Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 11 January 2009

On 7 January 2009, this talk page was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

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. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

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]

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Opening Paragraph

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 the Lead/Lede/Intro at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

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)

This comment is undated and therefore stuck so I'm just making a note so the bot will archive it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note From Commentor

I am trying not to address in this comment the question of whether certain arguments are correct or incorrect. There are many paces where i believe statement are wrong but i am not addressing those. I am addressing the lack of balance in the article and explaining what other information should be included and how certain changes should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

This comment is undated and therefore stuck so I'm just making a note so the bot will archive it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to International Law

I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):

1. Length - At this rate, we'll need to start a separate article for this section. That's fine if that's the way people want to go, except that nobody ever reads articles that are that specific.
2. Gaza as occupied territory - This debate deviates severely from the discussion we ought to be having. But, if other editors want to go there, the Israeli position must be represented adequately. The sources used to rebut it fundamentally violate WP:Synthesis, because they don't respond to the Israeli position; instead, the editor must synthesize them to clarify that Gaza is occupied territory in spite of the disengagement. It's also synthesis to say "the UN and other international organizations," when the only other organization quoted is the Human Rights Council. Let's examine the sources used to establish Gaza's position as occupied territory:
   1. An International Court of Justice decision from one year prior to Israeli disengagement (i.e. irrelevant).
   2. The fact that there is an "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs office on Occupied Palestinian Territory." Consider the fact that the argument has to be made in the citation, because it's not actually made in the source. To draw such a conclusion violates WP:Synthesis.
   3. Gunness refers to Israel as an "Occupying Power." That he does, but in an interview, not some sort of official publication. As mentioned above, this also does not touch upon the disengagement, and so is synthesis.
   4. HRC - Again, there's no consideration of the disengagement.
3. Ad-hominem attacks against Falk - I don't see the reason why the whole "Falk is a controversial figure…" part is included. It adds very little to the article, and is quite long.
4. Gary Grant - Again, I think it generally best to avoid quoting interviews in lieu of actual published works. Also, why are we quoting Gary Grant? On what grounds is the value of his legal opinion asserted? If we have to quote him, let's at least cut down on the paragraph, because it can be summarized in one sentence.
5. UN speeches - The snippets from Egypt and Jordan are, again, not actual publications. UN speeches are better than interviews, but still. If these government have published amicus currae briefs, or something like that, it would be better to quote them than a speech--a speech is just a summary of the country's position, and not an actual WP:RS in itself. Even if they were actual publications, I don't see what they add to the article. Everything they say has already been said, and they don't give any reason why Israel violates international law; they simply state that it does. Of notable irrelevance is the Egyptian statement, which pertains to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to the conflict (which is, after all, the subject of the article).
6. Specific incidents - Are we all ABSOLUTELY sure that we want to start listing specific incidents. By the middle of next week, the "International law" section will be bursting at the seams with incidents in which Israel and Hamas violated international law. I vote we stick to the bigger picture, because all these incidents fall under its wing. But, if I have failed to persuade you, let's consider some specifics about the UN school incident: Investigation is ongoing, not to mention the fact that it has its own section. Besides, in what legal capacity is the OIC brought into the picture? They don't even elaborate on anything.
7. Petition to the court - This section needs to be seriously cut down; it's way too long. Also, are they arguing on the grounds of international law or Israeli law?
8. Hamas ideology - Why is this in the article? Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters.

Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed references 2.1 and 2.2 (numbering scheme follows list above). Maybe I assumed to much, but I figured that WP policy was so clear on the subject, that their removal would not prove too controversial. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks against Falk should be removed. By all means feel free to do so. He has a page for that crap doesn't he? 'Controversial' in wiki I/P articles is code language for unreliable, by the way, and is found as the standard epithet for any wiki page covering a critic of Israel. One could say the same of Dershowitz, that he is 'controversial', and this would be improper, since a link will take anyone to those pages where his status is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're on board with the discussion, Nishidani. What's your opinion on the other points?

Meantime, I've looked back at the source for the Supreme Court petition (point no. 7 above), and found that there was no discussion there whatsoever of international law. Can anyone find a source that says the petition is founded in international law? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, and just glanced through, and haven't had the time to check anything, so I responded on the first point I knew about off-hand. I agree with you also that 'Hamas ideology' has to be excerpted from the article. Hamas has its own page, and its ideology is discussed there. It is totally inappropriate here, and as you quote it, evidently an attempt to prejudice the reader by hitting the 'barbarian' button, aside from its irrelevance to what should be a strict factual accountancy of the conflict. I'll certainly look through the rest, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up the talk page a bit and you'll see the 'Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation' section. I put a link to the archives in there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.

The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!

Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.

I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

someone beat me to it! Anyway, I completely endorse the removal of this paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Hamas stuff and also the Gary Grant stuff. He does not appear to judge by his brief history here, to have any particular competence in international law, and the statements are just generic opinions by an otherwise nondescript barrister. This section should quote opinions only by recognized authorities. Dershowitz by the way is not a recognized authority on international law. I won't touch it. But if he stays, he should be balanced by Franklin Lamb's withering critique of his opinions in this case. No hurry. Ideas? Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I further indented your line. I hope you don't mind.

Yeah, I also think that Dershowitz needs to be removed. Everything he says is already said by Israel in the following paragraph, and of the two sources, he is less reliable.

I'll go ahead and remove him. If I get reverted, then we'll discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned the indent compliment! I've had a first go at cutting back the petition. In any case, this will have to be rewritten as news comes in of the Court's decision. It's sitting today, I believe. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egypt-Jordanian stuff is sourced, and needn't be a brief. It should of course be brief. The following remark in the text, 'This comes as a surprise since Egypt imposed (the) Gaza Strip blockade in full cooperation with Israel following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip,' is unsourced, and looks like an editorial comment, apart from being poorly written (= 'though Egypt collaborated fully with Israel in imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas took over its administration'. I happen to agree with it. Unless someone can come up with a source for it, it will have to be removed. I will post a citation needed tag for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put the 'citation required' flag after 'it comes as a surprise'. Some source has to say both (it was a surprise) and (b) that in making the declaration, Egypt was being hypocritical, since it supports the very blockade it denounces as a violation of international law. Otherwise we haqve WP:SYNTH probs.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that needs to be borne in mind is that there is no single, accepted definition of what international law is in relation to any particular issue, due to there being no international government. An ICJ or International Criminal Court decision is pretty clear evidence, but we don't have any in relation to this specific conflict or any of the alleged incidents during it. Therefore all Misplaced Pages can do is to state "Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group X says this, Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group Y says that" and leave the reader to make up his/her own mind. We aren't an arbitrator of "the truth", we simply collate facts and opinions established by others. Cynical (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So all of those doctorates in international law, and the history of rulings, are invalid. You've just downsized a notable constituency of the legal world. For the record, 'international law' since Grotius's time, refers to the law of nations, between nations, and does not require the existence of an international government. One used to learn this in high schools in the old world. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"One used to learn this in High Schools in the old worlds remember WP:Civil concerning "One used to learn this in High Schools in the old world." V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source yet that links the petition (no. 7 above) to international law, so I'm removing it. If it survives revert, I'll put a strikethrough on the above list.

Also, the quality of the Egyptian and Jordanian sources (no. 5 above) was only the smallest part of my complaint against them. They add nothing to the article (and are quite long in so doing). The Egyptian source doesn't even have to do with the conflict. How do people feel about removing them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A small point, as I recall Britian did a Blockage of Germany during WWI and parts of the German population were close to starving to death. However, Britian was not considered an Occupying power. I think they may have also done a Blockage on what became Lebannon. Blockages per se do not create Occupying powers. ITBlair (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cynical. International Law is only relevant to those who follow it. Israel is not a signatory to many "International Laws" that she found inappropriate and did not ratify many of the treaties signed by the European powers. International Law is also a recourse which has repeatedly been used against Israeli interests. ." Also, what might be legal in Israel or Sweden or Nigeria might not apply to other countries. The simple truth is that international law is in flux and has been since the very first agreements, and certain things seem to ALWAYS apply (Laws agaisnt Piracy) and certain ideas of international law seem sometimes to apply and certain other ideas are NEVER applied). Which laws are applied and by what we have politicians for. One should also never forget that lawyers of any stripe are advocates first, and "friends of the court" second V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, neither you nor the other editor, Cynical, have the foggiest notion of what you are descanting on. You can opinionize, but nothing you say is relevant to editing in this regard.

Saepe habilis. I have no problem with eliding the Egyptian-Jordanian bits, but others may object. The petition should not be struck out, though you have a point. But many of these questions before the Supreme Court of Israel have to do with Israel's international obligations consequent upon a complex array of treaties, associations with international bodies etc. It is true that, in many cases, Israeli legal scholars have argued that a number of provisions in international law do not apply to acts or laws passed by the state. But that does not mean Israeli law itself is hermetically sealed off from international law and conventions. I therefore advise you to not elide the petition, esp. since it was to be heard today, and we should shortly have some indications of a verdict. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Es, Nishidani, ridiculor. Te amo. If you can find a RS that spells out the connection between the petition and international law, I won't object to its (brief) inclusion. Otherwise, the connection would be synthesis.

As for Egypt and Jordan, I'll wait a little longer to see if there are objection, and if not, I'll take them out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is simple, I feel that International Law, which is a Trojan Horse when applied to Israel. Essentially, notice the amount of attention paid to Sri Lanka and you can perhaps understand my feelings about International Law. V. Joe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I note the petition section has been removed without consensus, and despite the fact that Joe and Cynical can't distinguish customary and conventional international law. Petitions to the Supreme Court of Israel that have been decided by that august body through reference to International Law are perhaps not commonplace, but precedents exist. Ther right to do so was estbalished soon after the Six Day War. Nothing I say will change your opinion, so go read Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992. I know you won't, so read at least pp.70ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we're losing focus a bit here. Isn't the section getting a bit long for this article ? Yes, country/person X can say something like "compliance with international law isn't required for the legitimate use of power" as Condie Rice wrote once I recall (...can't remember the exact words) and various bodies will challenge that position and so on and so forth but we're in danger of getting into a swamp here and over complicating matters. Would it not be better to make a big effort to keep this section as simple as possible (in this article) e.g. set out the UNHRC position and provide counter arguments maintaining due weight for the bodies that speak on behalf on the world/regional communities, have some specific examples/details but not too much. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I was bold, and removed the petition section. I figured if it was reverted, we could discuss. Let me make one thing clear: I completely agree with you that Israeli court decisions are often founded in international law. But, absent a RS that specifically says that this particular petition is founded in international law, this section is out of place. If you find such a source, I would not object to including it (but let's make it brief, if we can). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed you had a point. Removing it removed the source, and the point, so I had trouble this morning checking it out. But I objected more to the assertion International Law does not matter to the ISC, than to the propriety of your call. I haven't as yet enough Hebrew to read the petition, which was promoted by 9 groups:Gisha, Adalah, Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh Din, but will search to see if a foreign language version is available and whether, if so, ref. is made therein to international customary law (from what I know, there would be certainly a legal problem for the petitioners, but of course my opinion is irrelevant), CheersNishidani (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.

Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it (or I removed them and forgot). I'm way too young to be getting senile… hmf… Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I haven't been able to find the petition. If you can post a link to the Hebrew version, I could read it and tell you if there's mention of international law in it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gisha petition. They only have a summary on their page. Gisha.org. Thanks for the courtesy of offering to check it,Saepe Fidelis . I don't expect an explicit claim, so won't be surprised if the verdict is no. Keep me tuned.Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific incidents "Sub-Section Name" distorts what needed in this section By big bold I assume you mean your reference to specific incidents sub-section? Originally we were just listing those who also called Israel's actions violations of international law. Then someone made it an "incidents" section and then someone said let's delete the incidents. It should NOT be an incident section, but a list of important parties world wide calling Israel's actions violations of international law war crimes. When it's save for me to revert it i'll do so and shorten the Amnesty international section which does start to read like an incident report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, please read the discussion above about why individual country's opinions on the legality of Israel's actions have been removed.

Nishidani, I've started to make my way through the document. It's 26 pages long, so I'll try to give you an answer soon, but don't hold your breath. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold my breath? Me? With the emphysema I've got after smoking 3 cartons of cigarettes in the past week? No hurry, but I may not be around to read it, at this rate of pulmonary bombing.:)Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hope your lungs get better.

The petition makes many references to international law, beginning on page 18. I am currently working on too many things to reword the section so that it includes this information. If someone else could do that, that would be wonderful. If not, I'll do it when I get around to it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

Could some administrator have a look what the newbie Agadaurbanit is doing? Rapid reverts, or insertions of material that consensus suggested was to be removed, no discussion, and the reverts are of things people have discussed, sometimes at length. Also removal of citation needed tags, as discussed on the talk page. This is, so far, a clear case of ninja-mongering or whatever. A severe warning seems apposite. Otherwise he and a few others are pressuring hoers in the field to get into revert battles.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There a lot of crap being shovelled into the article. Take a look at this diff closely to see some of the things that have been changed. I've partially fixed the UNRWA school attack section and a couple of other things, but some editors are replacing well-sourced, balanced material with less adequately sourced or even outdated materials and refuted theories), also inserting POV phraseology everywhere. They don't discuss here either. AgadaUrbanit is one and the other seems to be Tkalisky. Anyway, hopefully when they discover that their edits are being challenged, they will come here to discuss instead of revert-warring. Tiamut 00:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is going on right now, this user is just going through things and adding unsourced commentary and removing well-sourced statements. Can some admin please take a look at it? Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And he just reverted the UNRWA school section again, can somebody please restore the properly sourced and cited content? Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a new editor. I'm sure he just doesn't know how things work around here. Let's try the peaceful solution first. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually he's not a new editor, in the sense he's been posting on the Hebrew Wiki since 2006. See אגדה אורבנית . The rules there are no different. I appreciate assuming good faith, but the pattern is one of refusing to discuss, and repeating the same edits, deleting or restoring material for an Israeli POV. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm indeed jewish and live in Israel and don't hide it in any way, but please assume good faith. I'm trying to be neutral and balanced with all my heart. I'm not really sure how you concluded that I'm " been posting on the Hebrew Wiki since 2006". This article is my first major contribution to Misplaced Pages and I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages abbreviation, etiquette and procedure. Please correct me if I'm wrong and show me the way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you have a page on he;wiki going back to 2004, not 2006.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All good, and welcome. But before making major changes to the article, and removing things that have been discussed, please come to the talk page. Nableezy (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you misunderstood me referencing hebrew language page for Urban Legend as my page from 2004? Anyway thank you for your help 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

Intro

Moved to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

UNRWA school section is being vandalized

This material about the IDF admitting that there were no militants in the school keeps getting removed:

The Israel Defense Forces initially claimed that mortars had been fired at Israeli forces from inside the school, and that Israeli soldiers had been responding to them.. With regard to the 2009 incident, according to Ynet, "The Israeli army claimed that terrorists were firing mortar shells from the school just moments before the strike. The IDF stated that a number of Hamas gunmen were inside the school, and claimed to have found their bodies following the attack. Hamas called the claims "baseless". Residents of the neighborhood said that two Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack, but that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood. The UN states that Israel privately briefed diplomats the following day that militant fire had come from outside the school compound, not from inside it. The official Israeli position remained that militant fire did come from the school compound, until the 9th. of January, when, according to UN sources, the army conceded unintentional wrongdoing in briefings to foreign diplomats. The IDF footage showing militants firing from the school was dated to 2007. The shelling they responded to did not originate from the school.

