead. Maybe Islam is the only religion that prohibits viewing any part of the body of a dead believer; i do not know, but i really believe that at least the extreme vast majority of cultural view points no matter how different they are, agree on that seeing dead people is not some thing necessary, and should be avoided. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i would argue that we are showing respect for human life by showing the catastrophic loss of life of war - which by its nature holds human life at a lower value than the goals of a conflict.Untwirl (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By stating the catastrophic loss of human life, we show the truth. We might have different view points, by we all agree on telling the truth. This is History, we cannot change history, but we can tell what happened, and hope it wont happen again -and doing any thing we can to avoid it's painfull facts being repeated-.
I also think that the nature of wars is that two armies, or two military forces of any kind fighting each other, not one military power killing civilians, and demolishing cities. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'The human being should be respected dead and alive talk. I commend the ssentiment sir, but the photo is of someone who wasn't sufficiently respected to be allowed to remain alive. The pics have been picked clean to make us read in perfect comfort. If people preferred print, they would not watch the boobtube, which shows such things in any case. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have been to multiple Islamic funerals where the face was not covered. I cannot find anything in Islam that says viewing any part of a dead person is prohibited. Also, whether or not Islam bans this is irrelevant, that cannot be used as an argument, as per WP:CENSOR. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define the term "Islamic funerals". do you mean those made by Hamas after their fire they useless toy rockets on no man's land giving the Israelis an excuse to kill civilians, and further western puplic support? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean funeral services carried out for Muslims in a mosque (Janazah, or you might say Ganazah) and then a burial according to Islamic law. That you blame Hamas for all this doesn't really concern me, in fact it hurts less than a mosquito bite, but your assertion that it is against Islamic law to show any part of a dead body is both factually wrong, as well as completely irrelevant to this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually i did not intend to hurt you, so sorry it hurts less than a mosquito bite would. This is not the place to discuss the the Islamic law, neither where it would come to an effect. Any way, see p.349, part one, "فقه السنة". I am a Muslim living in a Muslim society, and apart from those Hamas and Hamas-like funerals on TV, i never saw the body of a dead person in a funeral. So let's now forget the religious view point, and continue the discussion.One last pharaoh (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's "Ganaza" in Masry, not "Ganazah". One last pharaoh (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok ok you both know alot about islam.:>) i dont, but luckily wiki doesn't follow islamic law so we dont have to worry about that!  ;>) regardless, i think we can come to a consensus that dead people are shown on wiki and this section is irrelevant to the article, huh? 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Untwirl (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an ancient Egyptian funeral either, there is no complete wrapping of the face like mummies, at least not to my knowledge. Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, this was a girl at a hospital not a "Hamas funeral" as you cynically put it. Every Arab news station displays the casualties of war, I haven't heard of any outcry against it by Muslim scholars. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like if every thing Arab new agencies do is right according to Islamic law. any way let's forget about that, it does not have any effect. actually the image showing the girl's face was in a hospital like you said, and it is very clear that that was not what i was talking about. For those who wondered what did you mean by Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, I suppose you meant Mr. I am of the people of the Pharaoh which BTW should have been written as Mr.Ana men ahlell-Phar'oon; And yes, i am proudly one of the people of the pharaohs, the people of the black land. Let's not get to which is better Arabs, or Egyptians, because this is not the place for it. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can we "come to a consensus that dead people are shown on wiki and this section is irrelevant to the article"? Untwirl (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument based on the religious or cultural misgivings of displaying such images should be summarily dismissed. Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an opinion. I still think that images that are very violent, or very "non respectful" for the dead be excluded.One last pharaoh (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasnt directed specifically at you. And you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion. But even if I shared your religious or cultural misgivings on the display on these images, I might not advocate their display but I certainly would not advocate their removal, because my beliefs should not influence anothers actions. Just my personal thinking. Nableezy (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole section has been on people's opinions. Therefore I find discussing whether or not we should remove the pictures of the dead to be irrelevant on the basis of being "disrespectful". Wikipedia does not censor, see My Lai Massacre and Sabra and Shatila massacre. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this discussion isn't going to achieve anything because Wiki doesn't censor. It's not a negotiation. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should not start removing images from wikipedia solely on the basis that they might offend the sensabilities of some readers. That is the essence (practically the definition) of censorship. Wikipedia does not censor.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I agree with eds lastpharoah and John Hyams ... not to mention the families of the dead who have presumably not given permission for them to be used in this venue. A further point in relation to these dead children is the weight of the pictures on the page. As I wrote elsewhere on this page , we now have, with the exception of a (non-emotive pic) of rockets coming into Israel from Gaza , all the pictures refer to destroyed Gazan orphanages, dead and wounded Gazan children, bombed out Gazan buildings etc, bombs over Gaza, accusations of use of illegal weapons against Israel, etc. Some of these pictures are of dubious parentage (ISM) but the collection of them makes for a serious unbalance in the article. The article is better balanced with zero pictures of dead people or children, and we do not run the risk of appearing to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia. All of these pictures make for UNDUE WEIGHT on only one perspective in this "conflict." The other side should put up pictures of Hamas suicide bombings in order to show both perspectives equally. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may not WP:CENSOR but obviously and hopefully, it does discriminate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep expecting that the damage shown be equal, that is not reality. The damage is not balanced, to try to show that it is would be UNDUE WEIGHT. And these images are in the public domain, there is no issue of permission. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? If there is undue weight it is having two pictures of rockets going to Isreal. Undue means we show what happened not give an equal number of pictures to both sides. What happened was Isreal dropped thousands of bombs and missiles and killed 1300+ people while leveling hundreds of buildings, hamas launched tens of rockets killing under 10 people and a few squaddis. The pictures in this article do not show the true amount of devistation or civilian toll, more need to be added, i think there is a need for a gallery of ALL pictures relating to this conflict on this page. (Hypnosadist) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite serious. This war didn't happen in a vacuum. There were years of Hamas suicide bombings, kidnappings and murders, followed by years of rockets, after Israel left Gaza. You don't go around bombing your neighbor and expect them to sit quietly and do nothing. Then when your neighbor finally gets good and sick of it and retaliates, you claim everyone there was civilian and no one was really doing anything. Good luck! btw, what is a "squaddi"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tundrabuggy.YTou have a serious problem with chronology as well as geography (Samaria is Israel). years of suicide bombings by Hamas did not follow Israel's withdrawal from, and blockade of, Gaza. Israel barred all gazans from entry after the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
squaddi is an infantry soldier in british military slang. (Hypnosadist) 06:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly presents itself as part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We don't have to present the entire conflict on this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you citing WP:Controversial articles ? There's no controversy. Lot's of people died/were injured and buildings were destroyed. We need to show that. Where's the controversy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ha. We have 20-some odd pages of archived talk for something that happened less than a month ago and you claim there is no controversy? There is a war going on and we can't decide what to call it. Pages have been written over whether it is called the Gaza Massacre or a massacre in Gaza. We can't even decide if it started or intensified on the 19th or the 27th. If it's a conflict, if it's a war or what? And you don't think the article is controversial?!? You're joking, right? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think what sean was saying is that there is no controversy over how many people were killed on each side. and it is the proportional weight of these figures that should determine the 'ratio' of photos/text regarding each. Untwirl (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Untwirl. (Hypnosadist) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And Gaza Massacre is only a 'controversy' because you cannot accept that people have used it as a name for the conflict, you keep on insisting that it is an accusation that needs some response. We report it as a name of the conflict, now if you refuse to accept reason then you can persist in calling this a controversy. Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Untwirl corrected interpreted my meaning and in future I would like to subcontract all of my edits to Untwirl to save time....well, my time anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the guidelines at WP:CONTROVERSY doesn't really say anything anyway. Just remember to dot your i's and cross your t's. The more important thing is what they decided at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Apparently we are supposed to act in a "dignified fashion" among other things. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was here where it is said, among other things: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. --my bolds. Fair and accurate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to what some are saying above, we could show, for example, faces of dead people from the September 11th attack. That would be OK by them. I say: No, we should not. John Hyams (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most haunting images, at least to me, of that event are displayed, specifically the three frames of the plane flying in to the building. Wikipedia shows dead faces all over the place. Nableezy (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, with respect "No, we should not" contains no information about how you arrived at that conclusion and you haven't referred to any Wiki guidelines (By the way I found myself imagining you at the back of an Obama rally shouting that everytime he said "Yes, we can" for my own amusement). I can guess what you mean and why you would draw a parallel i.e. dignity issues, try to transpose the issue to a more familiar context etc but I'm just guessing. Maybe it is useful to discuss this in a context more familiar to some editors. I think we could show the faces of dead people from 9/11 and that would be OK and consistent with Wiki guidelines but I would see little benefit to a 9/11 article in doing that because such images are decontextualized i.e. they contain practically no information about the event. I would argue that the same goes for certain images from Gaza but something is a infinitely better than nothing. When I try to look at the images in the 9/11 Wiki article from the imaginary perspective of a person who knows nothing about the event I think the images don't really provide a very good description of the horrific nature of the event. The whole article (and I have to say the whole US media nowadays) appears to suffer from some form of self-censorship. For example, the iconic images for me are the ones of people who decided to jump rather than burn. Those kind of images show you the context, they aren't sanitised, they show the human element, they don't pull any punchs and viewers are better placed to imagine the true nature of the event and it's consequences for people in the building. In the same sense I would consider images of burned and mangled bodies of people who died in 9/11 as entirely appropriate for that article. Those kind of images are required in the 9/11 article and they're required in this article at least for me but only if they enable the reader to gain a better understanding of the event. The risk of censorship based on 'Yuck it's horrible' or 'I don't want to see that' creeping into Wikipedia is something that I think everyone needs to take very seriously indeed because pretty much every single culture, demographic/religious etc group has something they don't like to look at so Wiki's ability to educate is attacked from all sides. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, then I may need to raise this issue on the talk page one of the guideline pages. I may do so, or perhaps just upload the faces of dead Israelis instead, who suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years, or faces of dead individuals from Sudan, in the relevant articles. If any other editor will object that, I will refer him to what you have said. Anyway, just a question, are there faces of dead individuals on the online Britannica encyclopedia? John Hyams (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to upload graphic photos that show the objective reality of suicide attacks on Israelis to the appropriate articles or pictures of that nature from any other part of the world you are free to do so and I would fully support you if they improve the articles and comply with guidelines. As I say, faces by themselves or indeed decontextualized information of any nature doesn't help much in my view. Regarding "suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years", they are countable not countless and in Wiki we count them along with the statistics for the deaths of Lebanese, Palestinian and other people resulting from Israeli actions so that readers can find the information and draw their own conclusions based on reliably sourced information. As for Britannica, it's not relevant to Wiki but I doubt that they have the same content disclaimer and WP:NOTCENSORED rules as here but yes, I think you probably can see the faces of dead individuals and those about to die in their Library of Congress photos for example in the Holocaust article and elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so with your permission, I will add a photo of a dead Muslim girl to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency
I hope you will not mind. Thanks John Hyams (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, well you don't need anyone's permission to edit Wiki. You already signed your contract when you signed up. If you can get hold of good images describing what is happening in the civil war in the south I would absolutely support you 100% because everything going on down there is totally censored in Thailand along with many other issues. Consequently, no one really has a clue what is happening (apart from that lot's of people are dying) and the major news networks don't have people on the ground in the 3 provinces in the south. It's a perfect example of the potential of Wiki to provide information unavailable elsewhere because, for the time being at least, Wiki isn't one of the tens of thousands of web sites blocked in Thailand for political reasons by unelected government censors trained in China. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read WP:POINT but I dont really care if you do add one to that article. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
Of course you (Nableezy) don't care, because you have a pro-Muslim agenda as many Muslim editors who have joined Wikipedia just to state/promote a political agenda (with reference to your user page).
My point is this: I could not find other articles in Wikipedia where faces of dead individuals are presented. Could you show me other conflict-related articles that present the faces of dead people? This Anti-Israel campaign on Wikipedia is a façade. Such pictures are presented in order to "show" how "heartless" is Israel, when Israel never shows the faces of its own deads on TV, never during all the suicide bombings attacks, Israel has never released such pictures because of ethics. Israel never intentionally targets civilians, no other army in the world makes so much effort to avoid that (if yes, please state the army name). While Hamas intentionally targets civilians and uses civilians as human shields (firing rockets from schools, mosques and press buildings), and encourages civilian losses for its own propaganda. Israel was defending itself, nothing more, like any other sane nation in the world, and I have not seen such dead faces, for example, in the articles about the Mulim attacks in Bali, Besslan (the children in Russia), suicide bombings in Israel (if you didn't know why the West Bank wall was build - per your user page), the Falkland Islands war (Britain vs. Argentina), the Iran-Iraq war, and so on. Wikipedia is being used here intentionally to discredit Israel. This has to stop. John Hyams (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 'pro-Muslim' agenda? I think I have a pro-human agenda, and my user page makes no mention of my Muslim beliefs except for a tiny userbox, which is hidden, that states 'This user is a Muslim'. And if you want faces of dead people, here you go: My Lai Massacre, The Holocaust, Vietnam War, Korean War, or World War II to name a few off the top of my head. Your last edit clearly shows your 'pro-Israeli' agenda. What has to stop is people trying to stop the truth from getting out in the name of some misguided nationalism. You do not see me trying to edit out any mention of Egyptian human rights abuses, or try to hide that Muslims have done some terrible things. You do not see my trying to remove the images of Muhammad, as surely I would have had I been operating with a 'pro-Muslim' agenda. My religious beliefs are not your concern, you cannot point to a single edit where I have done something in the name of Islam. And I know why the wall was built, but I also know that parts of its construction have been deemed illegal by the International Court for Justice, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. You really need to open a book before attacking somebody that disagrees with you. And in this very thread I have repeatedly stated that religious feelings, namely Muslim religious feelings coming from an Egyptian Muslim, should not impact the contents of this encyclopedia. So I kindly ask that you not reference my religious beliefs again. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, Israel has ethics (not showing dead faces), Hamas has none (as I wrote above, and you did not provide an answer to that). There is a great difference between the Holocaust and this conflict. The Holocaust is a a crime against humanity in which people were being murdered systematically in a factory-like mechanism (gas chambers + ovens). This conflict, however, is just like any other armed conflict in the world. If there are any criminals here, its the Hamas fascist group. If you are trying (I hope not) to compare between the Gaza conflict and the Holocaust, then I would say you are poorly sighted. In none of the links you have given there's a close-up photo. In the Holocaust photo, there is a pile of corpses, none of these persons are identifiable. This girl is. John Hyams (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, take a look at this regarding IDF ethics in using 'human shields', including the continued use after the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the practice illegal. My Lai has a few close ups, so does WW2 article. Your whole argument has been that Israel should not be allowed to be displayed in a bad light. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that sentiment can not be allowed to stand in an 'encyclopedia'. Your personal feelings on the morals of Hamas are irrelevant to this conversation, that you do not like Hamas is not reason enough for us not to display any images of Palestinians who have been killed in this conflict. A huge percentage of the casualties have been children, that is a fact that should be illustrated. Hamas is widely considered a terrorist group, but it is also widely considered a resistance group. They run hospitals, schools, and orphanages, as well as many other civil programs. They are also the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. That they treat Israel as their enemy is logical, as Israel treats Hamas as its enemy. This isn't propgaganda, this is an accurate portrayal of the events that occurred and the damage these events have caused. You keep objecting because you do not want to see anything that could possible portray Israel in a bad light. I am sorry, but that simply is not an acceptable argument. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, Israel has a supreme court, Hamas has none. Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a fascist regime. You are only strengthening my point: the court has ruled (in that case) that IDF did not - in that case - behave as it should, according to Israel's laws. So Israel's laws dictate how the IDF should behave. Hamas, on the other hand, intentionally targets civilians.
CHILDREN? You again avoided the fact that HAMAS ABUSES children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8), putting explosives on children and using them as SHIELDS in their fight against IDF. Hamas are killing THEIR OWN civilians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1M4eH9Kk7I&eurl), and is USING CIVILIAN BUILDINGS in order to encourage casualties, firing ROCKETS FROM MOSQUES and schools.
Democratically elected?? Hamas took Gaza by FORCE. They killed/butchered all Fatah members, including their families. You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with.
But all that is irrelevant to this specific discussion. This girl is identifiable, and that is not a practice in Wikipedia, this is my argument, and it is very acceptable. Israel does not put faces of SUICIDE BOMBING attacks, so you should refrain from doing so as well. John Hyams (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is completely uncalled for and absolutely not allowed anywhere on WP and most especially here. I don't think Nableezy has anything to be ashamed of in his conduct but even if he was behaving poorly you have no right to say things like that to another editor. I'm not going to bother throwing up links to the relevant policies because I'm pretty sure you know how wrong that outburst was.
As strongly as I can say this as a simple editor I think you should at least take a few days away from this article. Besides the general expectation of good behaviour, we are operating under the restrictions of this arbitration. I strongly suggest that you read the remedies there. And I think that you owe Nableezy an apology as well. If I was Nableezy, I'd be leaving a message for an admin right now. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JGGardiner, do not patronize on me and do not try to educate me. I stand behind all I've ever written on Wikipedia and I have low tolerance for those who endorse Hamas or any other fascist or Nazi group. I strongly suggest that you speak to the point regarding this specific discussion and don't assume the part of other people who obviously have a pro-Hamas agenda. John Hyams (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe you should be banned from editing Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Never have I heard a user (no matter how much POV he showed) accuse someone of being a "Hamas operative". You are way out of line and it seems all you want do is bash Hamas. Obviously you don't know what NPOV - a key of Wikipedia - is. We all have strong emotions but we keep them out of articles and talk pages of article. You could present your POV on your user page. I have generally stayed out of this article, but I couldn't just stand idly by while you accuse an editor of being an operative of a militant group. Shame on you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son, you yourself should be banned. On your user page you endorse a dictator (Nasser of Egypt) who said once that Israel should be burned to the ground and that all Jews should be thrown to the sea. Shame on YOU!! This is becoming a joint Arab venture I see, and don't think for a moment that the administrators are that stupid (and they're not, thank God). John Hyams (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on me for "supporting a dictator"? This is grounds for being banned while accusing other editors of being operatives of Hamas is not? My POV does not breach my user page (occasionally I engage other editors in a brotherly matter, but there's no harm in that). I haven't allowed my pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian view violate the NPOV of articles as well as their talk pages. You have no right to bash me for supporting Nasser (you know nothing of him except that he was a dictator, and since you are probably not Arab you will have little sympathy for his cause of Arab unity). This is besides the point, my POV is on my user page and I don't accuse anyone of being an "operative", spy, whatever, of any organization, nor do I bash anyone and anything out of respect for other people's views no matter how much I could diasgree with them. I learned in my first month on Wikipedia, that doesn't get you anywhere, since at the end of the day, Wikipedia will always follow NPOV. You should learn this also. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, there John Hyams (talk). Your comments here are unacceptable: "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." constitutes a personal attack and implied threat toward an editor. RomaC (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "this has to be dealt with" I meant by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. Who were already summoned by the way. John Hyams (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John. you need to calm down and set your own views on these matters to one side if you want to contribute to Wiki on subjects where you have a strong POV. Wiki is "just" an encyclopedia. Your job here is to help present a reliably sourced, verifiable description of objective reality in order to educate. In theory it's as simple as that. That description absolutely cannot be skewed by your or anyone else's partisan political, moral or religious views. Can you do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can, but the Arab/pro-Arab editors here clearly can't. An encyclopedia in an important thing in our days. It's not "just" an encyclopedia, it's *the* encyclopedia in the 21st century. John Hyams (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that why I just the quotation marks. Okay, the key thing is that complaining by itself won't achieve anything and complaining about editors rather than the article is counterproductive amongst other things. Attacking editors will get you banned for a while. You need to support a complaint with evidence, bring it to the talk page, demonstrate that there's an inconsistency between information in the article and reliable sources or Wiki guidelines, argue your case in a reasoned way. Pretty much every editor here has complained that parts of this article are pro-this or anti-that at some point. It's bound to happen but despite that, the article is by and large well sourced and evolving through consensus. Editors here are quite polarised but if you actually look at the information in the article, look at the edits made by people you think are not following the rules (and make sure you understand WP:UNDUE) I think it would be quite difficult to support the view that it's "anti-Israeli" or taking sides in a conflict. The images seem to be problematic for many people for reasons that I don't fully understand. Showing what has happened to people and infrastructure in Gaza isn't anti-Israeli or Wiki taking sides in a conflict any more than showing what happened at Abu Ghraib is anti-American or Wiki recruiting for Jihadi groups. It's just showing what happened like we're supposed to. Personally I don't understand why these things are becoming such a big deal given that the rules in Wiki are pretty clear about due weight, NPOV, no censorship, reliable sources, assume good faith and so forth. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is awesome. I really wanted to get on the JIDF list, you think you can make that happen? And I support Nasser too, would you like to raise that to the administrators?. Nasser, ya huriya, Nasser, ya watania, Nasser, ya ruh el um el arabiyya, ya NAAAAASSER! Great singers never die Nableezy (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since you did just accuse me of violating US federal law, I kinda have to say this. FBI, if you are watching (i know the if isnt necessary but anyway) I am not, nor have I ever been, a Hamas operative. I have never provided material support to a terrorist group. Thanks for the understanding FBI. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..on the other hand you have helped pay for all this through a variety of taxes so if anything John should be thanking you. I'm just saying. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dog, you dont have to hurt my feelings :( Nableezy (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above, "dog" was said as a Chicagoan not an Egyptian, a term of endearment rather than a personal attack :) Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, don't worry about the FBI too much. They're still busy searching for the alleged Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. ;) --Darwish07 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step back for a minute

