| Revision as of 17:16, 7 January 2009 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,197 edits →Hamas stealing aid supplies to sell to residents, and executes Palestinians cause of suspicion← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:23, 7 January 2009 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,197 edits →Palestinian school massacre by IsraelisNext edit → | ||
| Line 959: | Line 959: | ||
| :::::: Well obviously Hamas won't say anything else. Do you expect them to come out and say "We were using this school for shooting the Israeli soldiers, while there were civilians inside"?! -'''Nomæd ''(Boris A.)''''' <small>(], ], ])</small> 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | :::::: Well obviously Hamas won't say anything else. Do you expect them to come out and say "We were using this school for shooting the Israeli soldiers, while there were civilians inside"?! -'''Nomæd ''(Boris A.)''''' <small>(], ], ])</small> 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Why exactly should I believe the Israelis and not Hamas? Why is whatever the Israeli military says, which as all professional armies undertands and engages in propoganda, taken to be the whole truth and what Hamas says to be a lie. I personally would believe Hamas claims over Israeli ones, and as Israel has refused to allow foreign press, despite a supreme court ruling that they must, I have no other sources than Palestinian ones. ] (]) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. ] (]) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. ] (]) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 7 January 2009
| Skip to table of contents |
 | The move debate is at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009 |
| Discussions related to the introduction/lead are happening at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead |
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
 | A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
| Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Updated Statistics
Updated war statistics can be found here (below), can someone please update the main page with them, it's such a mess that I wouldn't know where to start!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/israel-bombs-un-school/2009/01/07/1231004054728.html
"The latest attack takes the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip to 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, since Israel launched its military offensive on December 27, according to Gaza emergency services chief Moawiya Hassanein. He said another 2,950 people have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delos (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Please help
I've added a picture of palestinian deaths after the first air-strike please help me with the copyright stuff. The image is free for use. Also, please add a box around the image, i don't know how to do it. thank you
- Ye sples stop bombonhs k tnks
- You may want to add photos of Grad missle attacks as well, intentionally targeted and launched at Israeli cities and civilians. John Hyams (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
scratch this article proposal
Re the ongoing move/intro debate, the current article as is doesn't make sense. There should be an israeli military operation sub article devoted to operation cast lead. current article is supposedly a more generalized context of the ongoing I-P and A-I situation. this is clearly seen from article title which is a generalized conflict, rather than specific operation/offensive. If a new operation cast lead article is created, a is warranted since current article is NOT about the operation, than what is the raison d'tat of current article? a broader I-P article already exists. The current article, IMO, has no basis and should be scratched, with sections merged into operation cast lead and Israeli–Palestinian conflict respectively. regards --84.109.19.88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POVFORK. What you propose is not accepted by the wider Misplaced Pages community. Whenever possible, we should combine topics that are related into a single article, and if a WP:SUMMARY forking is to be done, it should be done around the general topics of the main article, not around a specific aspect or point of view on a subject. For a great example of how to do WP:SUMMARY, see 2008 Mumbai attacks. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:Undue on Alleged violations of international law
It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please can the repeated removal of Falk's quoted statement stop. It's an important statement by the UNHRC on the situation. 125.27.27.190 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've hit my revert limit here. Feel free to change second section back to something like this, and directly below, slightly improved - just make sure ref is properly formatted:
- The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response." Weiner and Bell concur and also call the rocket attacks "terrorist in nature." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've hit my revert limit here. Feel free to change second section back to something like this, and directly below, slightly improved - just make sure ref is properly formatted:
- I have put the direct quote of the UN statement back.
- "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."
- If anyone thinks there is a reason why this important UN statement should not be directly quoted please discuss it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Falk's full quotation deserves to be in there. But please don't bullet what he has to say. That just takes up space unnecessarily. Also, it isn't enough to say Bell and Weiner counter his points; their arguments must be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to directly quote Falk. We should briefly summarize him. Similarly, we should very briefly summarize Bell and Weiner, or whoever else we ues in the section.VR talk 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Falk's full quotation deserves to be in there. But please don't bullet what he has to say. That just takes up space unnecessarily. Also, it isn't enough to say Bell and Weiner counter his points; their arguments must be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have put the direct quote of the UN statement back.
- Just put a POV tag on the section, it's getting so bad. Perhaps some consensus agreements?
- What Falk says should be correctly reflected, which is not currently true; deleting what he says and replacing it with long rationales for Israel's actions unacceptably POV and can lead to sanctions against the editor under the Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles
- If the Israel govt has countered anything UN charges that should have higher priority than Israel's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs writers
- A couple sentences listing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs analysis is acceptable; with all the back and forth editing I just did a quicky shorty myself. But it's actual length should not be MORE than what Falk/UN said on this.
- If Israeli's can come up with legal rationales for Israel's actions, any WP:RS citing the most credible Palestinian legal arguments for rocket attacks also can be used, should such exist.
- Hmm. I wondering if anyone's keep track of possible 3rrs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just put a POV tag on the section, it's getting so bad. Perhaps some consensus agreements?
- I agree with you, Carolmooredc. But when are his words replaced with Israeli rationale?
- Again, I agree with you, but until such time as responses from the Israeli government are found, there can't be any wrongdoing in not using them.
- In the "Israel" section, Falk's position is expounded in 167 words (1108 characters), whereas Weiner's and Bell's is expounded in 139 words (923 character). So in this section, they're quite balanced. In the "Palestinian militants" section, they do not need to be balanced (a) because the two sources are in agreement, and (b) because the authority of the Special Rapporteur is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, and he has no authority whatsoever to comment on the acts of Palestinian militants. Of course, this also means he has no authority to write about the no-longer-occupied Gaza, but that didn't stop him.
- If you can find a RS that defends the legality Hamas rocket fire, then add it. I can't find one, and I doubt there is one, because the rocket fire from Gaza is in blatant violation of international law. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4
01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)
- No, please let's not get too detailed with this barrister here, that barrister there etc. It's a minefield. Keep it simple, the UN and the Israeli postions. And the statement is an official UN statement not merely the opinion of a lawyer. Any attempt tto detract from that and try to frame it as if it's just Falk being Falk etc is very likely to be politically motivated and therefore has no place here.
- I bulleted the points for reasons of clarity. This is an encyclopedia after all. I don't have strong views on whether to bullet or not to bullet but whatever we do can we please make sure that all 3 points are retained and that the links to the relevant Wiki articles explaining those terms are retained ? We mustn't water down what the UN said and we mustn't distort/interpret the exact words the UN used. They are significant. Rewriting them will inevitably result in people breaking WP rules because they just don't like the words used. We just can't have that. For example, the Occupying Power term will vanish simply because some people don't like it or they think it's wrong which is of course neither here nor there. The full quote is the simplest and safest approach as far as I'm concerned.
- I think the part of Falk's statement shown below in the Palestinian militants section isn't really necessary as it's restating points already covered. It's enough that the UN explicitly state that the rocket attacks are in their view, against international law. That is a crucial point of course and we mustn't lose that.
- "...But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."
- Let's not count words. Statements by the UNHRC have orders of magnitude more weight than Weiner's and Bell for an encyclopedia. I don't think it really merits lengthy discussion but we must have something there that summarises the official Israeli position on these kind of statements with a ref so that people can get further details. I thought the sentence that was there before that mentioned point be point countering was fine.
- Saepe, can you quit the legal/authority interpretations please. :) Gaza is occupied as far as the UN (and pretty much everyone else) is concerned and Israel's obligations follow from that according to the statements/sources. It would be much better if we could link the Occupying Power term in the UN statement to a good Wiki article spelling out why Israel thinks this term is nonsense. Maybe it's somewhere in the Gaza Strip article. I haven't looked but we must have something in the IDF section to counter the UN statement or else people will get all worked up about the words the UN used, forget that this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground in a propaganda war and trash the section ignoring WP guidelines on undue weight, fringe theories, soapboxing etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense and within international law framework rights is not expressed. As a matter of fact Self-Defense as a legal term is missing entirely from this article. Gary Grant opinion quote in violations of international law section would reflect this point of view to situation in hand.
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I sort of agree with you but I just wish it was an official statement from the Israeli administration. They must have said something..anyone up for looking for that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel's action represent "a legitimate right to self-defense" http://www.wowowow.com/post/tzipi-livni-defends-attacks-legitimate-right-self-defense-bloomberg-ehud-barak166622
- Here is an analysis by Dr. Avi Bell which is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Before this edit, the weight given to each POV was about 50%-50%. Some editors seem to think this is undue weight, given Falk's position as UN Rapporteur. I disagree with this, but that's inconsequential right now. there should be no question that the 100%-0% distribution currently used is undue weight in the reverse direction.
- I don't really care whether the distribution is 50%-50% or 70%-30%. But, given that every point that Falk makes is refuted by Weiner and Bell, it is important that all of their refutations be mentioned. If Falk's argument is represented without their counter-argument, that is showing a POV.
- Let's not forget that we're not dealing with two quacks out of nowhere. These are people with esteemed credentials, who make their arguments based on international law, precedent and very sound logic.
- As for the position that Gaza is occupied territory, I think this shows the POV of the UN. Think about it: how can a country invade territory that it occupies? But I digress. WP policy tells us that "all sources have biases," but we must combine them in such a way that all POV's are represented. So the argument that Weiner and Bell are biased cannot stand, because their POV must be represented, too.
- Right now, I'm tired of back-and-forth edits on this section. I'll await comment (or prolonged lack thereof) before moving forward on giving due weight to Weiner and Bell. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If Weiner/Bell from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs can be used to excuse Israel's attacks then the two WP:RS that describe Hamas' rationale of self-defense I found can be used. And, again, more than a couple sentence summary of Weiner/Bell remains WP:Undue. So going in soon to make relevant changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Carol, I must have missed the two sources. Could you post them here please? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright. I've changed the section to conform with your suggestions as well as I could. Though I think Weiner and Bell are not being given due weight, let's work on first getting a version we can agree on as a springboard, and take it from there. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If Weiner/Bell from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs can be used to excuse Israel's attacks then the two WP:RS that describe Hamas' rationale of self-defense I found can be used. And, again, more than a couple sentence summary of Weiner/Bell remains WP:Undue. So going in soon to make relevant changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Introducing such obviously and blatantly biased material and then using it as a point-by-point retort against a United Nations official and expert brings shame upon Misplaced Pages and its credibility. The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations, not yet another place for "A says X about B and B's entirely unimportant friends say A is wrong because of Y". WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE and WP:UNDUE yet again. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jan, thank you for your devotion to improving this section. I can sort of understand why you don't want to give equal weight to Falk and the Jerusalem lawyers, but please refrain from giving no weight to the Jerusalem lawyers. Surely, we can agree that they deserve some weight. How much they deserve will be the subject of much argument, I suspect.
- I agree with you that "The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations," but to this I would add that another purpose is to discuss counter-arguments to these accusations. Surely, not all accusations are true, and the opposing viewpoint must be considered.
- You call Weiner and Bell's work "obviously and blatantly biased." What's your reason for this? These are experts on the subject, and this is an official publication. The authors make solid use of international law, logic and precedent. You cannot simply dismiss them as "B's entirely unimportant friends" without any sort of evidence to this effect. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weiner and Bell have the entire opposite section for themselves, without any kind of retort, which is why I do not believe they need even more space in the other section.
- However I'll retreat from this argument since the subject isn't my forte. Happy editing, — Jan Hofmann (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Happy editing to you, too. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Jan Hoffman that inluding reference to the legal stuff on the Jerusalem website is a clear deviation from normal policy on sources (WP:UNDUE). I have tried to remove it a few times, but in the eyes of the supporters of Israel here this seems to be a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, thank you for your contributions to this important section.
- Weiner and Bell both have strong credentials to write this publication (you can refer to their bios at the bottom of it, if you would like). This is clearly a WP:RS. Also important to note is this: the opinion that Israel violated international law is amply represented in the article; it would violate WP:NPOV not to present the opposite opinion, when such an opinion makes a strong appearance in reputable sources.
- I agree with you that Weiner and Bell are over-represented in the "By Palestinian militants" section, and I'm working to remedy that. But under-representing them in the "By the Israeli Defense Forces" section doesn't cancel that out. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Jan Hoffman that inluding reference to the legal stuff on the Jerusalem website is a clear deviation from normal policy on sources (WP:UNDUE). I have tried to remove it a few times, but in the eyes of the supporters of Israel here this seems to be a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Happy editing to you, too. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law
Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the title should be changed back to "Alleged," though for a different reason. "Potential" seems to imply that they could happen, whereas "alleged" implies there's a claim that they've already happened.
- As for the first paragraph, I think it's fine, except in that it may be too vague. For example, what does it mean that they have to be "proportional"? But it is definitely necessary if these terms of international law are going to be used farther down in the section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law 2. This time it's personal.
Okay, my reasoned comment on the amendments that have taken place is DO'H! Maybe it would be better to combine the 2 sections (in a possibly futile attempt) to give the UN the weight they deserve speaking on behalf of the world community (to a first approximation) while still maintaining some...but much less...of the opposing views. We need the links put back to the appropriate _(law) articles I guess too.Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, I understand your concern. Let me attempt to tackle your points in order:
- Combining the two sections - This wouldn't do much good. This wouldn't actually give the UN any more weight, but simply make it appear that way. And it would jumble the section up.
- Representing the UN more and the Jerusalem attorneys less - I'm down with that in the "By Palestinian militants" section. The caveat is that we need to find another source that explains why Hamas rocket fire violates international law. I doubt we can find such a source published by the UN. The UN has a position in charge of overseeing violations of human rights by Israel (i.e. Falk), but there is no counterpart who's responsible for doing the same in Palestine. Thus, the UN has no body that is responsible for issuing a document that could be quoted in this section.
- Re-establishing the links - The links are operative in the introduction.
- Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- All commentary, in agreement or in disagreement, on international law, should be listed as separate sections and not as point-counterpoint. Plus if/when more get added it will become extremely confusing to readers - the people we are doing this for. Only NPOV way to do it. Finally working on it now.
- Also getting better understanding of "occupation" status since one WP:RS says as of 2005 it was disputed and only so far I've found Israeli sources saying it is not occupied - but need more update fact/opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of dividing this section by "for" and "against," how would you feel about separating it by argument. It flows better than way. I do agree, though, that it should be better organized. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I just want to mention again that I suggested to lose this section altogether. The section does not describe facts, but only opinions on how facts should be interpreted. Hence, untill there is a valid court rulling on the issue (such as in the case of the West Bank Barrier) we should refrain from mentioning it, since all that is going to happen, is excatly what is happening now: editing battles, which in no way will crystallise to a consensus. So far there have been arguments (not discussions, arguments)on which intrepretation is relevant, is the date it was given relevant, which parts of international law should or shouldn't include, the number of characters describing each side stance, and my favorite: who is a "noteble commentator". Now it has become a "personal" issue. I rest my case! --Omrim (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Charts for numbers of dead and wounded
File:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png
I will hopefully update this chart daily, or more frequently. The chart may be useful somewhere in the article. I will let others decide about sizing and placement. Click the chart to see the largest size.
I list my current data sources on the image page. Please leave later data sources on the image talk page:
I hope to create a chart for the number of wounded too. I need a mainstream news source for the number of Israeli wounded. I may create a chart for both the dead and the wounded, too.
Feel free to create other charts and upload them with new names. I use this online charting site:
The category is:
--Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Add it in the casualties section.VR talk 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Superb. I wholly commend the inclusion.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think a chart is really necessary when there are only 2 data points. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the chart is excellent. It neatly sums up the most important issue in this conflict.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If only two data points is the primary objection, respective casualties could be added giving four. We could also use a linear timeline graph to show casualities by day.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What's the point? We have the numbers. This graphs adds nothing, and is nothing but a way to imply to the reader - "look, the Palestinians have so many more dead, they must be the poor, righteous side here." Why don't we add a graphs of all of Hamas's rockets attacks every day? About percentage of civilian targets hit by both sides (Oh, Hamas would look just great in that. Despite having multiple army bases within range of its rockets, it always chooses to fire at the civilian population, instead of, say, Airforce bases). Oh, we can have such fun with these graphs! okedem (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okedem, you need to go read WP:AGF. Discussion gets nowhere when we assume bad faith. We add a percentage of civilians killed on both sides, except the Palestinian numbers aren't really clear (its about 150-200 out of 537). Also there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not.VR talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- VR, I know when to AGF, though your concern is certainly appropriate.
- "there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not." - What kind of strange claim is that? We know for certain that Hamas can hit targets at least as far as 40 km away, since their rockets hit Beersheba, which is 40 km away. We also know that there are many army bases within that range. For instance, the Air-force alone has two bases closer than that, Hatzor and Hatzerim, maybe even a third one, Tel-Nof (see map on IAF website). okedem (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okedem, you need to go read WP:AGF. Discussion gets nowhere when we assume bad faith. We add a percentage of civilians killed on both sides, except the Palestinian numbers aren't really clear (its about 150-200 out of 537). Also there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not.VR talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What's the point? We have the numbers. This graphs adds nothing, and is nothing but a way to imply to the reader - "look, the Palestinians have so many more dead, they must be the poor, righteous side here." Why don't we add a graphs of all of Hamas's rockets attacks every day? About percentage of civilian targets hit by both sides (Oh, Hamas would look just great in that. Despite having multiple army bases within range of its rockets, it always chooses to fire at the civilian population, instead of, say, Airforce bases). Oh, we can have such fun with these graphs! okedem (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Okedem. Graphs are supposed to be used to represent data that are difficult to process without visual aid. Comparing 5 to 507 doesn't qualify. It would detract from the serious nature of the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another map of rocket range: . And then you could graph this: No. of wounded in attacks from Gaza more than doubled in '08 --"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend. Jerusalem Post ] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The point is, most I/P articles have this kind of chart, as it sums up a swathe of data in an instant. It has yet to include a graph of the wounded, but I've no doubt Timeshifter will look to that. I see an official figure of 537 dead so far, so it needs to be adjusted. If you want to add a graph for Hamas rocket launches over the period, add one. But it is already available at List of Qassam rocket attacks. Do you object to that page's use of a graph? Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the latest numbers? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a chart of rocket attacks by day. If you provide me the numbers I will make it when I get a chance. Or someone else can. I am pretty busy. I think I heard on NPR that there have been thousands of rocket attacks in the last year. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Suggestion: why don't we add a line graph charting the number of casualties day to day of the conflict? We could also start the conflict from December 19, when Hamas intensified rocket attacks, as opposed to December 27.VR talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 537 is the Palestinian reckoning, widely reported, so I suppose we shall have to wait for a more independent source. As to graphs, we need a timeline. Not from an arbitrary date. What is desperately needed here is a timeline of attacks over the period of the truce or lull. Hamas argues, exactly as Israel, that its attacks are timed responsively to aggression from the other side, and we are obliged to be neutral here. Many sources place major emphasis on the November killing of 6 militants by the IDF as a key factor in the rocket surge. etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- All that chart says is that the IDF has been more successful in its military actions. Namely, that it is winning the ground war. Also, I don't think a graph is needed to illustrate that. Hamas is taking disproportionate casualties... but that is not a moral victory but a strategic defeat. Consider wikipedia's article on the Easter Rising. Even though the long-term results of the battle was the success of Irish republicanism, it was still a defeat on the ground for the Republicans/Rebels. What the long term results of this battle/war/conflict is yet to be seen... as are the short term effects V. Joe (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 537 is the Palestinian reckoning, widely reported, so I suppose we shall have to wait for a more independent source. As to graphs, we need a timeline. Not from an arbitrary date. What is desperately needed here is a timeline of attacks over the period of the truce or lull. Hamas argues, exactly as Israel, that its attacks are timed responsively to aggression from the other side, and we are obliged to be neutral here. Many sources place major emphasis on the November killing of 6 militants by the IDF as a key factor in the rocket surge. etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The graph says nothing. It supplies data, and the reader interprets it according to his inclinations. You've taken it one way, Okedem another. The graph however says none of these things.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I found a more recent number and updated the chart. The latest data source is linked on the image page. I also clarified the period covered in the chart title.--Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The graph says nothing. It supplies data, and the reader interprets it according to his inclinations. You've taken it one way, Okedem another. The graph however says none of these things.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding the chart may be premature; we don't have consensus yet. Please tell me: what advantage does this graphic have over the information summarized in the summary table? I just don't see the benefit of this graphic, and I think it serves more to degrade the article than improve it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you looking at the chart below? It is a lot easier to get the basic overview from this chart than to wade through the old out-of-date info in the casualties section of the article. It is even easier to get the main numbers from this chart than to pull them out of the summary table in the infobox. The readers can read further there and in the casualties section to learn more. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am indeed looking at the chart below. The solution to the first problem you mention is to streamline the casualties section. But I must dispute the claim that it is easier to read the graphic than the infobox. The graphic doesn't make sense to my eyes, but maybe that's just because one does not often see such graphics. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is one in Second Intifada in the Casualties section there. Others seem to appreciate this chart here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What can I say? It seems like I'm the minority. Let's move on to the next subject of controversy... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is one in Second Intifada in the Casualties section there. Others seem to appreciate this chart here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am indeed looking at the chart below. The solution to the first problem you mention is to streamline the casualties section. But I must dispute the claim that it is easier to read the graphic than the infobox. The graphic doesn't make sense to my eyes, but maybe that's just because one does not often see such graphics. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Chart for both dead and wounded
File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png
I found some more numbers for Israeli wounded, and this allowed me to make this chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is looking better than the terrible two-bar chart, but it also needs to show what day/time the statistics ended at. Leaving the original chart on the article hoping that the correctly dated chart comes along soon. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I added the end date to the title of the chart. You may have to purge the page or cache to see it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is looking better than the terrible two-bar chart, but it also needs to show what day/time the statistics ended at. Leaving the original chart on the article hoping that the correctly dated chart comes along soon. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps -Timeshifter, in an effort to be NPOV, will include these numbers in his chart:
- The organization, which provides rapid response first aid in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza border area, also reported a sharp rise in the number of injuries by Kassam rockets, Grads and mortar fire compared to the past two years.