Can AgadaUrbanit stop doing that? And stop inserting old, outdated theories first circulated by the IDF as though they were facts? And would someone mind restoring this? Thanks. Tiamut 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

done, if there is an issue with the language take it up here before removing well-sourced information. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just done again by the same user, can somebody restore? Nableezy (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should look at his contributions to see how often, on specific edits, he has violated or come close to violating, the 3RR rule. He's done this to several patches, including the Gary Grant tripe.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for undiscussed changes. Please let me clarify. There was a dispute between UNRWA and Israel if mortars were fired from "within" or from "immediate vicinity". Currently there is a consensus that Hamas mortar squad was near by and killed during the strike. There is no dispute that there is history of Hamas using UNRWA schools for firing mortars, UNRWA acknowledges it but denies any responsibility. I only wonder if Hamas which govern Gaza knew GPS coordinates of UNRWA school and fact that there were civilians inside before they started firing. Please consider removing last paragraph, it just tries to dispute Israel's credibility and does not add any new facts. Please be balanced. 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

The UN has said there were no militant fire from within the school compound, that is what the article says the said. If you can find a source for Israel claiming that there were militants firing in the vicinity of the school (and i am sure there are those sources, i just dont feel like looking for them), feel free to add that, but that paragraph is well sourced and verifiable, so I would say it needs to stay. Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. New re-worked version look more balanced thank you. I'd like to suggest restoring reference to year 2007 IDF drone footage which was released days before this tragedy. Somehow it got lost during re-work. I'm sure people around the world who does not know the conflict context think that Israel claim of Hamas using UNRWA schools for firing mortars as unthinkable. This footage is acknowledged by UNRWA, while UNRWA denies any responsibility. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The language isnt all that good, but I think there is a place for that. Hows this:

Footage that IDF had initially released of militants launching rockets from a UNRWA school was from 2007, not from this incident. (with the source)

I think that would present the information and reflect the source. Nableezy (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please return original wording. You are trying to dispute claim that was never there. There was *never* any claim that it is footage from the same incident. It is clearly dated and released couple of days *before* this incident on official IDF Youtube channel. It is important fact that UNRWA does not dispute the fact that UNRWA schools was used by mortar squad in the past while denying any responsibility. Could you see my point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other sources claiming that "9 January the IDF conceded that the attack was unintentional and no fire originated from the school." except for UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness? Chris Gunness asked opponents: "Please don’t put words in my mouth." for instance here . Can not it be asked the same from Chris Gunness? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to meld UN claim "9 January the IDF conceded" and he "U.N. wanted an inquiry into both the assault and the Israeli allegations" . It looks like contradiction to me in UN actions. please suggest new wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards the wording, this phrasing accurately refelects the sources, also 'Couple of days' shouldnt be used. One of the big points of contention with the video was the date, the release was regarded by the media as justification, and when it was widely reported that it was from 1+ yr ago there were quite a few articles about that. Nobody is saying that it has not been used before to launch rockets, we are saying that there is video of rockets fired from the school from 2007. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(What happened to the ref to the Norwegian doctors who contradicted the Israeli television network's 'investigation?') Trachys (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. User:Tkalisky deleted it with an edit summary saying that we need a English source. That's just not true. It's contents can be verified using translation programs available online and User:Huldra will happily translate for anyone who cannot understand.

I should not he has also deleted a lot of other information. His edit bear some scrutiny, since it seem he is unfamiliar with Wiki policies and guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tiamut 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html
3. Hanan Greenberg (6 January 2009). "IDF: Mortars fired from bombed school". ynet. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
4. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html
5. "Strike at Gaza school kills 30". BBC News. 2009-01-06. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
6. "Grief and Rage at Striken Gaza School". NY Times. January 7, 2009.
7. "UPDATE 1-UN official says no militants inside Gaza school". Reuters UK. January 7, 2009. Archived from the original on January 8, 2009.
8. Barak Ravid and Akiva Eldar,’ UN: IDF officers admitted there was no gunfire from Gaza school which was shelled,’ Haaretz 9/1/2009

Photos from arabic wikipedia

So as I was searching for photos related to the slaughtering of Gazans, I couldn't find any resources for copyright free photos for current events until I realized, Arabic Wiki!!! I thought they may have had tons but it turns out they have few. Anyway, please add http://ar.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-2.jpg and http://ar.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-1.jpg but please check if the status okay. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• This one is from the Palestine Network News today. The rationale used is "fair use" with five points supporting its inclusion, stressing the lack of free photos and the importance of this historical event, being the biggest military operation since the 1967 war. The other picture is from Al-Jazeera. I think there is a case to be made for including some copyrighted pictures here, due to the lack of pictures available and the the inability of people to go to Gaza to get them for themselves - but again, I'm not familiar enough with fair use policies, to make that case. Tiamut 13:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added one of those pics; let's see what people think.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Do u know why they are wearing all military suits? this is a war, not slaughtering sheeps as muslims do...

And maybe, u can add a pic of members of Fateh (Slaughtered by Hamas) the article is locked for me...--Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israelis have been attacking government offices and obviously you'll have police protecting them and being killed by falling bombs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The israeli military has targeted police compounds specifically, not just generic buildings that they have been protecting. They also, notably, killed a newly graduating class of police during their graduation ceremony earlier in the conflict. Thrylos000 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

US shipping 3,000 tons of ammunitions to Israel

• The United States is seeking to hire a merchant ship to deliver hundreds of tons of arms to Israel from Greece later this month, tender documents seen by Reuters show. The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command said the ship was to carry 325 standard 20-foot containers of what is listed as "ammunition" on two separate journeys from the Greek port of Astakos to the Israeli port of Ashdod in mid-to-late January. A "hazardous material" designation on the manifest mentions explosive substances and detonators, but no other details were given. "Shipping 3,000-odd tons of ammunition in one go is a lot," one broker said, on condition of anonymity. "This (kind of request) is pretty rare and we haven't seen much of it quoted in the market over the years," he added.

Looks like the horror is set to continue. Tiamut 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also note that the article says a ship was hired in December to send a larger cargo of arms: 989 standard 20-foot containers from Sunny Point, North Carolina to Ashdod. "The tender document said the vessel had to be capable of "carrying 5.8 million pounds (2.6 million kg) of net explosive weight", which specialist brokers said was a very large quantity. The ship was requested early last month to load on December 15. In September, the U.S. Congress approved the sale of 1,000 bunker-buster missiles to Israel. The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world."

Perhaps we should start a section on military equipment being used? And where it is coming from? Tiamut 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is outside of the scope of this article, just as Iranian or other sources of funding for Hamas is outside of it. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut can you look at my post above about the photos, and see if you can do anything about it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I don't know how to deal with the copyright for things other than original works (as is pictures I took) or old images that no longer have copyright. Does anyone else know how to handle these?

Also, about the military aid issue, here's another article. IDF Making A Killing With US Weapons. I think in an article on a military offensive, it's useful to discuss the weaponry being used. Also, there's a slight difference between US arms to Israel, for which there is ample documentation and the issue is being raised in the US congress of the Foreign Affairs Act by Kucinich - and the Hamas getting weaponry from ??? Most of the rockets they have fired so far are homemade. The others, it's not clear where they are coming from. In any case, if someone has reliable sources discussing it, I don't see why we shouldn't. Tiamut 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone does look at my post and act on it because the article appears like the Israeli version of the article. Seriously, look at the photos at the Israeli article, I don't understand why they don't rename their article to Hamas slaughter of Israelis or Holocaust 2, it seems that they think the Israelis are the victims of the assault on Gaza.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't have any images of the suffering in Gaza, or any pictures of the dead Palestinian policemen, but as for the current images you brought up, could you translate what's in the information box, because then I could upload them to the commons. Also, we gotta make sure no one pulled a fast one on Arabic[REDACTED] and uploaded images that are not free. If they are, I'll try real hard to find some man. They're very important for balance. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, such a shame. Maybe someone can dig up some old pictures of dead babies and put them in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your antipathy is disgusting. FYI there is plenty of new pictures of Israeli's slaughter of babies, something that you can always rely on Israelis to do.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Check this out, you will find dead babies:

• French TV claims photos from 2005 showed damage from Israel's Gaza operation

The footage aired on Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon showed dozens of dead bodies, including Hamas gunmen and citizens, which the channel said were killed by an IAF bombing raid on January 1st. It later came to light that the channel had instead aired footage of the devastation caused after a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp.

It apparently took bloggers to point up the lie. Gee, if you can't trust France 2 to tell the truth, who can you trust? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

?...Your indifference or rather your refusal to acknowledge the 230 slaughtered Gazan children speaks loudly. Your attempt to distract doesn't help your argument. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

68.123.141.153, it is your refusal to accept anything that opposes your biases that is impressive. The world is not black or white, Israelis=bad or Palestinians=good. If you still think that, I doubt your place in this article is constructive. Israel killed innocent civilians. Palestinians/news agencies sometimes forge news reports. Can't you accept both facts? Rabend (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is thoroughly biased against Israel, with the explicit accusation of a massacre in the first 2 lines. The rest of the article attempts to justify the accusation. That is what I am trying to make people see here. Every attempt at neutrality in the lead has been systematically reverted.Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Some people here are apparently incapable of objectivity. Rabend (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would if i could translate but my Arabic is limited. I wish some fluent Arabic speaker can help. I am sure there are some here. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tiamut, please do this as I sort of advocated here (wow, the archive bot really is strange in it's rapid archiving...seems to be travelling at near light speed causing time dilation effects). It's either out of scope or in scope but that scope should be the same for both sides I guess. I think a brief section might be in order. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I gave a very brief paraphrase translation in the section on the pictures above. They are using a fair use rationale and I've identified the sources for them: Al Jazeera and Palestine Network News. I don't know how to get fair use rationales accepted, but User:Eleland has done it before, if I recall correctly. It may be worth asking him for help uploading them. Tiamut 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Greece allowing this? I wouldn't be surprised if the Anarchists et al hit the streets upon learning of the Greek gov't plan to allow the US to use it as shipment point. Very silly of the gov't. Greece's population on the whole is very sympathetic with the palestinians and has a general distaste for the US that is probably at an all time high right now. Strange move by an already weakened and barely legitimate gov't there. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard the term Byzantine complexity, as in Greek Cypriot Christians ferring the PLO back to Lebanon after the 1982 Invasion, and the alleged Turkish (Muslims) - Israeli Allaince? This has been going on for thousands of years in this region of the world--Tomtom9041 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly relevant to my comments but thanks for some interesting historical context of Middle East/Mediterranean relations. The fact of the matter stands that a right wing pro-US gov't is in power in Greece right now that has the ire of much of the population there. They are barely viewed as legitimate. Few Greeks support the US or Israel in their military actions and I expect them to responde negatively to this news if it is given proper coverage in the media there. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tiamut, this belongs in the International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and not here at the moment. We could start a section on military equipment, but I don't think it would be too relevant. The military equipment used is generally mentioned when it is used, esp. in the development section.VR _talk 07:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In connexion with US assistance there are also "US officers deployed along Egypt-Rafah border". US Engineering Corps assisting the IDF in finding tunnels. I don't know if it's been mentioned before.--91.105.235.173 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Pentagon denies arms shipment to Israel linked to Gaza fighting

If we're gonna mention US aid, we should also mention Iran's peaceful intention of sending 70,000 suicide bombers to Israel. Rabend (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the details of transport are included, by email, posted boxes, air cargo that slips through the radio screen, on foot into Gaza? where no one on foot can get out? by camel, like the Magi. In short, the report's the usual windbaggery. Iran can do nothing, so it huffs and puffs, to make an impression that words are as good as deeds.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Nishidani to find the invoices: From the UK Telegraph :"At the very least Israel will not curb its Gaza offensive until it is sure that it has destroyed the supply lines Iran has used to fund and equip Hamas". --From Bloomberg news: "During the truce with Hamas there was wholesale smuggling of Grad rockets from Iran"--from Timesonline: "During the six-month truce, Hamas imported Russian-designed Grad long-range rockets from Iran through its cross-border tunnels and stepped up its home production of Qassam rockets, made in backstreet machine shops." Apparently there is more than "the ususal windbaggery" here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This should go in the article. Rabend (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Iran will go through with that awesome plan, since 70000 suicide bombers mean 70000x72 = 5040000 virgins, and I'm not sure they can come up with that much human resources. Rabend (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit lost. This started out as being about whether to include information about who is supplying weapons to the IDF. What was the eventual consensus ? My related issue is here. I'm not talking necessarily about specific incidents just broad simple statements e.g. if it says somewhere that Iran is supplying X then it should presumably say somewhere that the US admin are supplying Y. Maybe it does. I haven't checked yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify Israeli death toll

Can someone place a note stating that three of the Israelis were killed by their own people? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If u can provide a source — _CHANDLER — 09:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There were 4 Israeli soldiers killed in a "friendly fire" incident. It happens at wars. If you want to write it, write it this way.

If you're going to write that "Israeli soldiers were killed by their own people", it makes it sound equivalent to what Hamas does - executing its own people, or Fatah personnel. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope these help : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4128089/Israeli-soldiers-killed-by-friendly-fire-in-Gaza.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/05/israel.gaza/index.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7812885.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.163.88 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

'Of the Israeli casualties (*13), three were killed by 'friendly fire.' Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

I am trying to gather stuff forma military history perspective on Operation Cast Lead, for example, "orders of battle", units involved, notable commanders, hardware etc. I feel this information is relevant but needs to be gathered and shaped first. Please drop anything here: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead. Thanks!