It's obvious that this issue generates very heated emotions on both sides. In the skirmishes about Islamic law, who has what agenda, and censorship, the core discussion has been lost: the question is whether this image provides encyclopedic value to this article. That Wikipedia is not censored does not imply a free pass for all objectionable material to be in all articles. Just because we could show nude photos on any porn star's article doesn't mean we have to. One could find disturbing photos to place on many pages under the guise of "we can't censor." Personally, I don't believe that pictures of casualties of war belong on any Wikipedia page unless there is a very specific reason that their inclusion would increase the readers' understanding, and in this case I just don't see any encyclopedic value coming from the inclusion of these photos. Oren0 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with that, but i think there is encyclopedic value in illustrating that a huge percentage of the casualties have been children, I think such an image does indeed increase the readers understanding. But I don't think the argument has been made that we should include the pictures because we don't censor; that argument has been used to refute users who specifically objected to the use of images on moral, ethical or religious grounds. Other arguments have been made in the archived discussion currently at the top of this page that, specifically the image being discussed there, was not representative of Palestinian casualties. That argument was not met with 'We don't censor', the ones that say we shouldn't display the images because of their own cultural or religious misgivings have been. Nableezy (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52-60% of Gazans are under the age of 18, according to sources. Thus a larger than normal percentage of casualties would be under the age of 18 based on simple statistics. However, before you suggest that the percentage of children is huge, I would think you would want a verified source for that. Considering that Israel did warn civilians before striking their homes, it would be surprising if most sensible people did not try to move themselves and their children out of harm's way. I am aware that some did not however, even after being warned. Perhaps some were forced by Hamas to stay and be martyrs, as per the Italian journalist Cremonisi. Furthermore, the vast majority of casualties, children or otherwise, was the direct result of Hamas' actions by firing from civilian areas. So maybe you ought to be looking to more pictures of Hamas firing rockets from built-up areas. I remind everybody that before this attack, Hamas was warned what would happen if they continued firing rockets. The onus is completely on Hamas for these pictures and that ought to be made clear if they are put on this page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT????? The onus is on Hamas. WHAT???? That entire post is meaningless. I am sorry, but if I shoot somebody, the injury to that person is directly attributed to me. I dont think you understand what you are typing. As such, I am not going to pay any more attention to what you typed. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think TB means something along the lines of "if I take a hostage, and that hostage is shot by the SWAT team in order to kill me," am I, the hostage-taker responsible, or is SWAT operative?" My question for you is "if the hostages taken were Serbian, placed by the Serbian Army, who would you blame, the Coalition pilot who took out the target, or the Serbian officers who placed the civilians in the way? V. Joe (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ok how about this, if I force you to live in a place and not leave, even if you get scholarships to prestigious universities overseas, and then I start bombing you, am I responsible for the death of those that died? This is all personal feelings bs, and it doesnt belong here. And who is keeping who hostage, a couple reports about Hamas telling people to stay in their homes, or a long running siege where somebody needs permission to take a shit. Nableezy (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, then, how is the West Bank fairing in all of this? They don't launch rockets so they are allowed to go about their ordinary tasks with a minimum of fuss. As for the Palestinian "refugees" not being allowed to leave, aren't the other Arab governments, particularly Egypt as culpable as Israel? Israel has attempted to give the Palestinians a state many times, and in each case, by failing to control militants, Fatah and now Hamas have forced the Israeli's back into these occupied territories. The result is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world. What is especially ironic about all of this is that the West is largely footing the bill via the UN charities and grants to the P.A. Less than 10% of the "living" funds come from Arab states. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is like you cannot see what appears to me to be a simple cause and effect. For some reason, you see this is a response to the rockets, but you do not once ask what are the rockets in response to? What is that in response to? ... And as has already been discussed, again with no relevance to the content of this article but only as trying to deflect blame from Israel, yes I think Egypt is complicit in this crime, but I do not think they are the perpetrator. Egypt has a moral responsibility to provide assistance to the people of Gaza, Israel has a legal one. Also, Egypt has closed its border, it has not participated in a blockade of Gaza's coast. No matter what the state of Israel says about whether or not the unilateral disengagement of Gaza somehow makes them no longer an occupying power, the UN, and a number of human rights organizations disagree. But again, where is the relevance in all of this in discussing whether or not this picture should be included? I think next time I am just going to save 5 minutes of my life. Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a war/conflict/terrorist attack etc notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article ? Surely the most obvious answer is casualties. We need to assist readers in their 'imagining' of an event using the best material available which can be limited. Not trying to show casualties and the human impact in a conflict related article seems distinctly odd to me. Are you able to outline the decision procedures you use to decide
  • a) whether a conflict related image has encyclopedic value by increasing the readers understanding
  • b) whether a conflict related image is objectionable (bearing in mind that this procedure must be globally applicable, culturally neutral etc i.e. it must comply with guidelines)
perhaps using a specific example such as the famous Haeberle photos here. The reason I ask is that I keep hearing the same things from people objecting to photos coming out of Gaza but so far no one has really managed to explain their decision procedures. I'm struggling to understand how some people are reaching their conclusions because the decision procedures are either never explained or else ignore guidelines and the approach used in other conlict related articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes an attack notable and worthy are the casualties? What about the article on the Christmas massacres which took place at the same time as this one, and brought up by a previous editor? This from the wiki entry.
The Christmas massacres took place on 25–27 December 2008, when the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan rebel group, attacked several villages in Haut-Uele Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
"Media reports indicated that more than 400 people were killed many of them hacked into pieces, decapitated, or burned alive in their homes. Several people reportedly had their lips cut off as a "warning not to speak ill of the rebels", and 'two three-year-old girls suffered serious neck injuries when rebels tried to twist their heads off. More than 20,000 people were reported to have been displaced by the attacks, and at least 20 children were abducted by the LRA. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that as many as 225 people, including 160 children, may have been abducted and more than 80 women raped. (my bolds)
You might not understand it, but there is not one picture on that page of anyone hacked to pieces, decapitated, burned alive or raped. Not one picture of the wounds of a three year old girl whose neck was twisted by the LRA. The only discussion on that talk page is not over pictures in the least, but whether to delete the article altogether! Can you explain the difference? Why are there no pictures on that page? Are the Congolese people and children somehow less worthy than their Palestinian counterparts of having their fate illustrated? Where is the outrage over that event? Can you spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spell it t-u-n-d-r-a-b-u-g-g-y. Nableezy (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And before you even say 'comment on content not contributors' keep in mind you just called a whole bunch of us hypocrites. If you feel so strongly about that event, by all means go edit that article. Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images selected should be commensurate with the nature of the conflict. I don't think any, even in the IDF, doubt that massive destruction occurred and a high proportion of casualties were civilian. Not to register this element is to distort the reality on the ground. This should also be true of suicide bombings of restaurants.Those articles lack photos of such detail, apparently, from scruples internal to Israeli/Jewish beliefs. But more generally, many war articles carry them, and it would be improper to suggest that because of Israeli practice, articles on Muslim victims should, correspondingly, refrain from carrying such material. That would be both ethnocentric and a misunderstanding of things through a rather restrictive application of the notion of parity. The cultures and the realities are different.In my view, it is simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The decision process for this is the same as the decision process for anything else: community consensus. In addition to their questionable encyclopedic value, I'm concerned about the photos being used purely for shock value. Showing pictures of dead children on one side of a casualty, in addition to being shocking and objectionable to many readers IMO, seems very POV to me. I urge everyone to read Jimbo Wales' take on this, specifically: "I would immediately think of at least two cautionary notes. First, the human dignity of the person (and their family and loved ones, in case you think it doesn't matter what happens to someone once they are dead) strikes me as a relevant consideration. Second, such images can often be used to promote a political agenda." If we can't come to an agreement on this here, a wider RfC may be in order. Oren0 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with not showing an image because we do not show an equivalent on the other side is that there are no such equivalent images on the Israeli side. There have been 13 Israeli deaths in this conflict, 3 of which were civilians. There have been a reported 1330 Palestinian deaths, 940 'civilians' (where civilian is defined as children, women, and elderly males) among them 437 children or 32% of all deaths or 46% of 'civilian' deaths. I think it would be appropriate to illustrate that. The damage isnt equivalent, I cannot see why the images should be. Nableezy (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The reason Israel has no such pictures is because Israel's ethics does not allow the release of such pictures on the media. Israel respects its dead. Hamas, appearantly, does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.114.250 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) In World War II, the allied forces bombed German cities without even thinking about civilians. Would we show a dead German girl in order to add any encyclopedic value?
3) The difference between the allied forces in WW2 and Israel, is that IDF at least does every effort to avoid civilian casualties, while Hamas does every effort to encourage civilian casualties, on both sides: On the Israeli side in order to kill civilians, and on the Gazan side in order to appear well on the media. Thank God that the Germans did not have the media back then, because the may have appealed to it every time the allied forces were bombing their cities and killing German civilians. Since Hamas is using civilans as human shields in schools, that girl may have been killed due to Hamas's actions and not Israel's.
4) As editor John stated above, this girl is identifyable. No where in Wikipedia are there faces like this poor girl's face. Imagine it was your sister. Would you want to see her dead face on an Internet article? On all other articles, the persons are not identifyable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.114.250 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misread what I said. How many children have been killed on the Israeli side in this conflict? As far as I know, 0, though it could be up to 3 as that was the total number of civilians. That is why there are no such images on 'the Israeli side'. There have been 437 Palestinian children killed, that is why such images exist. And we have already shown multiple locations where "identifyable" (sic) images are used elsewhere on wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many German children were killed by the allied forces in WW2. Adding a German girl's face to the WW2 article would have no encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.114.250 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, could you please sign your comments? Second, if you have any evidence that the number of children killed in bombing raids was presented in multiple RS, and that the percentage of children among those killed was so high as it is here, I would think it would add encyclopedic value to that article to illustrate such a thing. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of children is a direct consequence of Hamas's usage of childrens as shilelds, and using schools to fire missles from. So if it's just a numbers issue, then Wikipedia should mention that Hamas was using childrens and schools as shields and firing locations. 84.228.114.250 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be arguing about whether to show both a dead Israeli child and a dead Palestinian one. We should be arguing about whether to show images of the dead at all, which I argue we shouldn't. Pictures of the dead serve no more of an encyclopedic purpose than numbers do except to inflame, offend, and push an agenda. Oren0 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. 84.228.114.250 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather wish we were discussing instead of arguing, but I think images of the dead also serve to educate the reader rather than just inflame, offend, or push an agenda. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "education" could be gained by a graphic photo of a dead body that cannot be gained by text indicating the casualties? Surely you agree that the image may be offensive to some and therefore it seems logical that in order to keep the image we'd need a compelling encyclopedic value that non-offensive text cannot meet. Oren0 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Education can be gained in text as well as images. Images can describe things that are nearly indescribable in words. To allow somebody to understand something requires more then just a single input for many. The very same reason why we need images to show us the events of the My Lai Massacre in a way that illuminates the reader as to what happened. The same reason we need images to show the effect on even those who survived the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Images are needed to show what happened. And the sad fact is that a large number of children died as a result of this conflict. That is something that is much more easily described by a single picture rather than an entire article. As far as any accusation of POV-pushing, I would have to object on these grounds. The damage shown can be shown in a neutral way, that the damage was not actually equivalent does not make it that showing an accurate portrayal of the damage is non-NPOV. But to answer why I think specifically this image is needed is to demonstrate to the reader that the number of child casualties as a result of this conflict is very high, in absolute number, in percentage of dead and wounded, and in percentage of civilian dead and wounded. That image is representative of 32% of all deaths in this conflict. I think that is reason enough to conclude that it does serve a compelling encyclopedic value to include. Nableezy (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, would you mind making this a separate section rather then a subsection of the above. I would personally rather have that nonsense archived. Nableezy (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

How are the demographic statistics (population density, % of youth) relevant to the background of this conflict? NoCal100 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Flayer (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally relevant. Nableezy (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally relevent as reflected in the high number of RS noting that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. This is the context in which the war is being waged, why would we omit that information? RomaC (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would omit it for the same reason we omit the fact that the Negev desert contains unique geological formations such as makhteshim, or the reason the we omit the fact that Gaza has he world's highest unemployment. These facts are not relevant background - they did not cause the conflict, and were in no way a factor contributing to it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant considering so many sources have brought up the high population density in relation to the high number of civilian casualties. Nableezy (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we should definitely add that most of the Hamas rockets land in the Negev desert potentially harming the unique geological formations such as makhteshim. Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, I'm not sure whether it helps but I can tell you with some professional confidence based of a great deal of rocks vs people safety training that people and rocks don't have the same status with respect to safety/injury-risk issues. Unfair perhaps from the perspective of rocks that have to suffer the indignity of the geologists hammer but a reality nevertheless. e.g. hammering rocks = okay, hammering collegues heads even while wearing a hard hat = generally frowned upon in industry circles. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, if there is significant coverage of the event that treats topography or employment figures as germane, please provide RS and perhaps we can add this information to the article. For the time being, we should stick with what is being said, which is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. As Nabeezy points out, this probably relates more directly to the air, sea and ground assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are, at the moment, no references in the article to RSs that treat th epopulation desnity or the large number of youth as germane, perhaps you should add them. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this from HRW; 'The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world.' Nableezy (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should also mention that those areas, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas - Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. Do you think it is relevant? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source besides youtube saying that Hamas has chosen this as its battle ground? Nableezy (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I'd like to clarify. I heard UNRWA spokesmen confirming on radio interview that on footage we see Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office. You could also clearly see on Youtube that it is the case, since there are other related clips by Hanan Al-Masri. Don't you just love Internet technology? I'm not an Arabic speaker. Maybe you could confirm that she tells about Grad launching near her office? She looks somehow surprised. There are a lot of other footages which show rocket launching from center of Gaza city, I hope you don't dispute this. It was mentioned here that high density of population and human shield claims are relevant. I'm going to restore your undo, unless I'm notified this is out of consensus. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already say, in the very next paragraph, that Hamas has launched these rockets. But your assertion that they have chosen the battlefield is simply a POV, the opposite of which would be that Israel forced Hamas into these locations through their blockade and targeted assassinations. Nableezy (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the only thing I really like about youtube is this. Single greatest moment in sports history :) Nableezy (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I can not really understand why you keep removing this phrase from Background? I'm open for discussion and seeking consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, oops not only you apparently. :) Anyway let's talk. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, the sources. A site that redirects to JihadWatch cannot be treated as a reliable source. Also, youtube is not a reliable source. Second, the issue of presenting the material in a NPOV manner. If you want to say that Hamas has picked the battle ground by such and such actions you would need to say that Israel has picked the battle ground through the closing off of Gaza and its targeted assassinations. Finally, the issue of weight, I really don't think such material should be included in such a prominent place, we cannot represent as fact something only because the Israeli government or some editorial or youtube video claims it. I think you are acting in good faith, but I do disagree with the placement of such a sentence. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agada, would you please copy/paste your edit in its entirety (including the surrounding context) here in this section so we can see exactly what the problem is and why it is being reverted? Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This addition (in bold) to background

The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth.[99] According to the CIA Factbook as of June 2007, it holds a population of 1,482,405 on an area of only 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi). Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007). This area, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. [1][2]

With reference to footage of Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office telling about Grad rocket launching from "bellow" her office in the heart of Gaza city. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024477.php, the second source is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK2bg1yNqN4 Nableezy (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, here is the same story from the RS Haaretz. I hope it will improve reference quality and solve unreliable source problem http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

That story can certainly be used as evidence that Hamas has fired rockets from that location, with a specific citation to the source, but it cannot be used to source a statement that Hamas has chosen the battle field. Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, could we note that This area, specifically heart of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers. With reference to Haaretz article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not think so, I think the article can be used to say something like this. "It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city", but it should really be further down in the conflict section not the background section as this relates to events during the conflict, not the background. The background section already has this: "Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel." I really dont think another line is necessary about the same topic. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody agree rockets were fired from Gaza strip ( one of most densely populated places on earth ) before and during this conflict. It is worth mentioning that some areas of Gaza strip are even more densely populated than others. According to reports Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) located in the heart of Gaza City, include among others the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky, NBC, Russian news channel Russia Today, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Arabiya. Haaretz noted that Hamas perhaps even fired near them in a bid to draw Israel into bombing the building. Let the reader decide. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Even if you think that is necessary for the reader to know, to make the jump that Hamas then chose the battle field is not sourced. And really, any line from any source that begins with 'perhaps' really should not be included in an encyclopedia, unless explicitly referenced as the source's speculation. Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But again, I do not think this belongs in the background section at all, the source is referring to an event that took place during the conflict, not in the time preceding it. Nableezy (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to you remark I removed Hamas choose battlefield from the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could go in the section on casualties, helping to explain the civilian casualties? eg "By putting their military installations, such as the grad rocket launchers, and firing from the heart of Gaza city, the Hamas' Gaza government put their civilian population at risk. " Geneva Conventions for "protected people," ie civilians, cannot be used to shield a legitimate target from attack. It is a war violation to attempt to sheild a target by surrounding it with protected persons, and the presence of a protected person does not render the target immune from attack. Hamas should have known that, but they were gambling for a propaganda victory rather than for a legal one. Again, the onus for the civilian casualties should be squarely on Hamas. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about OR do you not understand? What about NPOV do you not understand? Why do persist in trying to put in this blatant bias into every crevice of this article? Do you have a source for 'the Hamas' Gaza government put their civilian population at risk.' Or is this more of the views of the glorious tundrabuggy that must be refuted point by point? This is all your personal view on this, and apparently HRW, AI, ICRC, and the UN seem to disagree with you as to who is responsible for civilian losses. I think I might just listen to them instead of this nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers is not supported by the source. A person firing a rocket does not make the place they are standing at the time a Hamas "military installation" and if the sentence suggests that, then the writing is sloppy or misleading or both. "It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city" is what is more like what the source says, and this content does not belong in the "background" section. RomaC (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective and joining the discussion. I already mentioned that there are a lot of evidences that Hamas choose to fire rockets from downtown of Gaza city. Hope you don't dispute it. This particular evidence is relevant, since it gives specific address: Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) . Do you believe other references should be brought for support? Second question do we consider Governance of the Gaza Strip grad rocket launchers as military installation? If no, how do you prefer it should be called, in your opinion? As for "belonging" question. It was mentioned here that high density of population, high percentage of children in population and human shield are relevant points for background section and go hand in hand together. Generally I would appreciate you'd explain your opinion, before taking actions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sentence again and opened a section below discussing it. I agree with RomaC that the sentence does not reflect the information in the source cited. Tiamuttalk 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you tell which source discusses the % of youth as relevant background? NoCal100 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is not related to the points I raised above. But yes, besides the source cited, I can provide you with examples of other articles that indicate that the high proportion of children in Gaza's population is a salient and relevant background fact.
I can provide you many more, but I think you get the picture. A great many news articles see fit to include the facts about Gaza's population density and overwhelmingly young population. I don't see why we should not. Do you? Tiamuttalk 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian casualty count