- These attacks on Jewish settlements within firing range of Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, wounded 947 in 2008. A total of 464 were wounded in 2007 and 227 in 2006.
- A total of 1,683 Kassam rockets fell in Israel near Gaza and another 108 shot from Gaza fell back into Palestinian areas.
- In Israel, eight people were killed in 2008 by rocket attacks, 19 were killed in shootings, one person was stabbed to death, one was killed in a suicide bombing, one in a bulldozer attack, and an additional eight soldiers were killed in battle. Jerusalem Post Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Support or oppose chart inclusion
Comment. I am trying to figure out what needs to be improved (if anything) concerning this chart to the right. So please say whether you support or oppose its inclusion in the right side of the casualties section of the article. See Second Intifada#Casualties and its subsection Second Intifada#Combatant versus noncombatant deaths for an example of another casualties chart in a related article. Also, please make suggestions for improvement of this chart. Feel free to comment with your support or oppose opinion. Or just make a "Comment". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. It is a quick way for readers to see the main points about casualties; the numbers of dead and wounded on all sides. It also lists the sources on the bottom of the chart (which are changed as the chart is updated from various sources). It is instant updating for returning readers. I am wondering if I should add a breakdown for civilians/combatants/unknown as at Second Intifada#Casualties? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting section regarding casualty reporting. The details I mention need to be included somewhere. Where are you suggesting posting the chart and are you suggesting removing the infobox? If you want to replace the infobox and other wikipedians agree with the change you might provide a detailed subscript to the chart along the format I suggested. - Thrylos000 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't want to remove the infobox. I want to put the chart here: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. As the talk section you mentioned noted it would be difficult to decide on a number of civilians killed. That is not good to put in the chart in my opinion. That requires a subsection of the article. Please see this Jan 5 2009 BBC article also: "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?"
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I support its placement in the casualties section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment would you be able to draw a chart documenting casualties on a daily basis? Do you need help in gathering such sources (because I may be able to help you).VR talk 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I will be updating daily, or more often. Please see commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png about sources, and #At least a quarter are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Standard sources are easily accessible and I mention them in my extended criticism of casualty accounting in the section At least a quarter are civilians. I ask that everyone refer to that discussion first before considering the proposal to include a chart as it is highly relevant and I do not think I need to repost in this section. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Very helpful for those skimming the article. I would leave it as it is and not overcomplicate it, especially while more detailed information such as breakdown of civilians vs combatant casualties is still unreliable.--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support The graph is a very clear and fair represintation of the facts, as long as it is kept to date. This would be a great addition. MathewDill (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with MathewDill, but it is a bit brief. To make it more relevant, more information should be added (but not too much). Things such as comparison between different sources or causes of death. Maxipuchi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - As long as the data for the chart remains fairly recent and well sourced throughout its use, I see no problem with it. It certainly makes it easier for the casual viewer. SwedishPsycho (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. If it weren't such a dead-serious subject the 1:100 relation in kills were really enough to be funny. Not to mention 1:10 in wounded. I realised this before, so I won't use it as an argument. To either side. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The chart would be somewhat relevant (if people look at this like score-keeping) if they were both only firing missiles at each other. Now that Israeli troops are operating in Gaza, but not vice versa, the civilian deaths will obviously be significantly higher on the Palestinian side then the Israeli side. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the casualties are going to be unbalanced during a one-sided incursion. Per your argument we shouldn't have casualty numbers in the article at all. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, this score-keeping is silly. They're both fighting two different types of wars. The chart is a way of dumbing down the whole issue for people who choose sides based on who is winning the dead-civilian count. That being said, we obviously can't stop people from adding the civilian count to the article, but we can focus the article on more important and relevant aspects of conflict. If we're gonna add graphs and charts to the article we should focus on other aspects. A better idea for a chart that comes to mind, is a chart of the number of missiles fired by both Hamas and Israel prior to December 23. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- A timeline chart of violent actions by both sides during the preceding months would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike myself, you're obviously a competent "chart-maker." So why don't you go ahead and make said chart. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am an amateur. I use this online tool: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph
- The hard part is finding the data. If you can layout a timeline with dates and numbers of rockets you or I could plug it in to one of the chart formats there maybe. No guarantees. I am fairly busy. There are more tools here:
- commons:Commons:Chart and graph resources --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike myself, you're obviously a competent "chart-maker." So why don't you go ahead and make said chart. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess List of Qassam rocket attacks would be a good start for the data. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly support. The chart doesn't complicate things with the diversionary "civilian" issue -- though CNN (Anderson Cooper) just reported that 100% of the people being killed now are "civilians".
- In answer to Jan Hofmann, the kill ratio prior to the Israeli invasion was FORTY-to-one. E.g.: "Israeli soldiers killed twice as many Palestinians last week alone -- both of them children -- as the number of Israelis killed by Hamas all last year." -- "Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians", 30 Jan 2006. Now, it's a hundred to one. So the high number of Palestinians being murdered cannot be explained away simply by the current invasion. Israel has been operating in Gaza all along, raiding, bombing, shelling, starving the populace. What happened on Dec 27 was merely an ESCALATION in an existing Israeli presence.
- I looked at List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 earlier today, and I was amazed by how FEW rockets were fired during the truce period -- and some of those were launched by Fatah, which has been known to collaborate with Israel. Obviously, these ineffectual rockets are being used merely as a pretext for a long-planned genocidal assault, and Hamas has been set up. Here are two articles that present the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- genocidal assault??? Israel has killed 600 Palestinians in 11 days. Based on this calculation it should only take them 800 years or so to complete this 'genocide' of Palestinians living in Gaza. I guess those Israelis are not very effective in commiting genocide... especially seeing how they've been planning this for so long...lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.182.192 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Genocidal" refers to the nature of the operation and the deranged and ultimately self-destructive attitudes that motivate it. It implies that a country is heading TOWARDS genocide, not that genocide has been completed. My use of the term is admonitory, not derogatory: I believe that massively violent attacks on ethnic groups are a path to a dead-end, and I do not wish to see Israel proceed further along this self-defeating self-destructive path. I seek to save Israel from itself. Those who have "no problem" with genocidal behavior are not true friends of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- genocidal assault??? Israel has killed 600 Palestinians in 11 days. Based on this calculation it should only take them 800 years or so to complete this 'genocide' of Palestinians living in Gaza. I guess those Israelis are not very effective in commiting genocide... especially seeing how they've been planning this for so long...lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.182.192 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support as a service for the lazy or mathematically inept readers. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support (yada, yada) actually mentions one reason in oposition. That it would be a little childish to stress score-keeping. But his second argument (which he intended to be in oposition) is a non-argument, since there is no reason to asume equal figures. The whole purpose of the table is showing the figures in an easy and intuitive way. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak-Oppose This graph is better than the 2 data point version but I still think, as others have pointed out, that charting is for more complex data than this. Separation of figures for combatants and non-combatants would be much better. I would support it in that case. Nice work though. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Can someone besides me add the chart to the casualties section? 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. Here is the code to add to the top of that section:
- ]
The chart will be on the top right side of the casualties section. Just like it is in this talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. How does the chart get updated? NonZionist (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support so long as someone can update this regularly through the duration of the conflict. Joshdboz (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. As I stated below (by mistake), there's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary. Most importantly, if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself, unlike a few above me... remember this? WP:Soapbox), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV. Trying to say "See? Clearly Israel is targeting civilians etc etc." has no place in an encyclopaedia. Either way, it's redundant, unprofessional and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP. Jeztah (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Support. I don't even see any solid reasons to challenge this. As argued elsewhere, graphs like this, which cover both sides, give statistics, not a POV. Everyone may infer from the statistics whatever they like. Unlike the abusive qassam rocket graph tendentiously posted top of page, which is unilateral, and therefore violates NPOV, this graph covers both sides.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: I think the charge would be a mistake on both point-of-view grounds, (Namely: the purpose of it seems to be to make the Israelis the villains) and aesthetic grounds. Simply put, the chart would additional disrupt the flow of the article and would not clarify the obvious point that the Israelis are giving more casualties then they receive. V. Joe (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Support. I don't even see any solid reasons to challenge this. As argued elsewhere, graphs like this, which cover both sides, give statistics, not a POV. Everyone may infer from the statistics whatever they like. Unlike the abusive qassam rocket graph tendentiously posted top of page, which is unilateral, and therefore violates NPOV, this graph covers both sides.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Casualty figures, while interesting, should not be given such a prominent place. This is simply an attempt to bias the reader against Israel, by highlighting a certain property above the rest (say, attacks on civilian communities, intended to kill civilians - Hamas's specialty). Right or wrong is not determined by who has more deaths. okedem (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- dont assume bad faith, nothings wrong with the chart and its reliable as long as updated.Lord Archivo (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Those voting oppose are assuming bad faith on the part of those who support this chart's inclusion, attributing all kinds of nefarious motives to that support. It's a simple visual, it includes the casualties sustained by both sides. That the casualty count is wholly unbalanced is a function of the reality on the ground and not POV reporting by wiki editors. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. Tiamut 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weakly support - Only if it gets updated frequently (once a day or at most twice a day). Also, I would reformat to make it smaller. Arguments regarding POV in this case are not convincing: this is a visualization of undisputed facts - I do understand that people might see it as portraying Israel in a bad light, but there is not editorializing here, there are simply facts; that said neutrality is not best served by hiding a fact that sheds a bad light on one side by providing a due weigth voice to the explanation of the facts - same goes, for example, with the attacks on Mosques,which Israel sees as legitimate targets under the circumstances. Arguments on the prominence of the information are also unconvincing: we are encouraged by the MoS to provide visualization of data and images whenever possible. However, I am not strongly supporting the inclusion because I think these types of charts should be done after the conflict is over, when the fog of war lifts, and the figures can be stable. --Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is the emphasis of a certain aspect, over others. While the facts are not in dispute, this is akin to the question of what pictures we use, or how much we write about a specific subject. Visualization is another editorial question, and placing this graph is like placing a huge headline, saying - "There are many many more dead Palestinians than Israelis!". It's the same thing, only in different packaging. If we had a whole bunch of graphs, detailing attacks, etc - then maybe. But by itself - no. okedem (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hear your point, but strongly disagree that a chart gives undue editorial emphasis, it simply visualizes data we already provide in an infobox. If these where being given priority over other data that could be visualized in this same manner, perhaps your point would be stronger, but I don't see any other data specific to this conflict that is being overlooked. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't provide our readers with the Operation Cast Lead name just because we do not know the name Hamas is giving to their operations: I am sorry, but while I might raise issues of wording etc, I will never oppose the inclusion of uncontrovertible facts nor their visualization whenever possible. However, I am not fully convinced this is the right time for this type of chart, so my support is weak.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is the emphasis of a certain aspect, over others. While the facts are not in dispute, this is akin to the question of what pictures we use, or how much we write about a specific subject. Visualization is another editorial question, and placing this graph is like placing a huge headline, saying - "There are many many more dead Palestinians than Israelis!". It's the same thing, only in different packaging. If we had a whole bunch of graphs, detailing attacks, etc - then maybe. But by itself - no. okedem (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Aside from the fact that it is POV and meant to give an idiot-visual for people who can't read or think, the casualties have yet to be confirmed from a consistent RS. Mainly it doesn't reflect the title since the title is for 2008-2009. Thus it should include the dead and wounded from Gazan attacks for all of 2008-2009. Else rename Operation Cast Lead and start on December 27th. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional support. At first I was skeptical of this. However, as long as Timeshifter, or someone else can update this, the I think it's ok. I still think that at it would have been a good idea to chart casualties on a daily basis.VR talk 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The chart says the data comes from the AP, the UN and Israeli government. What happens if there is a conflict between the numbers? I would want verification and reference for every data point on the chart. I would find it more than amazing if all three sources agreed on the numbers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thus far the only disagreement is on the number of militants and civilians killed. As far as I know, the number of killed reported has been a factor of time only.VR talk 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Infobox blaming
Apparently 3 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, not by Hamas or any other Palestinian militants. Should we identify this in the infobox (by saying killed in friendly fire)? Probably not, as it is a bit too much detail. However, similarly I don't think we should also identify who killed the Egyptian border guard. These details are best left to the casualties section.VR talk 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second. --Omrim (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I third. :) Debresser (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Friendly fire deaths are sometimes differentiated, here we do have a precedent against that in that a Hamas rocket hit Gaza last week and we don't count the deaths differently in the infobox. So I agree with VR, Omrim and Debrasser. Keep these details in the article. RomaC (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the "(by Hamas)" attribution after Egyptian casualties. This is necessary given the ambiguous design of the infobox, which splits the conflict into two sides. The box is divided down the middle, and the Egyptian line is ambiguously placed inbetween the two. Since, it's only two words, which hardly over-clutters the box, the gain in clarity outweighs the cost in space Avaya1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
- Avaya1, I wish you'd respect consensus here. Two words are required to blame Hamas, but more are required to show that Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, Hamas attacks or in fighting in Gaza. This discussion should not happen in the infobox.VR talk 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Figures
Also I think that we should only quote figures in the infobox that have been independently verified. Thus if one side claims to have killed or captured some, we shouldn't jump to put it in the infobox, though we can certainly place it in the article with proper attribution. We should wait until reliable sources begin to treat it as fact.VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. In Israel, for example, I believe that all news agencies and newspapers rely on IDF and MOH figures. No one counts the bodies by himself (like the UN in the Gaza Strip). Also, it is not a common practice in Israel to exaggerate in the number of deaths as it may cause public outcry. Israeli public has only a certain amount of IDF casualites it may endure before starting to criticize the government and the opertation (ex: 2006 Lebanon War), so governments want to show AS LITTLE IDF casualties as possible to the Israeli public. The situation is a bit different of course with injuries (where Israeli figures many times include non-physical injuries, which I think to be somewhat misleading). I think that at least in terms of IDF deaths, we can count on Israeli media to be reliable. Usually they also name the casualties within 36 hours.--Omrim (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well ok, but I don't think we should use the IDF's statements on Palestinian casualties in the infobox, if it hasn't been independently verified. Currently, there's a statement about 100 Hamas being captured. I think if that were independently verified, it would have been all over the media by now.VR talk 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is the Israeli Foreign Ministry an independent source? It is referenced in the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well ok, but I don't think we should use the IDF's statements on Palestinian casualties in the infobox, if it hasn't been independently verified. Currently, there's a statement about 100 Hamas being captured. I think if that were independently verified, it would have been all over the media by now.VR talk 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with respect to the captured. It should only be mentioned within the article as a statement by the IDF, and not in the infobox.--Omrim (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest similarly with Israel's claims on Hamas casualties, and Hamas claims on Israeli casualties. For example, "Israel says it has killed 130 Hamas fighters and has denied claims that Hamas has killed 10 of its soldiers." Neither of the two claims should be in the infobox, but both should be mentioned later in the article.VR talk 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Humanitarian crisis
Does somebody else besides me think this section is a little too big? Perhaps we should create an article called "2008-2009 Gaza humanitarian crisis"?VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. We must take WP:UNDUE into account. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand. If we compare 2 sides in terms of humanitarian problems, and one side is completely blown off by the other, you will still create two equal sized articles describing both, though the second side has x10 the amount of humanitarian crisis and thus, humanitarian details? I've added a subsection "Humanitarian Situation in Southern Israel" and people deleted it. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- me three. Does Darfur's "humanitarian crisis" get equal time? How about Haiti and its mud cookies? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please discuss the Haiti and Darfur articles on their respective talk pages. RomaC (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what RomaC said.VR talk 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please discuss the Haiti and Darfur articles on their respective talk pages. RomaC (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- me three. Does Darfur's "humanitarian crisis" get equal time? How about Haiti and its mud cookies? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- RomaC& Vice regent-- please try to understand the concept of WP:UNDUE that is being illustrated here. We are using analogies to appreciate the wiki concept in relation to the Gaza-Israel conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ofcourse, aren't I the one who raised this point in the first place? But Tundrabuggy your "analogies", both here and elsewhere, seem to be inappropriate. Let's constructively discuss which section, and what content can be better summarized. Personally, if we can retain the same content, only with less space and details, that creates a win-win situation.VR talk 04:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see that the section is that big. This crisis is a core part of the war, and is as important as the "Development" section but less than 1/5 its size. Every section point has only two paragraphs, with one having only a small one. You're going to summarize what? --Darwish07 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ofcourse, aren't I the one who raised this point in the first place? But Tundrabuggy your "analogies", both here and elsewhere, seem to be inappropriate. Let's constructively discuss which section, and what content can be better summarized. Personally, if we can retain the same content, only with less space and details, that creates a win-win situation.VR talk 04:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that humanitarian aid has got through. According to the IDF, injured Palestinian civilians have receive medical care in Israel. Besides the 100,000 warning phone calls, injured people have been transferred from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment at Israeli hospitals. As of December 31st, approximately 20 chronically ill were transferred from the Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip to Israeli hospitals. From the article:
Despite the continuous and extensive rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, the largest humanitarian aid transfer since the beginning of this operation took place on Tuesday afternoon (Dec. 30). 93 trucks containing humanitarian aid donations such as food and medical supplies from several different countries and international organizations were transferred through Israel into the Gaza Strip. The World Food Programme (WFP) transferred flour; CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere) provided medical supplies; UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) transferred powdered milk, sugar, rice and cooking oil; the World Health Organization (WHO) transferred medical supplies and medication; and the Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah sent, among other things, basic food and supplies.
Not to mention all of the cash that is being sent by everybody and his brother. With all that powdered milk and sugar, all that they will need to buy with the cash is more ammunition. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- You were serious and then began to troll at the end. I can reply to your trolling claims, but this is not Misplaced Pages Talk page business, so I'll respect policies and ignore them. First, this '20' number is ridiculous. There are 2000 injured and the hospital system is collapsing. Read the "Health", "Water" and "Electricity" subsections and the cited UN reports, especially today's January 5 one. And EVEN if your claims are true and things are fine, though they are absolutely completely miserably not, the section describes 10 days of history that shouldn't be removed. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's no bank notes in Gaza. Check the cash section and the cited UN 5 consecutive papers that is trying to make appeals since 18 December to let banknotes in. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I learned today, the "continuous and extensive" rocket attacks mentioned in the Israeli propaganda piece above were neither. See List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. Moreover, as Uri Avnery and others point out, Israel had the power to stop these attacks at any time, simply by agreeing to truce terms. E.g.: "What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning." -- Uri Avnery, "Worse Than a Crime", 26 Jan 2008. The rockets were a response to Israel's frequent and deadly raids, and to Israel's closing of the border (an act of war) -- but we dumbed-down Americans are not supposed to know about things like that. Anyway, Tundrabuggy, I don't see any Israelis lining up to trade places with the perpetually occupied Palestinians, so things in Gaza can;'t possibly abe as wonderful as the Israeli propaganda suggests. Here are two articles that attempt to tell the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding money... "100 billion" should be "100 million" (MAJOR ERROR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.11.104 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the "non-continuous" and "non-extensive" bombardment. I don't know about you, NZ, I wouldn't want to sit in what amounts to an occasionally used Mortar range, even if the range is only used once a week, with a single random shell. That sort of thing isn't acceptable to any Sovereign state either (just one 81mm mortar can destroy your home) and no Democratically elected government will stay in power if that is permitted by that Government (even some dictatorships have been brought down by far less). V. Joe (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there is a ceasefire now (between 13:00 to 16:00 local time) for a "humanitarian corridor". -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel intelligence claims Hamas using hospitals and mosques
- "Hamas operatives are in the hospital and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors," one official said.
- OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private homes as ammunition stores.
hmmm...perhaps that explains some hits on mosques as well as hospitals. Could Hamas militants be giving us their own casualty figures from inside hospitals? hmmm Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tundrabuggy, please don't do things like this. There's too much chaos on the talk page and in the article already. It doesn't help. Stick to comments about the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Things like this? We have Israel supposedly attacking ambulances and that's big anti-Israel news. What if Hamas operatives, dressed as emergency personnel, (doctors and nurses) are using ambulances to transport weapons and rockets? It has been done before. Do I need to bring in references? Israeli intelligence told the Israeli cabinet. It is highly relevant. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 4th january report states the following:
- ""This morning, an ambulance of Al Awda hospital in the north was shelled, seriously injuring 4 medical staff""
- So if you're going to say IDF said that and tat, clearly mention that the information is reported by the UN. The most accurate and neutral reporter in such matters. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 5th january report states the following:
- "A paramedic working for the UHWC,an Oxfam-funded organisation, was killed when an Israeli shell struck an ambulance trying to evacuate an injured person in the Beit Lahiya area; another paramedic lost his foot and a driver was injured in the same incident." There are lots of similar facts on all those netural reports, without mentioning Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really comfortable with all these huge number of IDF statements and 0 number of Hamas statements in the whole article. Things need be way more balanced up. I remember I've read many times Hamas saying that those are false Israeli claims. I'll search where I read them and put them beside this IDF quote to fairly balance matters --Darwish07 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith on Sean's behalf, I don't think he realized your intention was to add the information into the article. I think he thought you were just stating it as a matter of fact. In any case, I do agree. This is something that should be added to the article. These tricks are old ones and I'm surprised it has yet to be mentioned in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I read somewhere in the past 48hrs that the palestinian MOH gave Hamas a direct order not to use ambulances THIS TIME, as they are needed to evacuate the injured. This "exception" clearly demonstrates the rule...--Omrim (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant 'things like this' in the sense of statements that don't directly address proposed improvements to the article. I'm not challenging the importance of your information but I will say that information like this should be set in the context of what is required by both sides under international law/the rules of war or else people won't know what is and isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If its added it must be attributed to the Israeli government due it being very controversial. They were probably just paramedics killed by accident. No one really knows (yet) why they were killed or if they were allegedly Hamas militiamen in disguise, but we do know according to sources that "four paramedics were killed on their way to rescue injured civilians". Until we get a neutral source (not Hamas nor the Israeli government/military) this is what should be stated. You can't keep on accusing Hamas as basically being a terrorist group that uses human shields or disguises as paramedics, unless you want accusations of the IDF of being gruesome terrorists who kill entire families because they are personal point of views and not reliably sourced facts. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree wih Al Ameer regarding attribution of the claims. Until reliable sources make these claims independently, the claims should be attributed to the Israeli government. However, there are reliable sources asserting that in the past Hamas has resorted to using Human shield's and similar schemes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- In the past, Israel has used human shields - in the West Bank city of Nablus during raids on houses and in other localities to deflect stone-throwers. We could do this all day (sorry if I'm getting carried away), but just because Hamas did in the past doesn't mean they're doing it now, especially since I think Gaza's hospitals need every ambulance they have and additional ones too. Omrim backs this by saying the Ministry of Health ordered Hamas not to use ambulances, but we need a source to verify this. Anyhow, this is all blabber. What Hamas has done in the past has no room in the timeline since its strictly about the current conflict. --04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)
- Agree Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree wih Al Ameer regarding attribution of the claims. Until reliable sources make these claims independently, the claims should be attributed to the Israeli government. However, there are reliable sources asserting that in the past Hamas has resorted to using Human shield's and similar schemes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- When the Israeli military goes on their raids they don't intend to kill, but to take prisoners (use them as bargaining chips or to get information). So there's a fundamental difference between using shields as a defensive mechanism and using shields to kill. But I agree with Al Ameer, this is all blabber. Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UT=C)
- You are editing now as an advocate for Israel. The Supreme Court of Israel has twice ruled that the IDF in ther past has consistently roped in Palestinians, especially adolescents, to use as shields in their urban warfare operations. Your first sentence mirrors exactly the language Hezbollah used in seizing IDF soldiers not to kill them but to use them as bargaining chips in 2006.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that this is all inconsistent with this article goal. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the Israelis "don't intend to kill" and have weapons that are a thousand times more precise than the primitive rockets available to Hamas and Hezbollah, why is it that Israel is killing forty to a hundred times as many people? The ratios for children killed are even worse. See: Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007 and Jan 2006 to June 2007: 172 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli child murdered and children killed, numbers, graphs. We don't need to rely on "blabber" (black propaganda): We have facts, tons of them, and these astonishing facts will not stay buried forever. NonZionist (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not refer to blogs, propaganda sites and opinion pieces when trying to work to accurate figures and improve this article. These are not reliable sources per WP. As Brewcrewer commented: "Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions," or as per Darwish07: "inconsistent with this article goal." I urge you to review Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haaretz (the Gideon Levy article) is not a "blog". Anyway, please feel free to look up the figures yourself, Tundrabuggy, in whatever "reliable" (Israel-approved) source you wish. You will find the same 40-to-1 kill ratio I reported. I, for one, do not feel comfortable supporting such a slaughter. Killing all of these innocent people accomplishes absolutely nothing. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not refer to blogs, propaganda sites and opinion pieces when trying to work to accurate figures and improve this article. These are not reliable sources per WP. As Brewcrewer commented: "Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions," or as per Darwish07: "inconsistent with this article goal." I urge you to review Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the Israelis "don't intend to kill" and have weapons that are a thousand times more precise than the primitive rockets available to Hamas and Hezbollah, why is it that Israel is killing forty to a hundred times as many people? The ratios for children killed are even worse. See: Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007 and Jan 2006 to June 2007: 172 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli child murdered and children killed, numbers, graphs. We don't need to rely on "blabber" (black propaganda): We have facts, tons of them, and these astonishing facts will not stay buried forever. NonZionist (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The number of civilian casualties, several hundred, is about the population of a single Gaza apartment building. Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery, etc. But there are only several hundred civilians dead. With the number of strikes launched, had Israel wanted to kill civilians, there would be hundreds of thousand dead, not hundreds. okedem (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dead has been scattered across several apartment buildings...you are correct...
I would remind people that 30% civilian dead (and I am not basing this on any RS) is still a "militant" ratio of 70%. I think that is a very restrained figure. What is the ratio for Hamas? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Opening Paragraph
Needs to be re-written. Nothing wrong with the content, but the grammer is quite poor to the opint of being unsuitable for wikipedia. I would re-write it myself, but admittedly, by english ain't that great either ;) and the article desrves something a little more polished. Just my 2 cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk • contribs)
Wounded Israelis
Does "shock" count as being wounded? Surely not. I think the figure in the infobox needs to be clarified because I doubt 119 Israelis were physically injured by Hamas rockets. I could be wrong. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this criticism as I've seen accounts of "light wounds" and "slight injuries" as well a shock being reported. I'm uncomfortable with the injury accounting in South Israel and this number of 119 injured which derives directly from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their reports are extremely lacking in detail and I've not seen them differentiate the injured at all (into critical, light, shock etc). As of now I can only say that the number probably includes many light injuries and possibly "shock victims" due to past accounting practices in this conflict (I think the BBC has made a point of referring to some of the injuries as light or slight). As it stands though there is no basis to change this number. Someone would have to find a reliable source differentiating the injury victims. I think its a significant issue becuase very few if any of the Israeli injuries will turn into deaths given the fact that most that have been reported with any detail have not been severe and the fact that South Israel has an intact medical system. Obviously neither applies in the case of Gaza.
Thrylos000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
- I actually tried really hard yesterday, but I couldn't find a single source reporting the total number of Israeli wounded.VR talk 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- An example of recent accounting practices of the Israel Ministry of foreing affairs (from the 2006 war with Hizbullah):
"Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."
Only 101 people were wounded moderately or severely (2.4% of the total figure!) while 65% of the "injured" were victims of shock and anxiety. Unfortunately, the MFA has not provided a similar breakdown for the injuries in the current conflict. They are only reporting an undifferentiated count of injuries, currently totalling 119: "Since December 27, 480 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. 900,000 Israeli residents are under immediate threat. Three Israeli civilians have been killed and 119 wounded (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA)."
Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet that those Israeli injuries seriousness are .0001 of the Palestinian ones dangers, but it's not my job to say this statement in here anyway :) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I looked through the 3 sources cited for the 119 injuries and, though I may have overlooked something, I couldn't find any support for the figure. So I have removed 119 for the time being and changed civilian casualties to ~10 which is just until someone can find a definitive figure. I can't expect there are many injuries, from what I've heard most of the rockets have missed.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I saw the figure there. The google cached version shows it. Maybe the moved it or revised it.VR talk 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone has put the 120 figure back in, citing the israeli govt. I won't remove it in case i'm being blind but i've looked through the page and can't find the 120 figure in it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Many of you have raised valid considerations. It does seem to be Israeli policy to bring in shock-victims to hospitals. Frankly, I suppose having a sudden rocket explode next to you, deafening you, destroying your car/house/surroundings, and possibly killing your dog/friend/husband may be a little shocking. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. This policy being as it is, I doubt it is feasible to not include shock victims in the count. Perhaps we should make separate mention that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians". Debresser (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Of course no one is suggesting, I don't think, that shock or other psychological trauma doesn't result from events during this conflict. The problem is however that no one is even going to try to estimate who has suffered "shock" in Gaza. If they included this categories, undifferentiated, in the injury counts in Gaza I would venture to say the number of injuried would be close to 1.5 M. :)
- For the time being I am supportive of using the Israel MFA figure with a note saying that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians" and perhaps linking to the example I mentioned above: "Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."
- Thrylos000 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The 120 number I can find on the mfa.gov site is here (site dosnt work properly for me at least, you have to scroll way, way down) Now the figures are from the 4th — chandler — 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is probably not directly relevant but the Israel MFA is now reporting casualties of family pets on their website: "Jan 6: A 3-month-old baby girl was injured by shrapnel when a Grad rocket fired from north Gaza Tuesday morning exploded in the city of Gedera, between Ashdod and Rehovot. Twelve-year-old Shir was in a ground floor room in her home when the siren sounded. She ran to the shelter and was saved when the rocket struck the room she had just left. The family's dog Sili was killed by shrapnel in the yard. Since December 27, over 500 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. Almost one million Israeli residents are under immediate threat."
Thrylos000 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dog should be added to the number of Israeli casualties. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No.VR talk 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I'm contacting the Animal rights. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- No.VR talk 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dog should be added to the number of Israeli casualties. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Chesdovi: the death of human beings, regardless of what side, shouldn't be for jokes. Please refrain from doing this again, it is in very bad taste. There are places for gallows humor, this isn't one of them. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Rocket fire chart
The rocket fire chart added is a good start ("File:Qasam graph2002-2007.svg"). However, it documents the rocket fire from 2002-2007, thus quite irrelevant for this article. If someone can find or create a chart documenting rocket fire in the past 10 days, or since December 19, or even in the past 6 months, that'd be great.VR talk 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 2002-2007 rocket fire is actually quite relevant to the article. It's Israel's reason for going into Gaza. However, I'm not surprised that you were unaware of this background. After all, this information keeps on getting deleted from the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The chart's timeline entirely precedes the event covered in this article. On a related note, the words "Qassam" and " rocket" now appear a total of 97 times in the article. The word "blockade": 16 times. This makes the article's discussion of the opposing sides' reasoning for their aggression unbalanced. RomaC (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)The article conveniently ignores preceding events which led up to the current event. An argument to delete a chart of rocket fire because the article does not have this background information perpetuates the vicious circle of this WP:POV riddled article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't: it discusses it at very much length in the background section, complete with links to all relevant articles. The first sentence also links to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which links to all the background information you could ever want. However, just because you take something to be the truth, it doesn't mean we have to: Need I remind you that you are taking the Israeli view on the events? And that we should write a neutral encyclopedia article? --Cerejota (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)The article conveniently ignores preceding events which led up to the current event. An argument to delete a chart of rocket fire because the article does not have this background information perpetuates the vicious circle of this WP:POV riddled article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem with rocket fire stats (unlike casualty stats) is that by themselves they are one sided and lack context. This is a general problem with the articles on rocket attacks in WP in my view. Both sides take certain actions, fire rockets, blockade, carry out incursions/assaults in each others territories tit-for-tat and so on endlessly. Rocket attack stats present one dimension of the data but there are other dependant variables as RomaC highlights that are directly relevant to those stats. Rockets are being fired for reasons and Israel is attacking Gaza for reasons. It's a problematic area and it's bound to cause instability in the article as people press for those other dependant variables to be included. You'll end up with someone trying to graph the relationship between rocket attack frequency and Israeli incursions into Gaza/blockade status/number of lorries allowed in and so one endlessly. It's a minefield. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's why the chart should be limited to attacks prior to December 27, where there are very little of these variables. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. The period in the couple of months before the assault started was really bad for both sides pretty much whatever statistic you look at. That's kind of my point. Just looking at rocket attack stats by themselves doesn't really help a person who wants to use an encyclopedia to find neutral, factual information understand what actually happened. It's like describing a crash between two cars but only mentioning one of the cars. Anyway, I'll leave you all alone to carry on discussing because you probably have better ideas than me on how to handle this e.g. just below. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The ineffectual rocket fire (12 Israelis killed over a six year period) is Israel's STATED reason for slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians, Brewcrewer -- much as WMD's are Bush's STATED reason for butchering Iraq. Please don't confuse the STATED reason for starting a war with the real reason: The two are rarely the same. NonZionist (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i see both sides of this argument. the main problem with citing the invasions as a response to hamas rockets and citing those figures is that then there is an argument for saying "which was in response to the gaza blockade which was in response to suicide bombers..." and statistics accompanying these assertions ad infinitum. This article should probably be renamed "dec 2008 israel offensive on gaza" or something to that effect and then describe events on both sides that occur from the date of the airstrike onward. there should definitely be links to articles dealing with hamas rocket fire, the gaza blockade and the 6 month truce. that is, unless i'm incorrect in thinking this page is specifically about the conflict that began in december Untwirl (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Brew, seriously -- and think we should make this entire article about events prior to December 27. Then make a new article actually about the December 27~ Israeli assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer: I highly doubt Israel is going to war with Hamas for rockets that were fired more than a year ago. The Israeli action is in response to the more recent attacks, i.e. those between December 19-27.VR talk 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sources say instead Israel has prepared for this for several months, with a mock up town like key points in Gaza where troops have been intensively trained for several months in urban warfare. One must distinguish between formal (often pretextual) reason and strategic longterm calculations. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your doubt shows a genuine lack of knowledge, then. Israel is going to war for the rockets which Hamas (and the other organizations) have been firing for eight years now. It's finally fed up with these attacks, which became even more frequent after Israel evacuated the entire strip. Life in Israel's south has become a constant state of terror, with people running for cover, and everyone suffering PTSD.
- The more recent attacks, at the end of the truce, were just a trigger, not a cause. Israel didn't go to full-out war over 60 rockets. okedem (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It went to war over the capture of two soldiers and a few skirmishes in 2006 with Hezbollah. It invaded Lebanon in 1982 despite a UN-negotiated truce with the PLO in South Lebanon that the PLO observed for the preceding 6 months. Not to know this is to demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As is so typical of you, Nishidani, you attack me over something I never said or claimed. The casual reader will read your comment and assume I said something like "Israel would never go to war for anything less than...", whereas all I said concerned the Gaza issue, and nothing else. Only the more careful reader will notice how misleading your response is. okedem (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't attack you. I didn't even mention you. I extrapolated from the premise in your remark 'Israel didn't go to full-out war over 60 rockets' which, in any normal reader's mind, implies strongly that Israel goes to war over more than just a 'trigger'ing incident. It's a reasonable inference, particularly since I refrained from commenting on the way you and others think there is something peculiarly Israeli about living 'ion a constant state of terror' and suffering from PTSD. Half the children of Gaza are anaemic, 75% of the population is on a bare subsistance level of malnourishment, most children suffer from chronic trauma, and Israel has been shooting into the fishbowl for three years, while tightening its blockade since Hamas was legitimated by a plebiscite, and, yes, those infamous night-runs by the IAF that from one o'clock onward for years repeatedly cruise above the Strip to make successive sonic booms throughout the night and deny these people even the right to sleep. Less whingeing about being a victim, from denizens of the 4th most powerful military force in the world and an otherwise thriving modern state, would help keeping editors' eyes fixed on the many problems with this narrative, Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Come on, Nishidani. You replied to me, and implied I said things that I never said. Anyone trying to "extrapolate" from your words would have been summarily attacked on various levels. You, as one who is so keen of verbal accuracy, should not engage in such activities.
- Your speech about Gaza is irrelevant. I spoke of Israel's motives and history. But if you open this up, I'll just say this: Palestinians voted for the organization which doesn't recognize Israel, vows to destroy it, and doesn't accept the previous agreements or the two-state solution. They voted for the organization which has been firing rockets for years. Whereas Israel made the strongest show of good-will by leaving the entire strip, showing it can evacuate settlements and give back land, Palestinians chose to show they cannot live in peace, and continued attacking.
- But that's enough. A long time ago I told myself I wouldn't get into discussions with you, as you are so fond of twisting other people's words, replying out of context, and bedazzling participants with lots of comments, which usually say nothing. C'ya! okedem (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I caught the allusion, 'full of sound and fury and signifying nothing'. Well, I am a windbag, but the sounds I make, and the fury, are small change in the arsenal exploding over Gaza these days. Since when has recognizing Israel been a passport for survival for Palestinians. In any case, let's leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- come on guys, it's not our business to postulate about motives etc here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Using the rocket fire chart from years back to motivate Israel's actions and you elicit a chart that would show why Hamas considers its rocket actions defensive responses to the IDF's repeated demonstration of its intent to systematically assassinate, kill, rocket anyone in the Strip its mysterious Secret Service allies consider a terrrorist. I.e.
- Barak Ravid Haaretz probe, Half of Gazans killed by IDF not involved in terror 'Israeli security forces killed 810 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in 2006 and 2007, Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin reported Sunday at the weekly cabinet briefing in Jerusalem. He estimated that some 200 of those killed were not clearly linked to terrorist organizations. However, an examination by Haaretz reveals that the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces stands at 816 during those two years, and that of them, 360 were civilians who were not affiliated with any armed organizations. Data from B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, show that 152 of the casualties were under age 18, and 48 were under the age of 14.
- Hamas considers its duty to respond to fire, especially since the civilian population has over the past few years been consistently slaughtered by these actions. Its motivations mirror those of the Israeli government, which justifies its actions as those of defending the security of Israel's civilians. There is no room in[REDACTED] for editors pushing to plant their own personal convictions about who started it. At least one should simply note that there are authoritative sources blaming alternatively Hamas, and the Israeli government.Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here are free graphs comparing casualties, children, political prisoners, demolitions, even U.N. resolutions. Comparison: Children killed ... Numerous comparisons: casualties, demolitions, tax dollars, etc.. ... Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day. (An interesting pattern emerges: We see that Israel is killing Palestinians almost every day. Then suddenly a Palestinian goes berserk and kills several Israelis. Then Israel has a pretext for continuing its steady day-by-day killing.) It would be interesting to superimpose some of these on top of the graph of rockets. "What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning." -- Uri Avnery, "Worse Than a Crime", 26 Jan 2008. Unfortunately, many here treat Israeli propaganda as Holy Gospel Truth -- just as many politically naive Americans take every word the president utters as Holy Gospel. NonZionist (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The plunking of a version of the Qassam rocket attacks 2001-2008 at the top of the page does (a) repeat as a graph one that already has a whole wiki page dedicated to the argument (List of Qassam rocket attacks) and (b) strongly tilts the opening presentation of the conflict towards an Israeli POV. Either one removes it as pleonastic or one provides a balancing graph showing the number of IDF attacks on the Gaza strip over that same period. This is the standard criterion for an NPOV presentation, which at the moment has been violated in a very heavy-handed fashion. Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Editors must get a consensus here on talk when adding controversial content. There are already photos or Qassam rockets and a photo of a man (supposedly, how can we know this?) inspecting Qassam rocket damage and now a chart we would need strong consensus and even then it would violate undue weight as the article has not a single image from Gaza. RomaC (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Until a specific graph detailing the continual IDF operations in the Gaza Strip since 2005 is produced, counterbalancing the plethoric qassam graph up top is available, the latter should be removed and placed in the talk section. As it stands it completely unhinges any respect for NPOV balance.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Threat to Misplaced Pages?