Editors, take an objective look at the article

I know it's hard for you to take an objective "from the outside" look, but give it a try. This article looks like it's been written by the Palestinian Ministry of Public Relations. There is an overwhelming bias against Israel. Of course, it's all written subtly, but for the naive reader, it's pretty much made it clear who's right and who's wrong in this complex conflict.
By relying on "info" tidbits solely from the internet, which are inherently already filtered, and not on actual facts, we're acting as forensics, judge, jury and executioner for the naive reader. Even if the source is supposedly the neutral UN, we don't really know that. We don't really know who that "UN person" actually talked to. There is footage of a famous European anti-Israeli activist and Hamas people dressed as doctors, pretending to perform CPR on a small child. Of course, these "doctors" will later confirm to the press that "this boy" was "killed" by an Israeli shell, and this will end up here as fact. Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to. It's a different culture altogether.
This is supposed to be a place of facts, particularly when such a volatile issue is involved. Not a place of more and more and more and more alleged incidents based on "according to..", which cognitively already paint the questionable pictures in the mind of the naive reader, leaving the dubious sources forgotten. Some of the incidents happened, some didn't. The actual death toll may be 2, and it may be 200. Hamas was firing from a civilian house, or it wasn't. WE DON'T KNOW. If we don't have actual facts, or statements agreed upon by both sides, we just don't write it. Yes, perhaps WP will have less volume this way, but it will have a higher truth-to-noise ratio.
I've been editing in this article for a few days now, and I watched it turn into a maelstrom of questionable newsflashes and aggressive decisions about notability to support certain views, populated primarily by editors (possibly unknowingly) representing one side of the conflict, some of whom vehemently and aggressively object to most views opposed to theirs, and resulting, unfortunately, in a subjective WP article. Is this what we would like WP to be?
Please take a minute to digest.
Rabend (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I see a lot of merit in what you are saying as a general challenge to the approach many editors are taking but bear in mind that the neutrality of this article is under review and without citing specific instances nothing much will happen. However, statements like "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to." sort of undermines your argument for me because that notion is founded on highly questionable assumptions about western (or asian, arab etc) media, their agenda, their ability and their reliability. You only have to consider interesting theories like the propaganda model and others, look at mediawatch sites, read reports by organisations that attempt to access these things using deterministic methods and these matters become very unclear indeed, at least to me. For example, a user the other day used phrases like 'it's common knowledge', 'the reliable news sources I watch are only talking about Hamas's violations of international law' (and bear in mind these are sources that Wiki regards as reliable too) and so forth to attempt to justify something that simply did not concur with majority views of the reliable sources. Having lived in both the US and the Middle East it's pretty clear to me at least where he was going wrong in his approach to research. Nevertheless, we have our guidelines and need to stick to them. As I said, without citing specific instances nothing much will happen. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gaza and especially Hamas (like Al-Qaeda or any extremist group) are FAR FAR from the western standards. It's a completely different world, and judging it and comparing it by western standards is simply counter-productive (and very productive for Hamas), and they are using it. For example, look at the video section of the Palestinian Media Watch website. This isn't a propaganda web-site or anything - it's simply recording video broadcasts and categorizes them. Or see what things do they teach in schools as facts (Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and etc.). According to western standards, it's hard for the public to believe that people like Hamas will make up "Facts" such as mass murder, or use children as shields, or kill their own people to show the world how cruel is the Zionist army, or even just to stage injuries and deaths for the camera. But for their needs and according to their world-view, it can happen. Of course they'll never admit it, because they want the west to support them by condemning Israel. It's all in their best interests. There is nothing more touching than seeing dead people, right? Especially when they are the same family, and especially when you have someone to blame... And since it's been systematically done for years and years, today's public opinion is already captured by the terror groups. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Noemad, I'd appreciate it if you and others wouldn't WP:SOAP. When Palestinians are being slaughtered by the hundreds by the Israeli government and American weaponry, and people remind me of the greatness of "Western values" and how they are not shared by Hamas, I start to want to vomit, quite frankly. Thanks. Tiamut 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merely using the phrase "slaughtered by the hundreds by the Israeli government" reflects how biased your views are, probably as a function of what the media chooses to show. Excuse me for noting this, but can you seriously declare good faith on your part? Rabend (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted below, the views espoused by some the editors calling for "neutrality" here, themselves evidence bias. Excuse me for being horrified by seeing people with their organs hanging outside of their bodies, and children with heads blown off, for over two weeks now. If you can point me to a single article edit wherein I've allowed my emotions to interfere with the NPOV portrayal of what the sources say, I'd be very interested to see it. When I feel my temper rising, I hold off on article edits. We all have biases. I'd prefer we not air them in too much detail here and speculate as to one another's intentions, but instead focus on developing the article, making specific recommendations about how to proceed.Tiamut 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sorry but the words Tiamut used are entirely consistent with objective reality as far as the evidence indicates. Palestinians are being killed in large numbers by the Israeli government. This is a fact. It's not bias. Using the word slaughtered or killed or whatever makes not one bit of difference to objective reality. Let's not play with words here. There's too much of that going on. The killing of those men, women and children is the direct result of actions by the Israeli government. Tiamut did not distinguish between different categories of Palestinians. Yes, this is one aspect of something bigger, more complex with many actors, the words taste bad and many people don't like them but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't change the fact that Tiamut's statement is consistent with objective reality. Some things are simply inexcusable and this massacre, there I said it, is one of them. That is my opinion. So what ? If it doesn't affect a persons behavior with respect to their edits it's irrelevant. Let's focus on specific instances of apparent problems with the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If these words are consistent with objective reality, then obviously so is the 7-year-long Palestinian slaughter of Israeli civilians, yet I'm not pushing that murderous agenda. I was seriously questioning Tiamut's ability to objectively contribute to this article if his views are so defined by the narrative of only one side. But if he's sure he is capable of keeping away his bias while working on this article, then ok. 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

'the 7-year-long Palestinian slaughter of Israeli civilians?' Tiamut is always very precise in her language. She spoke of the Israeli government. You attribute carnage done by militant and secretive organizations (2002-2004 suicide bombings) to the whole Palestinian population. Reflect on whose sense of language is closer to the realities behind these respective barbaric acts. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the killing, slaughter or whatever of Israeli civilians is also consistent with objective reality. However, killing 1 person is not the same as killing 100 people and research will show you that that view is hardwired into the human brain (as well as the legal system of course). Representing objective reality (or at least a verifiable model of it) isn't a 'murderous agenda', it's what we're supposed to do here in Misplaced Pages to the best of our abilities by working together, setting differences aside and trying to follow guidelines. WP:UNDUE is also important here. Tiamut doesn't need me to defend her words but it seems to me that Misplaced Pages does. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Killing 1 person should not be different from killing 100. Have you ever actually experienced terrorism? It's the act and intent that matter, and intent is certainly implied when using the heinous word "slaughter". You don't slaughter by accident. If we go by intent, Hamas did the best it could in targeting civilian centers, often shooting rockets right around the time that children are brought to kindergartens and schools (incidentally, as it did today). They are not very successful, death toll-wise, since they are not very sophisticated with their firearms, and since Israelis have been living in shelters for quite some time now. Intent-wise, if Israel really wanted to slaughter the Palestinian population for some reason, it wouldn't send in troops to target only militants using door-to-door urban warfare, which puts soldiers at insane risk since Hamas boobytrapped just about every single house there. They would send an F-16 squadron with old-school bombs and be done with it in 3 minutes. I'm not trying to SOAP here. Just put things in perspective. Rabend (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure intent is relevant in practice. You can look at it the other way around. If the intent were not to kill civilians (as per international law) then there has clearly been a failure somewhere and the IDF would stop. They haven't stopped. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that the civilian deaths (either as a body count or as a percentage of the total number of Palestinians killed including militants) has not yet exceeded a threshold I assume the IDF have set. That is pretty chilling isn't it ? When some cattle are found to have mad cow disease the whole herd is slaughtered. There isn't any intent to kill healthy cows but they get slaughted anyway. We could have a nice chat about the various places in the world where I've seen both the kind of terrorism you mean and what I would regard as state terrorism, both current and historical but let's not do that. I have been to a Palestinian refugee camp as well so maybe I'm biased. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Earlier on, this article was much better. It wasn't perfect, being so new and so heavily edited, but it was reasonably fair to both sides. Now it is extremely one sided. It almost never even mentions the daily rocket fire. Four out of the five "Notable incidents" are supposed misdeeds by Israel. The "Timeline" section has been condensed to nothing. A huge section is devoted to "Humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, with no mention of the suffering on the Israeli side (whole cities paralyzed by rocket fire). Under "Alleged violations of international law - By Palestinian militants" Hamas's intentional targeting of civilian areas is painted as "maybe not legal, but that's their only way to resist" and so on. The actual criticism of Hamas is only really presented as "Israel claims". Half of that section is dedicated to people saying that Israel is lying, or that it's not, but Hamas's actions don't legitimize Israel's. Interestingly, no mention is made of the fact that Israel withdrew its settlers and forces from the Gaza Strip back in 2005, leaving the reader ignorant of that fact. That way, when he reads some quote by a Palestinian claiming the rockets are against "the occupation", he has no idea of how true or false the claim is.

Regarding aid and the blockade - no mention of the fact that whenever Israel did open the border crossing, Palestinians would send suicide bombers, fire mortar shells and RPGs at them, despite the fact that those crossing were operated for their own benefit. It's easier to just talk about the blockade, without bothering to mention those facts.

The background section starts with the cease-fire, despite the fact that Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel for 8 years now. The Planning section says planning started a year before the cease-fire, but the reader has no idea why. Why would Israel plan it so early? Was it just craving to kill Palestinians? Because he wasn't told of the rocket fire before, he cannot understand any of the reasoning.

I'm not saying everyone working here is actively trying to bias the article towards their side, but really - take a long, hard look at this article, and think if it actually fairly represents both sides, or whether it makes an effort to paint Israel as a blood-thirsty goon, trying the kill Palestinians for absolutely no reason.

Seriously, this is becoming a propaganda article.

okedem (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem and Nomaed, thank you for sharing. I really felt like an inconsequential minority with my opinion, and thought that maybe I just turned paranoid. What you're talking about is exactly what I meant. The context, which is horribly distorted here, and the basic cultural differences that allow pure terrorists to easily and mercilessly manipulate the western press repeatedly, and thus manipulate WP, and thus manipulate the opinions of the naive reader.

Sean.hoyland, you're right, maybe not much will happen. But the direction that things have taken here suggests that maybe less is better. I'd rather have WP be more concise than full of info that is subject to manipulation and we have no real way of verifying, and is out of context, as the editors above commented. Rabend (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also 2 further points

• we're approximately monkeys so don't expect too much
• take this research and this version into account which I in no way endorse. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I bet there's also a high correlation with the target crowd of this new game... Rabend (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend: "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to." Part of the problem, Rabend, is that these "full-disclosure standards" exist only in theory. In practice, Israel consistently blocks media access. Here in the U.S., the corporate media -- what[REDACTED] depends on for WP:RS -- tilt their coverage strongly in favor of Israel, because they do not want to offend sponsors and readers. The pro-Israel supporters here try in every possible way to get criticism of Israel suppressed. They even attack the U.N. and the Red Cross. Their bunker mentality causes them to distrust and discredit everything that is not 100% adoring of Israel. They are beginning to sound like the notorious "Baghdad Bob": Believing their own propaganda and seeing nothing else, they become divorced from reality. The rest of us are beginning to desert their sinking ship. Our first loyalty is to the human race, not to a foreign power or ideology. International law condemns aggression and attempts to shield the victims of aggression and occupation. NPOV does not require us to pretend that there is moral symmetry between the aggressor and the victim. Israelis and Palestinians alike are victims of an ideology of colonialism, war, and ethnic supremacy. As the wall of censorship collapses under the weight of the Gaza corpses, more and more of us are becoming free to state this truth. NonZionist (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with some of the viewpoints put forward by the editor above. However, as Sean said above, I think it is essential to put forward concrete and specific examples of insertions that they feel are biased. There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page and I hope we continue this discussion in a fraternal spirit so that we can come up with something that is neutral and well sourced. Second, I understand that several editors have a vague feeling of discomfort with the 'tone' of the article. One possibility is that the article is not neutral. However, editors should also examine their own preconceptions. For example, Rabend states that "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to" which Boris seconds. Now, this makes me wonder if these editors want a neutral article at all. It seems that the demand is that we should start with a preconception -- that Hamas and its activities are less legitimate than the IDF -- and proceed from there. I think this is a POV and cannot be accepted. In any case, it is completely understandable that individual editors have strong views on a topic. However, I feel they should still judge whether or not a source is neutral and reliable. Quotations from Palestinian Media Watch have appeared on this page, with Boris stating that "this is not a propaganda website". In fact a quick look at their website reveals this summary of the conflict: "TO UNDERSTAND the causes of the Gaza conflict, it is essential to understand the Hamas ideology. Hamas presents itself as an Islamic supremacist movement... However, whereas many religions and cultures believe that their own traditions represent messages of truth, Hamas believes that this supremacy of Islam obligates them to commit genocide, literally to exterminate millions of people who have different beliefs, including the Jews." I think it is obvious that this is a very biased source with an agenda. I feel that to improve this article we need to avoid relying on sources like this and imposing our preconceptions. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Fisk,'I'm tired of hearing,' The Independent 10/1/2009 Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a common theme on I-P pages - that articles here must be biased if they rely at all from information from the Arabic or Asian media; and/or from The Guardian, The Independent (Nishidani, what are you thinking with the above link?!), CNN or even Haaretz; and/or from whichever academic, political writer or organisation is the latest to be singled out as "not reliable", "not notable", "not an expert" or whatever. Sometimes the person making this claim merely asserts it, sometimes they provide "evidence" of that bias in the form of links to material from CAMERA, Palestinian Media Watch, HonestReporting, NGO Monitor, JCPA, Alan Dershowitz etc. Surely the irony of relying on any of the latter as objective sources to prove alleged "bias" or partiality cannot have escaped most people?

As for this page, creating a decent WP article out of a massive, ongoing news event in such a contentious topic area is always going to be a nightmare, but equally I think people are too quick to conclude that the content must be biased in some way simply because it doesn't match up with their world-view, and also seem to assume that everyone on the "other side" is biased while they of course are not. However proper neutrality doesn't equate to "agrees with what I think". The title of the section here provides some good advice for everyone here, but some of the comments or conclusions that have followed seem a little off-beam to me. For example if this page is going to be balanced, it would never equate what is currently being inflicted on Gaza with the occasional rocket attacks on Israel - that would be a totally false balance, even if it is something some editors wish to move towards. As for the idea that the media as a whole (and hence ultimately this article) are somehow being duped by the Hamas propaganda machine while the IDF/Israeli government view never gets a look in, well that's just preposterous. --Nickhh (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem lies with your claim that "if this page is going to be balanced, it would never equate what is currently being inflicted on Gaza with the occasional rocket attacks on Israel". Gazas have chosen to wage war on Israel, deliberately targeting the civilian population (and often firing on the very border crossing supplying them with food and medicine). In fact, all Gazans had to do to avoid this war, was to stop trying to murder civilians. I guess it too hard for them.