Two sources used for Palestinian casualty count in the infobox are [2] and [3] Both of them said that

  • militant groups in total acknowledges 158 casualty, since this is reported in RS I believe it can be included in the article as well.
  • PCHR groups militants and "civil police" together as 390 (167 police and 223 fighters), and therefore policemen deaths are not seen as civilian by PCHR count

My edit [4] reflects these, that's why I reinstated the edits after which was undone by BobaFett85 JVent (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PCHR does not include the policemen in the militant count. "The PCHR said 894 of the dead were civilians, including 280 children and minors, age 17 and under, as well as 111 women. Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said." They don't count the policemen as civilians nor militants.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen people, I am going to revert you again, before making a new edit again read previous discussions on this topic, it was discussed previously and decided to lump both policemen and militants together. The PCHR has said 390 of the dead are not civilians, and they included policemen obviously in that number. Also, you are ignoring and constantly removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman who confirmed 231 policemen were killed during the war, if you would sum up that number with that claim of 158 you would get 389, which is only one short of 390. So read previous discussions before making any new edits. Once more, we put the number of both policemen and militants together in the infobox, do not separate them.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Bobafett85, I am not going to keep repeating this, it is a lie to say that the PCHR has counted the policemen along with the militants, they counted them separately. It is an inaccurate take on the articles that were cited, and the PCHR web site doesn't count the policemen and combatants together.[5] You represent it the same way the articles present it, otherwise its deceptive. As far as removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here let me see if this example can help you understand the way the numbers were presented in the MSNBC and CBSNews articles. There were 100 flowers (total) that were planted, 55 of them were roses (civilians) including 45 blue roses (children) and 5 pink roses (women). Of the remaining 45 flowers (total), about 25 are sunflowers (civil police). The rest, or 20, are tulips (militants). Are you going to lump the tulips and sunflowers together as 45 even though we counted them separately? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR):

See the table in the article, and note the PCHR wording in the table: "civilian police force members." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I am not going to argue, you are going against the consensus of the majority of editors made in a prevous discussion. It was agreed to include militants and policemen together since the IDF saw them both as enemies and francly most of the police were Hamas operatives. They don't call it Hamas-run police force for nothing. Read the previous discussion before pushing your point of view. And what's that talk about flowers I realy don't get it. Here is the reference you are ignoring [6] where a police spokesman cites the number of 231 policemen killed, so that official statement torpedoes the PCHR's statement of only 167 police killed, second this reference [7] states that 390 of the dead are not civilians, stating 167 of them are police (which is obviously wrong since the official number was given by the police), so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants. But, listen if you sum up the number of 158 militants killed (claimed by Hamas) with 231 policemen killed you get 389 which is preaty close to 390. The 167 number may not even be wrong because they probably counted among those policemen only the ones that were not affiliated with Hamas, the rest of the policemen were probably counted as militants.BobaFett85

Statements like these "so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants." reveal that you haven't read the source you keep pushing and keep citing. The source you provided says "The rest, or 223, were combatants...." It is not according to me. BTW How can you reach a consensus on misrepresenting a source? Do you know the rule about in-text citations? You represent the meaning without attributing to the source any other information not provided in the source. Your claim that PCHR counts the policemen with the militants in the number 390, is a complete lie. BTW, PCHR counts combatants not Hamas militants meaning combatants include non-Hamas fighters while civilians can count in non-combatant Hamas members. Accurately representing a source is what the issue is. I don't know what the police spokesman's statement has to do with this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs)

The idea that the militants and police are so alike that they should be merged is really an opinion and I think not the most NPOV formulation for that reason. That isn't to say it is wrong or not a fair comment. But I don't think that we even have to consider if it is right or wrong, at least not for this section. Similarly I think merging the police numbers into civilians would have the same kind of problem.

It might be appropriate for the article to have a comment from an Israeli official or a prof. or something saying that they consider police to be alike militants or legitimate targets or whatever. But it isn't neutral for us to take up that perspective and apply it broadly. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese "People's Daily Online" article [8] in English sounds like an unreliable article to me. It keeps using the phrase "police officers and police men." Why do they distinguish between the two? I wouldn't use the article as a reference. It sounds like it has been through multiple translations, phone tag, and word-of-mouth changes in meaning as it got farther away from the sources of info. I suggest reporting the info from the PCHR, MoH, IDF, etc., and letting the readers decide who, if any, are correct. I think they are still figuring things out. The CBSnews.com article that BobaFett85 linked to is a good start: [9] --Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, first of all, don't be rude, I didn't accuse you of lying now did I? Be polite. Second, read this previous discussion [10], both of you, both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner. It was previously discussed and agreed by five editors, including myself, that the IDF considered the cops as enemy combatants. There was a problem to distinguish militants from policemen. So we decided to lump both the cops and militants together in the infobox. The number 700 given by the IDF was agreed to hold both policemen and regular militants. And the 390 number, which is given by the PCHR, has been stated to NOT BE civilians, so they are eather militants or cops. And they even said that the 158 number given by Hamas is propaganda on their part. Furthermore I never said that the killed were exclusivly Hamas, now you are lying, there were others like Islamic Jihad. If you realy want to know, at one point during the previous discussion I myself proposed we stated combatants, instead of militants, but many editors had a problem with this because they didn't see ALL of the cops as militants so we agreed to put Militants and policemen since the number stated by the IDF 700 and by PCHR 390 includes both militants and policemen. And for last, Timeshifters discussion about the number of policemen killed given by the peoples daily. I said this before. They said that 231 policemen were killed. Wheater it be officers or just men, police is police. But if you want proof here it is. If we would combine this claim of 231 policemen with 158 militants (claimed by the militants) then we would get 389, which is only one short from 390 combatants killed which is claimed by PCHR. I started to think why 231 was claimed by a spokesman for the Interior Ministry and 168 by PCHR, then I remembered PCHR claimed 168 CIVIL policemen, and that is the number stated in their 390 claim. I came to the conclusion that they probably counted as civil policemen only those that had no militant ties. Listen, I'm telling this to both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner, you can not change the fact that 390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police, and an official police spokesman stated that 231 cops died. End of story.BobaFett85 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please read the quote again : your statement "390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police," is not what the source said.

Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said."

it says "the rest were combatants" thereby explicitly stating that the police were neither combatants nor civilians. i am in favor of stating them as police, like the source does. Untwirl (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not you too now Untwirl, for God's sake people READ THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. It was agreed that most of the policemen, not all, but most were Hamas operatives and some of them even participated in rocket attacks.BobaFett85 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does this curious term 'Hamas operatives' mean? Anyone with a job within the Hamas administration is included, and 'operative' connotes a shady function in the jargon of security services. One does not call police 'operatives' anywhere else. One should not use such pointy, loaded jargon, which is part of the verbal crud of politically spinning events, aside from being lousy English bureaucratese.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you just said Nishidani, that term 'Hamas operatives' isn't even mine, some user used it in the previous discussion so I said it. Listen people, for the last time, the IDF stated the number of 700 killed, this includes policemen since they see them as the enemy too. Second we have the number given by the PCHR, 390 killed, which also includes both policemen and non-police militants. I cann't make it anymore clear than this. It is better to give these two numbers that sum up both the militants and policemen, and we have noted in the notes section that at least 231 of those 390, or 700, are policemen which were regarded as enemy combatants by the IDF since many of them were active members of Hamas, by that I mean they participated in rocket attacks, there are references that cover this in the previous discussion.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem, apparently, is with the English language, not me. 'Operative' means 'secret agent', 'someone working undercover' for a organization engaged in detective work, spying etc. You can call policemen enrolled by Hamas as 'operatives', implying that spying was part of their job, only in so far as all policemen in the world are spies. Perhaps they are, but we need not induct peculiar theories about what police are into our thinking by using loaded terms to denote their functions, instead of the normal words readily available. As Gertrude Stein would have said, a policemen is a cop is a peeler.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with you? I never said I had a problem with you. And I know what the word operative means, don't get all high and mighty on me now. I learned English when I was six years old. I only said it this once because it stuck in my memory after another editor used the expresion in the previous discussion. I wasn't even realy thinking about it when I said it. If you realy want to know what I ment when I said it was: fighter, militant, combatant, terrorist. Jeez!BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i still think we should refer to the source which said, "Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police ...The rest, or 223, were combatants.

ie some were police, the rest were combatants

i don't see any vagueness in that statement. the idf regarding them as combatants doesn't change what the source said. they are clearly not stated to be either civilians or combatants, just police, and that's how we should refer to them. Untwirl (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen we agreed in the previous discussion to put the count of militants and policemen together, and that number is (given by the PCHR) 390. We agreed NOT TO SEPARATE them. Why? Because we agreed that some of the policemen, if not the majority, were active members of Hamas (fighters), furthermore, we have provided a reference from a police official, not a PCHR but a police official which states 231 policemen and not 167 died. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaFett85 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont see why this has to be so hard, just include both, the IDF count with a (includes police) and the PCHR count broken down. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the 167 number of police killed, given PCHR, has been established as wrong since the police themselves said that 231 of their members died during the war..BobaFett85
Include that too, who cares? It is a tiny line in an already bloated infobox, what is one more line going to do? Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing, the infobox is bloated as it is. Why make it any bigger. We have put the number of 700 provided by the IDF, and the number of 390, and we noted in the notes section that both numbers include the cops, but apparently the main problem is now again what we discussed before, and that is are the cops civilians or combatants, I am trying to stick by what we agreed before, to sum up both cops and militants together, and the PCHR even gave a number 390 which includes both policemen and militants.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying, but it just seems like a simple solution to a problem that has caused way too much contention among us. But I'll step back from this again and let yall work it out. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is PCHR civilian definition in consensus?

The PCHR source is used for Civilians in InfoBox. I'm not sure that PCHR civilian definition is in consensus. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.

What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We report them as the PCHR's numbers, what else do you want? The UN, HRW, and AI are all reporting this the same, and Israel has not even disputed the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me disagree with you, Nableezy. We (Wikipedia) report that Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are Hamas and its military wing and not civilians. This looks like PCHR definition problem. I am seeking consensus. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to define anything. We just report what the PCHR believes and then let the reader decide whether or not to agree with them. The Squicks (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Squicks, thank you for your opinion. I don't really get it. Please explain. Do we let reader decide whether Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are Hamas and its military wing or civilians? In case there is no well known definition for those terms what do "Civilians" in InfoBox stand for? Maybe we should remove it all together? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Zakout also says that the Ministry of Health totals for wounded include cases of psycholgical trauma.[11] The PCHR does not do that and that's a big part of the discrepancy between the two. And the whole issue of "shock" wounded issue has come up a few times here. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zakout. There are lot of psychological trauma on both sides of the border. I watched Vals Im Bashir [[12]] twice today :( I recommend it very much. I hope it will get the Oscar :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what you say. Maybe we could add IDF numbers for civilians in InfoBox. Does it sound fair and balanced? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such. Most Israeli males serve in the army too, but if they got killed not during their service they would be considered civilians too I suppose. JVent (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong here, JVent. Both males and females serve in IDF. Reservists indeed are school teachers, university students, computer engineers and some even soccer players. When reservist got drafted - usually up till 1 month a year he/she put on IDF uniform join IDF forces and considered soldiers by all parties. For instance see Hezbollah seizes Israel soldiers [[13]]. They (Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser) were reservists soldiers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JVent, I love your attitude "If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such." I still believe that there is some objective view on who is civilian and who is combatant. Does not UN/ICRC/Geneva convention/whoever have a definition for those terms? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would constitute original research, we report what the sources say. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explanation, Nableezy. I want to avoid original research as much as you are. That is why I started this discussion. Wikipedia should not quote sources that Earth is flat is if it is majority opinion. Majority could be confused. Is there any well known definition for who is civilian and who is combatant exists in international law? I would frankly expect that organizations like UN, ICRC or documents like Geneva conventions would define such a term, since there are laws of what is allowed and forbidden with regard to civilians during war time. I'm not an expert in this field, but my instinct is that PCHR ( and other sources like Gaza MoH ) belong to "Flat earth" camp when they include Hamas military wing personal as civilians, but maybe I'm mistaken. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone, definition for civilian? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We really have to follow the sources on this, until another independent verification takes place we should be reporting the number with an explicit citation to who is providing that number. As far as 'flat earth' the UN, HRW, AI, B'tselem, and the ICRC have all quoted these numbers, with an explicit reference to who is providing them. We should do the same. To take another definition of civilian and then use that definition to determine how many people were actually civilian is OR. Nableezy (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nableezy.BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. So according to Wikipedia definition, Said Siam and Nizar Rayan who both are Hamas military commanders are not civilians, despite being killed in "non-combat situations". While quotes could represent Cognitive relativism in sources, InfoBox stats should state facts and consistent with Civilian Wikipedia definition. Hopefully Wikipedia's target is being Encyclopedia and not just Urban legend. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but it doesn't really matter. We have to stick with the sources, we cannot substitute our reasoning for theirs. The numbers are explicitly referenced. We cannot change the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nableezy. Well, maybe it's time to admit that we do not know the civilian or combatant casualties numbers from Gaza side of this conflict at this point. I'm in no way suggesting to "fix" the source's data. We should quote sources estimates as-is and while clearly noting that Palestinian side civilian definition is "Flat earth" and does not match well known civilian term definition. This hopefully would improve encyclopedic value to this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, no. Your view that the Palestinian numbers are on the fringe is incorrect. Everybody is reporting these numbers referenced to the source. They are the official numbers of the government, they are to be treated in that way. If and when we get some independent numbers they will go in, but now the format is as it should be. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just tooning into this discussion but I have got only two simple questions for you AgadaUrbanit. One, tell me where it says that these two guys were NOT included in the 390 number? C'mon, they were militant commanders, off course they were combatants. And second, how is a five-ton bomb falling on your head a non-combat situation? BobaFett85 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BobaFett85, welcome to discussion. I refer to PCHR civilian statistics, see See [[14]]: The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of this matters, we report it how all the sources report it. Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I generally really appreciate your opinions, but I have to strongly disagree on this one. We should clearly note that Palestinian civilian statistics, based on PCHR research team head report, include An unknown number of Hamas military commanders. There are two well known examples. I hope you do not want to hide this fact. Cognitive relativism has its limits. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can argue and spot holes about your given point, but I will not cause Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Do you have independent WP:RS sources that exactly say that the referenced reports include "An unknown number of Hamas military commanders"? If you don't, please instantly stop such a discussion which does not have any place in Wikipedia. The currency here are reliable references, not truth. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome into discussion. Do you prefer it would state "at least two" Hamas military commanders were counted as civilians? Does it sound more fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, these guys were not "military commanders". Said Siam was the ministry of the Interior and Nizar Rayan was a spiritual leader and professor. I think we should state plainly (as I have) that these two "leaders" who were killed in "non-combat" situations are considered "civilians" by PCHR. I've removed the mention to "international law". Please provide a source which says that both would not be considered civiilians under international law if you intend to restore it. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, somehow your view is biased. Said Siam is highest ranking military commander - he's peer is Ehud Barak both are included as commanders in Info Box. Do you see it? As for professor, he had a strange academic hobby of using his house as weapon storage. I saw footage of him in military uniform, carrying an RPG and cheering troops. Probably you call it spiritual guidance. Please see Nizar Rayan article I quote Sheikh Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان‎, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas military commander - he will not be remembered as professor. I'm going to restore your undo, "according to international law" is quote from civilian definition AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you didn't answer my question, how was it a non-combat situation if they were killed by air strikes which intentionaly targeted them. You are saying that if an IDF sniper had shot them dead in a targeted killing it would be a non-combat situation. It was a targeted military assasination in a state of war. Just like a general, who commands troops from the rear where there is no combat, is taken out by an assasin during a war. But the main problem here is, can you provide proof that they were included in the civilian count, or they were not included in the combatant count? I haven't seen any references that provide proof to your theory AgadaUrbanit.16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)BobaFett85 (talk)

Welcome BobaFett85. "Non-combat situations" is PCHR research team term. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.

What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AgadaUrbanit. You have restored this sentence three times now:

An unknown number of Hamas military commanders killed in "non-combat situations" such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are not civilians under international humanitarian law, but were counted as such by PCHR research team.[3]

I have explained to you on your talk page the mutliple problems with this statement. First, where is the source that says both were "military commanders". Siam was the Interior Minister (a political figure) and Rayan a professor (and spiritual leader). Two, where is the source that says these two figures are not considered to be civilians under intl law? It's not in the article and you keep adding it anyway. Both these phrasings and points are WP:OR without sources to report them. Twice, I've changed the text to read "leaders" instead of "military commanders", removing the reference to intl law. I'd appreciate it greatly if instead of continuing to ignore the points I raise to you, that you respond to them here with sources that support your wording. Witout such sources, you cannot write this. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that the term non-combat situations is wrongly aplied by the PCHR research team. Like I said before, there is nothing non-combat about being killed by a five-ton bomb. They were Hamas leaders who were killed in targeted military killings during a war, nothing non-combat about that. However, I would probably accept that they were counted as civilians because they were not military but political leaders. One of these guys was the Minister of Interior, so in essence he was in charge of the police force, but he was not counted among the 231 police officers that were killed, the chief of police was. So he could be regarded as a politician. And the other guy was a spiritual leader. So, from that point of view they were not military but civilians, so not counted in the 390 number of policemen and militants killed. But, I don't accept we put in the notes section that the civilian death toll includes Hamas members who were killed in non-combat situations. Why? Because it was a war, and there is no non-combat situation in a war. Also, there were Hamas members that were not military but civilians, just like there are Israelis who work for the IDF but are not military but civilian support staff. If there were any of those killed we would have counted them as civilians. I acknowledge that there were civilian Hamas members killed, but don't support to note that in the infobox because it's place is in the casualties section. And please refrain from using the term non-combat situation because that is just stupid. I support both Nableezy's and Tiamut's opinions on this. Sorry, AgadaUrbanit.BobaFett85

I have to disagree. RS around the world reported Nizar Rayan and Said Siam are commanders of Hamas military. Those persons are members/commanders of Hamas armed forces (government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations), thus hardly civilians under international humanitarian law. We should clearly warn readers that PCHR civilian statistics contains unknown number of Hamas combatants both in Casualties section and in InfoBox. Otherwise I feel we'd confuse the reader and hide the truth.
CNN [15]: "Nizar Rayan, one of the main founders of Hamas and a commander in northern Gaza"
JPost [16]: "Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander"
UPI [17]: "Hamas military commander was killed in an Israeli airstrike"
NYPost [18]: "He was both a military commander and the spiritual leader of Hamas' brutal military wing."
JPost [19] "Siam was the Hamas political echelon's liaison with the group's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, and was responsible for the various security apparatuses in the Strip"
Haaretz [20] "Sayyam ... head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas."
AP [21] "Hamas confirms Israel strike killed security chief (Siam) ... who oversaw thousands of security agents in the Gaza Strip."