The State of Israel has deployed a world-class arsenal of fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, gunboats, tanks and troops against a densely-populated, impoverished and blockaded area small enough to cycle across in an afternoon.
And after ten days, close to 700 Gazans are dead and several thousand more are injured or maimed. Meanwhile on the Israeli side, maybe a dozen have died (about half from friendly fire).
Yet Misplaced Pages still won't call this event an "attack" or "assault" or "invasion," because a number of highly-committed editors are arguing every which way that it wouldn't be neutral to make Israeli look bad.
Instead, we've made Misplaced Pages look bad.
What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you considered building a concrete wall around Misplaced Pages, blockading it, occasionally carrying out random deletions of articles, cutting off power to the servers and so forth. I mean, what could possibly go wrong ? Seriously though, I don't know what to say. People are idiots and I include myself in that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The mix of our idiocies is what build up Misplaced Pages ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- F***ING GENIUS DARWISH, F***ING GENIUS!!!--Cerejota (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The mix of our idiocies is what build up Misplaced Pages ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you'd be an Internet Security company, or an ISP, and Misplaced Pages servers would have been used to DoS attack you... Then you'd talk to Misplaced Pages owners/admins and they'd respond with "MUWAHAHAHA! WE WILL DOS YOU UNTIL YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR SERVERS FARM! DIE!", I guess you'd take them down, no? Especially, when the Police can only tell them "We condemn your DOS attacks" ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, there are about 550 deaths, not "close to 700". That's a big difference. And Israel attacked/assaulted Hamas, who are hiding in Gaza's residential areas, thus so many civilian deaths. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very wrong, even if Hamas and BBC consider it so. Invasion, perhaps, but it's a tempporary thing because IDF doesn't plan to stay in Gaza after the operation (and everybody said it MANY times over and over again), so you could say that Israel invaded Gaza to "deal with Hamas", but you can't really call this war/operation as an Invasion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it is an Israeli attack on Hamas and not Gaza. Just today 20 potential members of Hamas were killed, yes they were children, but let's face it they could become Hamas members.*sarcasm intended* the facts are civilians area have been hit, the civilian casualties make up a significant portion of the death toll, the Israelis have invaded the area. So if it talks like a duck, walks and quacks like one, then it is one. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very accurate. --Learsi si natas (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (my ORIGINAL RESEARCH and BIAS not related to article). I'll tell you a funny fact by the way, ofcourse I'm biased but as mentioned I'm not saying this for the sake of the main article at all. The IDF and the Israeli media really love to make a distinction between Hamas and "non-Hamas", but here's the catch that the Israeli Intelligence knows very well. All people on Gaza support Hamas cause it's the one (on the opposite of Fatah) which calls for opposition against the "occupying force". We were not really originally from Gaza, we were withdrawn by force from the land that's above Gaza (Ashdood, Asklan, ..) in the 1948 war. So all the Gazans believe that Israel is an occupying force and what they are doing is legal opposition against an occupying force, whether this force is on Gaza or not. That's why every home helps Hamas over there and every one there prays for them. There's no difference between who's Hamas and who's not. And that's why Israel are doing all those killings and infrastructure destruction. It knows very well that she's not fighting Hamas, she's fighting 1.5 million population. And from here, and because all those wars, hatred over hatred continue. and sadly, here we are :-(. (End of ORIGINAL RESEARCH /) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- My response, unrelated to the articles as well, just stating my real honst opinion. Sorry mate, but this isn't "original research". That's the "common propaganda". Not all Gazans support Hamas. And the propaganda part is saying that Israel is targeting 1.5 mil population. Fatah used to fight Israel too, but looking at reality on the ground - the situation is that there is the Gaza strip (where there isn't any Israeli presence since 2005), there is the West Bank (where there are Israeli soldiers and police checkpoints and etc., for now, until we can pull out of there and a Palestinian state will be founded), and there is Israel. The 1967 borders (pretty much the same meaning as the 1949 Armistice Lines) are widely accepted as the sanest way to make this work for both of the peoples. Of course there are problems like Jerusalem and the "right of return", and both sides have both support and oposition on every issue. This can be solved by negotiations. And it will, when weapons will not be used against eachother. And I believe that many in Gaza know that too, and want that to happen. But for now, we have Hamas, who is terrorizing Israel, and Israel cannot let it happen. Of course there are controvercies about Israel's actions and Hamas' actions. Imagine what would happen if Israel was not imposing any kind of blockage on Gaza, and leaving the borders widely open? Hamas would get plenty of long-range missiles, Hamas will launch suicide bombers again, and etc. Yes, it might improve the living standards of the Gazans, but no sovereign country will accept improving the lives of a neighbouring area a little bit, in the cost of bloody terror against them. Imagine Burma attacking China. Burma would be flattened if it'd happen. Israel, on the other hand, tries to help the citizens. Before the military operation, Israel opened the border, and let supplies in, for several days. Hamas kept on firing. There is no peaceful solution against an organization who vows to kill you. Anyway, sorry for the offtopic. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (my ORIGINAL RESEARCH and BIAS not related to article). I'll tell you a funny fact by the way, ofcourse I'm biased but as mentioned I'm not saying this for the sake of the main article at all. The IDF and the Israeli media really love to make a distinction between Hamas and "non-Hamas", but here's the catch that the Israeli Intelligence knows very well. All people on Gaza support Hamas cause it's the one (on the opposite of Fatah) which calls for opposition against the "occupying force". We were not really originally from Gaza, we were withdrawn by force from the land that's above Gaza (Ashdood, Asklan, ..) in the 1948 war. So all the Gazans believe that Israel is an occupying force and what they are doing is legal opposition against an occupying force, whether this force is on Gaza or not. That's why every home helps Hamas over there and every one there prays for them. There's no difference between who's Hamas and who's not. And that's why Israel are doing all those killings and infrastructure destruction. It knows very well that she's not fighting Hamas, she's fighting 1.5 million population. And from here, and because all those wars, hatred over hatred continue. and sadly, here we are :-(. (End of ORIGINAL RESEARCH /) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- RomaC, perhaps not everything you don't like is "a threat to Misplaced Pages"? Your comment is very dramatic, but doesn't mesh with the facts. Thus far Israel has performed hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery shells, etc. How many civilians died? 200-300? That's the number of people living in a single Gaza-city apartment building. The very fact that Israel has carried out so many strikes, with so few civilian casualties, shows beyond doubt that Israel is making great efforts to avoid hurting civilians. In contrast, Hamas targets civilians. They can fire their rockets at military targets. Lots of those in range. They might get lucky and kill a soldier, hit an aircraft, or at least damage some runway. But no. They choose to kill civilians. The Palestinians elected Hamas, fully knowing that Hamas does not recognize Israel, the peace process, etc. Fully knowing that Hamas will continue its attacks on Israel. They do this even after Israel left Gaza, evacuated settlements, gave back the land. Palestinians chose to attack Israel and elect Hamas, instead of trying to continue the peace process. When civilians die, it's always a shame, be them Israeli or Palestinian. But this happens in war, and if Hamas (again, the folks Palestinians elected and support) hadn't fired, if they didn't hide in the middle of cities - none of this would have happened. So your pity drive doesn't impress me. And right or wrong have nothing to do with casualty figures. okedem (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The WAR started a long time ago, and there has not been an 'official' cease-fire or end to this war. You could call this a battle, or better yet, another Israeli military excurion into Palestinian territory. Calling it an invasion would mean the start of 'another' war, but this is the same war, and the latest action is an additional confrontation.
- Please, we can't blame Israel for having the superior firepower, it should use it as it sees fit. Just like we can't blame Hamas/Palestine for defending itself as it sees fit. The best we can do is to continue updating the casualties, as many Iraq war objectors have been doing with US military deaths.
- Also, i would like to know what Israeli military base is within reach of Hamas rockets.
- And, would Israel allow Hamas to build 'official' military bases away from the population in order to have a 'morally' responsible war against it? What is the problem having MILITIANS firing rockets from their background? Yet, with all the videos Israel has published, i've yet to see any of those militians using civilians as shields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bases - for the airforce alone - Hatzor and Hatzrim, maybe also Tel Nof (very close to Gedera, which was hit today) (see the map of the IAF website). There are many ground forces bases in the area as well.
- Hamas has military installations, mostly from the time of Abu-Mazen's control. But they fire from civilian areas, from schools, from between houses. They use homes and mosques as weapons stores. See the videos. There's an incredible amount of evidence for this conduct. okedem (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As well as the Ashdod naval base from which the naval blockade is operated (would have made a super-quality military target), and the Gaza Brigade base from which the entire operation is managed (haven't heard on a single mortar round falling there). Both are HUGE bases. --Omrim (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also notice the strategic location of those bases, as it was my reference point, all being at least 25 miles away from the Gaza Strip...and yet, as good as a target that they are(as you noticed) it seems they are hearing the call.
- "On December 24, five days after the lull arrangement ended, the cities of Ashqelon , Netivot and Sderot, the towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, the crossings and IDF bases were subjected to a massive rocket and mortar shell attack. At least 60 rockets and mortar shells ::::::were fired, most of them by Hamas."
- I think you both are Palestinians agents. "Hamas now has longer range Iranian-made rockets, and several hit near the Israeli port city of Ashdod for the first time, 23 miles from Gaza.Israel's Home Front Command recommended that all communities within a 40-kilometer range of Gaza be hooked up to the Color Red incoming missile alert system."
- "While news accounts reference these as Grad rockets or "enhanced Katyusha", the rockets used in the attack on Ashdod must have a range twice that of the BM-21 Grad. Photographs of a rocket that landed near Gan Yavne, northeast of Ashdod on 28 December, do indicate that it was a 122-mm rocket. This is inconsistent with the idea that HAMAS was using Iranian-made rockets, either the Oghab with a range of 34-45 km or the Fajr-3 / Ra'ad with a range of 45 km."
- Also, you mean to say "Hamas had military installations"...or Israel not attacking them in this latest excursion? That would seem out of touch with reality.
The Gaza Brigade base is ON THE BORDER between Gaza and Israel. Not "25 miles" away. The Naval ashdod base is not in ashdod, but NEAR ashdod, in it was not hit, or even targeted. --Omrim (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your increased attention-span would had been a better response in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.70.168 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles
In 2008 there was a Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles. The page includes user descriptions of the problems and arbitrators' final decisions regarding the conflict: remedies (discretionary sanctions of blocks, bans, etc. by uninvolved administrators, a working group and reminding and counseling editors) and enforcement (logging of notifications, blocks and bans on users who have engaged in problematic editing on Israel-Palestine issues). Read the whole arbitration for an in depth understanding of the issues and remedies involved. Therefore issues can be brought directly to Misplaced Pages Arbitration Enforcement.
There is a WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which has some tips on how to resolve disputes, including up to arbitration and a Current Article Issues Discussion page for reporting or discussing issues with specific articles. Check them out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problems I think RomaC's highlighting are a consequence of the title changing from "2008-2009 Gaza Strip Airstrikes" to its present one. I came here (initially commenting as unsigned) to read about that story, but when the ground incursion / invasion loomed, it was inevitable that the title would have to be changed.
- However, it seems to me that under the auspices of changing the title to something neutral sounding that also reflected events, the article has been re-cast in such a way as to be broadened beyond coverage of the current events and their immediate strategic context -- which are after all what most readers are interested in, and are what is keeping the article on the front page as a Current Event! At the moment there is just about a reasonable balance between events and context - it's reasonable to mention the rocket attacks - but only insofar as they are a stated reason for the conflict. If there's too much detail about them, pro-Palestinians will want the blockade discussed in detail, and we enter into an infinite chain of causality (or rather, recrimination).
- This broadening of scope inevitably serves a pro-Israeli agenda, which clearly is to frame the assault in the wider context of Hamas rocket attacks. However, to some extent this *is* appropriate. Whether the rocket attacks are the true reason for the attacks or as I believe, a pretext, should be left up to the reader to decide. I say we should change the title to "Israeli offensive" -- which is the notable event this article arose to cover -- concentrate on reporting the atrocities in Gaza, and let the pro-Israelis have their justification about rockets but not in detail - let them refer readers to the list of Qassam attacks that already exists. Don't let the article grow beyond reason, become broken up and edited as a number of cheesy and obviously partisan "counter articles", where credibility will be lost as a whole.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I completely disagree and take issue with your characterization. The title change was a result of the events changing, and then a widely participated, contentious and well argued discussion that led to the current title, and has continued as a current debate.
- The topic has not widened, and inclusion of background information is not widening the scope, it is simply including a verifiable fact of these events: they didn't happen out fo the blue, and both sides have argued motivations and counter motivations and have their own take on the events. We must write about this. That some editors are actively trying to steer the narrative in one way or the other is only natural in such a controversial article. What we should do is face it head on, assuming good faith, bringing sourced material, reverting the shit out of the POV pushers and WP:SYNTH warriors, and then applauding our results for the 30 seconds consensus lasts until the next BRD starts. Your conspiranoia is insulting and unwikipedian.
- Furthermore, those who have argued to narrow the topic of the article have mostly been pro-Israeli editors who want to use the "Operation Cast Lead" as the article name. <sarcasm>Are you false-flagging for any chance? I mean, if you are into conspiracy, so can I, right?</sarcasm> >:) --Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you leave no doubt as to your own sympathies. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The point it is it is a remedy if the article gets too partisan and there are numbers being pulled, especially as a result of tag teaming and canvassing. They don't have to be proved; the resultant POV will be the issue, of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
CNN biased?
This edit, alleges that CNN is biased. I don't think the edit has merit because the sources are not reliable, but would like to hear what others think.
Previous messages that I left the user on his talk page have been blanked without response.VR talk 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I also left a message for this user about repeated disruptive very pro-Israeli (but probably good faith from his perspective)edits. Someone else did too. It's getting to the point where further action might be required in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Reference to Yahoo Answers? Who is he trying to kid... Remove it. I've been watching alot of CNN and can't see a bias. I mean he claims they don't cover Israeli deaths, from what this article states, there are 9 israeli deaths and 560 palestinian deaths, if anything it would be a pro-Israel bias to report the deaths as equals. And they are obviously showing injured Palestinians because there are many more than injured Israelis — chandler — 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- VR and others.In these cases, where the narrative assumes a personal voice, and editorializes, one does well just to note this on the talk page, and erase the edit. Feel free to delete that section, since it is both poorly sourced and editorializes. Anyone here may remove it without objection, since removing this kind of abuse does not require consensus. It violates core policy.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it for now, If someone comes with a RS criticising CNN it can be re-introduced (but re-phrased I guess) — chandler — 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not a wise move to find an RS to jusatify its reinclusion. It only opens up a battle to stick in many sources saying Israeli official or unofficial but mainstream sources are biased. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well Ok, meant if a credible source really, in that it probably should be mentioned if the BBC ran something about it, but not if the Sun came out with "CNN hates Israel" — chandler — 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not a wise move to find an RS to jusatify its reinclusion. It only opens up a battle to stick in many sources saying Israeli official or unofficial but mainstream sources are biased. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it for now, If someone comes with a RS criticising CNN it can be re-introduced (but re-phrased I guess) — chandler — 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- VR and others.In these cases, where the narrative assumes a personal voice, and editorializes, one does well just to note this on the talk page, and erase the edit. Feel free to delete that section, since it is both poorly sourced and editorializes. Anyone here may remove it without objection, since removing this kind of abuse does not require consensus. It violates core policy.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the claim that CNN is biased should be removed. From what I've read from international media the coverage on CNN seem quite balanced. --user from Finland.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.66.153 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that the claim should not be reinserted, even if someone finds a reasonable source for it. Otherwise we'll end up in circles, with someone then finding a source that says that the critical source is biased against CNN, and on and on until we have an absurdly qualified piece of text. All media in this area are accused of bias one way or the other, sometimes of bias both ways. CNN as it happens seems to get a lot of stick from the other side as well. Note as well that the editor including this seems to have made a habit of dumping extended commentary into this article over the past few days. It's hard enough to produce a decent, readable and accurate article about an event which is both in the news and part of such a controversial topic area, without that sort of constant interruption. --Nickhh (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have written on the subject of a possible CNN bias before, see Archive. I personally have found the CNN to be slightly anti-Israel biased in comparison with the BBC. Accusations of a pro-Palestinian CNN bias are also mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on CNN. Honest_Reporting, an organization monitoring the media for anti-Israel biases, in it’s Year Analysis of CNN has come to the conclusion that “anti-Israel bias has crept back into CNN’s coverage”. Furthermore, fear of possible anti-Israel bias by media in general, has been stated to be one of the reasons for Israel to actively engage in an online media propaganda. SOTT net Information Warfare Monitor Frankly speaking, “where there is smoke, there is fire”, has been a proverb probably for as long as mankind uses fire...
In this article, however, mention of a possible CNN anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias should not be made unless it appears in sources pertaining to the present conflict. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's because "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, VERY unbiased. I just watched a report in its front page showing the borders of Israel encompassing all Palestinian territories. Go back into your Hebrew fanaticism close circle cause here you're only being ridiculed publicly. Leladax (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Leladax. I find your language insulting. Please consider changing part of your last comment. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suggest you report him at WP:DRAMA. That was bullshit and uncalled for. Borderline antisemitic, if not antisemitic period.--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I put a level 3 warning in his talk page. Sorry you had to endure that. :( --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care if you put 100 warnings. I'm not a racist, so you take it back. Just because I think there are Hebrew fanatics, and Christian fanatics, and Atheist fanatics it doesn't mean I'm a racist. Leladax (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I put a level 3 warning in his talk page. Sorry you had to endure that. :( --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Thebiojoe is one of the worse ninja editors we have. He refuses any kind of dialog. If he continues, I am asking for sanctions under ArbCom for WP:POINT and contentious editing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yossef Muadi, a Arab citizens of Israel#Druze was killed fighting along with the Israeli army
He is from Yirka village
mentioning?
--212.117.137.193 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- "fighting along with the Israeli army" you mean he's not a member of the army, and went down to Gaza himself to fight against Hamas or what? — chandler — 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
He was corporal Yossef Muadi , a corporal in the Israeli army (read the inter-wikipedia-link in the title above on Israeli Druze, they align themselves with the Jews since Israel's creation and as opposed to Israeli Muslims fight in the Israeli army, many of them are high ranking officers --212.117.137.193 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, the article should avoid mentioning single combatants. It creates a precedent for both sides to stack the place with a mortuary list (of which the Palestinians have, according to Israeli sources on Hamas fatalities, hundreds, who would be have to be named if Yossef Muadi were named).Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishi, that Maudi is an Arab that is not enough reason to get into naming combatants. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also Agree. This is simply a bad phrasing by the source. Druze soldiers are like any other soldiers in the Israeli army (if only they were the same as all Israeli civilians, but never mind that now, that's for another discussion). Simply put, he is an Israeli soldier. period.--Omrim (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishi, that Maudi is an Arab that is not enough reason to get into naming combatants. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
t Its always bad when people die, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL: No inclusion, unless his death is particularly notable due to other circumstances. There is a significant Arab Israeli population and the Druze in particular are subjected to the draft - so this Corporal was just doign his job as a citizen. Perhaps commendable, but not notable as millions upon told millions have died under exactly the same circumstances for many nations, including Israel, since the invention of modern conscription. He is neither the first, nor (unfortunately) the last, Arab or Non-Jewish IDF soldier to die in combat. Of course, if significant (as in more than one or two articles or mentions) coverage is given to this soldier, then perhaps he deserves a separate page, which we could link form here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why all the Hamas qualifications?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Please discuss lede/intro/lead section issues at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead, if you want to continue this conversationa s part of the background section, open a new section.