This is a war, with two sides, and motivations for their action. That sentence shows deep bias, the likes of which cause this article to look like it does. It is not your place to determine which side suffers more, or what is or isn't equal. Gazans fire rockets at Israel, every day, for years. Even though few Israelis die, thanks to warning systems and shelters (and not for the Palestinians' lack of trying), whole towns are paralyzed and people live under constant fear. Meanwhile, Israel leaves the strip, but then partially blockades it due to Hamas's rise to power (as this organization vows to destroy Israel, mind you). During this time, Israel also tries to kill Hamas members, occasionally hurting civilians. After a very long period of time under rocket fire, and after the breakdown of the cease-fire, Israel decides the rocket fire must stop, and goes to war. You may not think it is justified, but it is not your place to judge. okedem (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention that several of Hamas rockets fell on kindergartens and schools within Israeli towns in the past week. Several rockets were fired from Lebanon across the Israeli border damaging a nursing house for elders. These events ended in minor casualties because the Israeli civil defense authorities closed all schools and kindergartens in southern communities as a safety measure, and trained the citizens as to what to do when a rocket falls near them. Pointing the finger at Israel by counting the number of bodies on each side is very wrong. Had Israeli government been less responsible and left its citizens unprotected, the number of casualties among Israeli civilians would have been high. The fact that Hamas government in Gaza declares a war, but regards civil defense as redundant, is nothing to be proud of on the Palestinian side. DrorK (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the people of Gaza receive no instructions regarding safety from Hamas. They say they watch the Israeli civil defense instructions on TV, and try to do the same. Indeed, if Israel wants to be considered the good guy, it should probably keep the schools open, and lock up all shelters. Then the bar graphs will seem more favorable. okedem (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, on a point of language. 'Gaza(n)s' don't fire rockets into Israel. Hamas, the administrative power, and some fringe groups, fire rockets into Israel, as Israel fires rockets into the Gaza Strip. Hamas has at best 20,000 men, and rules 1,500,000 Gazans. Israelis don't fire rockets into the Strip, the IDF does, which is a branch of Israel's government. etc. 'Palestinians' aren't, again, 'trying to destroy Israel'. Hamas and Israel are at each other's throats, esp. now war has broken out. No one in the real world, let alone the IDF, believes that Hamas, that it has, as a tinpot army with backward weaponry, every move of which is traced by intense satellite and aerial monitoring, the ability to 'destroy'the fourth most powerful or efficient military machine in the world. Gaza has been under military occupation for almost four decades, and under blockade for some two years, and, apart from the truce, has suffered infinitely more casualties from IDF fire than Israelis. Of course, Israelis are right to sense profound fear and anguish. Of course Gazans are right to ask why the 1/5 kill ratio that stood for decades, is now 1 to several hundred, and they are still being blamed, and collectively punished, while on starvation rations, and under continual sonic booms all night for years, for disturbing Israel's otherwise thriving society.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem: "Gazas have chosen to wage war on Israel". Do you really believe this?! Take a closer look, please. You will find that Hamas started calling for a ceasefire way back in January 2008, and in mid-December 2008 called for an extension of the ceasefire.

"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

Okedem, do you really not see the context for the firing of the homemade rockets? Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a huge "concentration camp" (as the Vatican spokesman and many others put it). It bombs the camp, shells the camp, raids the camp, and kills Palestinians indiscriminately -- men, women, and children. How can you expect people not to respond to this staggering injustice? Be glad that the Palestinian "response" is as ineffectual as it is: Instead of condemning Palestinians, you should praise them for their amazing restraint.

If you are not aware of what Israel has been doing in the Gaza Strip, you need to inform yourself. See, for example, John Pilger, "Silent About Gaza", 18 Jan 2007. NonZionist (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is how you see things, I am confident that you don't live anywhere around the Middle East, you have no actual knowledge of what's going on or who the parties really are, and that all you do know about the conflict is filtered through intense Palestinian propaganda. Your mere username speaks volumes, and drives me to do just the opposite lest I waste my time in vein efforts. Rabend (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how military aggression -- mega-terror -- improves things in the Middle East. Just the opposite: It seems to make things far worse. U.S. aggression in Iraq transformed a secular regime into a Shiite one, and Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip may effect a similar transformation in Egypt -- see Michael Slackman (2009-01-10). "Ordinary Arabs fume over Israeli invasion". International Herald Tribune / New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-10.

Second, please tell us more about this "intense Palestinian propaganda". Here in the U.S., the Israeli propaganda effort is suffocating and all-encompassing. Palestinians can't even BEGIN to compete. They don't have the resources, the spokesmen, the access, the pressure groups, the money. the influence. Please be serious. NonZionist (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm serious. The propaganda doesn't necessarily come from lobbyists. It comes from within Gaza, thru Hamas's cynical use of Palestinian civilians, or other lies, to make it look like a genocide. Much like Hezbollah did. Rabend (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually compared to recent historical articles, Intifada etc., composed a good time after the event, this is not doing too badly. I'm surprised given the intensity of edits and of editorial interest, that it appears to have shaped up fairly well. Of course it will undergo thorough review. A good many notes are repetitive, or from minor sources along side mainstream sources, and can be weeded out. Some are to audio links which usually drop dead after a while, etc. I can see the point being made by our Israeli colleagues. The problem is not with a lack of balance in editors, but in the nature of the conflict, which has two imbalances. (a) Most reportage is from outside of Gaza, and there is an official embargo on journalists entering Gaza, so we have to deal with mainstream reports written in Israeli, Europe and the US mainly (a pro-Israeli bias however does exist there: I live in Italy, and the government channels run daily comments by Claudio Pagliara, who gives the correct balance, 2 minutes for Gaza, 2 minutes for Sderot, Ashkelon, while talking of the suffering caused by Hamas), as Fisk points out. (b)On the other hand, the nature of the war means that Israel's action are going to receive the most coverage, since Hamas can only fire off 30 odd rockets blindly, which mainly hit the 'Negev', while 24/7 helicopter gunships, satellite and drone reconnaissance planes, IAF jets etc.patrol the strip, and fire and bomb sites that technicians identify on their monitors as harbouring Hamas militants. I.e. by the very nature of the battle, Hamas's main purpose is to survive, and hide until a ceasefire, whereas Israel's is to root them out by intensive bombing. There appears to be very little actual fighting of the traditional kind, gunfights that last hours. That is why reports will focus on precision tactical bombing on an urban area, which is incessant. They have no reports of Hamas units in action, and won't have any, by the looks of it. The damage being done, by the nature of the competing strategies, will be mostly done by Israel, perhaps indeed that is Hamas's gameplan, expecting T.E.Lawrence to come in, as he did at Damascus, survey the stench and carnage and yell 'Outrageous!' to the world. If so, they have miscalculated. Whatever, I repeat, it is not because we editors have striven to give a Palestinian POV to the text, the effect of concentrating on Israel ensues from the fact that Israel's IDF is virtually the only visible actor in the battle of Gaza, given its immense control of the field of fire, and overwhelming technological and firepower superiority. The bias is in the reality. I don't mean to WP:SOAP, but provide some light on the reason why what is not very POV, looks POV from the Israeli side. Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the two reponses which followed what I had said merely proved the point that people need to take a step back out of their own perspectives, focusing as they did on the impact of rockets on Israeli towns. No one really disputes that this is not a good thing, and nor does anyone dispute that the aim (as stated) of the IDF assault is in part to stop these attacks. However when it comes to describing basic events in the conflict, as I said, accuracy and balance will inevitably lead to more space being given to the massive damage being inflicted upon Gaza at this moment, even if one believes that the IDF assault is justified or whatever, or even if you believe that a school containing civilians seeking shelter is "fair game". --Nickhh (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting how people seem to be forgetting that Hamas is Israel's enemy here and that Hamas is insisting on continuing to fight. It is not as if Hamas is an innocent party, never attacking innocents. In fact that is about all they have attacked. I guess we have forgotten (or wish to) that Hamas has been responsible for killing Israeli (and other) civilians in hotels, dance halls, restaurants, buses, school buses, etc etc? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one have not forgotten most of that, nor do I see much evidence that anyone else has either. Nor, finally, do I see what any of that has to do with the specific subject matter of this article, or to the question of whether this article is biased and unbalanced or not in terms of its content. --Nickhh (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing how this relates to the article is overlooking the context in which the conflict is taking place. These numerous, incessant acts of terrorism by Hamas terrorists targeting specifically civilians in Israel are precisely the reason Israel had to close the borders with the Gaza strip, making it impossible for the suicide bombers to reach population centers. You can't just ignore a major cause of the conflict. Rabend (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two contexts, not one. According to this report, which refers to inside diplomatic negotiations, Israel promised to break the economic blockage as part of the truce, while admitting it had no intention of maintaining the terms of that truce. The suicide attacks within Israel attributable to Hamas do not refer to the recent period, but to the 2002-2004 period, when civilians in the Palestinian areas were also constantly killed by the IDF. Israel made a truce with Hamas when these suicide bombings had long ended. That is the context.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of reality you're talking about when you refer to "two contexts". There is one history, and that one includes Hamas carrying out numerous terrorist attacks. The reasons why there weren't any successful ones by it in recent years are the constant activity of Israeli security forces and increased obstacles between Gaza and Israel, stopping daily attempts from Gaza and the West Bank. And I mean daily. That's why Hamas had to take the approach of airborne terror, which the Israeli security forces have a harder time stopping, and which is much more effective in inflicting terror. Rabend (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please read the evidence on the page so far. If you wish to show that Hamas unilaterally broke the truce, that a 98% drop in rockets did not ensue after the truce agreement was agreed to, and that Hamas did not threaten to arrest whoever broke the terms of the truce, nor repeat to Israel its williness to renew the truce if Israel would abide by its original undertaking to stop the siege and open the borders to commerce, then you may have a point. There is no evidence in the sources for what you assert. Unless you can document your charges, these remain mere opinions.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of forgetting, read Ernest Renan's seminal essay. Nations are forged by remembrance and forgetting. You are forgetting everything Palestinians remember, and remembering everything Palestinians would prefer to forget. We're obliged to remember, as edit in, what both sides forget. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(To Rabend et al) I understand exactly how it relates to this conflict and how it is part of the context, but that's a different and much broader point. And of course the "context" to this conflict includes 101 other things as well, some recent and some not so recent, which don't necessarily reflect quite such a simple narrative. I would like to think that i) my not being Jewish, Arab or Muslim (or Christian); ii) my not living anywhere near the conflict zone (and not really knowing anyone who does); and iii) my not being involved in political advocacy for either side here, allows me to be a little more detached and to see things with some objectivity. --Nickhh (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh, I agree and disagree. I agree that your detachment can certainly help make this article more objective. However, actually experiencing the history (short and long) of the conflict also helps in painting a more complete picture. In this case this is particularly important, since the context, which is not really mentioned here appropriately, is crucial to understanding where both sides come from. Don't you agree? Rabend (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy: "I guess we have forgotten (or wish to) that Hamas has been responsible for killing Israeli (and other) civilians." No, we haven't. But memory is very selective: I guess you have forgotten that war is mega-terror, and that Israel, in making war, kills 10 to 100 TIMES as many "civilians".

"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", Guardian(UK), 30 Jan 2006

"92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number."
-- Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007

Of course, you do not see this side of the story: The "bunker mentality" instantly suppresses it and shields you from it. What remains is a context VACUUM, where Palestinians act for no appearent reason, out of "Sheer Spite" perhaps, or because they are "Inherently Suicidal" and have a "Death Culture". All of these bogus "explanations" are like Ptolemaic epicycles. There is a much simpler explanation: Israel, the dominant military, economic, and political power in the region, is the sun, around which everything revolves.

Finally, memory is always a few steps behind reality: Israel is attacking a Hamas that no longer exists. The attack revives cycles of violence, and thus brings terrorist organizations back to life. Israeli policy could not be more self-defeating. Israel's number one enemy is Israel itself. NonZionist (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I find your continual soapboxing disruptive. Why would we take seriously your attempt to find common ground when your very name reflects bias? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this article has an anti-Israeli bias. Some people seem to think that stating facts, like putting the casualty figures from each side in the article, is biased. Its not anti Israeli to state that more Palestinians than Israelis have died. Its not anti Israeli to give more weight to war plane attacks that are killing 50 Palestinians a day than to rocket attacks that 'lightly wound' 5 Israelis a day. And its not anti Israeli to mention that 43 people, mostly innocents, were killed in an attack on a school. These are facts, not opinions.

In fact I've even noticed that most mention of incidents such as the shooting of the UN aid workers has been removed. There are more pictures of Qassam rockets than of Israeli attacks. There is more mention in terms of the causes of Qassam attacks than of the Israeli blockade and air strikes. If anything I'd suggest there is a (slight) pro-Israel bias.

But, given that people are suggesting it's biased both ways, I'd suggest the article is pretty fair. And given the circumstances, I'd say that's quite impressive.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, while I respect your opinion, I am at a loss to comprehend statements like "I have no idea what kind of reality you're talking about when you refer to "two contexts". There is one history, and that one includes Hamas carrying out numerous terrorist attacks." While we may have differing personal views on this conflict, I think the least we can do is realize that there are several possible viewpoints on this conflict, not one. The point of writing a neutral article is to appreciate and accurately report on these viewpoints with sources and evidence. One cannot start from a perspective that there is "one history" and expect to do be objective. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob2718, I also respect your opinion, but mine is that there is one objective history, and our article should reflect it to the best extent that is feasible. I don't believe that viewpoints should really enter the article. Unless we don't mean the same thing by this word, in which case I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. I think that lessening the impact of an important part of history/context in this case is something that should not be done. Rabend (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think[REDACTED] can decide on "historical truth". It is doubtful whether any such thing exists in any case. Moreover, the issue of historical truth goes beyond Misplaced Pages's mandate. Misplaced Pages documents what is prominent and verifiable. I think so far the article has done a fair job of that. If I understand correctly you would like to frame this article within a specific historical meta-narrative. That is impossible on Misplaced Pages, almost by construction. best, Jacob2718 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• the Advantage as said above of the English wiki is that it's viewed by a large and diverse audience, not so much with her sister, the arabic wikipedia, this lead to many opinions on the En one, against nothing on the Ar one. --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree there is such a thing as 'objective history' that history is not necessarily what the Israeli govt says. I see no reason to believe what the Israelis say about the situation and not believe what the Palestinians are saying. It is ALL propaganda, which is why we should explicitly give the source of any claims, on BOTH sides. Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist made a very thoughtful and assertive response. I would like for it to be read by all parties involved, both in this page and in the conflict itself.