So does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, Let's behave in good faith to each other. I read you User page and learned that you're experienced and were already blocked four times for WP:3RR. You are a naughty boy :) (joke). I'd appreciate if you stop edit-warring with me and change article content while it is still in discussion. I think it is clearly against Wikipedia:etiquette While I argue about facts, I'm always ready to forgive and forget and work towards agreement. "No more war, no more bloodshed". Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point in all this? That somebody who Israel claims was a military commander was killed? The sources say what they say, they say civilians. If you find a reliable source that disputes these civilian numbers you can put that in there, but the way you are presenting this is blatant OR. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I think you need to chill out a bit and take a cooling off period. If you continue with this I will not have a choice but revert you too and you will not be edit-warring only with Tiamut but with me also. I agree to note these things in the casualties section but leave the infobox alone.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BobaFett85, Thank you for you opinion. I've added that "non-combat" actually refer to roof knocking. Off article I might add that RS reported that during this conflict "hundreds" of such attacks accounted, based on Shin Bet intelligence information with approval of Israeli international law experts. Considering it one might wonder that "maybe" IDF (Israeli propaganda) civilian casualties numbers (~150) are much closer to reality than PCHR. And how many of "conventional" civilians are people like four of Nizar Rayan wifes or Said Siam son, much of those were forced into human shields. So let's wait for fog of war to settle down. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently do not understand what a human shield is, you are just repeating what Israeli officials are saying about the practice of Hamas. I think you should read up on this to gain a better understanding of the meaning of the term. Sleeping in your house with your family does not equal using human shields. Nableezy (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy,I hope you're not that naive. Please read roof knocking and Nizar Rayan. People do not sleep and get bombed just because Israel wants to kill civilians. Some people store rockets in their basement and use it against Israelis. They say if my family is with me, Israel will not attack and rocket stockpile is safe. Israel wants to eliminate stockpile - have a right to self defense. From Nizar Rayan article: The IDF warned Rayan, by contacting his cell phone, that an attack was imminent and urged him to evacuate his family, but he refused.[4][5][6][7][7] According to the New York Daily News, Rayan "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home."[7] He put nearby civilians to risk as well.[8]. Hope you could see my side of the story. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for B'Tselem quotes (somehow irrelevant to this concrete discussion) I knew those facts very well. There is a lot of internal Israeli discussion and controversy, while AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) no Palestinian ever died in human shield incident (but I might be mistaken). Please note that Israeli B'Tselem intention to endanger IDF soldiers in order to protect Palestinians and guard their rights. Don't you just love it? In any case, in my opinion, B'Tselem and Israeli High Court do a good job and monitoring IDF quite well. My hope is that organizations like B'Tselem or Peace Now could exists also on Palestinian side. Anyway thank you for your remark. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, but your sources do not support your sentence. That is really all that is relevant to this conversation. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next shock picture uploaded

image in question - any better than burned babies?

(copied from my talk regarding the Ayman2 image:)

"With regards to your removal and misleading edit summary, there was no reason for you to remove the image. The image is free, relevant to the article, and no one has disputed that. If you want to dispute it, use the talk page." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the lengthy discussions above, there was no consensus to upload disgusting close-ups. The burden of evidence that inclusion of this image meets


see noumerous statements in the image discussions and section Pix restored:

The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis added. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a conclusion to the pix discussion above meaning we can add more pics. Now go readd the image you removed for no reason. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that there is consensus to add pictures that come from the ISM. Even Cerejota, who originally supported including the baby picture changed his "vote" for that reason. Personally I like this picture a lot more than the baby picture. It tells us something about WP whereas I think the baby just told us that people died. But I don't think there is consensus to add it just now. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vote in wikipedia - I discuss. We need to get out of that voting mentality, it promotes "us v them" cliquism and unproductive point scoring, instead on focusing on working together to make an encyclopedia. That said, while the ISM stuff made me change my mind (I had an embarasing brain fart on that one), it wasn't on the ISM in general, but just on the specifics of casualty pictures - subjected to pretty well documented controversy - in the context of this article, in terms of making an editorial desicion: for a lot of the information here we all could get 10 more sources than are already there, but we don't because it is not needed; likewise, just because a picture is from an image reliable source, it doesn't mean we have to use it. In this case, I advocated not using it, because I prefer the sourcing less controversial in order to move on to more important things. ISM remains a reliable source, in my opinion, under other contexts and other topics, for example at St. Pancake Rachel Corrie it is a reliable source for pictures.--Cerejota (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blessed is her name. Anyway I'm sorry but I think that was a typo. I had intended to write "non-vote" hence the quotation marks. And I'm also sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. I was trying to say that several users, none of which were me, had expressed concerns about using ISM pictures in that non-voting discussion and so they shouldn't be added without seeking consensus first. And that is a shame because at the end of the photos of this boy there is a picture in the ISM stream that would appease those who were unhappy before.[22] --JGGardiner (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add any pictures from the socialist action group until we decide whether or not they qualify as a reliable enough source to be used without attribution.The Squicks (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! ISM is a relentlessly shill (and shrill) organization. Can we let them keep their propagandizing to the gullible? They are simply, put not to be trusted. I would like to add to the discussion. If we simply must post photos of dead people, can we wait until the smoke clears, obtain CLEAR consent from concerned editors. David Irving & Volkischer Beobachter are not considered RS's about Judaism (or even Nazism), Pravada is not considered a reliable source about The Soviet Union or Winston Churchill and ISM is not a RS for either Israel or Hamas. Period. This should not be negotiable. Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that ISM is a RS in the same way that Al-Jazera or JPost are. This is common sense, and arguing that they are is a false hare. V. Joe (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, as well as many others, find ISM more reliable than the JPost and Haaretz. While JPost and Haaretz downplay Israeli war crimes or act as if they never happened, ISM exposes them. The deception is present on the former rather than on the latter. BTW, why are we holding the sources for Palestinian pictures to a standard different to the one for Israeli pictures with the latter coming from unknown people? A very ugly double standard indeed. I will continue removing those Israeli pics when both sides are held to the same standard. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no dice. J-Post and Haaretz (Al-Jaazera or Le Monde) have the law (Israeli, French or UAE) investors, employees and subscribers to answer to. ISM has only shadowy donors who do not seem to have any responsibility what so ever. FFQ, when you say "reliable," you seem to mean "agrees with FFQ," I say RS means "responsible media outlet, with a grain of salt taken for positions with obvious biases, by all means give JPost or Haaretz grains of salt for bias, but ISM does have a bias so much as pre-set positions (Israel bad Little Satan, United States bad Big Satan, European Union (Middle Satan) Iran and Hamas good Can do no wrong whatsoever.) Also, I beg to ask, WHAT Israeli pictures will ever be allowed in this article by the likes of Pro-Palestinian article writers? Let me again go on the record as saying that I support the removal of ALL images from this article for any reason, until the fog of war is lifted and investigations are complete. V. Joe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now any piece of garbage must be put up to illustrate the evils of Israel, on the grounds that to reject them is WP:CENSOR? We will be able to spend the rest of our lives arguing picture after gruesome picture here on the talk page. Already the page is considered highly overloaded on the Palestinian side according to the perspective of many who have posted here. The argument is that since the Palestinians have suffered most, and the most casualties, that this page should illustrate that suffering, and essentially nothing else. Sorry but that is not neutral. This argument will have to be taken somewhere else and settled. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that picture is just way too extreme. -- tariqabjotu 04:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this image if and only if it only illustrated a specific issue discussed in the article i.e. the nature of injuries. I don't think it illustrates the evils of anything. It's a technical, medical photo. I thought we had already demonstrated that a UK based very RS regarded ISM as an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this we talk? I don't know about anyone else, but I personally am more than willing to hold everyone up to the same standard. If you want to discuss another picture, than go ahead and create another RFC. The Squicks (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One argument repeatedly used by many editors in the burned baby discussion (which in fact was not limited to the burned baby but focussed on what kind of casualty pictures should be used to illustrate the article) was not to include emotive pictures. A close-up of open wounds falls well into this category, it is a disgusting eye-catcher that makes it impossible for me to read the narrative surrounding the picture. The open wounds close-up is so disgusting that one does not even really notice at first glance that they are on an exposed naked butt of a minor, which would be questionable in itself. This is not an issue for yet another RfC, it is covered already in the RfC/polls we had here before. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole picture business is getting boring, ridiculous and quite frankly pointy. I mean, the lead is a mess, we aren't doing progress with [{WP:SUMMARY]], there is very little updating of key events, and to top it off, the picture stuff is becoming pedestrian: this image is patently un-encyclopedic in the context of this article. Its a war wound. In war, people are wounded. *yawn*. WP:DEADHORSE:Bring back baby, if we are going to have fun with something. (edit conflict - naw, if we need to rediscuss, we will do so - let one hundred RfC's bloom!) --Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naked what? I think that's his back (and shoulder). --JGGardiner (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously that's his back. Look at one of the other pictures (which is less gruesome by the way).[23] --JGGardiner (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I must dispute the assertion that there was consensus to 'not to include emotive pictures' Nableezy (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, rather there was/is no consensus for inclusion. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
emotive ? okay it's getting silly now. what next, not showing anything above the ankles ? that leaves us with a severed foot. feet upset thai people so that's out. a shoe ? hmmm...might upset animal rights people. a shoelace ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for that picture, I don't think that can be applied across the board. Nableezy (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:TrangBang.jpg
Famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm).

(unindent) Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR. Removing photos is the same as removing text. We include photos from all sides. See: commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties and upload some photos. We need some Israeli casualty photos.

War is not pretty, and Wikipedia shouldn't prettify it. See the many photos in My Lai Massacre, and the gallery farther down in that article.

Here is another famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm):

As someone pointed out earlier, some pictures have achieved an iconic status. They also are verified as to representing what they claim to represent.

This picture has not achieve that status nor do most people accept ISM as RS for this type of picture. Please see my note below that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible." Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just any other wound. It is the effects of a controversial weapon (white phosphorus) that few know what they are. For example, I do remember a certain someone saying that the dumping of white phosphorus is no big deal and he tried to justify the use of white phosphorus claiming it helps saves human lives. The reason, I think he said, was that WP is used to light up the area making it easier for Israelis to strike their targets. Another user responded to me by asking if there was any evidence that this was being as a weapon and not just smoke/illumination. While the specific picture does not exactly demonstrate that WP is being used as weapon, the picture illustrates the severity of white phosphorus showing that it is not just a harmless smokescreen, etc. This visual supplements the text on white phosphorus. In addition, the Ayman pictures are the only visuals of white phosphorus victims available for us to use. Anyone who believes in the educational value of this article would not pass the opportunity to post this pic.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP might be a controversial weapon (I'd prefer not to have it used on me!), but I have personally been under WP as a smoke screen, and it is certainly much more humane than being shot, bayoneted or napalmed. Tell you what, why don't you put the picture under "White Phosphorous." Anyway, it is sort of a silly controversy in a world where land mines and flamethrowers are both (mostly) considered legal weapons of modern war. V. Joe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A major problem is : "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible." [24]Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a major problem, the caption would just say Burns reportedly from WP exposure. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'A major problem, Tundrabuggy, is that you call an undisputed picture of severe injuries from the war, 'garbage', when your wrote above: 'So now any piece of garbage must be put up to illustrate the evils of Israel.'Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not think this picture incredibly necessary to the article, we do not need a picture for every human rights violation that either side has done, if we did this would be the longest article in the history of wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shockingly, I agree with Nableezy. 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
... says V. Joe (talk) Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then start another article on human rights violations by both sides. It is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nab & VJ on this the pic more appropriately relates to burn injuries and a controversy on specific weapons. An image that would better reflect Gaza casualties as they relate to the event in general would be bodies in rubble. Please excuse me, I realize that is a callous thing to say. RomaC (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it was next to the section discussing the use of WP. It wasn't in the casualties section -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from the Israeli side - all deleted

This is a biased approach. Where are all the rocket hits? There were pictures from reliable sources. Vandalism suspected. John Hyams (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vandalism charge - how ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is the claim that the pictures were from "reliable sources." Can you name those reliable sources please? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the editors who could reply, the one who actually deleted the pictures has answered. Thanks for admitting this. Falastine, the editors who uploaded them and included them in the article will answer your question. And just by your user name, one could see your motives. I prefer using my real name, and not put my agenda's name as my user name here. John Hyams (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you go ahead and ask them what the "reliable" sources are? Admitting it? I put it down in my edit summary. Yes I am pro-Palestinian, is this news to you? I wasn't hiding this in the first place. Falastine fee Qalby (Palestine is in my heart) is an agenda? Um, Okay. Personally I am finding your breakdown amusing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would indeed consider removing something without giving any explanation whatsoever to be vandalism. Don't make an edit and then try to cover up that edit or mask it or make it easy to not notice. If you want to remove something, than post your reasons why. The Squicks (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another silly vandalism charge, this time very misleading. Perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the edit summary for my edit. I made it explicit that I am removing images and the reason why. Any accusation of vandalism and misrepresenting edits will not be taken lightly and I will have to see what route should be taken if you do not cease.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That ought to be a rule. Esp for contentious articles in the IP area. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try sticking by that rule if you feel that way. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent). There is no reason not to include some of the photos from these categories linked below. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV and so we need to include photos from all sides. The photos seem legitimate to me. We need to use common sense and fairness.

We don't have any free Israeli casualty photos yet for this war. See:

Reliable photos of Grad missile hits on Israel can be found here: http://www.daylife.com/words/israel_rocket_roof/photos/all/1 84.228.114.250 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one, every single photo there is from AFP, AP, or Reuters Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties chart

Note: Data does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants

The chart only gives the highest (Hamas-based) estimates of Palestinian casualties, as indicated in the narrative others are lower. The cited sources (eg reuters and jpost) do not say these are definite casualty numbers. The chart thus gives undue weight to a fringe source. Please fix before reintroducing. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on the graph that 'United Nations' figures were used is incorrect. It used Palestinian Ministry of Health figures, which should be correctly attributed. I disagree though in that I don't consider it to be a "fringe" source. It's as fringe as the IDF figures, which should be taken with the equal milligrams worth of salt. The Squicks (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File_talk:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png#United_Nations.3F
It is not only incorrect to attribute the Hamas figures to "UN, reuters and jpost", (though they cited them, it should be indicated what they cited), but it is also incorrect to make a chart using only these figures. No range is indicated, the numbers are not attributed, it is misleading and pov. It is even questionable if a npov chart can be drawn at all at this time for the Palestinian casualties. Concerning WP:FRINGE: Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, US&Canada, Japan and others. That definetly makes them a fringe source, and the data must be treated that way - i.e. not to entirely exclude it of course, but neither to have this data in the most prominent position and make it look like an undisputed reliable estimate. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and repeat my opposition to charts like this in general until the fog of war lifts little more, and for citing hard numbers: we need ranges for now.--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas is the government of Gaza, their numbers should be taken with that weight. Unless you are also saying that the numbers the Israeli government have provided should also be dealt this way. Nableezy (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas government also demonstrably has had its capacity to keep such a body count severely interrupted by the Palestinian Lovefest of Roof Knocking Special Non-Explosive Harmless Missile-tards [insert canned jon stewart-esqe explosion animation here]. This is what I mean by fog of war. The UN will publish good figures soon enough. That said, protestations that the defacto Goverment of Gaza is lying about these figures are as predictable as they are against long-standing wikipedia practice of defering to what government's say about themselves, clearly in an article were the Israeli MFA is used as a primary source (mostly correctly), we can with a clear conciense used that of the Gaza Government. Still, convince me why this chart is a good idea?--Cerejota (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's got pink and orange in it which are happy colours. that's why. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But pink isn't really an NPOV colour, is it? --JGGardiner (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care about the chart, but this repeated insistence that Hamas cannot be treated as the government of Gaza needed a response. I personally think in numbers so when I see 1330 to 13 in the infobox I can imagine the chart anyway. Nableezy (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chart did follow your advice before the rest of us and used the "war" term up from the start. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That figures are provisory until we get official neutral review based on hospital records, and full recovery after the rubble is cleared of all bodies, was obvious from the start. A revision down by Palestinianj sources is already taking place, witness these figures from today's Guardian, which should be checked with the official sources, and entered, provisorily, into the charts and relevant parts of the article. I think the chart important. The only issue is one of updating it daily in accordance with the best sources.

The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children. McCarthy, 'Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived,' The Independent, 24,01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page long ago we agreed to the chart being in the article. Many supported it, few opposed it. I changed the source on the image to say "Palestinian Ministry of Health." See the instructions on the image page for purging your browser cache if necessary. I have been updating the chart every day or two. We can point out on the chart caption that the numbers are changing, and yet to be independently verified. Just like in the notes section of the infobox. The number of Palestinian wounded seems to be in flux. See [25]. The number of Palestinian dead from a couple Palestinian sources seems to be fairly stable around 1300. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is still not good. Though "Pal MoH" is included as a source, it is cited only in line with random secondary sources, and the sources are not attributed to the numbers and/or primary sources they cite. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just clarified things better in the image summary at:
File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pal MoH which you,Skäpperöd , call 'fringe' still happens to be an official source, since it is issued by the resident administration of the area. Israel has an interest to shape figures its way,i.e. down, as Hamas has an interest the other way round. I support the chart. When figures closer to the truth emerge, we just substitute them for the ones given by the best available sources. There is no problem here I can see. Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

said seyam

There should be a  † sign next to his name on the commanders list as in all similar articles. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he'd appreciate the cross. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an alternative  (KIA) see War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 87.69.41.159 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at Iran-Iraq war article for precedents and cross sign were used there. But, this indeed looks much more appropriate. Thank you for noting, fixed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't complaining. I just thought it was kind of ironic. Personally I prefer the cross to the Jolly Roger. Actually it looks more like a totenkopf in my font but I don't want to bring up Nazis again. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading List.

There is quite an abundance of bizarre opinions being vaunted over these pages. A few correctives to the disinformation campaign may be found in this short, rather arbitrary list of articles, which expresses opinions in the main, but manages to give much evidence that is widely shared by serious students of the area. I hope a few out there read some of them, and cull what may prove useful for further research, that may assist the reviewing of the page, esp. the Background, which is totally dishonest.

Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for WP:Soapboxing and using WP to put up a list of biased sources and call it "correctives for disinformation!" It strikes me that this is absolutely inappropriate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No soapboxing. I thought that citing Anthony Cordesman, chair in strategy at the CSIS, and a known and long-standing friend, nor fiend, of Israel; David Bromwich, the Sterling professor of English at Yale; Henry Siegman, with his 16 year stint as Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress; John Mearsheimer, a Professor of Political Science at Chicago U.; Richard Falk professor emeritus of International law at Princeton; Avi Shlaim, Oxford professor of international relations; Tom Segev or Gershom Gorenberg, distinguished Israeli historians; Eric Hobsbawm, historian and president of Birkbeck colleage, London University; Geoffrey Wheatcroft, historian whose 'The Controversy of Zion' won the National Jewish Book Award, and Gideon Levy, senior editorialist on Haaretz, might help those many editors here who seem to get their information on the world from ערוץ שבע‎ to realize that the world is more complex than the stereotypes they are apparently exposed to let on, that men of great learning, reliable sources (WP:RS), are worth listening to, and that quite a few Jewish commentators and analysts share views often summarily dismissed as anti-Semitic, or Hamas-sourced propaganda. If that is bias, well, of course, you are neutral and wholly committed to NPOV, unlike them.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find Tundra's increasing failures to assume good faith inappropriate. These sources were provided as part of seeking information to include in the article. Presenting points of views of notable and relevant figures from reliable sources is not WP:SOAPBOXing. Spare us the needless dramatics which do not promote a civil editing environment, and of course, feel free to pursue dispute resolution if you feel that people are violating policy and being disruptive. Sometimes, it is good to call people when they soapbox, but sometimes it is better to let it go. And sometimes, opinions are not soapboxing, but ways to enrich the encyclopedic mission, as is the case with the above sources. --Cerejota (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to disclose first that I'm Jewish living in Israel. I'd like to note that mentioned guys belong to "Flat Earth" minority camp. They say in company of two Jews there will be at least three opinions Don't you just love it? However, public opinion polls indicated overwhelming support for Cast Lead operation, while great disappointment from the fact that Gilad Shalit remained on Gaza soil when IDF pulled out. In my humble opinion this conflict matches all Criteria of Just war theory. The sad thing is that right wing in Israel (ערוץ שבע‎) warned in the past when Gaza International Airport was still wide open that unthinkable (at the time) will happen and Ashkelon will be attacked by rockets from Gaza. Majority dismissed those warnings as delusional and gave peace a chance. There is no Israeli military presence (occupation) in Gaza strip. Israel left not in order to return. However, current common assumption is that if nothing changes in internal Palestinian politics, Gaza-Israel conflict will escalate again and Tel Aviv metropolitan area will be attacked by rockets during this new round of violence. Pretty soon. So there are a lot of opinions. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public opinion is not a reliable source. Scholars of world reknown, journalist-historians of repute, and journals of quality that print their views are.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really become irrelevant, but still I hope that you do not suggest that the mentioned list is the only reliable source. The fact is there are also quite a lot of scholars of world reknown, journalist-historians of repute, and journals of quality who would disagree with opinions expressed in this "reliable" list. Most wikipedia contributors do know how to read and how differentiate reliable from biased. I stressed about public opinion, because Wikipedia guidelines call us to prefer "majority" opinion to "Flat earth" opinion. Hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You answer notions I never suggested. If you have a corresponding list of distinguished scholars to follow mine, to counterbalance things, I'd profit from it, as I think all those editing would. So plunk it down under here. You can begin with Benny Morris.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are welcome to read whatever you want and form you own opinion. Just please do not dictate to others list of what to read. Generally Israel and Jews provide wide rainbow of opinions. If I would mention every one who is critical of state of Israel policies, it would not fit into this discussion. Still they are minority which does not make them neither right nor wrong. I myself have not voted for this government. We (Israel) always discuss what was done, what to do next and what could be done better and try to be open minded and fix our errors. It is our strength. No one has monopoly for truth, not even me :) Hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your point. Please don't abuse the English language for using the word 'dictate' to refer to an expression 'readers may', implying possibility. I suggest that far too many people editing are reading newspapers, and not authoritative voices from within and beyond Israel about the nature of the conflict. It is useful background reading. No one is obliged to read it, even if scruple implies they should. Historians of the area generally know more than us. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my broken English, Nishidani, it is not my native tongue. I did not mean to offend you (or English language) in any way. Peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose new, streamlined and improved introduction

I've created a slightly changed version of the intro. It tries to take more of a view of a finished conflict (it can always be changed if things start up again. I've removed some unnecessary detail that are no longer relevant. I've also tried to make it more representative of the article as a whole.
What do people think?
I also think we could remove some of the multiple references. I mean, do we need 6 or 7 references for one fact?


The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[9] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party, Hamas.[10][11][12] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in parts of the Arab World.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[23][24][25] Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade, and citing an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4 as a breach of the truce,[26][27] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.

On 27 December 2008, Israel launched an all out military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire.[28] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[29]

On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices[30][31] in all of the Gaza strip.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.. Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations.

On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza.[48][49] During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza.

Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian and army targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[50][51]

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire with Hamas on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Palestinian militants fired about 20 rockets over the border after the Israeli ceasefire announcement. Israel retaliated with an airstrike. Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire.[52][53] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.[54]

International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[55][56] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris.[57][58][59][60][61]

During the conflict, 13 Israelis were killed including three civilians. On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians.[62][3][63] Following the conflict, more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water and it was reported that Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'.[64]. As a result of the bombings, 4,000 Gazan buildings were razed[64] and 20,000 severely damaged[64]), more than 50,800 Gazans were left homeless.[64]

Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and law suits.[65] In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians.[66][67][68][69][70] The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes.[71]


Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets look at the proposals one by one:

(1) The ja23 proposal would omit "parts of"(the Arab world), which must be rejected according to the npov discussin consensus now in archive 22. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK that was unintentional, I will edit it back in.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still neglects the issue that any English teacher will tell you that not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre". This has been commented on by numerous editors, even on the No Original Research noticeboard. Thus I (and others) believe it should read something to the effect, that "parts of the Arab world describe the event as a massacre" (no bolds) Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you'd have to mention that there are at least some in the west who would also regard it as a massacreJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Just as you would have to mention that there are some in the west who regard it as legitimate self-defense for Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, it still states that the 2008-2009 conflict began on December 27th, which is ridiculous. Numerous editors have commented on this as well, yet it still gets edit-warred back in. A word similar to "intensified" is one of the few words that make any sense in this context. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think AGF no longer applies here with Tundrabuggy, your repeated lie about how 'not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre"' has repeatedly been proven wrong. For all those who did not read the above discussion or the thousand times this has been disproved in the archives, here you go:
SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [26]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [27]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [28]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [29]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
I cannot believe how many times you are willing to say something that you have been proven wrong on multiple times. I would encourage other readers to look at #Start of conflict for further nonsense. That you actually dispute that the term 'the gaza massacre' has been used has been thoroughly refuted. You want to make an issue of capitalization then fine, but dont come here again and again saying nobody has called it 'the gaza massacre'. It is an outright lie that you know for a fact is an outright lie. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can point away, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about, sorry. A particular thing preceded by "the" is not necessarily a proper noun. "the dog" for example -- you would not capitalize dog. "the Cocker Spaniel" on the other hand, is the name of a breed, and "Goldie" is the name of a particular dog, but dogs are dogs, and while they are a "specific thing" ie a noun, "dog" is not "proper noun." Perhaps since you are so relieved that not all proper nouns need to be capitalized, you can demonstrate one that does not need to be. Perhaps we can take this discussion back down to the bottom of the page where User:OrenO has restarted this discussion making the same point I have been making right along. The capitalization issue is not an issue in itself - merely evidence that you are mistaken. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer discussing irrational arguments that have been refuted time and time again. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The ja23 proposal would delete the sentence "Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce." This sentence however is the most npov way (without blaming anyone) to describe the pre-cast lead situation and thus should stay. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But surely, since a war broke out, it's obvious that they couldn't renew the truce?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wouldn't the 6th month so-called "truce" indicate that war had been actually going on prior to June? I mean, isn't a "truce" understood to mean a temporary cessation of hostilities? In fact, in Wiki, "truce" refers to "Armed conflict" and so does the definition of War. Armed conflict resumed after the end of the truce. Skapperod's edit is nicely put and neutral. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The ja23 proposal replaces some sources with the sentence: "Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations." This is problematic as the Hamas seizure of power was not only by 2006 election, but more like in a civil war 2007. We should neither present all details of how Hamas gained power in the lead (WP:UNDUE) nor cherry-pick some details as it is done here, but leave that to the background section. The "gov buildings and police stations" passage is redundant, as it is stated in the sentence before that IAF targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also the sentence is grammatically incorrect since it implies that because Hamas is Gaza's "governing party" many buildings were destroyed. Perhaps we could simply say to cover both concerns that IDF successfully targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like an attempted coup that was put down. Hamas is both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4) The ja23 proposal adds: "During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza." Picking an isolated incident, presenting only one version as also with the isolated (Hamas) casualty figure gives them undue weight, violates WP:NPOV and thus must be rejected. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in case you didn't notice, there havn't been any corresponding incidents on the ISraeli side. I didn't hear about a school getting hit in tel-aviv killing 40 people. I don't see how its not neutral to state the facts. These incidents have been a notable part of the conflict and should be referenced in the introduction.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this Grad missile hits empty kindergarten in Ashdod? It was only good luck that there were no children in it. Obviously it was not for lack of trying. Also that UN incident should be investigated before we make such a comment since it is damning one side. Israel version of events should be included if you are going to include that in the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The ja23 proposal adds "There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris." This again is pov-ed, in style ("angry") as in content (only against Israel), also the towns presented are randomly picked and thus given undue weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what towns would you choose. I tried to choose notable ones. Protests were a notable aspect of the conflictJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(6) The ja23 proposal replaces:

  • "On the Palestinian side, estimates differ. The Hamas-run Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians, while other Palestinian estimates are lower. Israel says at least 700 Hamas fighters were killed. Israeli Intelligence says that the overall death toll was less than 1,300 and that their count indicated that around 150 civilians (children, women, elderly) died." with
  • "On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians."

This must be rejected because of WP:NPOV - All figures except the Hamas figure are deleted. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the Israeli, side, only the official Israeli figure is listed, so only the official Gazan Ministry of Health figure should be listed on the other side.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(7) The ja23 proposal adds: "In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes." Again, this violates WP:NPOV, as only one side of the dispute is presented, and also violates WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry picking. My proposal also mentions that Hamas is accused of war crimes. The fact is, Israel has been accused of more, and notably accused by the United NationsJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TL; DR please people re-read WP:LEDE. I like the first line, but it should be merged with the second and third (as redundant). Mention of specific casualty figures should not go on the lede. We should not used phrases that charactize, like "angry protests". What the UN chief in Gaza said is notable, but not lede material.

Something like this, but with the sourcing and wikilinks:

This is shorter, sumarizes the article, and is way more NPOV. Less peacock and weasel.--Cerejota (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, that's a big improvement on the current lead. I would still say there should be mention of the fact that there have been some notable incidents, because, as I noted above, they have been one of the most talked-about features of the conflict. Also perhaps should be slightly more detail about alleged war crimes, again very important Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like this one:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or also part of the ongoing Iranian quest to reestablish the Persian Empire, or also part of the American quest to begin a new English Empire, or also part of Canada's quest to unleash pottymouths such as Terrence and Phillip on the world, or also part of Derkaderkastan's continued push to be recognized as the major power in the Middle East and achieve UN representation, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[31] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do leads by massive one-take revision. In all proposed versions, the second paragraph, which I find reasonable if unsatisfactory, gets clunky (Sorry Cerejota, but 'Hamas contends the resuming of the rocket attacks is a result of Israel not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and of the Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on 4 November 2008' doesn't work, not only because 'resuming' (already in the previous line) should be 'resumption' etc. It drops the truce issue, which is central etc.) I suggest any proposals take it in sequence, para by para. But preferably after the body of the text is stabilized, a summary of its contents made, and this used to reflect back on the lead. There shouldn't be any haste about this.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamas-run," "other Palestinian estimates are lower"

Re [30] and [31], the language being restored here is pretty clearly inappropriate. First of all, identifying the Palestinian Ministry of Health as "Hamas-run" is gratuitous and carries no information; it simply serves as a kind of rhetorical prod to the reader, "don't trust these guys." (I imagine it read aloud in an Israeli accent; "khhhaamas" ;) It's a government ministry, it's run by the government, which is run by the party in power. Flagging that party serves no legitimate purpose and is only an attempt to lead the reader around by the nose. And what does the Jerusalem Post, a hawkish Israeli paper, report?

Tony Laurance, who heads the World Health Organization's office in the West Bank and Gaza, said the information from the Gaza Health Ministry "is likely to be close to accurate." It was "reported on a daily basis by hospitals to the central information center within the Ministry of Health," he added. That center had identifying details of the casualties in terms of names and ages and places of residents.[32]

Second, and more significantly, the text portrays a significant gap between Pal MoH estimates and other Palestinian counts. This gap does not appear to exist, and it certainly isn't docuemnted or even implied in the given sources. MoH estimates 1,330 dead of whom 900 are civilians. The PCHR, an independent non-partisan, group, estimates 1,284 dead of whom 894 are civilians. The difference in total death counts is less than 4% and in civilians less than 1%. The PCHR's estimate appears to be the most widely cited in Western reports. The vague innuendos by Israeli officials, almost all off the record, and the Clouseauian investigation by that one Italian journalist, are not "Palestinian estimates." Indeed the JPost piece I already cited notes that the PCHR's figures are "almost identical" to Hamas's.

People, cut the crap. You can't just make things up and put them into Wikipedia articles. This is pretty basic. If you want to quibble about "hamas-run" fine, but this business about "other Palestinian estimates" is, to be blunt, a lie. Please don't lie. <eleland/talkedits> 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this reflects that Palestinians are split in de-facto civil war. There is Fatah Palestinian National Authority controlling West bank and Khhhaamas-run Governance of the Gaza Strip. It was reported [[33]] two parties continued to fight also during this conflict. So for dumb Israeli as myself such clarification is required. Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are Fatah estimates (i'm sorry, "Palestinian National Authority" estimates ;) then let's have them linked on the talk page, first. Then we would have to ask, according to reliable sources how credible are these estimates? Because I've checked for media coverage of Gaza casualty counts and haven't found anything that even mentions them. "Maybe" isn't good enough, we need to have solid sources backing each piece of text we put in this article. Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that Fatah does have some relationship with the Italian guy who claims it's all a Hamas-PCHR-WHO-UN conspiracy to boost casualty figures, but that's my own idle speculation and is irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is there are two Palestinian Prime Ministers and two MoHs. How do you suggest we differentiate between those? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one speaks for Gaza? The one affiliated with Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Both? During the conflict Fatah and independent officials even enjoyed clear majority in the media. Abu Mazen represented Gaza in cease-fire ceremony in Sharm el-Sheikh with Egypt and European leaders. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fatah speaking for Gaza is meaningless, Hamas still have to accept that for it to be at all valid. Hamas is both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not de jure. They wrested power in a 2007 Battle of Gaza bloody coup. Now maybe the Gazans are happy with their "leadership," I don't know. It would be (in US) as if the Republicans were to throw out all the Democrats (by throwing them off rooves and taking over their offices at gunpoint, etc) and decided to run the country their way. Hardly de jure, no matter how often you repeat it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De jure, there's no legitimate government. After abu Mazen dismissed the Hamas government, he was the legitimate government, but only for the short period allowed by the PA constitution after which new elections were necessary. He ignored that provision. Both governments are illegitimate, although the Hamas government in Gaza was at least elected, while Abbas is basically a Washington/Tel Aviv appointee, FWIW. <eleland/talkedits> 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De jure, there's no legitimate government. And, thus, we cannot calling something that's Hamas-run "Palestinian run" or simply "Palestinian" because it would be unclear to the reader. Simply. Really, how is "Hamas-run" a POV statement? The Squicks (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Israeli Defence Force figures" an inherently POV statement since it includes the word "Israel"? The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PM said Abbas had no authority to dismiss that government. As of the last elections, widely recognized as free and fair, Hamas is the governing party of the PNA. They are the de jure government of the PNA but can only exercise de facto control in Gaza. And tundrabuggy, the coup attempt was actually from the other side. Nableezy (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was about to say that, Tundra read up your history... But, Hamas is de facto government because the Palestinian Authority is the internationally recognized government of both Gaza and WB - de jure government. If Hamas were the de jure goverment, Egypt would open up the border at Rafah. de facto can be a subjective view, but de jure in this case is objective in the same way notability is... except the reliable sources are other nations. So calling Hamas de jure is crap until other countries recognize them, which none have, not even Iran.
Mentioning "Hamas-run" does smacks me of passive-agressive provocation, but it is factually correct: We gots to stop the storms in a teacup... stop biting the baits. --Cerejota (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the Israeli estimates should say 'Kadima-run' or 'Israeli-government-run MOH' since that's also factually accurate.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Hamas-run"? --I see Jandrews and others' point. In this article for example, we see "government-run" not "Hamas-run." RomaC (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The proposal of ja23 to use "Kadima-run" for the Israeli side is exactly the argument to have Hamas-run or some similar phrasing in the article. This conflict is not Israel vs Palestine, but Israel vs the Hamas-run part of Palestine. There are many Palestine areas/institutions that are not involved (at least directly). Thus we need the qualification. If Hamas would perform an operation only against Kadima, and Kadima would rule a different area of Israel than Likud and have its own institutions and ministries there, we of course had to indicate that, too. But this is not the case for Israel. She is acting as one party. Palestine is not. We have to avoid disambigous wording and clearly attribute who exactly is the source for whatever. If the numbers are from Hamas, we have to say Hamas and not MoH, and don't let the reader click through other articles before he knows that the information is actually from a party of this conflict and not from "someone". We cannot assume everyone knows exactly who is in charge of what MoH. What is the problem with clearly indicating the sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

I'd like to know why the image "Image:Orphanschoolmosque.jpg" was removed.[34] The user offered no explanation in the edit summary.VR talk 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomtom9041 has a history of removing pictures without reasons, and it is suspected that he is engaging in sockpuppetry. You can return the photo since it comes from a reliable notable source unlike the Israeli picture which was readded anyways. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The International Solidarity Movement is not reliable on Israel-Palestine issues. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: it is a reliable source with a known partisan bias. It is as reliable as say, Kadima or Hamas. Reliability has degrees. Unreliable sources are blogs and self-published materials by individuals. I do agree pictorial material from the ISM should not be used unless absolutely uncontroversial. That said, Tomtom9041 should probably be reminded again to provide explanations on edit summaries - he risk reversion as vandalism if not. --Cerejota (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, at last checking, I could see no pic whatsoever that gives one the faintest indication of what occurred, other than a kid in front of a shelled-out building. There's a lot of sky for meteorologists with some curiosity about weather conditions during the war. In this sense, the lack of relevant pics is a gaping anomaly for articles of this kind. The article has been systematically pic(k)ed out.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then revert the deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG as we shouldnt accept sneeky removals of pictures without Edit summary, talk or consencus Brunte (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have chosen not to participate in the very recent and very long discussions above doesn't mean they don't exist. See especially this section and Jimbo Wales' comments on the issue. I have re-removed the image. If you want to discuss this, please do so in the section above so we can keep the conversation in one place. Oren0 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
who the **** is Jimbo Wales? Brunte (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Wales Blackeagle (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the founder of Wikipedia (who has pretty much absolute power around here) expresses his opinion on a content issue, it's generally not taken lightly. It is worth noting though that his opinion on the issue overall is unclear, except for the cautionary notes I quote above, and that his opinion in no way binds any decisions we make. Oren0 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, just tellling you Im an atheist Brunte (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is not God, he is a Wikipedia User, just like you are. Peace. ～～～～
This is a different picture Oren0. The other picture was of a dead baby girl whose body was charred and had tank marks over it. That was the subject of the lengthy discussions. The Aljazeera girl image that Brunte returned was accepted as an alternative, please return it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a conversation where a consensus exists to include this image "as an alternative"? Oren0 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Cdogsimmon's comment below. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimb- prides himself on being "just an editor" when it comes to content... when it comes to policy and "office issues" its another thing. In fact, due in part to the near absolute power he wields in other parts, he is rarely taken at his word when it comes to content, and more often than not has been edited back to oblivion, notably in Jimmy Wales, but also infamously in Che Guevara and countless other examples. He is certainly respected, but not really given any special place. Ask him if you don't believe me, Oren0.

On this specific controversy, he didn't argue for or against inclusion of Babycue, but did raise some points for consideration that were interesting and well articulated. In fact, good enough to convince me. More important in fighting WP:BIAS as a cornerstone of NPOV was his clear endorsement of Al-Jazeera as a reliable source "as we mean it in wikipedia".

However, I suggest you do not use Jimb-'s name in vain. It can be a bitch that comes around and bites you in the ass. Again, feel free to ask the dude, for a super busy guy he is pretty accessible to us lowly editors. --Cerejota (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image that OrenO removed because there was a clear consensus (in my opinion) that this page should contain images of casualties from the conflict and the image of the dead girl was in part kept on the page as a compromise for removing the picture of the dead baby that was discussed in detail at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture. Despite what OrenO claims, no consensus was reached to remove it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza Massacre"?