From the first lines of the article: "conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas" -- Like them or not, shouldn't Hamas be more accurately described here in Wiki as the "Gaza government"? Soon after we see: "This Israeli-Gaza conflict is the deadliest conflict since Hamas established political control of Gaza in early 2006 and forced out Fatah in the 2007 Battle of Gaza" How is this germane to the article? Hamas won the 2006 elections, a Fatah coup failed. Why not "...since Hamas was elected in 2006"? Wiki uses neutral descriptors, why doesn't this article? RomaC (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, the text should read for economy 'the conflict between Israel and Hamas'. Links can clarify what Hamas is about. 'Islamicist' says nothing other than flag the usually red rag to a POV bull. It is, as you say, the duly elected authority of the Gaza Strip. The phrase 'deadliest conflict' should be eliminated as irrelevant especially in a lead, and is notoriously poorly phrased and badly sourced.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i agree. we would have to discuss the differing political factions in israel with regard to who has currently "established political control" and that all belongs in a different article. Untwirl (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hamas is only the government of Gaza in a defacto sense, describing it as just the government of Gaza is too simplistic. Its not entirely clear the Hamas takeover was a response to an actual coup attempt. This article should not seek to answer that issue. Writing should recognise Hamas's electoral victory, but also its ejection of Fatah from the strip, its the only manner fair. I agree the wording needs to be altered. Superpie (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think a neutral title would be "Gaza's Hamas regime" (since Israel's talking about regime change), although others have called it "Gaza's democratically elected Hamas government".VR talk 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hamas is only the government of Gaza in a defacto sense, describing it as just the government of Gaza is too simplistic. Its not entirely clear the Hamas takeover was a response to an actual coup attempt. This article should not seek to answer that issue. Writing should recognise Hamas's electoral victory, but also its ejection of Fatah from the strip, its the only manner fair. I agree the wording needs to be altered. Superpie (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Superpie What's not entirely clear? It was elected, and a coup was staged, and repressed, as we learnt in April from a well-documented study in Vanity Fair The Gaza bombshell. Israel again may seek 'regime-change', but an unadorned 'Hamas' (linked) is perhaps the best way to go, NPOV-wise. 'Hamas government', like 'Hamas regime' are POV or question-begging, the former because it is a regional administration and stateless, the latter because it is a term of political abuse by Hamas's adversaries. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Arabic Interwiki
I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Misplaced Pages had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Misplaced Pages users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Misplaced Pages cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not for you to decide. if Gaza Massacre is the common name of the attack in arabic, that's the name they should use. If anything this only sounds like a pro-Israel move for removal of the view of the arabic world. — chandler — 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you don't really understand the concept of conveying knowledge. Calling someone "a murderer" is not okay just because many people say so, whether it is in Arabic or in English. The Arabic Misplaced Pages users are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for propaganda counting on the fact that there aren't too many foreigners who speak their language. In any case, such a propaganda cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can restate your position a million times DrorK. It won't make it any more valid. Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre", "War on Gaza" and "Gaza Under Fire" to describe the events we are describing here. It's up to editors of the Arabic article to debate their name choices based on an assessment of reliable sources, much as we are here. (And you should take your debate there, since as you said earlier, you are fluent in Arabic). I'm quite sure they are as offended by our title, which creates a false parity where there is none, as you are by theirs. Should they refuse to link to en-wiki citing our bias? Tiamut 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it shouldn't be included. The Hebrew wp probably is just as biased, and from what I can see it links to the arabic one, therefore we have to remove the hebrew one and all other languages who link and think themself the equivalent to the arabic article. And again, it has already been discussed to leave it in. The article is covering the same thing. And why wouldn't it be ok to call someone a murderer, there are murderers you know. — chandler — 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article is not biased and you are invited to check it. Actually, the Arabic Misplaced Pages article is the only one among the different Wikipedias which manipulates facts and terminology. The debate in the Arabic Misplaced Pages is full of slandars towards those who try to change this state of affairs. This is a disturbing issue for itself, but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we cannot link this article to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". Sorry, we are not here to make anti-Israeli propaganda, even if it is only through an interwiki. DrorK (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is the common name in the arab world. It is not about pro/anti-Israel. And again, just because you dont like what the common name in, doesn't mean it should be removed. — chandler — 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork, the arab point of view should be shown as interwiki or something. Hide a link to simply state "provocative" it's your opinion and POV measurement. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork, who cares Arabic wiki? ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.22.58 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let me assure you that I would ask to remove the he-wp interwiki as well had it been linking to an article titled "The Glorious Victory over Hamas", or even "The Israeli War against Terrorism". All articles in all Wikipedias describing these events titled their articles either with the meaningless code-name given by the Israeli army, with a fairly neutral title such as "The Attack on Gaza", "The Israeli-Gazan Conflict" etc. All but the Arabic Misplaced Pages in which some users are trying to push propaganda, and by linking to their article we bring this propaganda here through the back door. Sorry, this is not why we're here. DrorK (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arab Misplaced Pages bias is not our point. Interwiki is to link and integrate all other Wikipedias with the same content, biased or not, well worked or not. You're disrupting an Misplaced Pages feature. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it DrorK, or you could participate in the editing of the arabic wiki if you like. RomaC (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Arabic Wikipedians actually prevent people from editing this articles, by putting all kind of pressure on people who wish to balance the article. The interwiki should go immediately because "Gaza massacre" cannot be a title for an article which describes these events. DrorK (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry DrorK that's not for you to decide, you've been warned for vandalism there is no consensus for your repeated deletions of the interwiki link to the arabic article. RomaC (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Arabic Wikipedians actually prevent people from editing this articles, by putting all kind of pressure on people who wish to balance the article. The interwiki should go immediately because "Gaza massacre" cannot be a title for an article which describes these events. DrorK (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it DrorK, or you could participate in the editing of the arabic wiki if you like. RomaC (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arab Misplaced Pages bias is not our point. Interwiki is to link and integrate all other Wikipedias with the same content, biased or not, well worked or not. You're disrupting an Misplaced Pages feature. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let me assure you that I would ask to remove the he-wp interwiki as well had it been linking to an article titled "The Glorious Victory over Hamas", or even "The Israeli War against Terrorism". All articles in all Wikipedias describing these events titled their articles either with the meaningless code-name given by the Israeli army, with a fairly neutral title such as "The Attack on Gaza", "The Israeli-Gazan Conflict" etc. All but the Arabic Misplaced Pages in which some users are trying to push propaganda, and by linking to their article we bring this propaganda here through the back door. Sorry, this is not why we're here. DrorK (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork, who cares Arabic wiki? ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.22.58 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article is not biased and you are invited to check it. Actually, the Arabic Misplaced Pages article is the only one among the different Wikipedias which manipulates facts and terminology. The debate in the Arabic Misplaced Pages is full of slandars towards those who try to change this state of affairs. This is a disturbing issue for itself, but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we cannot link this article to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". Sorry, we are not here to make anti-Israeli propaganda, even if it is only through an interwiki. DrorK (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you don't really understand the concept of conveying knowledge. Calling someone "a murderer" is not okay just because many people say so, whether it is in Arabic or in English. The Arabic Misplaced Pages users are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for propaganda counting on the fact that there aren't too many foreigners who speak their language. In any case, such a propaganda cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
DrorK: I agree the Arabic[REDACTED] is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.
Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.
Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.--Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Arabic Misplaced Pages, as any Misplaced Pages, is not a source - it relies on sources. It doesn't suppose to have an opinion or express an opinion of its own. By calling the events in Gaza "massacre" they breach the basic rules of Misplaced Pages in any language. The fact that many Arab sources use this terminology doesn't make it okay to call the Arabic article "the Gaza Massacre". By having an interwiki to this Arabic article we (indirectly) acknowledge the Arabic Misplaced Pages improper judgment. While I don't expect English speaking Wikipedians to get involved in the Arabic Misplaced Pages, I do expect them to say: we will not link the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". We cannot suggest that these two articles are equivalent. We could mention in the body of the English article that there are Arab source that use this terminology, but our message to our Arabic speaking colleagues is: write a real equivalent article, and then we will interlink. You are part of the Misplaced Pages project and not another Arab source. DrorK (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Misplaced Pages articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Misplaced Pages can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.
- My entry is definitely not part of this article work, but I feel that some background is needed. I am really sorry for the way this matter was badly presented. Dorok forgot to mention here a few minor facts. Such as the fact that almost all major Arabic news agencies address the event as "Massacre of Gaza", and by almost all I mean a really considerable amount of ALMOST ALL. Simply put, this is the name widely used in Arab world to refer to this event. Whether the name is not appealing to someone is not, and will not be an issue back in Arabic wikipedia. Such naming conflict is similar in nature to the Arabian-Persian gulf naming conflict. The article name might be changed in the future if the majorty of local media shift the use of the naming criteria. Such criteria was applied to the the 2006 war on Lebanon article as the article was finally named "حرب لبنان 2006" arabic for "2006 Lebanon War". That did not seem to bother Dorok at the time, as calls from lots to name it "Lebanon Massacre" were ignored
- Drork contributions within this article on ar.wiki, were really few. The main highlights were: a couple of non-whatever discussed, extremely argumental article renaming attempts. Followed, when failed, by an 'you people should leave wikipedia' kind of argument. Then another undiscussed move followed, when failed, by an "You hate me cause I am an Israeli" kind of argument. Then another long "You are all nothing but a bunch of liars" argument. Sadly no real discussion was even attempted by Dorok. Similar argument were used by Dorok in the past in ar.wiki, arguments such as the 'if you do not agree with me then that means you are HAMAS' argument , and the famous 'you are nothing but a terrorist, your arguments are meaningless to me'. once Dorok pasted his two bits, he requested his userpage erased, and came here to ..... I don't know really. I find him capable of opening a discussion here.
- Dorok might has been offended by the article title, I am willing to understand that. Every body here is offended by something. Yet, being offended is not relative to the work we handle. Lots of Arabic wkipedia users had there share of bad feelings cause of the use of the images within Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, yet, when a fast vote (here on en.wiki) took place most of Arabic[REDACTED] users, including my self, voted to keep the images within en.wikipedia. People crying to remove the en.interwiki from the arabic article where handled gently, as we explained to them the fact that en.wikipedia is another project, and communities on any project have the right to add any basic information or file they find appropriate to an article, the extent of the word appropriate is left to the community of the project in talk.
- Personally I find the discussion that toke place above about Arabic wikipedia, extremely inappropriate, and certainly irrelevant to the article. Neither the larger size of English[REDACTED] , nore Arabic[REDACTED] refusal of disruptive actions is a good reason to smear Arabic[REDACTED] project within this talk-page.
- Again I know my entry was irrelevant to this article. and I do apologize. I do not feel good when I am pushed to discuss gray with a black and white person, I know most of you feel the same. A single side of a story, is really nothing more than that. It does not matter if the story was part of an article or a compliant. --Tarawneh (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a clarification - all of my edits were reverted, and I was called "a Zionist racist" and "a soldier in the occupation army" on the talk page of the Arabic article. For the record - I'm not a soldier, not even a civil servant. The fact that the majority (certainly not all) of Arab sources call the even "a massacre" is irrelevant. They might as well call Olmert "the murderer" it would NOT make this terminology valid for Misplaced Pages. These rules are applicable for all Wikipedias, and indeed despite certain problems with the he-wp article, no one there would even dream to call such an article "The War on Terror" or something similar to that, backing it with Hebrew sources. The Iranian sources certainly use the term "massacre" due to their anti-Israeli approach, and yet the Persian Misplaced Pages keep the article about the recent events in Gaza very neutral and informative. Despite the seemingly irrelevance of this discussion to en-wp, I am glad it is held here, because it might bring to people's attention the fact that there are rules which are applicable to all Wikipedias, and that Wikipedias in certain languages should not be left as an island or a closed community. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork was given a short wikibreak on commons because of his insults there. Rules apply also to Drork. And one important rule is that[REDACTED] is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, why won't you go and browse some of Latuff's albums, or paint some swastikas on your room walls? I think it will calm you down a bit. DrorK (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork was given a short wikibreak on commons because of his insults there. Rules apply also to Drork. And one important rule is that[REDACTED] is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Drork, give it a rest. Iranians and Olmert? what does that have to to do with the Arabic wipkedia article? And why are we even discussing this here? Plus rules? What rules? You do not mean the hidden unwritten secret rules like the ones you claimed exist in your argument in an attempt to speedy delete the Holocaust denial stub back on Arabic, cause the "concept of Holocaust denial" is illegal in some countries, and that time must not be waisted in such articles. Or the secret hidden rules you based your "I will make sure this project is closed down for good" big speech last year. Don't you find your claim to improve the article back there strange , when the only contributions you did had in its talkpage were nothing but insults to other users. Correct me if I was wrong, but the only sincere effort from your side to that article was to request its interwiki removed here by providing false claims.
- Is this really about the article? Somebody insulted you! Man, I opened a special page for people to insult me. You had your share of actually insulting a lot of Arabic[REDACTED] editors, insulting them as editors. Still, you as a user was never blocked, dispite your behaviour (other than your 3rr blocks). A lots of Arabic[REDACTED] users including my self belive that regardless of your behaviour, the Israeli articles in Arabic[REDACTED] needs your contributions to provided the needed balance. Please give it a rest. If this is about the Arabic page, then there is a talk-page for that in Arabic wikipedia, and if this is about you, then this is not the page to discuss it. --Tarawneh (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tarawneh, don't make it a personal issue. You know perfectly well that ar-wp has deteriorated into anti-Israeli propaganda. You know perfectly well that it also includes propaganda against Druze and other groups. I did my best to help improving it, but honestly I have had enough. It is a pity that we have this discussion here in English. Had it been on ar-wp I would have been called "Zionist racist" and blocked. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a clarification - all of my edits were reverted, and I was called "a Zionist racist" and "a soldier in the occupation army" on the talk page of the Arabic article. For the record - I'm not a soldier, not even a civil servant. The fact that the majority (certainly not all) of Arab sources call the even "a massacre" is irrelevant. They might as well call Olmert "the murderer" it would NOT make this terminology valid for Misplaced Pages. These rules are applicable for all Wikipedias, and indeed despite certain problems with the he-wp article, no one there would even dream to call such an article "The War on Terror" or something similar to that, backing it with Hebrew sources. The Iranian sources certainly use the term "massacre" due to their anti-Israeli approach, and yet the Persian Misplaced Pages keep the article about the recent events in Gaza very neutral and informative. Despite the seemingly irrelevance of this discussion to en-wp, I am glad it is held here, because it might bring to people's attention the fact that there are rules which are applicable to all Wikipedias, and that Wikipedias in certain languages should not be left as an island or a closed community. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The ArWiki editors are working on the article, DrorK. Kindly keep in mind that due to its nature as a work in progress, it is very much possible to have not-very-much-neatly-written paragraphs and/or bias-wise shady wordings. The common goal is, of course, to have everything fixed as soon as possible. Come along and join the work, and remember the golden rule: Do not think of discussion pages as forums or bulletin boards :) --Almasvault (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We need more information on the different Palestinian factions involved in the fighting
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, , the factions involved include:
- the Qassam Brigades, affiliated with Hamas
- the Abu Ali Mustapha Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with the (secular, leftist) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Other sources: )
- the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with (secular) Fatah
- Saraya al-Quds, affiliated with Islamic Jihad
The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."
According to this source, , in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:
- The "An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades"
- The "National Resistance Brigades", affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
- the Popular Resistance Committees
- a previously unknown group called the "Eagles of Palestine"
I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing. Even though they are considered under Hamas, I am not entirely sure that they aren't a separate entity. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom sees them as separate, List of designated terrorist organizations, so does Hamas itself, and so does the RS consensus as per[REDACTED] having a separate article. The United States sees them as the same, as do some other countries.--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The official websites of Islamic Jihad's `military arm` al-Quds_Brigades, as well as Popular Resistance Committees's An-Nasser Salahuddin Brigades, have both officially announced their participation, respectively here and here. Alas, it is only in Arabic. The ArWiki entry has them included by the way. --Almasvault (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion: Shall we split 'Development' into a new section?
Someone has proposed 'Timeline of the conflict'. I would propose something like 'Military action in the 2008-2009 Conflict'
Anyway lets get a consensus here about whether it should be moved. I think it would be best because(as mentioned in another post above)the article is now simply too long. Also, it could go on for some time.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
From above: Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs)
- I support "Timeline of the " per Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war and others. BJ 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've got the timeline template ready to go once a few people comment on this. BJ 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article definitely needs to be shortened or split, and shaving off the Development section into a separate timeline article seems to be the best way to go. It should probably be replaced with a much shorter section describing the course of the conflict in broad terms in a couple of paragraphs (the initial airstrikes, when IDF ground troops entered Gaza, etc.) Blackeagle (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just did it. BJ 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Problems with lead section
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(1) 'This is the deadliest conflict since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election in 2006.'
This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. The deadliest conflict in the world? The deadliest conflict between the two. Well, yes. But 'deadliest' is a superlative, implying a series of conflicts: Israel killed 830 odd Gazans by individual missile strikes and targeted assasinations from 2006 to 2007. That was an ongoing conflict culminating in the invasion now underway, and that was, so far, more deadly. This one is certainly more destructive. Whatever, it is just an ugly sentence, adds nothing to the text, and pads the lead with dull, pointless prose. I suggest it be considered for removal. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, I tried to take out all the adjectives in front of Hamas and must have messed up the already messed-up phrasing. I agree and removed "deadliest conflict" as we have figures in graph three that illustrate that. RomaC (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(2) We read.'A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities.' ref.21 reads:
'Humanitarian aid. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire on Friday, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza'.
Our text limits this to the blockade. The source says the blockade lifting was one of the terms of the truce, among others which Israel, according to Hamas, had not respected. The nuance is important.
We need also an article on the terms of the truce brokered between Hamas and Israel. Anyone?Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(3) 'Hamas-operated security installations' is repeated twice. The 'Hamas-operated' is a rather unsubtle attempt to condition the reader's negative associations of Hamas with some shady illegal terrorist group, and is in any case pleonastic. All of the administration of Gaza is operated by Hamas, since that body was elected to govern ther territory by the Gazan population in free elections. We know that, and harping on 'Hamas-operated' is rather ridiculous. All areas hit by Qassams are 'Israel-operated', but we don't say that, as we shouldn't qualify the infrastructure hit as 'Hamas-operated'. The adjective therefore is redundant, and insinuates an image of irregularity where there was none. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(4)'Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border.'
- Who's the clunk responsible for this? Each sentence should be sourced precisely. This one isn't. 'Decreased the amount'? is question begging. Hamas has consistently asserted, rightly or wrongly, that it withheld rocket and mortar attacks when the truce was made, and those that did occur either were launched by non-Hamas elements, or by Hamas as a retaliation for an Israeli violation of that truce. 'Decrease' is editorializing. It suspended mortar and rocket attacks after the truce came into effect. It 'resumed' them (we require a precise time line for the truce period, with Israeli and Hamas shootings in chronological order). In any case, the passage is an editorial construction, since it is not directly sourced, and no evidence therefore exists, until 'decreased the amount' type of phrasing is given for the passage. If no RS source is available to underline the text, it should be elided as padding.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(5)'The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza.[41).
If you read the source, the China News note 41, there is no mention of an 'active blockade', which thus emerges as another editorial intrusion. In any case, this is also false since Gaza had been actively blockaded long before the military assault began. The words therefore should be removed. Indeed the source should be substituted, as marginal. Many of the previous sources note the massing of infantry units. There is, as per Occam's razor, no need to multiply sources uselessly.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(6)'On 3 January 2009, a ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.'
As per notes 42, and 43, that should be 'entering the Gaza Strip'. The city of Gaza, like Khan Younis, has not yet been breeched, but these places are surrounded. One must distinguish Gaza the town, from Gaza the strip, invariably. Otherwise one misdescribes the battle by confusing an area with a point in that area.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(7) The quote from Livni (that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is "completely as it should be".) is unsourced, either by the preceding note 51 or the following note 52. In the interi,m, the wording has toned her comment down. Livni said Israel keeps the 'humanitarian situation (crisis) as it should be', she didn't note that 'oh, this is how it happens to be, and we approve'). She said on the 2 Jan.'"In this operation, Israel distinguishes (between) the war against terror, against Hamas members, from the civilian population. In doing so, we keep the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip completely as it should be."