I will only add, that if this article is not clearly pro-Israel it will be looked at as being anti-Israel(that is the standard). Editors with common sense and a shed of dignity shown by NonZionist above, should keep this in mind when looking at this article. Cryptonio (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to read all of your comments. Basicly, I also agree with the initial assertion that the article has turned to be drastically unbalanced against Israel. That said, I don't see nothing to be excited or mad about at this time. We, like the rest of the world, are in a fog of war due to IDF media restrictions (even though I think these restrictions should be lifted, many people seem to ignore the very strong arguments made by the IDF in favor of the restrictions: in the 2006 Lebanon was there were no restrictions what so ever. Journalists openly reported IDF advancements, and IDF columns were consequently trageted by Hizballa. This is a direct lesson from that war. Also, I have yet to read any comment criticizing Egypt for not letting reporters in). The current quality of the article is a direct result of the fact that ALL reports coming out of Gaza are made by, or based-on, Palestinian sources. The article couldn't have turned to be nothing else. I suspect that once cease-fire is in place things will become much clearer, and that the article will see some significant editing at that time. I think we should all keep out stamina for times when WE WILL ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING. Take care, all of you.--Omrim (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out two things. First, the fact that both sides claim that this article (or any article) is biased against them does not in itself provide any evidence that the article is unbiased; one or both sides could be right. Second, the best we can do is reflect our reliable sources as accurately as possible. Those sources as a collective may exhibit systemic bias, but there's nothing we can do about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of us have never quite got over the way the Iraq war was, as it is now thoroughly documented, authorized by a massive government public relations claim that convinced most of the world, and papers like the NYTs, that Saddam Hussein had anthrax, WMDs, al-Qaeda links etc.etc., and was an existential threat to the world. Result, we handed over the only Sunni secular regime to Iran, swapping a vicious, if decaying dictatorship, which accepted all UN terms, for a fragmented swamp of statelets, given to chronic civil war in the future, and geopolitically, now subordinated to a neighbouring Shiite mullahocracy on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. So if we are very very wary of what the press reports from authorities of nations in war, whatever the source, we have very good grounds for it. Israel did this in the invasion of Lebanon, remember. No government is exempt from the manipulation of 'facts' to obtain public or international consensus for its own obscure geostrategical designs (Begin's war in Lebanon began on a pretext, when a truce had been upheld with the PLO for several months). With the net, one can at least trawl for the best sources, and wiki obliges us to use them.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously governments, even democratic ones, spin certain facts/lie, and not just during wartime. One of the jobs of reliable sources is to deal with that, which is part of what makes them reliable sources. "Papers like the New York Times" are, according to Misplaced Pages policy, one of the best reliable sources, second only by peer reviewed studies, which are, of course, in short supply in real time. By the way, the Shiite mullahocracy you mention is alleged to have a hand in this conflict, a allegation which - last time I checked - does not appear in the article, though it's getting hard to keep track. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the gist of okedem's statement above. This article used to be reasonably neutral but is now biased against Israel on a macro as well as micro level, to the extent that it is looking less and less like an encyclopedia article on a conflict and more like - I don't know - a meticulously sourced blog written by "IhateZionists". My favorite example is that Israeli attempts to warn Gaza civilians of attacks are included in the "Israel public relations campaign" section. This has been the case for how many days now, and nobody sees enough of a problem with this to fix it. (I can't make edits until autoconfirmed, so nobody accuse me of whining.)Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Taking a moment to agree with okedem and jalapenos. As somebody who doesn't have enough stake in the conflict to want to take the time to edit the article/feud with a couple of "non-Zionists" who seem to be almost exclusively editing the article, I concur that the article has an anti-Israel bias and is slowly creeping towards the point of being near-useless as an encyclopedic piece. Kaylorcc (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

People who are ardently support Israel's actions and find no room for the perspective of the Palestinians will find this article biased, but if you actually look at it the worst you can say is that it accurately reflects the sources. 50-50 balance in words in favor and against one party do not make the article unbiased, or we would have to give equal time to holocaust deniers as we give to actual historians. Because an article allows for an opposing viewpoint other than the state of Israel's, while also allowing for the Israeli argument, is not biased, one that completely dismisses one of the the sides would be biased. Nableezy (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

THe article should reflect the common sense fact that you have the fourth largest and best armed military in the world attacking - 500 - 1500?? - guys with crappy little rockets that do relatively little damage/killing compared to Israel's massive bombardment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaylorcc: "a couple of 'non-Zionists'". Are you referring to me? I've done very little editing here: It is better that the actual editing be done by others with a broader perspective. I contribute mainly here in talk, by trying to balance the extreme pressure applied by those who make the Israeli regime their God, Lord and Master. "Non-" means "free of", as in "non-biased", "non-ideologue" and "non-fascist". I wish to be free of ideologies of war and ethnic supremacy, ideologies that go against American founding principles. Is that so bad? NonZionist (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Asymmetric warfare. In asymmetric warfare, there are bound to be inequalities. It is also hard to balance coverage in these cases. We talk about the humanitarian crisis amongst the Palestinians, but about a crisis amongst Israelis. Is this biased? Of course not. Palestinians have suffered far more than Israelis in this conflict. Another example: in the "International law" section. We have sources defending Israel from allegations that it has violated international law, yet we have none that defend Hamas. Is this biased? Of course not. The attacks by Hamas, considered terrorist by many, are clearly wrong, while Israeli attacks are less so.VR _talk 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing on this, the attacks by Hamas are considered terrorist by many, but also considered legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation by many others. I dont think in a situation this complicated anything is clear. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The position of Israel's supporters in this discussion is that Israel's killing of hundreds of civilians in this conflict is largely blameless, because civilians were not targeted, whereas Hamas' killing of a handful of civilians is somehow vastly more evil, because civilians were targeted. This is a poisonous philosophical argument, as I don't believe the dead civilians care much either way, and especially in light of the fact that it is impossible to divine any group's true motives, especially at a time of war. Let us stick to the documented facts from respected sources, and leave the moral arguments to the historians. cojoco (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read everyone's comments here and I have to say that you are smart people with interesting things to say. However, my conclusion is that, like the jury swop in the Al Capone tax evasion trial it would perhaps be better if we all stop editing this article and hand it over to the people who only edit the Brazilian football articles. You know it makes sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to take issue with Nableezy's gross misrepresentation of the bias alleged by me and others here. Nableezy begins: "People who are ardently support Israel's actions and find no room for the perspective of the Palestinians will find this article biased...", as if this allegation is made by people who think that only the Israeli perspective should be shown. Three people have pointed out that only a few days ago this article was reasonably neutral, though from its beginning it has had quite a few active editors focused on presenting the Palestinian angle. I, for one, think there are plenty of I/P articles on WP that are reasonably neutral, precisely because they show the angle of both sides in an encyclopedic framework. It is this article, at this point in time, that I have a problem with. I agree with VR's statement that balance does not mean 50-50 coverage, especially in an article on assymetric warfare. I agree, for example, that the crisis in Gaza is considerably more severe than the crisis in Israel, and I would expect it to be given more weight (though maybe not to the extent of quoting almost an entire UN document on the subject word for word). My problem in this case is that the crisis in Israel isn't mentioned at all. I and others have cited many other specific examples of bias (and I could go on and on, if I got into the micro level). Nobody is obliged to respond to this allegation, but please don't dumb down the discussion with mischaracterization of other's positions. And, Sean, your suggestion may be a good idea in principle, but we all know it's not going to happen. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Google News has 18 links for "crisis in Israel", and 5,549 for "crisis in Gaza", so Gaza does appear to be where the world's attention is. The article List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2009 is cited early in the article, and does provide statistics about the attacks on Israel. However, I agree, there isn't much info about how the conflict affects Israelis, other than the number of casualties: how much time do Israelis spend in bomb shelters, how many Israelis are affected, and how does it affect their daily lives? How do these numbers compare with the residents of Gaza? cojoco (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for leveling any allegations of bias. I was not trying to allege any bias, and while i stick by 'people who . . .' will then find that this article is biased, that is not say that everyone who finds bias with it is in that group. But the comment was overly general, and I apologize for misrepresenting you or anybody else. Nableezy (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of desultory comments being seeded over the talk page recently that this began even handedly as 'neutral' and then degenerated into an anti-Israeli screed. That looks like a tactical set of insinuations to challenge it. The page has been intensely edited from the beginning, accusations of bias have been with us from the beginning. Throughout, overall, it has managed to achieve a certain balance. The impression is one that comes, as others have said, from the fact that we have only reports of Israeli actions, which are massive, differentiated in nature, continuous in hourly impact, in what is an asymmetrical war where no newspaper representatives are allowed in to report what is going on on the ground (where no one can move without being shot at). Apart from 30 odd rudimentary rockets being shot off, unfocused, into the 'Negev' mainly, there is nothing else. The bias is in the nature of the war, occasional rockets against massive firepower from an overwhelmingly dominant army of invasion, as others have noted. That does not entail judgements of right and wrong: it simply reflects the nature of an asymmetrical war, and the asymmetric reportage ensuing on the IDF's refusal to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court ruling, which effectively means everyone is reporting from abroad, from Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"That looks like a tactical set of insinuations to challenge it". If I understand you correctly, you're saying that nobody really means it when they say that the article used to be reasonably neutral, they're only saying it to lend credence to their claim that the article is currently biased. Sigh. I won't march out WP:AGF, I'll only mention that I wrote on Thursday that the article was reasonably neutral at that time and I praised the Misplaced Pages process for it. Why would I have said it then if I didn't mean it?
"The bias is in the nature of the war". Nobody is denying that this article deals with a conflict where one side enjoys a clear conventional military superiority over the other side. But look at articles on other, more "boring" conflicts of that nature, which the editors do not particularly care about one way or the other, and you'll see significant differences, many of which have been cited in this discussion.
"Where no newspaper representatives are allowed in". I can't see how the lack of reporters in Gaza could possibly justify the Israeli perspective receiving too little weight. If anything, a dearth of reporters in Gaza and a glut in Israel could justify the Israeli perspective receiving too much weight, i.e. the reporters would report on what they see, and we, following WP policy, might reflect their bias.
Finally (and this is not a particularly original observation), bias in this article results not only from editors assigning disproportional weight to certain facts, but also from actual ignorance of facts. For example, you imply that Gazan actions against Israel are not "continuous in hourly impact", when, in fact, they are: schools and businesses are closed, and many are practically living in bomb shelters, not to mention continuous psychological impact, etc; I am not implying that this impact is as pervasive as the impact on Gazans, merely that it exists and is significant. Let me be clear: I believe that there are editors here (and in all contentious WP articles) with selective blindness towards both "sides". Presumably, some on each side are self-critical and trying to balance themselves, and some are not. I happen to think that in this particular article, at this particular time, the "anti-Israel" editors have a greater effect on the article than the "pro-Israel" editors. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that from day one people have been arguing about pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian bias while editing this page, that from day one, depending on what snapshot you choose to take of the flow of edits on the page, which is never stable, you can argue one side or the other. I suggest that rather than repeating this charge, we stick to specific editing issues, debating POV and achieving consensus. Vague generalizations on the page cannot be answered, especially since, from one hour to another, upwards of 20 edits may change both sides' impressions of overall bias.

My comments here are one thing. My edits another. I am not editing in my opinions. Gaza is a closed scrap of land whose total population, 1,500,000, is under physical attack and has suffered 4,500 casualties. By comparison with it Israel is a relatively large state by comparison, whose 7 million people, most spread beyond the range of Hamas's dinky rocketry, have suffered, let us say, 200 casualties, mostly light wounds. If you have some knowledge of actuarial practice make the relevant calculations on the rationality of feeling one is in mortal danger of being killed for both populations, as opposed to how one feels watching intensive and panicky television broadcasts from the safety of one's home 24/7 on the war down south. I am not an anti-Israeli editor. I am an editor who works on articles dealing with Palestinians, of whom there are two regulars, making sure that articles predominantly edited by Israelis do not misrepresent the Palestinian side. I never edit articles on Israel. To be pro-Tibetan, by analogy, does not mean one is 'anti-Chinese', particularly for someone with my background.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA

"UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF..." AND the UN "knows" this how?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is called speculation or assumption. You know ASSuMing = Making an Ass out of You and Me. Don't we expect better out of the UN?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The United Nations 'know' that they have provided GPS co-ordinates because they are the organisation that have given them to the IDF. What do you think the 'UN' in 'UNRWA' stands for? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh, what the fuck are you talking about? This is clearly mentioned in a formal and official UN paper. Damn, People want to even begin arguing in that? --Darwish07 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

UN = Useless Nations?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe really the truth hurts you. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you forgotten, it is well established that the UN, ICRC, HRW, AI, ICJ, CIJ, and the truth have a well known anti-israeli bias? Nableezy (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And the media too, forgot that one. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the Amnesty International, and Save the Children Alliance. They are all anti-Israel bastards. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

By AI I meant amnesty, but you right I forgot save the children. Nableezy (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Following this logic to it's concluson, that means that every other civilization on earth that doesn't consider blowing yourself up and specifically targeting Israel civilians to be a legitimate form of poltiical resistance or electing a poltical party into office that does must have an "anti-Palestinian" or "Zionist" bias.

WanderSage (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No shit, that is why we were joking about the logic, because clearly non of those organization have an anti-israel bias. Nableezy (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But I would say that every government that refuses to recognize a democratically elected government has anti-democracy bias. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page references

1. http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf

Please discuss before you remove casualty figures from the Lead

Despite extensive discussions that support the inclusion of casualty figures, from both sides, in the lead someone persists in removing them. I would like to refer these editors to the discussions here and here. Several editors felt that the human cost of the war is its single most important consequence and this should be mentioned upfront.

I do not intend to start another discussion here; merely to point out that it is inappropriate to remove this paragraph (which is well sourced and reflects an established talk page consensus) without either an edit summary or a note on the talk page. Moreover, I wish to bring this to broader attention: others who are following this article, please watch out for further ninja edits of this kind. thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition: This was removed by User:WanderSage, here. The corresponding edit summary reads, "Once again, superflorous information in the lead article. The final article is for the UN ceasefire. Please see discussion if you wish to reinstate"

I was unable to find a corresponding message on either the Lead Talk page or here. The UN ceasefire is not relevant to the casualty figures and this information is definitely not superfluous. I respect the fact that individual editors have differing viewpoints on this issue, but the reversal of a talk page consensus requires discussion. Posting this here to bring this to everyone's attention. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the casualty figues were irrelevant to the UN ceasefire, which was the focus of the paragraph the figures were tacked onto. If you wish to reinstate these numbers, please create a new paragraph and rephrase them in a way that doesn't have POV connotations. WanderSage (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would hope all involved editors would oppose and revert the arbitrary removal of properly-sourced content that has talk page consensus for inclusion. RomaC (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Background: Israel rejected mid-Dec Hamas ceasefire offer

Gareth Porter reports that Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire in mid-December and Israel rejected the offer. Porter cites "a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.".

The proposal to renew the cease-fire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza. Gareth Porter (2009-01-10). "Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-10.