Much as I don't like questioning something with 10 refs after it, the current article states:

The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

This is not supported by even one of the references. It's important to note the distinction between calling it the "Gaza Massacre" (note the capital 'M' indicating that it's a part of the name), versus the way the sources describe it: "Gaza 'massacre'", "massacre in Gaza", and "Gaza massacre". That the conflict has been described as a massacre in the Arab world is certainly supported by the sources and should be in the lead. However, the sources do not support that the conflict has been called "the Gaza Massacre" (or its Arabic translation) as opposed to being descriptively called a massacre in Gaza. Unless sources can be found to show that it has been called the "Gaza Massacre" as a name rather than a description, this sentence should be rewritten, the Arabic removed, and the text unbolded (since it's a description rather than a name). In fact, the only source I see that even uses the term "Gaza massacre" is attributed to a Hamas spokesman. I therefore suggest that the text be changed to:

The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world.

Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just started to think that the ten reffs could be lesser but I was wrong. The not a Brunte (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [35]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [36]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [37]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [38]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
with all that I think the current wording is fine, but you could open a discussion on the capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I would be cool with narrowing down the references to the ones above that explicitly call it 'the gaza massacre' regardless of capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arabic sources use one of 2 phrases that both translate to gaza massacre, either مذبحة غزة, or مجزرة غزة‎ Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the name Hamas uses should be included as the name the government of Gaza uses, just as the name the government of Israel uses is included. Nableezy (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be shown that the conflict has been referred to by the Gaza government in any official or ongoing capacity, rather than just once as an offhand quote in a newspaper? Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those were official statements, including one broadcast around the world on Al-Arabiyya TV. I think that qualifies as more than an offhand quote. If something is attributed to a Hamas spokesman it is attributed to Hamas which is government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nableezy, ergo Caps. As for "...in parts of the Arab World" what exactly is the point of including this qualification? I saw a quick discussion that more or less forced a compromise that "Arab World" ought to be qualified somehow. "...everywere the Arab World" would be problematic, but the general statement "...in the Arab World" is not. It's a matter of grammar and sets and subsets, for example the general statement "Pizza is popular in Italy." is correct, but something like "every single Italian loves pizza" is not correct. We do not have to "compromise" and say "Pizza is popular in parts of Italy." Keep it simple and real. RomaC (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont read arabic, but there was a long discussion about this and the editors who do know it said that there is no capitalization in arabic. in context, if the source says "the gaza massacre" then we should capitalize it. Untwirl (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. It would be textbook original research if the English sources we cite don't capitalize the M but we do because we claim they can't properly translate Arabic. If a fair number of sources capitalize the M, we can as well. At least looking at the current sources, not one of them capitalizes it. All we can do is report the information the same way reliable sources do, which is no capitalization. Oren0 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deja Vue all over again, OrenO. I have been trying to say this for weeks and indeed put this up further up on the page but I will repeat it here because there is so much hablar, hablar, blah that it is best to repeat it rather than expect someone new to keep up with the discussion. It is either completely misunderstood or an attempt is being made to obfuscate:

:::::I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research?

I am beginning to feel like I cannot make myself understood. Am I clear to you?- Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat again:
I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread.
Nableezy (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That there is one of something does not make it a proper noun, nor does it mean that it should be capitalized. If my family has one dog, it is "the family dog" and not "the Family Dog." The reliable sources refer to it with a lower case 'M' and so should we. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it had to be capitalized, but this is most certainly a proper noun (which does not have to be capitalized). The closest comparison I can think of would be this. Hamas leaders, when referring to the State of Israel, generally refuse to use the word 'Israel'. The instead prefer the term 'the Zionist entity'. It cannot be argued when a Hamas spokesman says 'the Zionist entity' he is referring to the State of Israel, and 'the Zionist entity' is a proper noun. And entity is never capitalized in that situation, in any English translation that I read. There being one of something does not make it a proper noun, but by referring to a specific event with a name, here said conflict and name 'the Gaza massacre' that does make the name used a proper noun. I am not arguing about capitalization, but tb has repeatedly asserted when the quotes are referencing this situation as 'the Gaza massacre' that it is not the name given. I think that is patently false. Nableezy (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your own example speaks against you. "Zionist" is capitalized as an ideology, but "entity" is not. specifically because they are making the point that they are not "naming" Israel ie The Zionist Entity would be "recognizing" Israel by another name. By using small-case entity, they are making a point that "entity" in this case generic though a "Zionist" one. "massacre" is any massacre, though it is the Gaza one. 'The Zionist entity' is not meant to be a proper noun, (ie a name) and it isn't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'separate thread' part was from a different thread, so feel free to bring it up here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oren0, do you think that the quotes I cited above refer to it as 'the gaza massacre' as the name? forget about capitalization for now. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting about capitalization for a minute, it seems that most editors support the use of the term and I'm willing to abide by that consensus. As you can see, I have cleaned up the lead to only reference the citations that actually call it "Gaza massacre" by name. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, perhaps we should move on from whether or not it is a name used and determine whether or not to have the massacre capitalized. I am not going to state an opinion at this point, really because I think both sides are valid and I have to turn it over in my head a few more times. But the rest of yall just idly watching, state your piece on whether or not you feel the 'Massacre' should be 'massacre' or 'Massacre' in 'Gaza Massacre'. And if you could include a rational explanation that probably would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oren and Tundrabuggy that we have no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English-language sources don't. I would also add that a qualifier, such as "in parts of (the Arab world)" is necessary. English Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera Magazine, for example, simply don't call it that. Palestine News Network and Gulf News do. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really fighting over capitalization? We wikipedians can get silly sometimes. Fact is, you guys should give up an accept the fact that calling this a "M/massacre" is pretty much the same, the equivalent, and as encyclopedic as calling it Operation Cast Lead. Its called verifiability, not truth. And the disingenousness of arguing the sources do not say this is beyond belief. Don't insult your intelligence by making silly arguments like that anymore. Sometimes, repeating a lie doesn't make it become truth, it just makes you a worse liar. --Cerejota (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, not truth is right. The sources use a lower-case m and I believe that to be a meaningful distinction. If you think that this discussion is silly, why are you participating in it? Also, please don't call people liars. Oren0 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I have breached policy, take it to WP:DRAMA. Calling a spade, a spade is not a personal attack. However, to focus in content, the reality is that people want to remove the name, provided by more sources than 99.9999% of the content in wikipedia, given by a significant percentage of the world's population to the conflict. And they do so by promoting positions that breach the spirit and the words of wikipedia's policy on content, fail let the reader's decided for themselves and create quid pro quo WP:POINTy "if you let this you have to let this other thing". All ofthese things are dishonest and dishonesty is a lie. The Israeli name for the conflict is given more prominence, is less sourced, and used much less in reliable sources than even "Gaza attacks". Yet common sense dictates we give a formal name from a state actor more prominence than the media transmitted common name given by non-state actors, and this is done. The equivalent to "Gaza M/massacre" in Israel would be something like "Gaza War", which is what everyone in the media calls it. This doesn't need answering in the lede, because it is not used as an appreciation of the facts, but as a common name.
This capitalization thing is silly, because it only chnages the meaning in the minds of editors: any half-wit that reads the thing will care very little about capitalization... Who said I cannot join in the silliness just to point out what is obvious to any outsider?--Cerejota (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gulf News and others do capitalize Massacre. We had it capitalized for some time, so let's talk before changing what has been a stable version. Also on the qualification, "parts of the Arab World" --this superfluous qualification would only be useful as an answer to "all of the Arab World"? Further, see the very next paragraph: "Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel" --should we change this to "Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on parts of Israel"? and continue this style throughout? This is where applying the qualification in one place could lead. RomaC (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. Except, of course in titles of articles and such where all words are capitalized. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need a qualification (eg "part of") so it is clear that "massacre" is not the exclusive term in the Arab world, all else is WP:OR. See also archive 22. An even better qualification would be "Some Arab sources refer to the event as ...". If however "massacre" is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without a qualification. Your argument, that a sentence without a qualification ("it is called foo in the Arab world") does not suggest it's not called like that in "all" of it flaws, as this is exactly what this sentence suggests. Your argument with "parts of Israel" flaws because this would be only a meaningless geographical qualification, it does not alter the meaning whether it is included or not. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally obvious to me that no one wants to honestly face this issue (ie that the references do not say what is claimed) and prefer to argue the name so that they can put the Arab perspective in the lead without putting in the Israeli perspective. It seems they would prefer to pretend they do not understand this, and that we are niggling over capitalisation issues and use WP:PA. My earlier fixes were rejected.

  • "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World, and as by others as Israel's legitimate right to self-defense."
  • The conflict has been described as a massacre by many in the Arab world, and is described by others as Israel's exercise of her legitimate right to self defense.
  • The conflict has been interpreted by some as Israel's exercise of her legitimate right to self defense, and by much of the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre

As far as I am concerned, there should be no mention of a massacre in the lead without Israel's view also being mentioned. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that has already been shown to be an irrational position not based on reality. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tundra, it is mentioned, more prominently and with less sourcing. Israel calls this thing "Operation Cast Lead" (check), and it was done to "stop rocket attacks" (check) and "targeting only Hamas infrastructure and people" (check).

The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". The equivalent response would be "The Israeli public opinion calls this "Gaza War" or somesuch, however, since Israel has a formal name for the conflict we should use that, rather than the informal media name. It is not about equivalency, but about how the conflict is named. There is assymetry in this naming, as there is in the casualties, but this is a result of the events, and we cannot artificially resolve this assymetry by making editorial decisions. Just as it is not POV to show the assymetry in casulaties, it is not POV to show an assymetry in naming. I hope I made sense.--Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quote Cerejota: The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre".
Well this is the key issue. Is that so? Is "Gaza massacre" the term to name the event in Arabic ("in general")? The sources provided so far do not back this assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the Arab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally. I can't really believe that all/most Arabs are that inflamatory to exclusively use "massacre" and don't use Gaza "war" or "conflict" or something like that more often, but as a non-Arabic speaker I am not able to figure that out. I only know that Al-Jazeera English in its coverage used "war" and not massacre, and aren't they Arabs? Why should they translate their own terminology wrong for their English channel? But that is just my reasoning following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre. Or does Arab language and/or usage just plainly lack neutral words for conflict/war and alike? In that case, strike out "flamers" and "yelling". But if it is in fact such a language/culture thing, it wouldn't be right to catapult this term into Anglo-Saxon use. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skäpperöd, you highlighted the sentence that stuck out for me as well. The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". That sentence really says it all. It is not a name at all, but an opinion(ie a POV). That is why it is important that the other opinion is included in that paragraph as well. It may well be described by some Arabs (and others for that matter) as a "massacre" but clearly the sources do not reflect that it is a name, or it would have been translated into typical English naming conventions, and this was not so described by the references as has been pointed out numerous times. To do so is WP:OR. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, thanks for the insight. The term martyr (شهيد) is used near universally in the Arab world for any casualties of this conflict, and indeed in the entirety of the I-P conflict. It is not because Arabs are 'flamers' it is because the term is used as an honorific. And as far as exclusive use among Arabs, I dont think that is really even nececssary to prove, we have statements from spokespeople of the government of Gaza that use this as the name. That is enough reason to have it in the first paragraph as the name used, just as the name used by the Israeli government is included. Nableezy (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. You say "martyr" is abundantly used for casualties in Arabic, at least in the I-P conflict. Is "massacre" also abundantly used for armed conflicts in general (or only with Israel?) that result in casualty? Is it thus kind of an idiom without the meaning it has in English, or is it the other way around, that per definition every act by an opponent (or only Israel?) that results in Arabic (or only Palestinensian?) casualties is a massacre? I am just curious. Does the massacre term as used in Arabic not imply that the nature of the conflict was only to slaughter Gazan civilians (which it does for Western readers like me), but is it rather a mantra categorically applied to all events where Gazans (Palestinians? Arabs? Muslims?) get killed? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every one, not even every one that involves Israel, but generally when a large number of civilians are killed in a conflict when one side has no real army, and no airforce no navy no surface-to-air defense mechanism, and the other has all of that, they call that a massacre. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are actual armies fighting, like October war (حرب تشرين) or Six-day War (حرب الأيام الستة‎) they usually use 'war' (حرب) Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And displaying the name used would not 'catapult this term into Anglo-Saxon use', it is just objectively showing what one of the involved parties called this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed a few times. My point has always been that we need sources that name it "Massacre" but using the term in the lead is OK since it was referred to as a massacre and was stated as such. I heard on the radio today that Al Jazeera, Syrians, and Palestinians were calling it the Gaza War. If it is just referred to as a massacre while "the Gaza War" is common for locals and news agencies I see no reason for the massacre title anymore if sources can be found.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: Nableezy, seems like several editors are now against the title and have used the same rational. If you are arguing this just to win the debate (always assumed you were not) it is time to give it up. Let's find a source and be done with this finally.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not, I am arguing this needs to be included because it is the name that has been used by Hamas, the government of Gaza. It is standard practice that the name each sides government uses be included as the name each sides government uses. I would say look back at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals and see what I actually supported for the phrasing. You havent seen me argue about this except about the name used by Hamas, except in the very beginning when the Arab media was also using this on sites like BBC and Al-jazeera. That has consistently been my position, that the name each sides government uses in referring to the conflict (and I hope I have been able to demonstrate usage as a name by Hamas) be included. That is all I have been arguing. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't blame me for double checking on the debate aspect of it. Just needed to throw it out there. I agree that it has been described as a massacre and don't hate the wording. I still believe (obviously my thoughts on it only) that it will not be historically known as The Gaza Massacre. The lead will need to be updated as soon as it starts being titled or more commonly referred to as the the "Gaza War ('09)" or anything else.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I certainly have been known to like to argue, in fact my friends say I am a White Sox fan because I hate agreeing with all the Cubs fans ;) Not here though, I just think what I am saying is right, but nothing taken by that. In fact I'd say you have been pretty reasonable this whole time, so a little question like that aint gonna bother me. Nableezy (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nableezy. I just wanted to understand if "massacre" has the same meaning for Arabs as it has for non-Arabs, and if Arabs use that term the same way as non-Arabs would. From your answer, I understand

  • that the term to a certain degree has the same meaning for Arabs and non-Arabs, i.e. killing a larger number of people unable to defend themselves
  • that Arab usage is somewhat different, i.e. in Arab usage the term is generally applied to armed conflicts where one party is not fighting with a regular army (without taking into account the military activity of this party), while non-Arab usage is narrowed to the killing of non-fighting people without serving a military purpose.

So if I got that right, and if the Arabic word for "Gaza massacre" is indeed the most widely used name in the Arab world (which needs to be sourced), we have to

  • either use "Gaza massacre" as an alternative name in both Arabic and English, but also note the differences in the Arab usage of that term. This would apply if the Arabic word "Gaza massacre" is the most widely used Arabic term and is translated into English by most/many RS as "Gaza massacre".
  • or give the term "massacre" in Arabic only and translate it as "war" or something similar, following the Al-Jazeera example. This would apply if the Arabic word "Gaza massacre" is the most widely used term in the Arab world and if it is translated into English by most/many RS as "Gaza war/conflict/foo".

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you took my comment the wrong way. That was just an example of what could be called a massacre. The meaning of the word is exactly the same in both languages. I have not said it is the most common name used by Arabs. It certainly has been used by Arabs, but the only thing that matters, to me at least, is that it is used by the opposing government in this conflict. The translation is what the translation is, the arabic words are what Hamas used, and the English words are the translation of those words, both according to a dictionary, and according to sources who translated those words. We cannot just change the English translation of the word in Arabic. Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Al-jazeera English is by no means the English translation of Al-jazeera. It is almost a completely separate venture, and its programming is nowhere near the same. Nableezy (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, forget what I said above. If the meaning and usage is exactly the same, then it only needs to be established who is using that term and to what extend. If Hamas is using that term exclusively, it should be sourced and mentioned. If all or most or specific Arab RS use that term, too, it needs to be sourced and mentioned accordingly (which imo is not the case with the current version).
I would personally be disappointed if all/most Arabs exclusively use "Gaza massacre" for naming the event or otherwise refer to it as a massacre - that is what I regard flaming, the term then would only be chosen to imply guilt and cruelty of the opponent and make the Gazan share of the conflict forgotten. With all respect to the Palestinian arguments, but if someone arms himself with the stated aim to exterminate his neighbor and keeps throwing rockets at him ... In contrast, if eg the Zeitoun version turns out to be correct that civilians were forced into a building that was shelled thereafter with no other aim but to kill them, that would of course be a massacre. But enough of WP:SOAP, let's see what the sources say, unfortunately I cannot participate in their evaluation because I do not speak Arabic. Thank you again Nableezy for patiently explaining the Arab usage to me, I really hoped there would be a simple "technical" (linguistic/cultural) explanation and not just the inflamatory one. Now what is left for me is only to hope the sources show that not all/most Arabs are flamers. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcome" in main Infobox should be noted as 'Israeli victory', given that it is already noted in "Status" that 'Hamas rocket attacks largely halted' was achieved per the sole stated objective of Israel in entering the conflict

See Falklands War, Six Day War, and Battle of Salamis as precedent for the acknowledgement of victories for what they plainly are.Havvic (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some victory. Many dead and injured with Hamas still in power and control, and the tunnels still in place. The reputation of israel also seems to have taken a beating, and no doubt the new US administration will have seen the unacceptable Israeli practice of waging war against a civilian population using white phosphorus etc. Peterlewis (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source claiming this is an Israeli victory? Or is this the opinion of some random user? Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research. Next.--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. Acknowledged as Israeli victory here. How can it be otherwise, noting that they've achieved their stated objective of causing Hamas to surrender the objective of exercising a prerogative to continue rocket attacks against their country, people, and territory? Think about it.Havvic (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other side (Hamas and Gaza in general) claimed victory too. So both sides have to be put, if necessary. A lot says neither side won anything anyway, including several sources from JPost. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was the objective of Hamas other than to assert its prerogative to continue rocket attacks against Israel? .. an objective that it surrendered as a result of military defeat inflicted by Israel. Perhaps you can state ONE military objective announced by Hamas that it did in fact achieve. I can't. ps. "not being completely annihilated" does not count as a plausible military objective.Havvic (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this wasn't fast enough, NEXT. Nableezy (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that a conflict where the first side ceases fire because it has achieved its announced military objectives, and the second side opposes but fails to defend against the achievement of those objectives should be acknowledged as anything other than a victory for the first side? Wow, did I miss something about Hamas being punished into submission, losing ground and material and infrastructure and personnel, and finally even committing to halt rocket attacks into Israel as a consequence of all that. If that's not the victory of Israel, then what on Earth would be in this particular case?Havvic (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stated objective was not just 'stopping rocket fire' it was crippling the ability to stop rocket fire. I would think the 20 rockets fired between the time Israel announced its ceasefire and the time Hamas announced its ceasefire would be proof enough for you that no such crippling took place. That you disagree with this is utterly irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Hamas has not committed to stop rocket fire, they said they would give Israel a week to withdraw and then negotiate a longer ceasefire, just like it was before this started. A return to the status quo is not a win for Israel, or at least not until some historians call it an Israeli win. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Havvic actually has a point. I think that people living on both sides of the border would not agree that situation on the ground is the same as before this war/operation. The rockets clearly stopped. There are signs that Gilad Shalit case suddenly started progressing. Israel clearly achieved it's military goals with little loss on its side. From other hand, Hamas did not achieve any legitimation, was not even invited to cease fire ceremony with Egypt and European leaders in Sharm Al Shaikh and even Egypt continues to refuse recognize Hamas as legitimate Gaza government and open Rafah crossing. So objectively speaking, Hamas casus belli blockade was not resolved in no way. You could also see Just war article for Ending a war: jus post bellum. It all matches. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single serious objective person has called this an Israeli victory, nor shall we unless they do. This is all personal opinion that doesn't belong here. Nableezy (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All we need to acknowledge is whether the war objectives of Israel were achieved resulting from the prosecution of the conflict, or not. Referring to the article again, those objectives were, um, "stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas" - both very evidently achieved now that the smoke has cleared and we've had an opportunity for considered assessment. And as for whether smallscale activity from the remnants one belligerent after the other has accomplished its mission and taken mercy upon it, hey, d'you think I could claim that World War 2 wasn't a victory by Russia because I still had enough people in Germany to let off a dozen or two rockets at the Russians? Be serious now.Havvic (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research. Next. (rudely stolen from Cerejota) Nableezy (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the war objective was ending rocket attacks, and that the attacks ceased consequently are not opinions originating from me, but are both backed up by citations - all too numerous to mention here - found in the article itself. Your haste to gloss over the same therefore becomes quite telling. Sourced from The Jerusalem Post, no less, a claim has been made that the outcome was an Israeli victory (rather than something lesser - like a qualified victory, a stalemate, or some other party's victory). We therefore may look to the antecedents such as the event outcomes (rocket attacks ceased, military debilitation of Hamas) and announced objectives of each side (ceasing rocket attacks vs continuing them, targeting of Hamas military capabilities vs destruction of Israel), to determine whether that claim has credibility and moreover ought to be admitted into the content of the article. Yes and Yes to both, it seems, although you would say that a final volley of 20 rockets coming over in the time that hundreds used to has some countervailing significance. The rest of us still issue the challenge 'Really? How so?'67.205.48.127 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

There are now no casualty photos in the article. Casualty photos are common in Wikipedia articles. Removing images is the same as removing text. Both are info. One is visual info.