That is the precise wording, 'we keep' has dropped out, and the source has been lost. An RS for the statement is James Hider, Hamas rockets threaten Israel's N-plan, The Australian January 03, 2009 Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The lead discussions are supposed to happen at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead.VR talk 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip-off. I'll repost it there.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Photographs
I have no experience finding and uploading photographs that are acceptable for use on Wiki, but I would imagine by now someone would have made some "copyleft" images available from inside Gaza. We have two pics from inside Israel, I'd hope we could add pictures from Gaza. Can anyone help get some, or point me in the right direction? RomaC (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- flirck search for "gaza" CC only, taken after Dec 1st, mostly protests. BJ 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks but the problem with those is most are not really creative commons, as was discovered a couple of days ago when an editor here removed several soon after they were posted, citing news stories where they'd run with photo credits different from the flickr credits. RomaC (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. flickr is the source of a great deal of our images, Misplaced Pages editors being the next largest. I wouldn't expect internet access to be great there at the moment, except for foreigners and journalists. BJ 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks but the problem with those is most are not really creative commons, as was discovered a couple of days ago when an editor here removed several soon after they were posted, citing news stories where they'd run with photo credits different from the flickr credits. RomaC (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be introducing a systemic bias into the article not to rigorously maintain a balance in the picture counts - even if that means a balance of zero. The nature of the assault means that royalty free images are much more likely to come from Israel than Gaza because of the much greater danger and friction of war in Gaza. Simply including images on an impromptu basis is a bad policy because we're not at all guaranteed to ever find an appropriate copyleft image from Gaza.--Chikamatsu (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you suggest we delete the two Israeli photographs? I generally don't favor deleting content and prefer adding or editing but I don't have a lot of experience with photographs, and I see your point. I did notice the French and German Wikis are not using the Israeli damage pictures that we are, even the Hebrew Wiki isn't. RomaC (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the one of the man inspecting rocket damage should perhaps be removed because it doesn't add much value and it might alleviate concerns of imbalance a little bit. The other one seems okay to me. We do desperately need some images that actually show what's happening on both sides. I wonder if screenshots from news reports might be okay under these restrictive circumstances. Perhaps someone knows ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, perhaps one of the Israeli editors here could pop across the border, take some photos, make some friends/build-bridges while you're there and send us the photos. It's win-win.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're a funny guy, Sean. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, perhaps one of the Israeli editors here could pop across the border, take some photos, make some friends/build-bridges while you're there and send us the photos. It's win-win.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the one of the man inspecting rocket damage should perhaps be removed because it doesn't add much value and it might alleviate concerns of imbalance a little bit. The other one seems okay to me. We do desperately need some images that actually show what's happening on both sides. I wonder if screenshots from news reports might be okay under these restrictive circumstances. Perhaps someone knows ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you suggest we delete the two Israeli photographs? I generally don't favor deleting content and prefer adding or editing but I don't have a lot of experience with photographs, and I see your point. I did notice the French and German Wikis are not using the Israeli damage pictures that we are, even the Hebrew Wiki isn't. RomaC (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
new section: Media Coverage and War Propaganda
I am gathering information and references about the media coverage of the conflict. I would like to review this new section outline with you before posting it:
- Coverage by Region
- Arab World
- Europe
- Israel
- United States
- War Propaganda
- Israel
- Hamas
- Others (if any of course)
I am not sure about employing the term Propaganda (at the same time it is the most used term among the majority of sources), is there other alternatives? Bestofmed (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Be careful with OR and synthesis bias. I am not opposed to this, but I think this is something that is not being significantly being covered by any reliable news sources, and mostly the purvey of partisan blogs and publications. I think we should concentrated on the medular affairs of the conflict, at least until it is over and the fog of war lifts, and academic sources emerge that provide appropiate RS synthesis. Otherwise, we would be pulling this out of our asses. And when you pull out something from your ass, it usually stinks. :D --Cerejota (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gathering is different from contribution, in other words no OR. The sources which I am relying on are not of bloggers or partisans. I am making sure each source respects the Verifiability policy. I relatively agree with you on waiting until the fog of war lifts (valid sources are still scarce about this topic at the time of writing) but that does not mean if any fact (supported by figures and/or agreed sources) cannot be included for the moment. Anyway, I am not in harry, that is why I started this talk section. I will include any possible edits here to reach a preconsensus before posting them to avoid anything that stinks ;). Bestofmed (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Well... That's going to be a difficult one. I would advise you to unite the two subsections. That should make it more organised, and have the additional bounty of avoiding the word 'propaganda'. You might want to use a bit of the information I posted on this Talk page, section on CNN. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an article that would be useful to this kind of discussion.Israel waging battle to control information:
"And so for an 11th day of Israel's war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it wait in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups funded mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel's history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy." Tiamut 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another good source is Propaganda war: trusting what we see?:
"Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile.
...
It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop." Tiamut 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I *strongly* recommend using the current media section for such content (we don't want multiple sections on the same content in an already long article). I also suggest that this should be kept as brief as possible, not going into unnecessarily detail. If you feel more needs to be covered, then you can always create an article on the matter.VR talk 18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second. Which is why I proposed to not make subsections. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Individual casualties
Are we still listing individual non-notable casualties, I.E.Staff Sergeant Dvir Emmanueloff, or did we decide notable only?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Notable, as in Ariel Sharon?
- By the way, I hold no names should be mentioned. While he was still the only one, naming was still excusable, but not any more. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No disrespect intended. I mean we need to not start listing all the casualties as it will soon get out hand.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- But actually yes, as we mentioned Muhammad Hilou and Mohammed Shalpokh who were Hamas commanders, as oppossed to listing Hamas rank-and-file. Should that not pertain to IDF personnel also?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And Tawfiq Jabber, the head of Hamas’ security and protection unit--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that there is a big difference between naming casualties when they are high ranking officers, or when they are just soldiers or even citizens. If an Israeli high ranking commander would be killed, it might be worth noting his name, but anyone ranking under Colonel, should probably not be mentioned by name. I don't know how are the Hamas/brigades ranks work, but I think that when both Israeli and international media report names, it means they were high ranked officers (or whatever their equivalent is). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the argument of the previous user most persuasive. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. This is especially because Gaza officials have released names for 187 casualties.VR talk 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- What about naming those who have unfortunally lost limbs or suffer trauma. Surely they are more important. They have to live in suffering. Those who are dead are gone. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are 185 of those on the Israeli side, and 15 times that on the Palestinian. I did say that this article is getting too long.VR talk 01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- What about naming those who have unfortunally lost limbs or suffer trauma. Surely they are more important. They have to live in suffering. Those who are dead are gone. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Counting the Women and Children Killed
Refer to #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for background on my criticisms. We have figures available for women and children dead (Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=940). They currently stand at 101 children and 37 women. This is not being reported in the info box or in the casualty section (which still has the child death count at 75 with no mention of women killed). For the first time we have a source that ventures a "civilian" estimate that I assume includes men, though this is not clear. This is apparently from the Palestinian MOH according to press articles.
There needs to be a footnote or a section in the casualties stating that the accounting practices have systematically excluded men in civilian counts to establish the proper context of ALL civilian death counts that don't explicitly state they are including men. Up until the MOH claiming "200 civilians dead" no one had made a total estimate of civilian deaths, the UN in fact was referring simply to women and children killed. It's not clear to me that the MOH is doing anything different as I cannot read arabic and I cannot check their own words. The UN, has not yet released its situation report for the day but as of 1/05 they were only citing figures of Total deaths and women and children deaths.
I've been arguing this for days and despite strong support in the above section on Casualty Accounting the Article page does not reflect these suggestions. An autoconfirmed member needs to take the lead and clarify the situation on casualty accounting. Again the two main primary sources for casualties are:
UN: http://www.ochaopt.org/ (check most current situation report PDF) Al-Mezan: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php
And #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting contains my full criticism of our presentation of casualty figures.
Thrylos000 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Infobox edit
Wandersage made this edit in the infobox. He removed a source, as well as combined "military and police", which is not appropriate. He also changed "Gaza officials" (more precise) to the more ambiguous "Palestinian estimate". I disagree with all of the above edits.VR talk 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The question whether or not military and police should be united, has been debated before. I do not remember if any consensus was reached.
I could argue that such a decision might depend on their actual function in Gaza. I mean to say that if police takes part in the struggle against the Israeli army, they should be for all purposes considered as combatants.
A more compelling argument might be the convention used by sources. If they take police and military together, we don't really have that much choice.
As to whether to use "Gaza officials" or "Palestinian estimate" I have no real argument. In this case I would favor "Palestinian estimate", since Gaza is not a political entity in itself. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The official source for "Palestinian estimate" is the Palestinian Ministry of Health and should be cited formally as such. It is not a general "Palestinian estimate" but a number directly from the Ministry of Health. It is cited as such in all UN documents. Also the fact that Israeli injured includes shock victims was edited out. I implore everyone to review my general criticisms of casualty accounting for Palestinians and implement the changes I have argued for as not a single person has argued against them. We have good numbers for women and children killed, they should be included, we have good sources indicating that civilian counts only included women and children this should be noted.
Thrylos000 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought we all agreed to mention that 'wounded' included shock-victims.
So now the question is, should the Palestinian Ministry of Health be qouted as 'Gaza officials' or as 'Palestinian sources'. I still prefer the second. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- We agreed, and yet it had been edited out of the article. The Palestinian Ministry of Health should be quoted as the Palestinian Ministry of Health and nothing more or less. No reason to be more ambiguous that necessary. We have an explicit source, so our citing of that source should be explicit. Someone needs to edit the infobox and casualty sections to restore the note on shock victims and to update the number of women and children killed. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Go with my blessing, my son. :) Debresser (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done: Added caveat about shock victims. NonZionist (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Waiting to be autoconfirmed, in the mean time it would be good for someone with sufficient user access to take initiative here... Thrylos000 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok how about "Ministry of Health (Palestinian)". I linked it as "MoH" a very common abbreviation, and linked it to Ministry of Health (Palestinian).VR talk 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding policemen and military, they are coming from two different sources. I wouldn't combine them, just as I wouldn't combine policemen (often considered 'civil servants') with civilians. The policemen, according to the source, were killed the first day of strikes, mostly while in the police station, so they were not KIA. I'll separate them.VR talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can't agree with counting policemen separately. Should we also count firemen as "combatants", since they are combating fires? -- sarcasm intended. AFAICS, victims of aggression are ALL civilians. International law condemns aggression and recognizes the right of victims of aggression to resist without loss of protected status. Do we REALLY want to discard the distinction between aggressor and victim? NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The military figure is not by MoH, nor the UN or media sources, but rather claimed by IDF. I'm wondering if you should quote it in the infobox at all, given that Hamas has made parallel claims as to how many IDF soldiers it has killed. Hamas has also claimed that a lot less of its soldiers (around 10) have been killed.VR talk 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree on not including figures claimed by the military wings/branches of the combatants in the infobox, but on separate related issue, I am going to move the Ministry of Health (Palestinian) to Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in consistence with the articles on the PNA's interior, planning, information, education, foreign affairs, and prime ministries/ministers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Despite this agreement, why do users keep on adding Israeli claims on Palestinian casualties to the info box?VR talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Other
VR since you've taken the lead with the edit box and casualties pleae look at #Counting the Women and Children Killed and make the appropriate changes in the editbox and under the casualty subheading.
If you could: 1. Include women and children killed in the infobox 2. Note the accounting of civilian casualties has not included men under the casualty subsection and only reflects women and children
See: #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for the full analysis I provided.
Thrylos000 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the fact that Gaza militants have since the start of the operation been fighting almost exclusively uninformed, and the fact that there is no practical difference between "Police" and "militant" in function, and given that distinguishing between Civilian and Militant in this case is difficult enough, (especially with the lack of journalists in the area) I believe that Partitioning non-Civilian casualties even further makes things unnessecarily ambigious, not to mention clogs up the info-box. WanderSage (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are Israeli police then fair targets? Civilian police forces have always been considered that, civilian. But it doesn't matter what you or I think about this, reflect the sources is the answer (as it almost always is). Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with WanderSage. The fact that a large number of police have been killed is a significant fact. It should be noted appropriately, if not in the infobox then at least in the Casualty section. It is not for us to decide whether the police are legitimate targets at this point. If someone can find a good, current, justification by Israeli officials for the targeting of police then we can post that along side the casualty figures.Thrylos000 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so I guess I'll separate policemen and militants. However, I'll let the civilians stay as they are, and we can discuss women and children in the Casualties section. I'll also put a fact tag on the Hamas militants killed, so that we can get independent sources on this.VR talk 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- As someone else here noted earlier, the whole population opposes the Israeli assault and resists, so the entire population should be treated as "combatants". This simply demonstrates that the distinction between "combatant" and "civilian" is meaningless when applied to people under occupation. These artificial distinctions merely serve to obscure the significant distinction, that between aggressor and victim. NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Under Palestinian casualties there is an entry for "Unknown". I think that that is unnecessary, and there is no source backing this unknown up. "Unknown" can be interpreted to mean "missing", which is misleading.VR talk 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- WanderSage, please don't write (Hamas claim), (Israel claim), in the infobox. We don't do this when Israel reports its casualties, we shouldn't be doing this for Palestinians either. Let's relay on Reliable Sources for our claims. The previous discussion seems to be in agreement with that.VR talk 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- VR, we don't do this for Israeli casualties because they can be indepdently varified. Due to the restrictions placed on journalists and other organizations in Gaza, this isn't the case there. This is the reason we have such a discrepency between the Israeli claims and Hamas claims. 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, "shock" victims is a bit of an underestimated term. The correct way to call it is Trauma victims. Also, since we're not mentioning Gazan trauma vicims, I don't see why should we could Israeli trauma victims. Either give physically injured on both sides, or give also trauma victims on both sides. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- One good reason is that the official Israeli figures mention them. We should reflect information, not points of view. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
i don't think we should include everything official Israeli figures mention, a point has already been made that Israel officials stated the death of a family dog. I'm not completely sure that they don't, but unless other such articles mention shock or trauma victims this one shouldn't either. Untwirl (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You wanted my opinion on the infobox edits VR so here they are:
1. count the total number of dead, currently at 670 dead
2. count the number of policemen killed by December 29, 138 dead
3. count the number of militants killed in the ground offensive, currently at 150 dead - YOU may not want to include that number because it is coming from an Israeli source, BUT the UN itself said today that 300 of the 670 dead are civilians, so logic dictates the rest are eather militants or Hamas policemen. So that would fit the pattern. Also, a Palestinian human rights group said 40 percent of the dead are civilians, so that still leaves enough of the number of killed to fith the 150 number, even with the inclusion of 138 policemen in the remaining 60 percent
4. count the number of civilians killed, currently at 300 dead according to both the Palestinians and the UN
5. with 150 militants, 138 policemen and 300 civilians that leaves out of a total of 670 dead another 80 or so unidentified and so they are put in the catagory of unknown.
That is my opinion, simple as that.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Palestinian legislative council building in Ramallah
Please remove archive picture from (undamaged) palestinian building. This building is not located in the Gaza strip but in the West Bank (see mogamma (Mogamma (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
- You seem to have a point.VR talk 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- VR, are you always this, erm, understated? ;)--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Palestinian school massacre by Israelis
Can someone add that the people in the school were families taking refuge and many of the targeted massacred people were children?? The article is locked to me, otherwise I would add this information myself. --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is already in (unless someone removed it, and apart from the word "massacre") as well as the IDF arguments that Palestinian militants were firing mortars from within the school grounds.--Omrim (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no mention of the people being families and no mention that many of the victims are children.--Learsi si natas (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not call things massacre here. That language is uncalled for.VR talk 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no mention of the people being families and no mention that many of the victims are children.--Learsi si natas (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion precisely. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? An American student walks into an American school and shoots dead 15 people, and that event is called a massacre. This slaughtering of families in this school is a massacre. The obvious doesn't need to be stated, everyone knows what it is without me telling them. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another point for you Mr. I got to be a politically correct Muslim so people can tolerate me, the phrase "That language is uncalled for" can be used if I had said the Israelis are Satanist, not when I call their butchering of families a massacre. It is a suitable name. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the use of the term massacre, and the event having its own section, although I disagree with your ad-hominem. The UN claim the IDF had the GPS co-ordinates of the school, and if this is true the IDF knew precisely what they were doing. Whether it is collateral damage or not ('incidental to the outcome') it was still a massacre because the killing was intentional, not accidental. They knew many civilians were going to die. For comparison example the My Lai Massacre was both intentional and incidental to the objective of destroying a village suspected of harbouring Viet Cong. i also note this article is referenced from List of events named massacres--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please notice that yours does not seem to be the majority opinion, from muslims and jews alike. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- My arguments would be that 1. The IDF has consistently claimed Hamas combatants were in hiding in that building, so that any non-combatants killed would have to be considered 'collateral damage'. 2. A 'massacre' implies the intend to massacre. We're talking about war here, my friend. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- So there are no massacres in wartime? What absurd logic! Ever hear of Custer? The "intent" issue is completely bogus. Israel tells us that it never intends to kill anybody, while Palestinians, out of pure sadism I suppose, intend to ki9ll everybody. And yet the Israelis, with their precision weapons, are killing forty times as many! How do you explain that? Is it all just one big accident? Do you really believe that Israelis are not intending to kill anybody when they drop one-ton bombs on apartment buildings? What do they think will happen?! NonZionist (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would seem that the an IDF sergeant getting killed from that building indicates it to be something else besides just a place of learning. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- A point worth mentioning is that according to the 4th Geneva Convention, the presence of a protected person (civilian) does not lend protection to a place used for any military activity - the presence of a protected person in such a place does not prevent an attack on said place, and the protected person is no longer protected. Meaning - if the school was used for military activity (firing at Israeli forces) - it's fair game, regardless of civilians there. Usually the Geneva conventions are mentioned when criticizing Israel. Somehow, I don't see people talking about the conventions now... okedem (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- And I dont see people talking about Hamas saying there were no militants at the school. As far as using the word massacre to describe the events, can't do it unless reliable sources, and for something that can be considered incendiary, multiple reliable sources use that term. It isnt for us to decide how to describe what happened. If you think it should be called a massacre find sources. The ones I see don;t say massacre, they just say how many died (42 from reuters from medical sources, at least 30 from bbc quoting un). Nableezy (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well obviously Hamas won't say anything else. Do you expect them to come out and say "We were using this school for shooting the Israeli soldiers, while there were civilians inside"?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why exactly should I believe the Israelis and not Hamas? Why is whatever the Israeli military says, which as all professional armies undertands and engages in propoganda, taken to be the whole truth and what Hamas says to be a lie. I personally would believe Hamas claims over Israeli ones, and as Israel has refused to allow foreign press, despite a supreme court ruling that they must, I have no other sources than Palestinian ones. Nableezy (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. Fig (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll put the subheading back in. I think this is worthy of its own section, if the Dignity incident is.217.43.237.159 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- They were sacrificed for the greater good. It is impossible to conduct a war without civilian deaths. We have to just accept that these tradegies happen. Chesdovi (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not quote Hermann Göring here. -Stevertigo 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. I thought it was a Churchill. Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know public support of terrorism was allowed on these pages. --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not quote Hermann Göring here. -Stevertigo 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- They were sacrificed for the greater good. It is impossible to conduct a war without civilian deaths. We have to just accept that these tradegies happen. Chesdovi (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the point of my post was not to advocate the inclusion of the term massacre (although this should be considered). Can we mention that the massacred victims included children, that's what I said earlier?? Yeah I still think it is a massacre, most people do, even Israelis like Chesdovi knows it a massacre (and in his view a terrific idea!!). --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to think of massacres as the intentional killing of civilians. And I do not support terrorism. There is a time for war. And when that time comes, civilians will die. It is inevitable. Just as roads deaths which are waiting to happen, kill thousands each day, cars are still used. The good they provide outweighs the deaths incurred. I know it sounds awful, but that's the reality. Israel is hoping that greater good will come from actions it is forced to take. If Göring was referring to unintentional deaths of civilians, he had a point. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You say you do not support terrorism. But you do support war, which is mega-terror, terror multiplied by a thousand times. But you would not dream of applying the same cold-blooded "arguments" -- "It is inevitable" and "Killing people is for the greater good" -- to Palestinians. Only Israelis get to decide what is the "greater good" and when it is "time for war" (murdering people at a 40-to-1 ratio). Yes, I see why you like Göring: He too was a believer in a "Master Race". NonZionist (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand why someone with a POV would want to use "massacre". But as this is the English Misplaced Pages we probably should best use English. The unintentional killing of people is not a "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- OMG, did you just realize that someone has a POV, and can you believe that other people have povs too? We're speaking English. And the part of it being intentional is arguable. --Learsi si natas (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look, a "massacre" is an intentional butchering of civilians. You've been told that already. You cannot, and you will not call accidental civilian deaths (due to being used as human shields by Hamas, and there are video proofs) as a massacre. That's just an anti-Israeli demonization and it has no place in Misplaced Pages. It's no different than quoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", saying that Jews drink firstborns' blood and use it to make Matzah bread. Jeez! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is a certain problem with the "unintentional" concept here. For one, they destroyed three UN schools, not just one. I could go on. -Stevertigo 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The attacks were certainly not unintentional, aren't even Israel making a big deal about that "Hamas weapons can't aim so they're war criminals", they their weapons are so accurate, they knew they were shooting at UN schools, where civilians where taking refuge, that sounds like a massacre to me (if compared to other massacres). The biggest Swedish newspaper (described "independently liberal") have even reported is as a "New bloodbath at UN school in Gaza" (Google translates to "New carnage at the UN school in Gaza") — chandler — 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The attacks were intentional, on Hamas' launching pads. There are videos of rockets being shot from these schools, and other buildings. Unless you're saying that IDF's UAVs photos are fabricated by the Zionist Propaganda Machine. *sigh* -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The attacks were certainly not unintentional, aren't even Israel making a big deal about that "Hamas weapons can't aim so they're war criminals", they their weapons are so accurate, they knew they were shooting at UN schools, where civilians where taking refuge, that sounds like a massacre to me (if compared to other massacres). The biggest Swedish newspaper (described "independently liberal") have even reported is as a "New bloodbath at UN school in Gaza" (Google translates to "New carnage at the UN school in Gaza") — chandler — 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is a certain problem with the "unintentional" concept here. For one, they destroyed three UN schools, not just one. I could go on. -Stevertigo 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look, a "massacre" is an intentional butchering of civilians. You've been told that already. You cannot, and you will not call accidental civilian deaths (due to being used as human shields by Hamas, and there are video proofs) as a massacre. That's just an anti-Israeli demonization and it has no place in Misplaced Pages. It's no different than quoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", saying that Jews drink firstborns' blood and use it to make Matzah bread. Jeez! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- OMG, did you just realize that someone has a POV, and can you believe that other people have povs too? We're speaking English. And the part of it being intentional is arguable. --Learsi si natas (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your claim that the slaughter was "unintentional" is unsupported. Usually, when we have a serial killer, we assume that the killing is deliberate. One or two accidental killings, we can accept, but ceaseless killing of men, women, and children over a sixty year period? -- that is more than just an accident.