This casts even more doubt on the Israeli claim that its Gaza slaughter is a response to homemade rocket attacks, and lends support to those who contend that the current aggression against Gaza is simply the next phase in a 100-year-long campaign of genocide. NonZionist (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Antiwar.com probably would be challenged as not adequate to wiki rules for reliable sources. They carry it from Inter Press Service, and the Huffington Post would probably be better. Worth checking to see where Porter's piece was first released. As to 100 years of genocide, I thin you should check the language. One hundred years of making all of Palestine a homeland of the Jewish people means you have a massive problem with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the original inhabitants were Arabs or fellahin Palestinians, and the project always entertained the hope or policy of transfer by dispossession, or emigration via despair. Not genocide. Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk of 'genocide' is hyperbole. This is all about Israeli politics. Kadima want a good military victory to erase memories of the less than glorious Lebanon War from the minds of Israeli voters before the election on 10 February 2009. There are now reports of differences in the Israeli cabinet as to whether this stops as a security operation or continues to full re-occupation of the Gaza Strip and the overthrow of the Hamas regime. Watch this space. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism. I will strike "genocide". However, I agree that elimination of the native population has been the aim from the start. Zionists advertised Palestine as "A land without people for a people without land". When Jews arrived and found that Palestine was in fact populated, the "solution" was first, to deny reality -- e.g., Golda Meir's statement that Palestinians do not exist -- while using military force to bring reality into accord with ideology. NonZionist (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the review. One more point. Zionists were a very complex mix of people and ideologies. Quite a lot of them who, through choice or necessity, came to Israel, did not embrace Herzl's vision, and were quite happy to live side by side with Arabs. Some of the most poignant critiques of that Zionism you, like I, deplore, comes from deeply patriotic Zionists, from people as different otherwise as chalk and cheese, Nahum Goldmann and Uri Avnery, for example. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely true! This, in my opinion, is the worst sin the opponents of Israel make: They condemn all Zionists, or, far worse, all Jews, indiscriminately.

Unfortunately, the Zionists who rejected Herzl lost out to the Beginites. Many prominent American Jews, in a 1948 letter to the NYT, characterized the Begin Zionists as "fascist" -- see also wikisource: 04 Dec 1948 letter Unfortunately, the Israeli peace movement cannot compete with the dominant Zionist strain, because the latter has a $3,000,000,000-per-year advantage, courtesy of Uncle Sam and AIPAC. NonZionist (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel cease-fire arrangement, according to a "U.S.-based source" who has been "briefed" on the proposal". Care to provide a known and clear source for the information? Who is that "briefed U.S. source" - Joe the Plumber?

Porter identifies the source as Dr. Robert Pastor:

The readiness of Hamas to return to the cease-fire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Center, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the cease-fire that had been in effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza."

-- Gareth Porter (2009-01-10). "Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-10.

NonZionist (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, having read the article, that Pastor is the source. I wished to know where Porter, the author of the piece, first published his article. The more mainstream the source for his article, the stronger the probability of it being accepted in these pages.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the suggestion. Here is another source: IPS: Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December.

• I have always found antiwar.com to be a reliable source. However, it does not give uncondtional support to the Israeli government, and since we do not want to offend pro-Israel subscribers, we are required to pretend that antiwar.com is not reliable. I do understand the politics.
• I believe, however, we need to push back the envelope, if we are to maintain what little freedom we have left, so I hope I can continue to cite antiwar.com as a preliminary source, while looking for connfirmation elsewhere. As the "mainstream" media are seen to be in Israel's pocket, more and more people will turn to the upstream media and the internet. I believe that[REDACTED] will eventually have to reach an accomodation with these independent news sources! NonZionist (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Porter's article, sourced to the Huffington Post. This is quite an important document for the background, and should eventually be harvested for the light it throws on it. Hamas, it is argued, actually accepted to renew the truce in mid-December. See Diskin's remark. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

'The interest of Hamas in a ceasefire agreement that would actually open the border crossings was acknowledged at a Dec. 21 Israeli cabinet meeting -- five days before the beginning of the Israeli military offensive -- by Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet. "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce," Diskin was quoted by Y-net News agency as saying. Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza -- its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy -- even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.'

Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Diskin quote is so important that it belongs in the Background:Extensions section, in my opinion. What do others think? NonZionist (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, NonZionist. You and I both know that Israel has the technology to kill every Palestinian man woman and child in the West Bank and Gaza, ten times over. If Zionism ever had any genocidal intent, there wouldn't be any Palestinians, as I've never heard of a people with a population growth rate 2 to 3 times higher then the people who are commiting genocide against them. Using genocide to describe the Palestinian-Israel conflict not only diminishes your credibility as an editor and exposes a distinct misunderstanding of the conflict, but cheapens the word and insults every Rawndan, Jew, Bosnian, Armenian etc. who have faced systematic slaughter with the aim of eradicating their ethnicity from the face of the earth. WanderSage (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hamas leader accuses Israel of Gaza holocaust Tiamut 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gaza Under Siege:JUST: Sue Israel for genocide and Enough is enough Tiamut 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually Tiamut, I am a bit annoyed by your comments, not because they are pro-Palestinian but rather since they are well sourced, coherent and convincing. As a pro-Israeli commentator it compels to re-visit what I believe to be true in this conflict. Obviously you excel in research, method and logic. This time however, I must say I find your examples weak. The fact that others also use genocidal terminology doesn't add nothing to NonZionist's credibility. Rather, it diminishes theirs as well. Ascribing the State of Israel, as a whole, with hidden genocidal motives - i.e. that while claiming to try not to harm civilians Israel actually secretly plans to wipe the Palestinians from the face of the earth - falls very short, in my opinion, from trying to re-validate the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Omrim (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Omrim. I've gathered from your comments on this page that you are Israeli, that you have sensibilities I appreciate, and that you've shown remarkable open-mindedness during what must be emotionally charged times. I should say I'm Christian and from India. In my opinion, the State of Israel does have a vested interest in making life as miserable as possible for the Palestinians, with a view to forcing them off Palestine. Israel was after all, founded on land stolen from the Palestinians. The very house you live in, Omrim, is probably built on land taken from some Palestinian family, who've likely been forced to live as refugees for more than 60 years - why, they might very well be suffering in Gaza right now! "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", that's all bullshit of course. But these are simple truths. I can't help wonder how you reconcile with these facts --vvarkey (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Omrim, though Tiamut does well to draw our attention, without comment, on the use of these terms in some sources. Non-Zionist struck out the word 'genocide' when I protested, so further comments are inappropriate. Baruch Kimmerling coined a word for what is happening, Politicide (Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War against the Palestinians, Verso, London 2003). In the introd. he defines it thus:-

'By politicide I mean a process that has, as its ultimate goal, the dissolution of the Palestinian people's existence as a legitimate social, political, and economic entity. This process may also but not necessarily include their partial or complete ethnic cleansing from the territory known as the Land of Israel. '

This process has a very long, explicit, and strongly documented history, and is what is occurring in Gaza and the West Bank. Always distinguish. Some sources, even prominent (among them Kach, and Kahanists still active in places like Kiryat Arba, or Arnon Soffer, who advised Sharon on what Israel must do in Gaza), have spoken of what is effectively genocide. They are minority voices, and in the pure calculus of power, genocide is unnecessary, since effectively the tightening stranglehold is effectively achieving politicide, which just means Palestinians will survive, but without an identity, without a land, much as the Jews did after Bar Kochba. In fact, I'm rereading Josephus, Tacitus and other sources on Titus, Vespasian, and Hadrian campaigns in Palestine. This is all so eerily familiar. Israel is doing to Palestinians, what the Romans did to the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine, who refused to accept the establishment of a foreign power, its culture and its peoples on their land. WP:SOAP, of course.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vvarkey, you can't really use the "they were here first" argument, since several ancient reports (bibles and such) as well as archeological findings show that Jews have lived in this area for thousands of years. I'm not gonna start hating the descendants of the Babylonians for conquering and exiling my ancestors. During the 20th century many lands there were legally purchased by Jews. Further, the UN decided to create the Jewish state in that area in 1947, alongside an Arab state. I think all these arguments support the right of Jews to live in that area, alongside Arabs. As for making life miserable for Gazans as a policy, I doubt that this would make them leave. Several Arab countries already rejected Palestinian migration into their territory, so I don't think they'll accept them now. Thus, this proposition sounds a bit bizarre. If you ask the vast majority of Israelis, they will tell you that they have no special interest in that strip of land, nor do they mind Palestinians living there, as long as the latter don't terrorize them. Rabend (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*

10 pages of archived talk? In 1 week? These talk page blowouts are going to last as long as the real war, and be just as bloody. Personally, I'll be happier once both sides either grow up, or totally destroy each other. Maybe then the rest of us can have our planet (and wikipedia) back. Honestly, this whole thing is more complicated, more pathetic and attracts more fanaticism, hatred and firepower than that userbox deletion thing that I came across while perusing through through 'Hstoric Debates section. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

..there's a real war ? i thought it was just a chat room. damn it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish both Israel and Hamas would battle it out here, and this way avoid civilian casualties on both sides. I'll see what I can do... Rabend (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we? Or is that cheque I just got signed خالد مشعل‎ going to bounce when I bank it on Monday?Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is going to take that seriously (and it probably would bounce, they havent been given the aid promised them as elected govt of the PNA) Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza wikichat... I know, I know it will be the last... at least until the next :D--Cerejota (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent opinion on Alleged violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces

I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the consensus is. It was discussed. The provisory consensus was he did not match up to wiki criteria of notability. I checked Gary Grant, who graduated in 1994 as a barrister, is not on record as dealing with international law, has no academic credentials in that area as a specialist or authority, who deals in civil and criminal law cases in England. It appears that AlJazeera asked a Jewish member of the bar in England for his opinion. The opinion he gave was not framed in terms of international law, did not cite technicalities, but simplyt expressed his private view. There are thousands of lawyers throughout the world who could be asked the same question, and we could then stack the subsection with their views. None of those views holds nauthority or interest unless they are expressed by people who have a public record for authoritative knowledge about what they are speaking of.

In these things we normally choose the best specialists, to avoid opinionizing by non-professionals being cited, something which lends itself to POV stacking.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware Gary Grant was jewish, it changes everything! How do you know, could you point to the direction of the source of this information? Al Jazeera English presents him as "Gary Grant, international law expert" here and used his services in the past about other international conflicts here . So the fact is that Gary Grant is expert enough and notable for Al Jazeera English. I'm pretty sure that Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are also jewish !!! I suspect they are even Israelis :)

I think that Gary Grant opinion should be referenced, I was not convinced by your reasoning. At least could we reflect some other international opinion that Israel actions are Act of Self Defence, for instance current US president probably is notable enough and hopefully not jewish. Bush is not the only world leader who thinks so. Though I'd prefer it to be professional opinion and not political one, since we talk here about law and not about politics. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Grant International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists

AlJazeera just asked a Jewish barrister in London his opinion. It doesn't matter to me whether he's Jewish. It matters to me that he is not competent, as Falk and the other two are. Look at his legal work. There is nothing there to do with international law. I don't have to convince you. But you do have to create a new consensus if you wish to plunk it in, and if you do, you will open that page to a large number of edits interviewing nondescript Arab, American, Uzbeki lawyers saying they think it violates international law. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh, half the anti-IDF statements were removed cause of people arguing that it was WP:UNDUE to include all of the that. NOW, if people gonna return this un-notable Gary Grat opinion, I'm going to return all the other statements deleted from a lot of other countries officials and security councils meetings. NO. People deleted a lot of anti-IDF yesterday cause of UNDUE, so No more pro-IDF will be added unless the old anti-IDF will be returned. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, let us include Gary Grant! And maybe even George Waterboard Bush! NonZionist (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No way this should be included. Gary Grant's only achievement in life is having talked to al-jazeera --vvarkey (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a[REDACTED] procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Government opinions are political opinions reflecting national interests, as any one party perceives them. Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast, and the public polled to register the effect. International law is an area where professionals debate intricate issues. If we wish to be informed about it, we do not ask politicians, or newspaper editorialists, or barristers in London, or Arabs or Jews or whoever. We consult men with a distinguished record. The three gentlemen we have already are all Jewish, and disagree on this question, as the proverb tells us to expect. We cite them because of their eminence as professionals in this area of law. We do not challenge them for their ethnic background, which is irrelevant.

If there is a difficult issue you feel strongly about and want to press into the page, then make a suggestion on the edit you wish to do, and wait for other editors to comment. When several agree on it, or come to a compromise, this is regarded as a consensus, and means that, when you edit that compromise in, or consensual verdict on the text, in, it can't be erased haphazardly, since it is the result of collaborative work and agreement, unlike most edits.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast,"...classic. Thanks for that one, most excellent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pal, if you collect'em, I think you'd prefer, as I do, Nietzsche's dictum: 'Public opinion is the absent of private opinions' or something along those lines. I think it's in 'Human, All to Human', but read it four decades ago, and can't quite vouch for the phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 and copied everything from this section to it. I wasn't sure what to leave behind in summary on the main page. Please discuss the move here; it may be that people think it should be moved back; but I decided to take action as the article was getting too long. I think it is an important section so hopefully this arrangement will be satisfactory. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No please, this is a core part of the war and where most of the media focus has been on. WP:NOTPAPER. The situation is clearly emphasized by a lot of media and reports that the small paragraph you put instead of it give the issue no fair. There have been other long articles on @ikipedia by the way. Examples: the Holocaust and Pink Floyd. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest instead that "the Humanitarian aid deliveries" section be abridged cause this micro-detailed list of aid is not very usable to Misplaced Pages since even the UN and others said that it was a "tickle of aid" and a "pitiful gesture" --Darwish07 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwish07. There is far too much one-off or hot-heaqded editing without consensus in here, making keeping track of what's worth conserving and what needs weeding out, extremely arduous. Editors who have worked hard should collaborate in making sure these constant one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information be reverted, until those doing it come to heel, register in here and talk with everyone else about why they are editing in one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough if everyone wants it back, I have no strong opinion on the matter. In my defence, this wasn't a "one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information". All the info was retained on the new page. Furthermore, a number of people have called for something like this to be done for about a week, and I hadn't seen anyone speak out against it. It was actually a considered move. But its fine if people don't agree, as I said above - where I also pointed out that I do consider this an extremely important issue.

I understand. The problem is that we tried hard to make the paragraphs on humanitarian crisis section as abridged as possible. Any size smaller than that will omit critical facts from the situation, making the paragraph a not-complete and an unfair encyclopedic reporting case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, do you think we should link at all to the new article(Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009), or just delete it?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just delete it to avoid redundancy. If some one want to add a lot of extra not-mentioned facts, he'll create the page again anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas fires missiles during "humanitarian corridor"

During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Hamas continued to fire during the three hour daily truce or from a Humanitarian corridor? Superpie (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporters and the Israeli Supreme Court

The last few sentences in the lead claims the Supreme court ruled blocking reporters from enter gaza was illegal but the cited reference specifically states the court did not rule on this topic, instead making a suggestion of a compromise. I recomend the sentence be editted to reflect this. Does anyone have a different opinion or a source with more detail on the courts actual statement?