Jimbo Wales wrote recently concerning photos in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article:

"Many pictures do not require a reliable source for the simple reason that they are self-evidently what they purport to be. ..."

See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 43#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?

ISM (International Solidarity Movement) casualty photos are self-evident. See

for some of their free casualty photos in the Commons, and the resource links for more.

They are self-evidently casualty photos. ISM has been in the Gaza Strip for years. There is no reason to doubt that they are casualty photos from this war. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera casualty photos are self-evident

On 23:27, 24 January 2009 Oren0 removed an Al-Jazeera casualty photo with this edit summary: "re-remove dead girl photo, per discussion on talk. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose"

Jimbo Wales wrote in the same discussion:

I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed ....

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you slightly misunderstood what "self evident" is supposed to mean - the Jimbo cite you gave stated that a zebra photo is self evident regarding a claim that this is a photo of a zebra:

A zebra is a zebra. Where it gets tricky can perhaps be characterized as "images which purport to depict a unique historical event". In this particular case, where emotions clearly run very high on all sides, and the photo itself is clearly inflammatory and upsetting, I would suggest that a very high standard of care is necessary. I think that some consideration of human dignity is also important here, although not absolutely determining what should be done. (full quote J.W.)

Maybe it is also of interest what J.W. said concerning Al-Jazeera:

Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed. (J.W. same thread as linked above)

So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident. Yet eg a skyline of Gaza with an explosion would self-evidently be an explosion in Gaza. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the comments of others. See [39] This goes against WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALK says that editing others' comments is allowed: "when a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read." He didn't change your content, so calm down. Oren0 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address my comments as concerns "self-evident". Read the whole Jimbo Wales thread.
Skäpperöd wrote: "So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident." A casualty photo is a casualty photo. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't leave a bold message if someone is helping you with the format. Where is your point in having an unsigned main section and a subsection on the same issue? Do you want someone to respond or did you just want to make a point? Note that I did not change any of your content but only corrected the format, but as you want it that messy, I'll leave it that way.
Self evident does not mean that just because someone claims it to be a casualty photo it necessarily is one. Self evident is eg that the photo is of a dead girl. The photo does not give an indication in itself where and when it was taken and why this girl is dead. I do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty, but I dispute that the dead girl photo is self evidently such. I read the thread, I even cited the relevant parts in more deatil. "A zebra is a zebra" is the key sentence. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A RS says she is a casualty in this conflict, that should clear up any such issues. Nableezy (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it is a Gazan casualty if a RS says so. But is it not a Gazan casualty because it is "self evident". The issue here is whether or not J.W. initiated a WP:RS revolution for images, and he did not. We cannot outrule WP:RS with attributing "self evident" to claims not supported by plain photo content. Photo content is "face of a dead girl" (self evident --> no RS needed for that statement) but not "Gaza casualty" (not self evident --> RS needed). Skäpperöd (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales did not change anything. You are trying to. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

Skäpperöd. I am glad that you "do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty." I wonder though why you reduced the image size from "thumb" to 50px wide in my comment. See [40]. Please do not edit the comments of others. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an Al-Jazeera photo from a video in which it is clearly established this is a casulaty from Gaza. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Inclusion arguments of reliability are invalid. This debate ends in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please put it back in the article, and can it remain this time? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you misunderstand why I removed this picture. I'm not disputing that it's a photo of a dead girl or that reliable sources claim her to be a casualty of war. So I don't repeat myself too much, I point you to my comments in this section. Just because a photo exists doesn't mean we have to show it. The question, given the obvious that the picture is offensive and inflammatory to some, is whether the picture demonstrates anything that words do not. The cherry picked photo of one of many victims of war serves no encyclopedic purpose and only serves to push a POV. Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my last response up there addressed that. I think we can, in a NPOV way, show the damage caused on each side. Just because the damage caused is not equal does not mean the representation of that damage is not NPOV. I would be fine with including images that represent a significant portion of the damage caused by Hamas, such as a rocket causing property damage, but that image is representative of 32% of all deaths in this conflict. It is not POV-pushing to show that, just as it is not POV pushing to show a representative picture of the damage Hamas has inflicted. Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photo--again-- on grounds that there is no consensus to add it, and that it contributes to making the article unbalanced and non-neutral. The burden is now on you to explain why we should keep it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that International Solidarity Movement qualifies as a questionable source. Here is the policy: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source.
Not only promotional in nature but many of us here doubt that ISM has a good reputation for fact-checking, or that it doesn't rely "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" or that its views might be "widely acknowledged as extremist". The only question would relate to just how widely is wide. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out the Hebrew wikipedia is using an ISM image in their pictures, in fact it is the only picture they have that show anything in Gaza. Google translate didnt work so well, about half the talk page was in hebrew, but I couldnt see any dispute over there as to whether that is a reliable source for an image. Also, the image of the grad rocket that we have was uploaded by a user saying it was his own picture. Why exactly should a person taking a picture and saying it was from this conflict be treated any better then an organization taking a picture and making it available to the whole world? Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this picture is from Al-jazeera, not ISM. Al-jazeera is a RS, if they say this girl died in this conflict we can treat that as fact. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we attribute it and no other RS disputes this (which is not the case) - absolutely. But weren't we talking about "self-evidence"? We take the "Gaza casualty"-information from a RS, and not from the picture itself. "Al-Jazeera photo's are self-evident" is the claim made in the heading, but no they are not in any case self-evident. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be unaware that the photos are stills taken from video provided by Al Jazeera English at cc.aljazeera.net. In those videos, the people whom we see in these stills are being interviewed by Jazeera journalists and the facts surrounding the circumstances of their injuries are discussed. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Do you still have a problem? Tiamuttalk 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background info and article for 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Concerning 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, a background article for 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, additional info for it has been retrieved from an AfD for another article. That info needs to be summarized and incorporated into 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Please see:

Help, editing, and additional input and comments are requested. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy in this sentence?

Does this sentence accurately reflect the sources: "Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independant(sic) investigations and law suits(sic)." I checked the sources that specifically say "war crimes," and they did this only in reference to Israel. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because "war crime" and "violation of international law during a war" are the same (and there are probably some more ways to put it)? In the Int. law#Palestinians section there are some alleged war crimes listed and attributed to the sources and groups who made them. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Skap thanks I'll go through that. My concern is that this article is the first place I've seen Hamas accused of war crimes relating to this event. In major media the allegations are toward Israel. RomaC (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Fatah listed on Hamas' side?

In Belligerents, Fatah is below Hamas. This doesn't really fit with other statements that Hamas was rounding up members of Fatah, and that Fatah was calling for Hamas to stop firing rockets before the invasion.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aqsa Martrys' Brigade is an armed wing that is affiliated with Fatah. Its a faction that split from the main political arm over disagreements on the use of force. (Fatah reneged on the right to use violence in the Algiers Declaration of 1988; a decision not accepted by all members of the faction or all the Palestinian factions). Tiamuttalk 16:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably just list the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades directly, rather than listing it under Fatah then. Blackeagle (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that, but we should do it consistently. It would be best to limit the belligerents to armed wings only for all the groups only. The political leadership is separate from the militant leadership in every faction. 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you would also list the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades instead of Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to list the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades instead of Hamas, since the organization as a whole was a party to the conflict. However, since Fatah as a whole was not directly involved in the conflict, we should only list the subsection that is involved. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gaza as a whole was a party to this conflict, and I said early, maybe the first archive, that I would rather have it say Israel on one side and Gaza on the other. That was rejected. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Israel on one side and Gaza on the other reflects the event. If Fatah is listed because Hamas said it was using Fatah weapons (see source), and that means Fatah provided material support, that is another matter. With that logic the USA could be listed on the Israel side, no? Problem is this has been framed as a war involving Israel (political and geographic entity) and Hamas (political entity). This largely ignores Gaza, where the fighting took place. So, yeah, "USA vs Baath" would be the equivalent spin for "Iraq War". Troubling. Sorry for the tangents.... RomaC (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this horizontal gallery of small thumbnails as a way to show some casualty photos in the article (in the casualties section):

  • Girl
    Girl
  • Child
    Child
  • Mother
    Mother
  • Boy
    Boy

Al-Jazeera. A variety of ages. We need some photos of adult men. I believe that ISM has some male casualties in their free images. need some Israeli casualty photos. We might be able to use some Fair Use images. This is a war article, and we use images from many sources, and all sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possible Fair Use images:

I did an advanced search of Flickr for "israeli qassam rocket" and "israel rocket death" and found no completely free images that can be used on Wikipedia. Other search terms might be tried.

Here is a possible Fair Use image of an Israeli casualty during the time period of the war:

I found some free images of rocket remains: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novecentino/sets/72157612460369023/ --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of fair-use would be we cannot use non-free images in the same way that they were originally used, so using a picture from an article about this conflict could not be used under fair-use. Not sure though. Nableezy (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is true. But we may be able to clarify this by analyzing the Fair Use article, and the Wikipedia guidelines concerning Wikipedia's narrower view. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better resource would be Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2, specifically "4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." listed in unacceptable use. And "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. Based on that I think we cannot claim fair-use for any image with a copyright that was intended to illustrate the content, meaning we would be restricted to free-use images. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to add additional photos

There is no consensus to add any additional photos, particularly in the nature of casualty photos --not of either side. The thinking and commentary on this has been enormous, with all sorts of rationale used -- eg unbalanced, undue, unsourced, improperly sourced, questionably sourced, non-neutral, family feelings, tabloid, sensationalist, non-neutral, non-informative etc etc. I know the other side has arguments in favor of putting them in, but as long as there is no consensus, please do not continue to post photos daily. While we know that consensus may change, give us a week or so for that changing. Furthermore, I believe that puts the burden on those who wish to insert material of a controversial nature. So give us a break and lets move on to the text of this article. Everyone knows that in war innocents die. Leave it alone and let's move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to remove the casualty photos. There have been casualty photos most of the time. Most of the casualty photos are not too graphic. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there consensus to add them. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia is that articles have photos. WP:BURDEN is for text. Photos are different, and have always been treated differently. A casualty photo is a casualty photo, and it would take a great conspiracy theory of bizarre proportions to believe that Al-Jazeera or ISM would take fake casualty photos when there is no doubt both have been in the Gaza Strip during this war. There are thousands of casualties, and there is no need to fake them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the galleries because they are ugly, eliminated redundant photos, added better and more descriptive captions, eliminated redundant photos (another wounded child and the guy in some other section), and provided sourcing for the captions.--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I deleted this sentence:

This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.[1]

The source cited is this article. Please note that the audio recordings from one journalist that possibly indicate that a rocket was fired from near the building she was in, do not constitute sufficient prrof for the conclusion made in this sentence. I also do not think the placement of this sentence, right after the info on Gaza's population density and high number of children, is appropriate. In any case, the way it's formulated is WP:OR. Its a total stretch of one anecdote into an infrastructural fact. Tiamuttalk 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tiamut, welcome into discussion. You know this was already discussed for a long time here [[41]] Both sources and exact wording. Let's work together towards a neutral point of view. You also welcome to suggest replacements, but please wait with remove till you get a reply. Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Reliability of source: Haaretz is RS and that is the reason why it is quoted. This source was found in compromise during previous discussions. If you still not convinced, you could also see video footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK2bg1yNqN4 I heard UNRWA spokesmen confirming on radio interview that on footage we see Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood). You could also clearly see on Youtube that it is the case, since there are other related clips by Hanan Al-Masri. Don't you just love Internet technology? I'm not an Arabic speaker. Maybe you could confirm that she tells about Grad launching near her office? She looks somehow surprised. Still not convinced? There are a lot of other footages which show rocket launching from center of Gaza city, it was reported by everybody. I hope you don't dispute this. Maybe you'd like to suggest alternative source?

Relevance: During previous discussions [[42]] Skäpperöd noted The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So my assumption is that high population density and the unusually high proportion of children go hand in hand with use of human shields in the background section. It is worth mentioning that some areas of Gaza strip are even more densely populated than others. According to reports Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) located in the heart of Gaza City, include among others the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky, NBC, Russian news channel Russia Today, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Arabiya. This is clearly use of human shields on Hamas Gaza government.

Please let me know on which points you disagree. You are welcome to suggest how to make it better. Again please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. I'm going to restore this sentence and wait for your and others comments. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AgadaUrbanit, you're new here, so there may be some things you do not understand. I reviewed the discussion you pointed to. I found no support for your inclusion of this material. The source sim[ply does not support the phrasing of the sentence you have introduced and its placement is dubious. When other editors disagree with your edits, the onus is on you to gain consensus for their inclusion. (Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS) It is inappropriate for you toc continually restore material when others object to its presence and make clear their objections.
To summarize, your source does not say what the sentence you are adding says. Find a source that does first, and then we can discuss whether or not the info in that source is relevant. Tiamuttalk 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto.
In this 'human shields'/'Hamas' propaganda, one should of course recall that the Israeli Supreme Court has twice handed down decisions condemning the IDF for the use of captured Palestinian boys as human shields in their incursive operations (2004,2005) and yet B'tselem reports that the IDF continue(s)(d) to do so, using them 13 times in 2007. Secondly, as that wise man Uri Avnery noted for the umpteenth time:

'Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.'Uri Avnery, 'The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza,' Counterpunch 12/01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay relevant to this conflict, Nishidani. I do not really get it. Don't you know that Earth is flat? What is your point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the goal of that blockquote was to boil it down to "Jews Israelis are Nazis." I would like to protest strongly at the inclusion of this text. I do not demand that it be struck out, but I still protest. V. Joe (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Avnery was commenting on this conflict. On a point of language, the earth is of course, round. earth can be flat.My point was, as in my edit summary, the material you distorted and made a private synthesis of (two violations of wiki rules) has no bearing on the background to the conflict. At best, it refers to the 'orders of battle' in a war, only, as Reuven Pedatzur points out, there was no war. He also remarks, and you might put this in your notes, that IDF officials privately admitted that they made no distinction between civilians and fighters.

At the start of the ground offensive, senior command decided to avoid endangering the lives of soldiers, even at the price of seriously harming the civilian population. This is why the IDF made use of massive force during its advance in the Strip. As a Golani brigade commander explained, if there is any concern that a house is booby-trapped, even if it is filled with civilians, it should be targeted and hit, to ensure that it is not mined - only then should it be approached. Without going into the moral aspects, such fighting tactics explain why there were no instances in which there was a need to assault homes where Hamas fighters were holed up. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058460.html Reuven Pedatzur The war that wasn't Haaretz 25/01/2009