There are videos of the UN school being used as a launching pad for Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and conclusive evidence that militants were working within the civilian population at the time. If you're going to throw a term like massacre in an article as sensitive as this, both sides must be held responsible. WanderSage (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- When making such strong claims it is customary to provide reliable sources supporting them. Please do so, I would be interested in seeing this video and this conclusive evidence. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The videos are from 2006 or 2007, the school had been evacuated due to an Israeli raid and only then did militants use the school to respond to Israeli aggression. Don't believe the propaganda. Forget intentional, a massacre is the indiscriminate killing of people and/or animals. Yes massacre is a heated word, but it is correct. The IDF has the GPS coordinates of the schools, but their secret (and probably illegal) rules of engagement are so broad that ground forces are responding to fire without regard to what they are firing at. This is what I heard an IDF spokesman say this morning. Okedem, the presence of fighters at a school does not make it "fair game", as if it were open season on school children. Article IV of the Geneva Conventions prohibits as indiscriminate "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." The schools were fired on without any regard for civilian lives, so clearly there was no weighing of civilian losses against military advantage, there couldn't be. Instant war crime. Karldoh (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Massacre is entierly an issue of intent. Anyone who says otherwise has no grasp of the english language. And considering that civilian casualties provide absolutely no political or military advantage to Israel and only serves to undermine support abroad and at home, yet serves as the bread and butter of Hamas' political capital and fodder, even if you could prove that Israel had intent to slaughter civilians for no reason, all you would be proving is that Israel has developed a self-destructive masochistic complex. WanderSage (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- When a force is being fired at, striking the source of gunfire is legal, as it has clear military benefit. okedem (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- How do we know that these videos were not "photoshopped" in "Zallywood"? We presume that every photo and video that comes from Palestinians is fake, and every photo and video that comes from Israel is true: Why? What is the basis for such presumption? NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that all of you are engaged in in instant original research. Sources verify that this is being labeled as a massacre by one side, and one side only, with very little verifiability. As we all know, we are about verifiability not truth, so we must write about what is verified (that one side calls this a massacre) and don't write about what is not verified (that this is a warcrime). Its easy, really. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the only way you can "verify massacre" is if you'll find reliable sources that will say that these attacks were intentional because there were civilians, and that was the whole purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The killings were intentional because Israel, knowing the potential for civilian casualties, intentionally failed to take measures to avoid them. Karldoh (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, these are just empty words. "Intentionally failed to take measure to avoid them?!" Are you kidding? If soldiers are being shot at from this school, they should sit and wait to die, or should react? You don't see any way how Hamas is responsible for this, by shooting FROM the school?! I know that this source isn't reliable for you probably, but it's the official statement, but you can't ignore the claim that a "mortar battery cell who were firing on IDF forces in the area" was there, and "amongst terrorists that were identified to be killed" were "Hamas operatives Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar", unless you think it's a lie, and then I'll revert to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" argument. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This event seems to closely parallel the Waco incident in 1993. Perhaps it should be called a mass suicide if the victims placed themselves, or were deliberately put, in harm's way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.220.50 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You have found yet another way to blame the victims! No doubt the Palestinians, for no reason at all, are a "suicidal race", and love to suffer and be tortured. Their fondest desire in life is to perpetrate ethnic cleansing upon themselves. Fantastic! NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is claiming that the Palestinians are a suicidal people per se. However, using human shields is a common practice among Arab militants, as generally opposed to Western armies who conform to different moral values. As such, the reports coming in from Gaza about Hamas using heavily populated areas as launching areas fit in with this current case, with the poor Palestinian civilians taking refuge in the school acting as the shields for the militants. It is a damn shame that Hamas terrorists are deliberately firing from distinctly civilian areas. Rabend (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Websters defines massacre as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." First it is important to note that the language used in the definition is purely subjective, that is to say that when it is written "usually" or "circumstances of atrocity" it all depends on who you ask, I think that since there is clearly dispute on this issue the word massacre would be unfit for use in this article due to POV issues. Secondly, even if we would use the subjective definiton, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476664,00.html this article cites the Israeli Defence Force that claims that Hamas was using the building to shoot rockets and it also presents this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI youtube video. The civilians who were inside the building are no longer protected by the Geneva convention, and they are not protected by common sense either. If there is a war, and someone is shooting rockets. Dont hide near him when there are chances the backlash will spill onto you. Either get rid of him or move yourself. It would be biased to claim this as a massacre. (213.8.225.111 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
- Even if this were true, international law guarantees the victims of aggression the right to resist. NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you are going to post a comment that starts with "even if this is true" you should probably a)point out what is not trueand b) bring proof to show it is not (especially if there are references that claim "it" is). Also, with a username like "NonZionist" it is clear you are pushing an agenda/bias. Please, for the preservance of Misplaced Pages, keep your opinions to yourself. If you are going to critique do not do it in a manner that makes rash statements that are based on inference, guesswork and rumors.Do it in a constructive manner, if you are uncapable of this. keep it to yourself. This is not meant to insult you or your opinions but rather a sharp notification that especially in an article as charged as this one, transparent implementation of POV should be unacceptable on WP Relidc (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there are no exact figures and no way to verify anything yet. If you remember the Battle of Jenin, you might know that it's worth waiting for official figures and details, before jumping to conclusion. According to the Palestinian side, there were 45 children and women there? According to IDF there were Hamas' mortar brigades and important militant commanders. The only thing we do know is that IDF shot at the school because they were fired upon from there, and that there are casualties. IDF also gave names. For now, it's just one foggy battle. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Correct Nomæd, an IDF spokesperson is not a reliable source, just as a Hamas spokesperson is not. The IDF cannot lie straight in bed. And it is not "the" official statement, it is desperate propaganda to retroactively justify their butchery. UNWRA spokesman Christopher Gunness (a somewhat more reliable source, you must agree) denies that Hamas was using the school to attack Israeli troops. If they were fired upon from the school, the very least they could do is wait for orders before responding. Are they not professional soldiers, at least some of them? If they returned fire indiscriminately (and I believe they did based on IDF comments at the time) then they committed a war crime. Karldoh (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't compare IDF's reliability with Hamas. Again, Hamas are using a very common device in the circles of radical Islam; Battle of Jenin, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, etc. But if you see them in the same way, I have nothing more to add. And you know what, about UN, they have been pushing Anti-Israeli decisions as long as I can remember. It's not surprising, considering the arab oil they love so much. UN is NOT an unbiased source. See the history of UN decision concerning Israel, and you'll see that they've been Anti for a long time. Also, see how much they scream and condemn about every single (even small) military action Israel (UN member) performs against Hamas (unrecognized), while they do nothing about enormous genocides in Africa, nor do they do anything about Hamas' missiles. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- UN is all the countries together... If the UN has a "anti-Israel" bias, it would be because the World would have a anti-Israel bias... And I don't buy it, wasn't in UN a helping force in creating Israel? If they truly were anti-Israel there would be sanctions and similar things for the genocidal tendencies preformed on the Palestinian people. — chandler — 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't compare IDF's reliability with Hamas. Again, Hamas are using a very common device in the circles of radical Islam; Battle of Jenin, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, etc. But if you see them in the same way, I have nothing more to add. And you know what, about UN, they have been pushing Anti-Israeli decisions as long as I can remember. It's not surprising, considering the arab oil they love so much. UN is NOT an unbiased source. See the history of UN decision concerning Israel, and you'll see that they've been Anti for a long time. Also, see how much they scream and condemn about every single (even small) military action Israel (UN member) performs against Hamas (unrecognized), while they do nothing about enormous genocides in Africa, nor do they do anything about Hamas' missiles. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Christopher Gunness, spokesperson of the Unrwa have now stated to AFP that they are 99.9% after initial inverstigations that there were NO Hamas militiants in the school . Not looking good for Israel — chandler — 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ive been observing these conversations for quite some time, one small question. Why is it that Israel takes heat for hitting a school or mosque, when their intention was to kill terrorists. But when Hamas fires rockets into Israel (clearly not targeting military installations) and they hit civillians and schools and so on, it gets ignored. My main concern with these discussions is the ignorance of the intent. Hamas fired rockets into Israel as retaliation for a blockade, something lobbying or peaceful protests could have solved. Now when Israel defends itself they are called the oppressor. Maybe if there was some organized government in Gaza, this situation could be avoided. But the world, and apparently the fine editors of Misplaced Pages, are convinently forgetting and failing to mention that Hamas is a listed terrorist organization. Im seeing a lot of anti-Israel sentiment here hiding under the mask of "academia" (you 'scholars' know who you are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucydidies (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
French TV airs photos billed as damage from Cast Lead, actually from 2005
I think it should have a room somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? suggestions? --Omrim (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a mistake to me, one that should not be repeated here.VR talk 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second. This is just too small of a detail IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not the first mistake I see on worldwide media, using old photos/videos, sometimes unrelated to Israel, and removing when someone actually notices. I wonder how many of those go unnoticed... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed that edit ninja tag
because it's non-standard and just created, and I don't think it applies. there are other perfectly good tags which express the same sentiments (I chose active discussion instead)
and if for some reason that tag must be used, can we at least re-write it to sound more encyclopedic?
also if people are so worried about edit ninja, please realize that having edited "high-traffic" pages before, I can assure you this is currently the most watchlisted page by admins and concerned editors. so any serious edit warfare is being noticed and monitored. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's nice to know we're on stage, Fancy Cat. :) By the way, somebody returned that ridiculous ninja banner. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas stealing aid supplies to sell to residents, and executes Palestinians cause of suspicion
AS you can see in the following article: Article Link
it should be published in the main article, some of the humanitarian aid that transfered from israel to gaza, was stolen by Hamas people to sell to resiences, in-orded to make money. to the other topic: (wich also should be published) Article Link
Hamas executed 6 Palestinians cause the were suspects for collaborating with israel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.176.252 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The information is already in (except that part about "stealing").VR talk 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would never do to accuse Hamas operatives of stealing, of course. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If we want to say that, we should use the word "confiscation" or "siezure". "Stealing" has a moral connotation, that is not compatible with WP:NPOV.VR talk 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I added it last night but for some reason its missing now???(Raphmam (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with ynet, every article I've read that has been posted here by them is unapologetically pro-Israeli agression without even the slightest attempt to hide that bias. This aticle cites "reports" without mentioning by whom, for whom or giving anyway for any concerned party to verify those claims. I've also rarely seen any other news outlet pick up ynet articles for publication in their own press. I am VERY uncomfortable with these sorts of articles that are single sourced, without ANY attributions except references to "reports" by a paper that reads like a military mouthpiece. I think these incidents would be fine to report if we could find anything that supports the allegations in them. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on the neutrality of YNET as well (Let me note that there are twice as many articles from YNET than Al-Jazeera). Thrylos000 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing much wrong with ynet. In Israel,unlike Palestinian territories, media is very independent and freely and regularly criticizes the media. But to please you i had it reference jerusalem post.(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
- Note the entire information is not "missing" it has been moved to the splinter article Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR talk 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I think it is good over there but it should also be mentioned in this article under the humanitarian crisis and health sub section since it is very pertinent to the topics discussed. The fact that hamas terrorists are stealing aid is definitely worsening the humanitarian crisis and health crisis and therefore should definitely be mentioned. But please feel free to edit it to improve language and sentence structure (just don't erase it).(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
- Ynet is undoubtedly a "home team" newspaper, but it's good enough to reference as "according to a report in Yediot Ahronot, xxxxx..." The real question is what is the significance of this stuff overall in the context of this article. There are much better sources on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, like major human rights orgs, UNRWA, etc. I don't think we should be making our own calls about what snippets from press reports are relevant; if, for example, UNRWA were to issue a press release criticizing attacks on aid workers, that would be a more significant source than some story on Ynet's website. I'm not sure what the relevance of the stuff about collaborators is, either.
- By the way, the ratio of 2:1 for YNET/Jazeera is pretty well standard on our mideast pages. We almost always seem to rely on Israeli sources, and American sources with a pronounced leaning towards Israel, while I've had Israeli editors claim that foreign press like the BBC should be excluded entirely, since they are antisemitic or something. :| <eleland/talkedits> 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly I hate it when people outsmart the UN reports. The cited papers are of the highest quality and most neutral in this topic. And the whole humanitarian crisis section is extracted from those UN reports (basically OCHA reports), except some quotes from Tzipi Livni that says the situation "is as should be" and Amr Moussa, Arab League chief administrative officer ones. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The UN reports is much neutral and trusted that an Israeli official who's even his name was not mentioned blaming Hamas for the health crisis. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- +I've been careful enough not to blame anyone in the Humanitarian crisis section to stop playing this games of Israel said X and hamas said Y. This section describes the humanitarian crisis only. Your mentioned "accident" was/is moved to the January 6 section with rewording to be WP:NPOV. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about we try this for the next 24 hours
- - Everyone with strong views in favour of one of the belligerents to stop reading media sources that favour their side and only read sources that favour the other side.
- - Everyone spends 30 minutes considering that everything they hold to be obviously and self-evidently true may actually may be false or at least more complicated than they thought. We might learn something.
- We can then all come back tomorrow and see if we are any better at producing factually accurate and neutral encyclopedia articles. Just a thought. It might work. You never know. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a funny fact that by observing this article alone, I've learned more about Israeli Journalism and media more than even the journals in my country. If this can state anything, it states the overwhelming imbalance of sources over here :). There's no article in Ynet, Jeruaslalem post, Haaretz, Aaretz shava, and even some all-Hebrew-no-English sources, that's not cited in here. And basically what all of those articles combined do is denying the responsibility of everything the other media reports (including the UN) and shifting it to Hamas. Hell, Hamas is not a saint and never will be, but this is not believable, cause Israel is absolutely not that saint too with this massacre occurring. I'll try to search for Hamas responses once I finish my stupid exams. I'm sorry if I ruined your project before it even starts, I just wanted to show that really if you assume I'm pro-Gaza, I've read my share of the Israeli sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Objective Palestinian journalism does not exist. The only agency that can pass as legitimate is Ma'an. And forgive me if I find it difficult to accept your equivalency between Hamas media sources, who tow the party line of an organization that officially sanctions the killing of Jews of any nationality. Israeli, like American media, runs the spectrum from left (Ha'Aretz/MSNBC), centre (Ynet/CNN), and right (Fox News/ Jpost) WanderSage (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you're making blanked statements about the Palestinian media. Yes, there are extremists but you can not deny that there is a good portion of extremists on the Israeli side too. Read the offensive actions of Israeli settlers done to the Palestinians. What about the several fundamentalist religious groups that calls of killing all the Palestinians and making Israel from the "river to the river"?. How you're claiming such democracy in media while a big number of authors, Jewish authors, got labeled "self-hating jew" just because they're criticizing Israel?. Believe me Sir, extremes on both sides exists to a very noticeable level. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- That does not deny that in terms of quality, the Israeli media are more professional. But if you're going to blend the Arabic media in the mix, then the situation of "professionalism" get balanced very well between both sides. Alarabiya is considered left and Aljazeera is considered right and they are both too professional. Aljazeera even have an English channel that attracted the best skills from BBC, CNN and other agencies. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Arabic media in general, the language has no bearing on the objectivity. But a nation's media tends to reflect the society as a whole, and the Palestinian media is very sectarian and factionalized, and in the Gaza Strip, an independent media outlet does not exist. WanderSage (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe cause you really didn't see how their situation is? Those people are the most suffering people in the world in every aspect of respectful life. You want them to discuss peace and love and those "fancy" things while they're killed and injured by thousands every year? I'm sorry, you're attacking them based on the output of their crappy situation, not because of the roots of this situation. I'm sure if you were there, you'll hate everyone around including life itself. Aah, and let's not forget that those people got evacuated by force and extreme Jewish groups from their cities after 1948. Check the UN reports instead of the Israeli media and make your own decisions. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't care what the roots of the Palestinian media's lack of non-objectivity is, and neither does Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. WanderSage (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please, it would be so much better if everyone here could try set their own views to one side, be acutely aware of their own systemic bias, conciously take measures to counter that bias, make sure they really understand what 'objectivity' means, comply with Wiki rules regarding reliable sources etc and focus on improving the article....for the sake of the children....(you know the rest of the song)....while there are some left. Thinking that one set of media sources are 'biased' and another set of media sources are 'objective' at times like this is not smart given the current situation/restrictions. Secondly, both sides officially sanction the killing of each other for reasons that they think are perfectly rational, justified and no doubt objective e.g. civilians probably served in the army so it's okay, civilians were next to a bad guy so it's okay and so on while reasoning people around the world look on in astonishment perhaps thinking 'Hey, maybe I could find out more about this massacre/brave-and-righteous-operation in Misplaced Pages'. Meanwhile back at the article weapons of mass systemic bias proliferate. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, We'll stop. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Darwish, did I see you calling what happens a "massacre"? I really hope not, because otherwise it'd mean that you're implying that Israel is intentionally killing a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people (i.e., butchering civilians on purpose). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seems we'll all get kicked from Misplaced Pages very soon. Oh yes, I meant that. You're calling this Humanitarian crisis and all of those deaths and serious injuries un-intentional !? I'll make the claim that you believe in your government statements more than what should be, Sir. I believe in numbers and neutral reports, not in Hamas or Israel claims. And those numbers and this crisis says exactly what you proposed in your definition. It's not a hard lesson to Hamas, as Shimon Peres said, it's a hard lesson to Gazans for choosing Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok let's make a deal to stop discussing those issues here. Reply to my above statement if you like cause it won't be fair if you did not. After that neither me or you will continue this subsection discussion and return back to constructive editing. Deal :)? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. But I do want to respond; The deaths and injuries of civilians are not intentional. Yes. They can't be intentional, because IDF doesn't target civilians. There are many deaths and injuries for Hamas combatants, and they ARE being targeted. Unfortunately, there are civilians hurt in the way (because of Hamas' tactics), but these aren't intentional because, again, they weren't targetted on purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nomaed your post above seems to me confrontational toward an editor who has shown restraint toward you, let's try and work together. RomaC (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, perhaps I should have phrased it otherwise, but what's done is done... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I also think that the issue of Hamas stealing/confiscating aid coming into Gaza is an important issue that should be noted here. Another ref about it (from a German news agency): here. Rabend (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would just remind everybody that any source is biased, per definition. Obviously, some more than others. Moreover, some sources are more reliable than others. Unless we have reason to suspect a source to be unreliable, there is no reason not to quote it.