This source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3_dkukPxeaK15_zQviIWnwfKIpQ states it clearly: supreme court ordered journalists to be allowed in. The sentence appears to have been removed however.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Regarding this edit. Unfortunately[REDACTED] doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.

May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR _talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary" also isn't a reason to remove images.VR _talk 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the image was too large and badly misplaced. Please don't start personal attacks and let's just act like cordial human beings. It's bad enough that some people are killing each other.--23prootie (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is also unsourced and doesn't have a copyright. And the uniforms, are these really civilians?--23prootie (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of images do you prefer? I don't think you will find an image of Palestinian children handing out flower bouquets to Israeli soldiers. We are not going to sugarcoat what the Israelis have done and if the truth affects "the naive reader's judgement" then so be it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer ones that are not of dead Palestinian kids that were alive until a Hamas terrorist forced them to be his human shield. These are not my favorites. Rabend (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the Palestinian kids that were killed at that UN school? Oh wait there were no Hamas militants there, but Israelis slaughtered those kids anyway. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Rabend (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The scary unsourced one, that's really creepy.--23prootie (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we could not find a more innocent/rosier looking image of the slaughter. If you can find one, please let us know. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary" and "creepy" are arguments to be thrown out the window.

As for sourcing, what source are you exactly looking for. Please note that images enjoy certain exceptions to the policy of souring and original research. See WP:OI in that regard.VR _talk 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo was removed again, inspite of this discussion. I've replaced. --vvarkey (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And again. Still no discussion upon removal. cojoco (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also being talked about down in #Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture Nableezy (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a different image. I translated the Arabic caption on the original image using http://translation.babylon.com/Arabic, it it came up with

"The Gaza massacre December 2008 dozens of Palestinian policemen dead after the bombing of all Palestinian security headquarters in the Gaza Strip"

So I think it would be safe to say that they're policemen cojoco (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, there are like 4 image discussions going on, got mixed up. (think it is time i weaned myself off my wiki-crack) Nableezy (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it again. 23prootie removed it with the comment "Week of air strikes: better if the image is about women or children, overcrowding hospitals or the UN being target toget more symphathy votes, alsowhy aren't Israeli victims shown?" cojoco (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Graph for dead and wounded

I have created this graph to show dead and wounded. Please make any suggestions and upload it in the casualties sections. Maxipuchi (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the number of "militants" on the Palestinian side from?VR _talk 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source (as indicated at the bottom of your graph).VR _talk 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MY EYES!!! :D This is too big and shiny, besides I restate my opinion that these types of charts are better for the end of the events, fog of war and all that. But you guys seem intent on it so go ahead...--Cerejota (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Israel managed to kill hundreds of Palestinian militants without wounding any. And by "odd", I mean it makes me question the integrity of this data. — PyTom (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how many Palestinian wounded are militants, we dont have a source that reports it, and hence the green. But there should definitely be an explicit mention of being unable to independently verify the claims and what 'uncertain' means Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use this graph (and frankly, I'm not sure it's all that useful, especially shrunk down to the point where it can go in the article), it might make sense to reorganize it a little. Perhaps it makes sense to put the unclear casualties between the military and civilian, and shade it in either a neutral color, or with diagonal stripes of the two other colors. — PyTom (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this chart. I suggest another one broken down by the number of women, children, and elderly killed. Please see Half of Gaza dead 'children, women and elderly'. Jan. 11, 2009. RIA Novosti.

Please upload this to the Commons. It can be categorized in

• commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties

Please see the upload link on the side of that page. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo from another Wiki

This photo was taken by and submitted into public domain by user Tiflet. So it is free to use. This is to supplement not replace the photo from the Arabic Wiki. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good one, assuming it's really his. But I played around with it and couldn't get it to format. Does it have to be moved to en. wiki? CarolMooreDC (talk)

Based on a response I received on another pic, I think we would have to upload pic from other wikis to the eng Wiki in order to use those pics.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I tried uploading it to commons and it's there already. So you wouldn't have to upload it to the eng wiki commons. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF posing as Hamas militants

• Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men Where should such info go? Tiamut 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Next to the one describing Hamas militants disguised as IDF soldiers which would be right next to the report on Hamas militants disguised as doctors and nurses. In sum, I think neither should be in.--Omrim (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think is called "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza rumor mongering", its all in the fog of war :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting, although with a clear statement that it is largely unsubstantiated. The false accusations that both sides make against the other are just as important to note as the truthful ones. Both influence the conflict and the people in them. Perhaps a new header? Superpie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is largely unsubstantiated, then it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. We should not become a news dump. Rabend (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pro-Israeli photo added with silly caption added by user:Mbz1

"Side by side and the world apart. While the demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a caption is definitely inappropriate. Unless the image is edited to remove or change this description, it should be taken out of the article and possibly deleted completely. I think the image would be fine, if the caption was changed to something more neutral, or if there was no text at all (since the file page already has a description as is). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Already changed it. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the description associated with the file's page has been edited, the image itself includes a caption that needs to be cropped (since it's not text that can be edited). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought this issue to the talk page and lodged another complaint about how the article is becoming increasingly pro-X. It's not like there was anything you could have done about it, like, I dunno, cropping the image. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that image was to make that point. It's just confusing otherwise. I'm putting up some more tomorrow for people to choose from. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh I cannot the crop the image because um the article is locked. An um I can not change and upload the image because it is not mine. And I have a problem with the image itself, as it clearly put together to compare the protesters. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: it's not like you could have signed up for an account, downloaded the current image, and uploaded the edited image. Anyone with an account on Commons can upload images, and anyone can overwrite someone else's image. -- tariqabjotu 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction, I would still have to wait 10 days so that my account can be autoconfirmed and even had I opened an account 3 days ago, I would still be limited to voicing my suggestions in the talk page where I still have to deal with annoying sarcastic remarks.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone with an account on Wikimedia Commons can upload images. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not hearing me out. I am not advocating the cropping of the caption. I am suggesting that the picture be removed in its entirety! I don't have the capabilities to remove and add another picture on this locked article and that is why I "lodged another complaint" on the talk page. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this silly picture. It's clearly trying to promote a point. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn that. As if the IDF is trying to promote piece by killing and injuring thousands of people mostly women and children. Cute trick Mbz. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, please stop SOAPing. These statements are just your personal opinions and are irrelevant, at best. Rabend (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like to see yourself in a mirror,User:Darwish07?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the last version of the image was OK, and there's nothing wrong with including it in the article, since the inappropriate caption was removed. Plus, even the thumbnail quality was improved. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if the protests are related, and if they are protestting in favor of the attack to bring Shalit back I would think it is, it can stay in the article, if it is not related, if this was from a demonstration from before the strikes, it should be removed. Im sure there are pictures of pro-israel demonstrations, if this is one of them then I think it would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The silly caption has been sneaked back in. I dunno how to revert images, can someone take a look? if the creator of the image objects to it being modified, let's delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to revert to the other version of the file within Wikimedia Commons, but was unable to do so. I was probably not doing it the right way. (I've never dealt with that domain before.) So, I agree with Vvarkey - either the caption needs to be removed anew, or the image should be taken out of this article completely. I personally think the last version was OK, because it didn't have any captions within the image itself (so wasn't biased either way), and was actually of better size and outlay than the original. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of my image with no caption at all.After all the image speaks for itself and leaves no doubt who wants two state solution and peace and who wants the destruction of Israel and war. I hope this is going to be satisfactary.Here's a new caption:"Two demonstrations regarding the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.The images were taken on the same day, at the same time. The demonstrations were located across the street from each other". The image is not pro Israeli, the image is pro Peace, pro friendship and against the war and against the hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More subpages/move material since size expanding

1. That huge aid table should be its own list or part of Humanitarian aid for Gaza? Article has slowed down terribly since put in. Doing minor clean ups and can't even clean up my mistakes quickly it takes so long to load!
2. Incidents: there are/ will be eventually so many that needs own page anyway
3. Casualties as well, unless put together with incidents. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture

This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is relevant to this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, there have been recent demonstrations in Israel in support of Gilad Shalit, so those can go in the "Reactions" sub-article. --Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also deleted the picture and someone returned it back. This one need to be reported for clearly violating the 3 edits rule. I'm no longer permissive with people after all this shitty arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's irrelvant and politically motivated. But the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This image on the "Gilad Shalit" protest has returned. I'm going to remove it again. In fact, I left a message regarding this on User:Mbz1's talk page more than 12 hours ago here. In addition, there was discussion regarding this image yesterday with Jandrews. Apart from the question of relevance, User:Mbz1 has not provided any mainstream media sources that report on this protest. when was it held? Why is it notable? Despite the fact that these images have been reverted several times, User:Mbz1 simply claims that "If they are removed, I'll put them back". In my opinion this is inappropriate. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by Israelies, by hamas.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it doesn't belong here.

i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.

as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! It is entirely relevant. The fact that there is another article on him is completely irrelevant. Just as there is a photograph of Muhammad al-Durrah on that page as well as on the Second Intifada page. I seriously question how relevancy is being established here on the basis of POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Nature of an Image

(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"

Misplaced Pages does not censor (as regards the snuff site comment), this was discussed above. Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's a matter of taste. Pictures of the body parts of Israeli infants strewn across a Tel Aviv street are not posted in the Second Intifada article, nor should they. WanderSage (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What photo of children are you referring to? That is a picture of slaughtered grown men, unarmed men. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a distasteful subject, visual representations of it will likely be distasteful. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose does it serve but to disgust? Anyone with any trace of humanity is going to be revolted by pictures of blown apart people, regardless of whether they are Nazis or schoolchildren. In this sense, it is POV as it appeals to raw emotionalism , while the purpose of this article is to describe and give context to the conflict in neutral detail. WanderSage (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be replaced. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not necessarily saying that it needs to stay, but the argument that it should go because it will 'revolt' some i think shouldnt be accepted. That a distasteful image is used in a article on about a military conflict in a densely populated area shouldnt be surprising. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the reader should form his opinions based on rational facts, and not highly-emotional imagery. Rabend (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah, so you're claiming that this picture isn't a rational fact, while the above picture of a group of Kassam rockets is one. Right!?? I call this information censoring, not rationality. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contest for which side is the cruelest, so stop trying to "win" all the time. I don't see a reason to post bloody images of qassam victims, since I don't try to win the world's sympathy thru sheer horror. The same goes to victims on the Palestinian side. These cheap tricks are degrading this site. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I'm just angry from some earlier discussions, so sorry. The fact is that even if there's a picture about Qassam's danger to house, we'll put it. It's not who win and who lose, it's that many in this world consider this a massacre, so the image is expected to be cruel and disgusting. Just as the other massacre images below. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, no problem. We are a little edgy over this war. Still, the fact that many consider this a "massacre", does not make it one. As you know, qassams/grads do not cause only property damage. They also kill. But I don't approve of posting a picture of a woman who was hit head-on with a rocket, her body parts all over the place. This doesn't help the neutrality/objectivity of this article, but rather mainly serves to shock the reader. The reader should be shocked by understanding the entire conflict, context and history included, and not by out-of-context horrors. Rabend (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually one of the less graphic photos depicting the carnage. There are photos of dead Gazan with dangling or missing body parts, you can't even out make out their faces. Being highly sensitive and squeamish myself, I would not have the brought up the pictures if the bodies were not intact. Articles discussing massacres/genocides/assaults wherever you call it, do have photos of the carnage, this is not the first and not the only. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The BobaFett85 captioned the picture with "...Hamas policemen..." where is he drawing this detail from? From his you know what. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely the fact that all the dead are in matching uniforms and wearing utility belts. WanderSage (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I translated the Arabic caption of the original image source, which also says "policement, and added the translation to the image. So I think it's safe to say they're policemen. cojoco (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can remember very well that those was the death of IDF attacking the Gaza police station. I'm not the one who put the "Hamas Policemen" claim, but I'll try to search for references that prove this claim. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-censored that image, but it is still available for the sic people who wants to view it. Ek!--23prootie (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While[REDACTED] does not censor, it also does not assume the role of a tabloid or a porn site where people can put anything anywhere they like. That photo doesn't even have a correct copyright tag. Its liscensing below:

The editor who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. Unless it is demonstrated that its creators have released it under a free license, it is likely to be deleted soon. To the uploader: if you want this image to be kept, you must at least provide a link to the source, so a more experienced editor can help determine its status. Please read the image use policy before making any more uploads.

This image does not have information on its copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless it is demonstrated that this image is under an admissible free license, it will be deleted soon. To the uploader: please provide at least a precise source (e.g. a link to the website you found the image on). A more experienced editor will then be able to help determine what its copyright status is. Without a source, it is likely to be deemed a copyright violation and deleted immediately. Please read the image use policy before making any further uploads, or ask for advice at the copyright questions noticeboard. This tag may be removed once a correct and truthful copyright tag and a source has been added.image with no license as of 2009-01-10 (CSD F4) Administrators: delete this file

--23prootie (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How old are you?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?--23prootie (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is NOT censored. This can be found at WP:CENSOR. Such debates have taken place in the past:
  • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where extremely controversial cartoons were a subject of debate (here). In the end it was decided that the cartoons will be displayed in their full glory.
  • Another related controversy is recorded at Talk:Muhammad/images. Once again it was decided, that no matter whose faith was offended, the images would remain, and won't be hidden.
  • Hiding images. Anyone who finds the image distasteful can configure his browser to not display the image.VR _talk 09:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. --vvarkey (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.

These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.