I.e. high civilian casualties are a necessary correlative of low IDF casualties, and as they say in the classics, it was, to the planners, just 'stiff cheddar' for anyone in the way of that objective. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the end of the quote from Uri Avnery, an Israeli Jew by the way, was "This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war." It wasn't a direct relation between Israelis and Nazis, it is saying that the media would have reported the same events quite differently had Germany won the war, that the media would follow the same lines that the Israelis have used about Hamas using human shields. Which he relates immediatley following that quote: "Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured." I didn't read it as an equivalence between Nazis and Israelis, rather as a refutation of the repeated claim that Hamas is using 'human shields'. Nableezy (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for warm welcome, Tiamut. I'm here to learn and improve encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on my part. Why do you assume that sentence placement is dubious? Did you see what experienced Skäpperöd noted? Please elaborate on this point, if you disagree! Do you suggest that source does not support that there was a Hamas Gaza government military installation of grad rocket launchers near Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood)? It is use of human shields in the heart of Gaza city. I'm new so please explain verbosely. I believe we could overcome cognitive relativism and reach Wikipedia:consensus together. Really there is no need for extermination/removal. Thank you for your guidance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source supports this sentence: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It does not support anything beyond that. It is also not pertinent to the background section. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see zero problem with the sentence. It may have been placed in the wrong section of the article, but the sentence's removal was clearly unjustifiable. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see nothing wrong with: This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.? Besides the fact that military installations, as pointed out earlier, could not possibly include a roving group of rocket launchers, how about that it doesnt address, what I think would be the opposite POV, that Israel has chosen this area by imposing a blockade on Gaza? The source supports only this: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It cannot be taken to show that Hamas has chosen the heart Gaza city for military installations like grad rocket launchers. Hamas has launched rockets from numerous locations up and down the strip, there is no evidence that they chose the center of Gaza city in the source provided. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all "blockade" was imposed by both by Israel and by Egypt. Hamas was also involved. Hamas could as well cooperate with Fatah and leave Rafah crossing open, please see wikipedia article. Some also would argue that "commercial" blockade is less aggressive then Grad rocket fire at cities. From other hand you can not be that naive Hamas government of Gaza put those rockets launchers there. It did not get there by chance or "because of occupation". There were no military Israeli presence (ocupation) in Gaza. Frankly I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. I also would add that RS reported that Hamas had reason to think that Israel would attack those launchers, in self-deference, especially after they were used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you just said was a personal opinion. Your personal opinions are unfortunately not supported by the sources or the facts. This is your accusation in a form that is unsupported by the sources. Opinions cannot be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology "heart of" is leading the reader and seems inappropriate, as if this area is somehow more morally superior than another area. Same thing with the term "installations", which seems to imply that tanks or assault vehicles or whatever are housed there. The sentence "Hamas' Gaza government chose this area for grad rocket launchers" would be a much better wording. The Squicks (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special pleading. It violated WP:OR and everything else in the book. One doesn't compromise on bad edits, especially when they are put in contexts where they are irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggestions, The Squicks. If "heart of" is offending (while it is used to describe where Israeli military hit in response in the article so maybe we should review it also to stay balanced) I suggest to change it to "Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City" or just "downtown Gaza City" which was used in RS to describe location of Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower. As for "military installation" it still looks fair to me, I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. Are we getting to toward an agreement? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not support what you are saying. It says there was a report of a rocket launch from the area of Al-Arabiya offices in Gaza city. It says nothing else. Other attempts to put this there have included statements from the Israeli MFA. That is a primary source and cannot be used to cite a fact, it can only be used to cite the opinion of that source, it cannot be presented as fact. And finally, this does not belong in that paragraph of that section. This is not background to the event. You are trying to put the opinion of a few people as a fact in a place where it is completely irrelevant. The very next paragraph focuses on Hamas launching rockets. This sentence cannot be supported by its citations, it constitutes OR and is completely irrelevant to the background of this event. It is not possible that something that happened during the event be at all related to the background. Nableezy (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We moved this discusion? Ok, Hi again, AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the big hullabaloo is. The statement should be in the "Media" section, and should only state that according to blahblah, Hamas launched Grad rockets from next to the particular building in question. The extent to which Hamas launched rockets from next to sensitive buildings as a consistent policy is still being hashed out. When more info comes out we'll put it in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we did move this discussion. Glad to see you again, RomaC. Haaretz AFAIK is RS. and let me re-iterate: Hamas grad rocket launcher is military installation and did not get there (heart|downtown) of Gaza city and fired by chance. Hamas Gaza goverment deployed it there and claimed responsibility for firing. There are other RS reports of Grad fire from (heart|downtown) of Gaza city. It was not isolated case, just most obvious graphic and convincing. Please explain me in more details what exactly is the problem? If it is strictly reliable sources problem here another from BBC which is also RS AFAIK reported: analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets. See [[43]]. Human rights group consider it as taking (my wording) heart of Gaza as human shield. So how do we proceed to agreement? Could you offer a compromise instead of total elimination? 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jalapenos, Thank you for suggestion. The point here per is "high density of population" and "human shiels" according to Skäpperöd quote The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So it belongs in background. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence:
Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel.
is already in the paragraph directly below this. It make no sense that you keep wanting to put this other piece of your OR right before it. This is OR and irrelevant to the section you are placing that text. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nableezy, good to argue (about facts) with you again. Please try to consider it (again): we (guided by Skäpperöd) agreed to justify relevancy of "leading" "high density of population" "on an area of only" "almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger" quotes as relevant to background section by human shields. Deployment of Hamas Grad launcher by Hamas goverment of Gaza in downtown Gaza city could be considered human shields by many. Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I did not agree to any such thing. No I do not see your point, there is no argument presented at all in that paragraph, I do not see why you want to keep adding this into a paragraph that only contains pertinent information about Gaza, as the location of the fighting. The very next section talks about rocket fire, there is no point in having it here as well expect to advance a POV. Nableezy (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AgadaUrbanit (talk), your explanation above helps illustrate why editors are objecting: A good Wiki passage should not require an explanation. Best to reflect the source, not interpret it.
On a personal note if you'll excuse me, you're new here but I think you already see how this article has attracted editors who have strong POV, which is probably unavoidable with controversial articles in general. Anyway, some editors have an approach that earns them respect from both 'sides', and I think everyone appreciates that. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RomaC, Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Agada, I don't see that point at all, sorry. When I am in doubt, I only see sources. RomaC (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roma, what exactly don't you understand? I propose a compromise - let's remove "leading" high density, in order to be balanced. If you don't agree please explain what is the problem with the Haaretz and BBC clearly RS sources? Verbosely please. One sided extermination/removal is not a proper solution. There are some editors which see no problem with my quote what so ever, so let's move toward a consensus. Hope you could see it now. 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)
This isnt about compromise, you want people to compromise from your starting point of having OR in a paragraph where it is not relevance and end up where you are removing information that is both well sourced and relevant. There is no compromise here that involves either solution. Nableezy (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you a little story about compromise: Once upon a time, a turtle was walking along, when a gopher popped by and said 'Hey turtle, 5+5=8!' The turtle retorted: 'No, actually, 5+5=10'. But the gopher was persistent in his argument that 5+5=8, and the disagreement between the two continued for some time. Finally, the gopher said, 'Ok, let's compromise, and say that 5+5=9.' I think anyone considering this scenario would have to conclude that it's ridiculous to imagine animals knowing anything at all about arithmetic. RomaC (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story, RomaC. Really enlightening. How is it relevant? I'm sorry that you refuse to state what is wrong with Haaretz and BBC sources, in you opinion. Initially you removed the phrase without any discussion and now you refuse to work towards agreement. What gives you a right for unexplained Veto? Please act in good faith, according to Wikipedia:Etiquette and please assume good faith on my side. Do you have any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have a suggestion, it stays as it is. We have repeatedly explained why the content you are attempting to add is both out of place and OR. There really isnt much more to discuss. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Nableezy said. RomaC (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we talking Grad rockets, me being a nerd for military crap, I have yet to find, in my original research, any picture of a destroyed Grad launcher in Gaza. Qassams are clearly Grad-derived, but Grads are pretty specifically MLRS weapons, not single launch rockets. Can people point me to where I am wrong? I mean, it just doesn't verify.--Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you'll allow me to out-geek you, there is a man-portable version see "9K132 'Grad-P'" on the BM-21 article. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose re-inststing the sentence into the population paragraph. Reason: The paragraph serves as background information for a lot of stuff covered in the article. That is the eg human shield problem, the casualties, a major aspect of Israeli planning and progress in the area, among other stuff. The information given in the population paragraph further contributes to a lot of different POVs and reasoning about the conflict as a whole and the Hamas and Israeli operations in particular, eg justifiability of military operations in that area and responsibility for the casualties. If we single out just one argument to place behind the information it looks pretty much like a synthesis to support a POV. On the other hand, I do not oppose having information about the rocket launching procedure in the article, it should be mentioned how and from where what rockets were launched (rocket launching squads, were non-portable launchers also used, was their a preferration from where rockets were launched or were they launched from most densely and unpopulated areas alike, stuff like this should be in the article). I think however that at least some of that is already covered, and I think it should rather go into the Palestinian militants subsection of the campaign section as far as it concerns the actual fighting, and what is introduced in the background section (which covers the previous rocket attacks) should be carefully evaluated following WP:UNDUE - eg was it of any value for the conflict and the Israeli military decisions where exactly the rockets were launched? Would it have changed anything if they launched their rockets always and only from let's say 2971 Main Street Khan Younis? It is however worth mentioning if non-portable launchers were installed inmidst of civilians, making the area a potential target. Was that the case? Then introduce into the next paragraph in the background section (maybe after the "resumed their rocket and mortar attacks" sentence) and source. If only portable launchers were used, that should be mentioned within some other sentence (eg "squads with portable launchers resumed their rocket and mortar attacks"), more weight would be undue for the background, but more detailed information regarding launching tactics and devices are certainly relevant for the campaign section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an not sure I have understood your point, since it is not phrased with sufficient clarity. There is an extensive amount of material in the serious literature that the demographic density of Gaza is one of the main concerns of forward planners in Israeli. The architect of Sharon's unilateral engagement identified this as one of the key factors in Israel's policies, and one of the reasons why war would ensue. The military data to hand so far is that the IDF's plan did not foresee discriminating against civilians and paramilitary people: the main objective of the way the assault was conducted was to reduce to an absolute minimum (it was politically unacceptable to suffer high casualties given the forthcoming elections) deaths among the ranks of Israeli soldiers, while doing maximum damage to the enemy. One must distinguish government press declarations of intent, from what IDF spokesmen are reported as saying off the record. Rockets have to be launched in the open. One doesn't trudge out of an area offering cover into an open field to launch rockets, since, tactically, this would mean that all units launching rockets would be killed instantly, and the number of units engaged in this suicidal assistance to the enemy (the IDF) would be wasted to virtually zero from the outset. In all known wars, military units do not offer themselves up, in a clear line of fire, to their enemies. I know the press is drenched with this crap about using civilians. Perhaps they were. I don't exclude it. But it was in the nature of the battleground (fight in protected areas with cover/ or fighting in exposed areas, open farmland under constant drone surveillance linked to computerized firing units) and the war that Hamas conducted the war the way it did, i.e. with cover and the possibility of flight once a rocket had been launched. As to the missile attack from Grad rockets launched outside the TV studies, which Agadit makes much of. It was reported that one Hamas Unit ran into the street near that tower, fired off a rocket, and, in response, the IAF hit precisely a point 13 floors above ground level housing an Arab media network. The AIF didn't fire on the street point where the rocket was launched, but on the tower nearby, where people had reported the launching. There is no connection between the two. Human shields have nothing, furthermore, to do with background. Background. The IDF has consistently used them. Background should deal with the history of tensions between Israel and Hamas, and the Gaza Strip, not with technical details about how each side conducted its battles. That can be saqfely delegated to Cerejota, in an appropriate section on the technical side of the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm an not sure I have understood your point" Ok, re-reading I was too much in a hurry, my point was : Let's not have the rocket-launch-sentence in the population paragraph, as the population paragraph serves as the background for multiple issues of the article. Have it somewhere else with due weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AgadaUrbanit, the source is fine, but you're making too much of it, turning one incident into a phenomenon. Please take my advice above. When more info comes out about Hamas' fighting tactics, you or I or someone else can add it to the "Palestinian militant activity" section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International law section

The previous discussion has been archived. The International law section needs work. Currently accusations against Israel are generally followed by a pro-Israel rebuttal; while accusations against Hamas are not challenged, or, if they are, then conclude with a pro-Israeli counter-argument. It's just not WP:Neutral to keep moving the formatting goal posts within a section like this. RomaC (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we are on the same page. I just added some information to the section. Please review --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about adding it, but again I am starting a discussion before I make any additions. Discuss. BTW I do plan to add more images to fill in the blank space, about 3 images and I will change the caption name to a better one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO consensus to add more photos. To many of us the article is already unbalanced in relation to photos. You will not achieve consensus for adding more photos that will unbalance the article even further. Please stop requiring us to state our opinions over and over again. We would like to be able to move on. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't your decision to make, and you do not speak for anybody but yourself. None of these pictures can be seen as controversial, maybe they are not all needed but they can certainly be discussed. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three pictures of property damage already, I support rather an image that would reflect the human cost, that is, Gaza casualties as they relate to the event in general. For example an image of bodies in rubble. (Please excuse me, I realize that is a callous thing to say.) RomaC (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
These four images are similar enough I certainly don't think we need all four of them. One, at most, I'd say. Blackeagle (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is systemic consensus to add photos to articles. If relevant and reliable, then they should be added, even of casualties. There is consensus to do this, and this will be done, regardless of how much times you claim there is no consensus. The earth is not flat, and there is consensus to add pictures. --Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2 more Israeli-related pictures were added making it a total of 3, we now have an equal amount of damage-related pictures of both sides. Is that NPOV? No, it is now disproportionate justifying the need to add more Gaza-related pictures. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so, the WP:POINT spiral of edit warring starts... No, we need to illustrate an encyclopedic article, not score points while turning wikipedia into yet another battlefield in the I-P conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not making a point. Making a point would mean if I decided to place all the images from my gallery on the page (which at times I am tempted to do). I am choosing to discuss which is what WP:Point encourages. There is an issue of proportionality that needs to be addressed which is the main point of my posting. Can you comment on that issue instead? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that proportionality in pictures is as important as it is in the text: illustration is not meant to convey editorial decisions but to illustrate. As it stands now, I think it is proportional enough, maybe we are missing ground combat pictures, pictures of destroyed rocket launchers. We also probably need to illustarte at least one of the "Incidents" --Cerejota (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket attacks into Israel

In the article section "Rocket attacks into Israel" I added this gallery:

  • Beersheba, Israel. Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack 20 meters away.
    Beersheba, Israel. Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack 20 meters away.
  • Municipal worker repairing water pipe in Sderot, damaged by Qassam rocket on Dec. 29, 2008.
    Municipal worker repairing water pipe in Sderot, damaged by Qassam rocket on Dec. 29, 2008.

See: commons:Category:Damage in Israel from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is all we currently have to show.

We also need some Israeli casualty photos. Please upload some. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike galleries so I broke them up, and are not including the repair picture, which I find pedestrian. The one with the holes gives a nice human touch.--Cerejota (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there some commotion about not showing the faces of the victims as it would make the picture emotive, something forbidden in this article? I think the picture of the child siting under the damage might be considered an emotive pic. I am for showing emotive pictures but I rather not have it be one-sided. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some commotion ? No, you're imagining that. No, there's never been any commotion about showing Israeli casualties. In fact the slideshow that we used to have as an external link called something like "The Reason Why" showing the consequences of suicide attacks was spectacularly gruesome with bit's of torso's, legs, arms etc I seem to recall. It was a regular blood splatterfest orders of magnitude more "emotive" (whatever that means) than anything coming out of Gaza. Showing Israeli casualties is relevant to the background of the conflict and necessary for context but showing Palestinian casualties is politically motivated, an attempt to gain symnpathy, embroiling Wiki in the conflict, immoral, unethical, undignified, shocking, insensitive to cultural/religious values, supporting terrorism and worst of all unencyclopedic. It's a funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice rant, Sean, but the photo only shows someone sitting under a wall with holes in it. The person is not a victim, and I don't see what emotiveness has to do with this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they from RS?JVent (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citing and refs

I ran the wikED ref tag checker. It turns out a lot of the refs do not use the citation template WP:CITET, and while this is not required, it certainly makes references more useful. It also said that multiple tags had references with the same name or content: be watchful when using a refrence and check if it is already in use before tagging. WP:REFNAME. Just saying. --Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Casualities

Source #14 used to justify IDF estimate of militant casualty is not working. Source #12, while used to justify the 700 number, when you go to the article it becomes clear that the article states "Israel has not provided its own version of a Palestinian death toll". The 500 is attributed to a person and is NOT an official IDF estimate. Why not show Hamas estimates of IDF casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.240.65 (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Al-Arabia-Grad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Al-Arabia-Grad-YouTube was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
  4. ^ "Profile of a professor who was prepared for martyrdom". The Independent. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  5. ^ "Hardline Hamas leader killed in air strike on Gaza home". The Telegraph. January 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ynet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference nydn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference AP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  10. ^ "Israel braced for Hamas response". BBC. 2009-1-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ "Israel pounds Gaza for fourth day". London, UK: BBC. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2009-01-14.
  12. ^ "Israel vows war on Hamas in Gaza". BBC. December 30, 2008. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
  13. ^ "Israeli Gaza 'massacre' must stop, Syria's Assad tells US senator". Google News. Agence France-Presse. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-9. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  14. ^ "Factions refuse Abbas' call for unity meeting amid Gaza massacre". Turkish Weekly. Ma'an News Agency. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  15. ^ "Iraqi leaders discuss Gaza massacre". gulfnews.com. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on http://www.webcitation.org/5dfW1C8nU. Retrieved 2009-1-8. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); External link in |archivedate= (help)
  16. ^ "Hamas slammed the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre" - "Israel airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 225". Khaleej Times. Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA). 2008-12-27. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  17. ^ "it's impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre" - "Hamas denies firing rockets from Lebanon". Special Broadcasting Service. Agence France-Presse. 2009-1-8. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
  18. ^ "Arab Leaders Call for Palestinian Unity During "Terrible Massacre"". Foxnews.com. Associated Press. 2008-12-31. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  19. ^ "Gulf leaders tell Israel to stop Gaza "massacres"". Reuters. Reuters. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  20. ^ "OIC, GCC denounce massacre in Gaza". Arab News. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  21. ^ "Diplomatic race to stop the Gaza massacre" - "سباق دبلوماسي لوقف مذبحة غزة". BBC Arabic. 2009-1-5. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
  22. ^ Libya calling the operation a "horrible massacre" - "United Nations Security Council 6060th meeting (Click on the page S/PV.6060 record for transcript)". United Nations Security Council. 2008-12-31. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  23. ^ Jacobs, Phil (2008-12-30). "Tipping Point After years of rocket attacks, Israel finally says, 'Enough!'". Baltimore Jewish Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  24. ^ New York Times (June 18, 2008). "Israel Agrees to Truce with Hamas on Gaza". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  25. ^ "TIMELINE - Israeli-Hamas violence since truce ended". Reuters.
  26. ^ ‘Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Threatens Truce with Hamas,’ Fox News, November 04, 2008
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian20091105 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ "Israel says world understands its actions in Gaza".
  29. ^ Ibrahim Barzak (2009-01-04). "World leaders converge on Israel in push for truce". Charlotte Observer. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Amos Harel. "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes". Haaretz. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  31. ^ Yaakov Katz. "A year's intel gathering yields 'alpha hits'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  32. ^ El-Khodary, Taghreed (December 28, 2008). "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  33. ^ "Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels". BBC news. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  34. ^ "Israel resumes Gaza bombardment". al Jazeera. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  35. ^ Israel strikes key Hamas offices
  36. ^ "Hamas military labs in Islamic university bombed".
  37. ^ Roni Sofer. "IDF says hit Hamas' arms development site". ynetnews. Retrieved December 29, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  38. ^ "Gaza relief boat damaged in encounter with Israeli vessel - CNN.com". cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  39. ^ "Pro-Palestinian activists say Israel Navy fired on protest boat off Gaza shore". Haaretz/Reuters. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  40. ^ "IAF and IN Strike Additional Hamas Targets, Operation Continues". Israel: Israel Defense Forces. 2009-01-01. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  41. ^ BARZAK, IBRAHIM (2009-01-04). "Fear, shortages for civilians caught in Gaza fight". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  42. ^ GAZZAR, BRENDA (2009-01-04). "Gaza civilians tell 'Post' their city has 'gone backward 50 years'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  43. ^ MAX, ALEX (2009-01-01). "Israel targets Gaza mosques used by Hamas". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  44. ^ Kareem, Abdel (2009-01-05). "For Trapped Gazans, Few Options for Safety". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  45. ^ El-Khodary, Taghreed. "Gaza hospital fills with gravely hurt civilians". San Francisco Chronicle - New York Times. pp. A 3. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  46. ^ McCarthy, Rory (January 2, 2009). "Israeli warplanes destroy Gaza houses and mosque as air strikes continue". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  47. ^ NISSENBAUM, DION (2009-01-01). "Israel vows to pummel Hamas but treat Gaza civilians 'with silk gloves'". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  48. ^ "Israel Confirms Ground Invasion Has Started". MSNBC. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  49. ^ BARZAK, IBRAHIM (2009-01-04). "Israeli ground troops invade Gaza to halt rockets". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  50. ^ Black, Ian (December 27, 2008). "Israel's hammer blow in Gaza". Guardian. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  51. ^ Curiel, Ilana (December 27, 2008). "Man killed in rocket strike". ynetnews. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  52. ^ "Hamas, Israel set independent cease-fires". CNN International.
  53. ^ "Israel wants rapid Gaza pullout". BBC. January 18, 2009.
  54. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7841902.stm
  55. ^ Israel and Hamas under pressure for Gaza aid truce Reuters 2008-12-30
  56. ^ Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza, Haaretz. December 30, 2008.
  57. ^ Israeli assault on Gaza Strip draws widespread condemnation
  58. ^ Protests Against Israel's Gaza Bombardment Spread
  59. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4016850/Gaza-attacks-Israeli-strikes-spark-protests-across-world.html
  60. ^ BBC NEWS UK | London protest over raids on Gaza.BBC News. Retrieved on 2009-01-08
  61. ^ VOA News - Protests Against Israel's Gaza Bombardment Spread.Voanews.com. Retrieved on 2009-01-08
  62. ^ http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,24949313-5005361,00.html?from=public_rss
  63. ^ . Jerusulum Post. January 22, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292939271&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help)
  64. ^ a b c d Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'. BBC News. January 19, 2009.
  65. ^ MYRE, GREG (2003-04-20). "Israeli Soldiers Kill 5 Palestinians, Including a Journalist". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  66. ^ Cite error: The named reference hs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  67. ^ Cite error: The named reference btselem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  68. ^ McGreal, Chris (2009-01-23). "Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  69. ^ Beaumont, Peter (2009-01-10). "Does the world have the appetite to prosecute Israel for war crimes in Gaza?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  70. ^ "Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza". Human Rights Watch. 2009-01-10. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  71. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH286481
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=266514746"