Specifically, I do not see any reason not to use Israeli media as sources. They are probably biased, but they are reliable. Please note that bias might go either way in Israel, as Israelis are strongly polarised into 'left' and 'right'. The same can not be said of all Palestinian and Arab sources, who are in general strongly biased, and sometimes outright unreliable. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2009
(UTC)
- I feel compelled to wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. Every source you read is going to have a bias based on their particula frame of reference. Getting into a debate about which is more biased is pointless because obviously the overly biased sources are probably going to be unreliable which is the real issue as mentioned above. And one more specific mention for this debate of biased sources, and this goes out to all who believe that UN is the end-all-be-all of unbiased sources, the UN is widely know for having a negative bias towards Israel. Dont believe it? Look at this article by UN Watch, an organization that observes the UN and its actions. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm
No one is perfect. Just because an organization is supergovernmental doesnt mean it is free from bias or the final word. Relidc (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could it be that the truth has a bias against Israel. I mean surely the truth is anti-semitic as well. Just because supporters of Israel claim that someone or something has an anti-Israel bias does not make it so. There is no way I am going to listen to un watch, ngo monitor, camera, or any of these other groups who claim that the UN or HRW or AI are biased against Israel, when these groups are so clearly biased for Israel. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Youtube
This youtube video is being used as a source on the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. I think that if it was notable, it would be in newspapers, or other news outlets by now. I don't think we should be sourcing anything to Youtube.VR talk 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. Have a look at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, even without the video, the UN itself has protested the use of its school for military attacks, and I don't think anybody is denying that it happened. <eleland/talkedits> 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- True. However, JPost, wisely, doesn't link to youtube. Thus, we shouldn't either, although we should certainly cite JPost as a source.VR talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I was not objecting against including the militants in school, rather YouTube as a source.VR talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this an interesting question, on which I would like to have a more definite 'ruling'. Is YouTube an acceptible source for Misplaced Pages or not? Debresser (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that *anyone* can post *anything* in it, I say no. Note that[REDACTED] (English or another language) is also not a source.VR talk 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that can be said: Youtube is being used as another battle ground in the public opinion war. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uep5UCVC2io This can be mentioned in the article (even though Youtube is used in many other ways and for different purposes) John Hyams (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Proxy war
Should it be mentioned that this is considered by some, myself included, that this is a proxy war between the West and Iran? Just like the 2006 Lebanon war was and has already been described as part of the overall War on Terrorism. Here is a reference that backs this up . And please don't ask for references that hold official confirmations of this because there obviously won't be any. In any case this is a direct result of the Fatah-Hamas conflict which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, and that as well has been said to be part of WoT. Well, does anyone have an opinion?BobaFett85 (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Editorials aren't notable opinions only because they have a major publisher. They do have notability if their author already has notability of his own. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an op-ed. It's an "analysis" by an Associated Press writer.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look, there's tons of such "analysis", claiming to analyze Israel's actions vis-a-vis other war crimes (I've seen the Bosnian genocide analogy used already). Unless, Iran intervenes in this conflict, there is not too much to say.
- VR talk 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your analysis, even if dead-on, is still original research and illegible for inclusion into the article . The analysis of an Associated Press writer, even if illogical, meets WP:V and is eligible for inclusion in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is not my analysis, I believe I did provide the link to someone else making the analysis. Here's another one: Did Israel violate International Law by killing Rayan's children? (Note I want none of these to be included)VR talk 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- B'tselem is not considered a reliable source just like these aren't.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- B'tselem is not an advocacy organization, rather a human rights one. Here's another analysis accusing Barak and Livni of launching the war, in part, for their own political career. I could go on.VR talk 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but neither advocacy rights organizations not human rights organizations are considered reliable news sources per WP:RS. As I noted below, analysis articles should be treated carefully, but there cannot be a per se ban on all analysis articles.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I never agreed for a per se ban on all such articles. If there is an analysis article, say, on the fighting going on, we can certainly include it.VR talk 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but neither advocacy rights organizations not human rights organizations are considered reliable news sources per WP:RS. As I noted below, analysis articles should be treated carefully, but there cannot be a per se ban on all analysis articles.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- B'tselem is not an advocacy organization, rather a human rights one. Here's another analysis accusing Barak and Livni of launching the war, in part, for their own political career. I could go on.VR talk 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- B'tselem is not considered a reliable source just like these aren't.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is not my analysis, I believe I did provide the link to someone else making the analysis. Here's another one: Did Israel violate International Law by killing Rayan's children? (Note I want none of these to be included)VR talk 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your analysis, even if dead-on, is still original research and illegible for inclusion into the article . The analysis of an Associated Press writer, even if illogical, meets WP:V and is eligible for inclusion in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- 'Analysis' articles aren't editorials, but they aren't straight news stories either. Unlike editorials, they're not supposed to be pure opinion. However, compared to a news story, they rely much more on interpretation, rather than a more straightforward recitation of the facts. Analysis articles are going to be a lot more subjective and open to dispute than straight news stories. I think we should be very careful about using them as sources.Blackeagle (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I too agree that analysis aren't straight-forward news, and must be handled with caution.VR talk 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an op-ed. It's an "analysis" by an Associated Press writer.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly a proxy war... Why Iran might be helping Hamas? The same reasons why they helped Bosnians in the Yugoslavian wars — chandler — 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, how humanitarian of Iran. More likely, when you only have 4 friends left in the world (Hezbollah, Syria, Venezuala and Hamas), only two of them being legitimate nation-states, you keep them close. WanderSage (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yea because Israel are such humanitarians — chandler — 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- WanderSage, reality check. Actually Iran has many friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries and companies all around the world with some very large 2 way investments and ongoing development work. That's despite the difficulties that result from the US position on Iran which I know from first hand experience makes working with Iranian companies exceedingly difficult, time consuming and like trying to walk across a legal minefield. I think your views might be a bit skewed and inconsistent with objective reality. Iran is a big country with many people and many views. It isn't a simple object that you can characterise as 'the enemy' or whatever. It's complex and diverse and with good and bad points probably much like your own country. I'm just saying because systemic bias is endemic here and it's not helping the article... Don't shoot the messenger. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, how humanitarian of Iran. More likely, when you only have 4 friends left in the world (Hezbollah, Syria, Venezuala and Hamas), only two of them being legitimate nation-states, you keep them close. WanderSage (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Minutes ago a user added Iran's supplying of weapons to Hamas, so this content seems to have already been covered.VR talk 06:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Irans call to use oil as a weapon until the war stops is worth mention? (Relidc (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
- Iran has called for many things. In case you don't notice, when it comes to making bold and often outrageous statements, no one can outdo Iran. Iran's statements should be taken to the International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR talk 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire
In the background section it states that during the ceasefire that started on June 19 2008: "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." This sentence is misleading and does not sufficiently describe the situation in Gaza during this period.
What might be relevant is of course the actual number of rockets fired by Hamas during the effective ceasefire. The Israel MFA provides data documenting rockets and mortars launched from Gaza by month during 2008. It shows clearly that rocket fired from Gaza drop precipitously during the ceasefire until Israel killed 6 Hamas members who were involved in creating a tunnel that Israel claimed was going to be used abduct Israeli soldiers.
| Type | May | June 1-18 | June 18-30 | July | August | September | October | November |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rockets | 206 | 153 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 125 |
| Mortar | 149 | 84 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 71 |
A total of 36 rockets/mortars were launched from Jun 18 to the end of Oct, compared to 1894 launches in the four months and a half months before the ceasefire (Feb to Jun 18). This represents a 98% drop off in attacks. Hamas denied involvement in these few attacks and condemned the splinter organizations not respecting the ceasefire.
I propose that the MFA chart referenced in the EI article or a table based on the chart be included in the background section to improve and elaborate on the statement ""Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." Thrylos000 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support that. It seems like just an extension of a rather brief statement, and has a good amount of information. Just be sure to add sources.Jeztah (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my earlier post. I can't make edits as i'm not yet autoconfirmed. Someone else needs to add this. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue with the original statements. Several rockets were launched during the ceasefire, before and after the Israeli operation. The current wording seems to reflect exactly what you were saying. Also, if you're going to cite something, try using a source that doesn't "seek to expose the Jewish lobby". This isn't Stormfrontpedia WanderSage (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The original statement is not sufficiently elaborate. The current wording leaves out quite a bit as my original post states clearly and thoroughly. The source cited in my post is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and what I present are their statistics. The fact that I came across this IMFA generated chart in EI is of no consequence what so ever to my proposal. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thrylos000. Where would you like this placed. In the Background or Timeline section or elsewhere? (2) Is there any detailed information for a balancing chart of Israeli firing into, or operations within, the Gaza Strip for the same period? Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nishidani, I don't have that information unfortunately. However, my proposed addition expands vastly on the small statement on that ambiguously states "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." without showing that a huge drop off occured as per Hamas's pledge to uphold the ceasefire. This, in my opinion, is a crucial detail in the lead up to the war since Israel singled out rocket fire as their reason for attacking Gaza. If you could find information on Israeli military incursions into Gaza during this time period I would be happy to include them. I suspect there weren't many as both sides seemed to be upholding the truce and when Israel did carry out an attack on Hamas on Nov 4 there was an immediate response. Thrylos000 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thrylos000. Where would you like this placed. In the Background or Timeline section or elsewhere? (2) Is there any detailed information for a balancing chart of Israeli firing into, or operations within, the Gaza Strip for the same period? Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
External news articles
I'm uneasy about including news articles, especially editorials, in the "External Links." Editorials by definition are POV, and even if we provide an even number of pro-Israel and anti-Israel articles, some may be more supportive than others (i.e., an article placing most blame on Hamas and some on Israel vs. all on Hamas), and some may be better written than the other, implying preference on one side. I recommend keeping the news articles in the References sections, and leave official sources in External. Jeztah (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- An editorial should be used only if it includes a new piece of information not be found elsewhere (in which case it is best to attribute this piece of information to the author, as it probably wasn't found reliable enough to be included in the news page), or when writing about an opinion (in which case the editorial proves that this opinion exists). DrorK (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifics on Weaponry
"Qassam" and "(Hamas) rocket" are mentioned a total of 35 times in the article. The Israeli side has F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters, this is not specified in the article. Will correct this now, if editors object to using specific information, perhaps we can delete "Qassam" as well. RomaC (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with deleting the name, but not "rocket", and dosagree 100% with naming hardware as per my post in the archives. A generic descriptor is ok, but a specific type isn't, except when central to the sentence, and I still haven't seen one where "F-16" cant be fighter-bomber or "Qassam" be "rocket". We shouldn't be using formulation like "Hama's rockets" anyways, its bad english, better say "Hamas launched rockets" etc. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, "rocket" is general and "Qassam" is specific and that's better for an encyclopedia that has hyperlinks to more-detailed articles. Anyway was planning to fix this by adding "F-16" and "Apache", but I see now that the information on IDF attacks on Gaza has been removed from the conflict article, to a new "timeline" article. This seems like a whitewashing to me, as the article is now mostly about what happened before the time period that the article is supposed to cover. RomaC (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- RomaC: read what I wrote, we actually, agree. I mean you just said what I said! Surely you read what I wrote, right?--Cerejota (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, "rocket" is general and "Qassam" is specific and that's better for an encyclopedia that has hyperlinks to more-detailed articles. Anyway was planning to fix this by adding "F-16" and "Apache", but I see now that the information on IDF attacks on Gaza has been removed from the conflict article, to a new "timeline" article. This seems like a whitewashing to me, as the article is now mostly about what happened before the time period that the article is supposed to cover. RomaC (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Cerejota, I did read what you wrote. I believe we disagree, don't we? As I understand it you favor generic terms and I believe Wiki should rather (on first reference) provide (wikified) specific information. So if I had the specific information I would use Qassam and F-16 jet fighter rather than rocket and aircraft for sure. This is because these details can bring greater understanding to inquiring minds! RomaC (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sources ometimes refer to the various types of rockets by their type names. As in "a Qassam fell" or "a Grad fell". That doesn't mean we have to use the same language, but it does make our job a little harder. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- RomaC's point is a very serious one. I've noted this frequently, and call it privately the 'subliminal hammering effect', one of the subtler forms of getting around NPOV. It should certainly be attended to, perhaps by noting the frequency of terms denoting Israeli firepower. Generally, a specific term that figures in the reports should be mentioned in the lead and text, and then a generic term employed thereafter. And one should be careful to balance the language to avoid tilting the narrative towards an embedded editorial verdict.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a non-issue. I see no reason why a generic can't be used instead of a brand name, even if a source use it, and I have seen no one insisting hardware names be used. If people start with bullshit narrow interpretations nobody else in Misplaced Pages follows just to filibuster crap, we'll take it to ArbCom and that is that. Ultimately, also, consensus is what you edit. That said, I find your failure to assume good faith disturbing. Few editors will try to pull crap like that and survive long. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's generally wise not to make WP:AGF accusations while using intemperate language yourself. If 'Qassam' 'rocket' etc.are used 35 times, then one makes a frequency count for the equally violent bombing record by the IDF inside the Gaza Strip over the same period, just to ensure that the text is not being edited to tilt perceptions. That happens to be what editors are obliged to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- RomaC's point is a very serious one. I've noted this frequently, and call it privately the 'subliminal hammering effect', one of the subtler forms of getting around NPOV. It should certainly be attended to, perhaps by noting the frequency of terms denoting Israeli firepower. Generally, a specific term that figures in the reports should be mentioned in the lead and text, and then a generic term employed thereafter. And one should be careful to balance the language to avoid tilting the narrative towards an embedded editorial verdict.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sources ometimes refer to the various types of rockets by their type names. As in "a Qassam fell" or "a Grad fell". That doesn't mean we have to use the same language, but it does make our job a little harder. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you considered that in Israel, Qassam has become a synecdoche for "rocket"? Is not an evil POV conspiracy (for the most part ;) but a reflection of sytemic bias. That is why it is important to AGF: bias can creep in unintemtionally, because what certain people see as common knowledge, others don't. You get my point? That said, the solution is not to add more useless information, but revert and rewrite the biased passages. Sometimes these pages are a reflection of the conflict, with some launching rhetorical F-16s and others screaming speech Qassams... ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that while Qassam rockets are the most common, they are not the only type of rocket being launched by Hamas. Being specific helps distinguish Quassams from Katyushas and RPGs. Similarly, on the Israeli side, a fighter-bomber might be a F-16, but it could also be a F-15I.Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion of hardware for editing reasons: only by reading websites and watching tv I have learned that AH-1 Cobras,F-15s, Heron UAVs, Shaldag and Super Dvora patrol boats, SAAR 4.5 class missile boats, SAAR 5 class corvetes, Merkava Mark 4 battle tanks, Tiger APC's, Hammer jeeps and MANY MANY more kinds of hardware are used by the IDF in this conflict. Should we include them all? Generic names are fine, and it convey the message needed to be conveyed.--Omrim (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think RomaC and Nishidani have valid points. My understanding of what Nishidani means by "subliminal hammering" is that when the weapons of one side are specified repeatedly and disproportionately, they take on a buzzword status and therefore assume more prominence and fearsomeness in the minds of the public. Agree as per Omrim that specialist facts should be kept to a minimum.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation, 門左衛門. That's exactly my point.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Add a section stating each side's reason, or, Addressing the elephant
I think the article needs a separate section that only states both Israeli and Hammas reasoning for this particular conflict. I ask for this new section because, historically, once conflicts are over, the "reasons" driving them often become a matter of conjecture. I do realize that there may be various reasons even within each side; perhaps a good place to start is by stating the opinions of those highest in power on each side of the conflict. I also think, in order to limit sidetracking, it would be a good idea to keep each side's statement to as little verbage as possible. The reader is always free to do further research into what is stated. I realize this idea may sound very simplistic, however it will give future readers/researchers access to accurate and very useful information. Tell someone (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tell someone, such a section may be helpful in certain respects, but it would be the definition of POV. It would turn into a giant battleground, and a behemoth, as everyone wanted their position represented (because, naturally, theirs is the most legitimate, and everyone else's is biased). There are too many variables left at the discretion of editors. The fighting would never cease. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That is totally against custom and policy, "Criticism" and "Point/Counter point" is strongly discouraged. We have to speak in one unified encyclopedic voice. I know this is hard to achieve, but coping out of it by WP:POVFORKING or by essentially doing the same thing within the same article is not good: if one side did something or said something we have to report it, point or no counter point. In fact, sometimes you have to let the one side speak alone, because there isno verifiable response from the other. I do agree we should try to limit verbiage, and to point our readers to wikilink our hearts out. --Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, kids, this is a neutral encyclopedia, your own POV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving intact. Deal with it. And if there is some article somewhere that does, there is no deadline we will get to it eventually. :D --Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This aspires to be a neutral encyclopedia. Almost all I/P articles fail basic NPOV standards, as one can see by glancing at the ratings these articles get in review. A large amount of bunkum, incompetence, misprisions, and POV survives in most articles. Panurge is fine, but being realistic is better.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- the way to provide a truly informational article about a conflict is to provide at least a few details about the concerns and/or grievances expressed by each group which is a party to that conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can people continue to update the timeline on its new page
Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict isn't getting much new edits. Either can people update it, or maybe we should move it back to this page.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It should be here, it covers what is actually happening, wrong that it's been orphaned. RomaC (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SUMMARY. This article simply got too long. What we do need is a good intro paragraph for this page. CAre to help propose one? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's just, it's getting very long, and WP:RECENTISM. Just to compare with something like Timeline of World War II (1939), I think it would be a good idea to compromise it as much as possible, perhaps only short, few comments per day. Or have a lengthy sub article like now but still have important things in a timeline in the main (something like 1-3 points per day), like when Israel started going in with groudforces, the school bombing etc. — chandler — 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- agree with chandler, support having concise info on background (with link to the general Israeli-Palestinian conflict article) and concise timeline info (with link to detailed timeline article). Same with all bloated sections, including planning and humanitarian, make them shorter or provide a summary with a link to an extended article. But we can't simply eliminate the timeline section, which digs into the meat of the subject. RomaC (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Violent picture gallery
Any reason for why User:Madhero88 from Jordan has removed all previous images and added a huge gallery of very graphic images of injured Palestinians?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Diplomatic efforts towards truce
I think we should add a new section to the article on diplomatic efforts towrds truce. There has been such efforts since day 1, I think, and they are turnning to be more coherent and fruitful (hopefully) in the past day or two. Any way, I think there is enough information out there to describe this process, which unavoidably will crystallize into truce of some sort in the coming days. If there is an agreement on the issue, I'll do some research and create a suggested section for your reviews. Since it will obviously be a little time consuming, I didn't want to do so without having a consencus on the issue at the least. Let me know what you think.--Omrim (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I've read reports that Sarkozys truce plan has been accepted by both sides — chandler — 14:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Israeli channel 10 reported last night that rocket firing on Israel has been reduced in 50% since day one!
mentioning?
--212.117.137.193 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that worth all the lives that have been lost in Gaza?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop soapboxing. This page is for article improvement. NoCal100 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- V, V, and V I mean its channel 10! I am sur ethat if this verify Haaretz will mention it. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow. Is Channel 10 somehow less reliabale than other channels, or less reliable than Ha'aretz? NoCal100 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just heard it on channel 10... obviously we may use various other sources... --212.117.137.193 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, since we want to have verifiable sources, unless that specific piece is available online, we can't use television sources - no else can check and verify. okedem (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Reveerted Brewcrewer's edit in lead
I have reverted Brewcrewer’s edit. The text ran:
'targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party. This is an adequate summary of the three sources, notes 22,23,24..
I.e.
(note 22) 'Air raids have so far struck sites linked to Hamas, including smuggling tunnels under the border to Egypt, government buildings, security compounds, and homes of members of the organisation. Israel said it attacked some 20 targets in Gaza overnight and in the early hours of Friday. It described the mosque it bombed in Jabaliya as a "terror hub" and said it was used to store weapons. BBC staff in Gaza say at least 10 houses belonging to Hamas members were also hit, as well as a poultry farm and industrial workshop.
- <blockquo0te>(Note 23) 'Israeli jets have attacked the Gaza Strip for a fourth day, with raids on a number of Hamas government buildings and security installations. . . targeted Hamas-run offices and security installations, . . Dozens of Hamas centres, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning.'
(24) 'Palestinian officials said that Hamas-run offices and security installations were targeted,.. Dozens of centres of Hamas strength, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning . . raids damaged both the interior ministry and a science building at the Islamic University in Gaza, from which many top Hamas officials graduated. . . Places hit by later strikes included the home of a senior Hamas commander and a car carrying gas cylinders, reports said.
Brewcrewer replaced this with ‘targeting Hamas weapons and launching pads’ Launching pads are not mentioned in the three sources, and the synthesis excludes the large variety of infrastructure the three sources say were targeted to suggest only purely military bases were struck.
Brewcrewer Please review wiki procedures on editing. Do not try things like this again, changing the language without reading the sources for a sentence.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is very good, it's a little messy but very neutral
I think you're doing a pretty good job. T.R. 87.59.76.192 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
UN_RFalkwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Weiner, Justus Reid (2008-12-25). "International Law and the Fighting in Gaza". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Desperate Haitians Survive on Mud Cookies, CBS News
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press