There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only important Sir when the Jewish community is suffering, so we can put around FIFTEEN ugly pictures of the holocaust victims. But when it comes to ONE picture of Palestinians killed, we say "EMOTIONAL", "PROPAGANDA", "The CNN STRATEGY", "eik", and "how can my cute little baby/eyes see this picture". I'm sick of bullshit arguments. This is bullshit, not logical debating, plain bullshit. This is the same bullshit as several points made in previous debates like that the UNRWA and Amnesty International is "anti israel" or BBC Arabic is not qualified as a source, or we should not say that the Arabs term the conflict as a massacre because "it's off the limit". Really, this is just clear nonsense. It's the same bullshit argumenting method people like Alan Dershowitz's use when he's debating with Norman Finkelstein. ENOUGH is ENOUGH. This is not about systematic bias, it is about blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, those images from the Holcaust are in the public domain as well, also you cannot seriously compare the current crises in Gaza to the Shoah. If this is Genocide, it is the most inept genocide in history. Simply put, there are more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank then they were when Israel was founded. Hell, there are more Israeli ARABs in Israel then there were Arabs in all of Palestine in 1946. Also, unless you believe in the Nazi ideas of the Jews, Jewish Germans and Jewish Poles did not blow up buses in Potsdam, Vienna or Kiel, Germany was not surrounded by Jewish neighbors who sought to annihilate her (all Nazi complaints that France and the Soviet Union were dominated by Jews belong in Mein Kampf and not reality). The situations are not comparable, and if Israel was as aggressive as the Reich, they could've occupied and not given up Syria and Jordan by now, having crushed them in several wars. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this issue becoming yet another controversy ? I really struggle to understand why on Earth anyone could seriously object to images on the basis of their graphic nature. Reality isn't propaganda. If we can get good images of the results of the actions of preferably both sides in this conflict we should probably consider ourselves honoured. And bear in mind that some of the external links are of a very graphic nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSED. I am opposed to the use of graphic images in regards to this conflict. The first reason is that the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime. The second reason is that these images are very rarely copyrighted, and the final reason is that they are both inflammatory and it is impossible to know which images are genuine from an ongoing conflict. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with Valentine Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with V. Joe as well. Rabend (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

V. Joe, regarding "the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime", can you supply a source to confirm that. I've not heard that before. I assume it's more complicated than that since there are photos of dead people in many articles in[REDACTED] as others have demonstrated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Current lack of images

Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Misplaced Pages is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No Sir, we'll be "emotinal", "CNN Method Conspiracy Theoretic" and "propagandistic". You want our lovely Misplaced Pages to aid the terrorist organization Hamas by showing the pictures??!!!! --Darwish07 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first that you were being sarcastic. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images should not be censored at all. This is an article regarding war, any reader will expect images depicting this. I would hate to see Misplaced Pages become a place where war is a fun game for all and death something like we see in the movies. Removing or censoring these images is very wrong. Superpie (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I agree that the use of the term is somewhat inappropriate, but I think that these sort of images can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only that, putting in graphic pictures in the middle of this war is not appropriate. The pictures' legitimacy has not been established. Just as France 2 recently had to apologize for putting out pictures of an unrelated incident from 2005 and claiming it belongs to this conflict, the pictures MUST be verified before we use them at wiki. Putting up pictures of this nature now is mere propaganda and should be left to news agencies NOT wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft

Once again Israeli airpower has been removed from the infobox. The reason this time is given that "the total number of aircraft deployed is unknown". Yet, the claims removed are sourced: a reliable source claims that 1,000 air sorties have been used by Israel, and that 60 F-16s have also been used.

I previously brought this up at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_11#F-16 but it was archived as no one bother to explain his/her actions.VR _talk 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1,000 air sorties - that's fine, worth to notice somewhere, but not in the info-box. Now, please try to understand, that Israel doesn't use exactly the same aircraft, or exactly the same amount of aircraft, on each day, on each strike. Read the source carefully: At 11.30am Israeli time, the first wave of 60 F-16s screamed over Gaza, launching missiles at more than 50 targets. It means, that on December 27, at 11:30 (the D-day) Israel used 60 F-16s (There were, actually, 50 jets - two squadrons - and a dozen of helicopters, but it doesn't matter now). What if on December 28 Israel used, let's say, 75 F-16's, not the same aircraft, but completely other? What about December 29 and so on? We only know, that IAF has hundreds of jets, and may use all of them. If you you want to write that the first strike 60 F-16s screamed over Gaza - I have no problem with that, but claiming that IAF used 60 F-16s throughout the whole operation, is ridicules. Flayer (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is not to claim that the entire number was used during the operation. It is to claim that that is the least number of aircraft Israel possesses to be used against Hamas. Look over to the Hamas side. The source doesn't say Hamas uses 20,000 operatives "each day". It only says that Hamas commands 20,000 fighters, not that it uses each of them every day (how can it? many have been killed since the start of the conflict). If the infobox is for "exactly the same amount of " on "each day" then the 20,000 Hamas strength should be removed.VR _talk 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel possesses hundreds of aircraft, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of howitzers, e.t.c, and uses some (we don't know how many) of this. Do you think we should write ALL of this in the infobox? :-D Flayer (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is pointless. Technically, we should list the entire IDF, as pretty much all units of the army are involved in some way. Rabend (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, of the 1000 or so IAF aircraft, different squadrons in different formations are all taking part in this. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Including F-15's, UAVs, not just F-16's.

Please leave the Hardware out of the infobox, it is ridiculous (I already said: it is ridiculous to include all hardware being used: F-15, F-16, Heron UAV's, AH-64 and AH-1 attach helicopters, Shaldag Patrol Boat, Super Dvora MK2 and MK3 Patrol boats, Saar 4.5 missile boats, Saar 5 missile corvettes, Merkava MK 3 and MK 4lbattke thanks, Tiger and Achzarit APC's - should I continue?) All are well substantiated, but do not belong in the infobox. If we include them we should also include Hamas' rockect arsenal (not only Qassams, but also Grads, Katyushas, and possible Fajr missiles, mortars, and the latest addition Surface-to-air missiles - not exactly "home made weapons". If enything these are all, MAYBE belong in the article (I think generic names like "attack helicopters" and "artilery rockets" are jusy fine), but not in the infobox.--Omrim (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Include all hardware, per Omrim, this is an encyclopedia we provide complete information. Perhaps Omrim could help with links to sources confirming the weapons listed. RomaC (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think this is not feasible. The IDF has many many units participating in this war. Instead, we can just link to IDF. Rabend (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Combining militants and policemen

The statistics about the number of Palestinian policemen killed, and the number of Hamas militants killed shouldn't be added for a number of reasons.

First, the sources for the two figures are different, making the addition like comparing apples with oranges.

Second, the policemen are listed as "combatants". Most were not combating anyone when killed. They were simply sitting at the police stations, some were new recruits on parade.

Thirdly, some have argued that the number be combined with civilians since policemen are generally civil servants. I argue to the contrary, however. Keep them separate so as to avoid confusion.VR _talk 07:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed . I've seperated them againJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The CNN strategy

I am referring to this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1149129&p=1

Should this be implemented into the article? --Johndoe789 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe789 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is an opinion/editorial piece, does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And by extremely pro-Zionist, anti-Hamas Alan Dershowitz. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I swear, Alan Dershowitz is Ossam Bin Laden, but in a tidy suit. If not sure, go read his books and articles. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless who wrote it, we have had numerous articles (really editorials) by numerous RS (BBC, CNN ...) that attempted to find some motivation for the israeli offensive. Consensus was that we do not use editorials to try to gain some hidden insight into either sides motivations, and we dont use opinion pieces for anything other than to reflect the author's opinion. This was early on so I would say it probably be in the first few archives. Nableezy (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This dude is the other side extreme. He's even attacked by Israelis themselves for his fundamentalist views. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And he approximately thinks that anyone who criticize Israel deserves a special place in hell. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a quick comment because people keep bringing up CNN related issues for reasons that are a bit opaque. Remember that CNN in the US and CNN <insert other region> are not the same and have completely and I mean utterly different content when it comes to events such as this one. Anything about CNN must take that into account. This is en-Wiki not US-wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Darshowitz is "notable" just fine. He is a Harvard Law shcool prof. If an Emeritus Porf. at Princeton is good enough, a current Harvad prof. is certainly good enough. Yet, if the nationalpost doesn't meet your standrads, I'm sure that The WSJ does. --Omrim (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What Sean said... RomaC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz is not a specialist in international law. His opinion as such is not notable. He is an expert in criminal law, and distinguished advocate for the defence, who happens to double as an advocate for Israel, an extremely partisan one, and, to judge by Frank Menendez's review of charges he plagiarizes sources, and Franklin Lamb's critique that he doesn't known much about international law, he is neither scrupulous in his use of evidence, nor informed about what he talks about (international law) when touching on I/P issues (independently, when reading his books, whenever I found him commenting on an area I know in depth, I noted he used bad or old sources, that have long been discredited. For this reason I tend to agree with his many academic critics). What he says are his personal opinions, such as his justifications for torture. International law condemns this, but he is entitled to argue, not as a lawyer, but as an opinionist, that it's okay if the US or Israel does it. We shouldn't have this kind of crap in, just because the fellow is notable. It's like getting Einstein's opinion on apples because Newton theorized after seeing one drop. He is adduced by Israeli advocacy groups because he is a famous person, a notable in the public eye, not because of his expertise in the area.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting frustrating. First, you removed Darshowitz with no consencus. Several pro-Palestinian editors agreeing among themselves to remove him is not a consensus. And to be specific :as an expert in Criminal law, I'd think that we would like to know what Darshowith has to say about international CRIMINAL issues. It's not like it is a tax attoreny's opinion... I guess you guys have a problem with the title "Harvard Law School professor" attached to a supporter of Israel, since it might undermine your Princeton friend's views. What you (or others) may think of his academic qualities is irrelevant to THIS article (Harvard law school seems to think he is just fine). If others have something concerete to answer to his current LEGAL opinion, please bring it forward. Also, the fact he is a strong supporter of Israel is hardly relevant. If you think it is, we should also mention Falk's previous statements regarding Israel. You know, just to put his current things (with which he went public ONE day after the conflict started, so I suspect he knew very little at that time about what's going on) in context. None of your arguments regarding the removal of Darshowitz (which were published in a highly reliable source - The Wall Street Journal) is even remotely compelling. HE IS A CRIMINAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FOR GOD SAKE. I WOULD ASSUME HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT --Omrim (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is addressed to me, then note from the archives that I said in my view he should not be there, but I would never edit him out personally. And I did not remove Dershowitz. Falk had a chair in international law, Dershowitz doesn't. It is not a 'legal opinion', i.e. one informed by area expertise, it is a private opinion by a 'notable' criminal lawyer, on an area he has never published in. Falk's statements are balanced by those of Wiener and Co. Put Dershowitz in, and you will get someone adding Franklin Lamb's cruel mockery of Dershowitz's ignorance of international law, a field in which Lamb held an associate professorship. And the stacking game goes on. We have two sources, Falk and the other two, who differ. Dershowitz adds nothing to this, but functions as 'notable' weight to unbalance the article (3 against 1 in Israel's favour). He knows, by the way, nothing about human rights outside of the US. There is a place for Dershowitz's opinions. On the wiki page dedicated to him. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't adressed to you personally, but to "you (plural)" editors agreeing among yourselves. It is very easy to edit without concecus, bt is doesn't respect many of the mutual achievements we had so far. I don't want to just put it back in with no discussion, but I am not intend to give quickly on this issue. If you say that Darshowitzh doesn't "add" anything, how about replacing Bell and Weiner with his opinion? Also, since when Human Rights Watch (and other NGOs) ARE experts in Int'l Law? by which qualifications?--Omrim (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of international law

The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs argues that Hamas violates the Rome statute: "Utilizing the presence of a civilian to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations." However, as the Israeli shelling of a school did demonstrate, the presence of a civilian does not appear to render it to be immune from military operations, and thus does not violate the Rome statute. This appears to be an amusing inconsistency. cojoco (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas violates the Rome statutes, then the IDF does. It has taken several years to argue before the Israeli Supreme Court that the persistent use by the IDF of Palestinians as human shields is illegal. The Court at one point agreed it was a violation of international law. The IDF persisted in the practice, even in 2007. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable source alleging the IDF to do so in THIS conflict? For the Hamas we have plenty, which for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Omrim (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite the sources. Who is close enough on the ground to know? It is a generic accusation that Hamas is positioned within civilian areas, as Haganah in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem under siege, was positioned on rooftops and houses in civilian areas, and told to shoot from there. This, as I said elsewhere, is just, as far as I can see, a Hasbara strategem, as repeated in 2006, where it was largely found to be untrue (different kind of battle), to insinuate Hamas are cowards for doing what Israel never does. Well Israel's IDF used human shields for more than a decade, against court orders. If Hamas is proven, as opposed to generic claims, to use shields in this way, by direct observation, then by all means edit that info in, hopefully from a reliable source. The assumption is, of course, that when you are under a siege, the honourable thing to do is to walk down the road, into the fields beyond your town, dig a trench or two under the drone photographing you in real time, so that when your adversary shoots, both you and he will not have ethical problems. No army in the history of the world has ever done that. Well, Leonidas did something similar, but . . .Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN:Any reliable source alleging the IDF IS DOING so in THIS conflict? I thought not, more baseless allegations by Pro-Hamas/Palestinian editors. For Hamas we have plenty, which seems to be there modus operendi and for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre" (again)

This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English[REDACTED] not al jezeera et al.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Information regarding Iran's involvement (if it exists) should not be kept out of this article if it comes up. There is some correlation according to a few sources. These are typically not balanced or concrete enough to warrant inclusion but I hope certain editors don't ignore it since it is such a disputed issue. A google news search (iran gaza -nuclear) comes up with a few interesting hits. Not saying it deserves a complete section or debate. I just wanted to throw it out there since it has come up in recent edits.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As you point out there isn't much reliable or neutral information about the role of Iran in this conflict. As far as I can make out, apart from public statements and condemnation, there is no direct involvement of Iran at all. The issue of what long term linkages, Iran has with Hamas is the subject of another article altogether. If we wish to discuss that, we'll have to create a section on "allies" of the belligerents which would, of course, include other countries and forces. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the involvement of Teheran and Damascus with Hamas is an established fact. The involvement of Tehran in all of this is probably why the Arab States (except the Syrian satellite) are providing far less support to the Palestinians then they typically do. This is most speculation on my part, but words to this effect will probably become plain after all of this has simmered down V. Joe (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fatah itself caught Iranian military agents with Qassam rockets in Gaza 2 years ago: . This is not surprising, as Iran has also been behind both Hizbollah and Shiite militants in Iraq. Rabend (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties in infobox

Someone has changed it so that it now says '550 fighters'. From what I remember, a discussion here decided that policemen were not fighters. What's more, the IDF is cited as the source for the 550. I don't agree that's a valid source - it could be propaganda designed to demoralise Hamas fighters. I propose returning it to what it was a couple of days ago:

• Hamas fighters(neutral source)
• Policemen
• Civilians
• (unknown) - not sure if necessary

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be best. I think "unknown" is neccessary, safer (in my view) to leave it in. Superpie (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians

Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk)

I would agree if we had 'civilian' totals, but all the sources say explicitly that the counts only include 'women and children.' That potential includes any women or children who are 'militants' and discounts any men who are 'civilians.' As it is, I think it would be incorrect to substitute the wording the sources use in relation to the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. In this kind of fighting it may be impossible to distinguish fighters from civilians, so that "women and children" are the best proxy for "civilians" which we have. The effect on neutrality may be hard to judge, as this may under-estimate the number of civilians. cojoco (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent but since the numbers are primarily estimates a few (at least percentage wise) off is not a concern. The deaths of women and children have historically been held in a different regard then those of men. I believe the consistent use of those terms impacts neutrality but still needs to be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.88.215 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009

But we have no idea how much off the numbers of 'women and children' would be with total civilian. Up to 100% of the women and children could conceivably be 'militants' and up to 100% of the men could be 'civilians.' If we can find a source for civilian then we should put that in its place, but we dont have any sources that give a 'civilian' casualty count. I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that. Reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceivable yes but not probable. All fun debate aside I don't think anyone truly believes the scenarios you laid out. Sources need to be used but turning an eye to what is reality while allowing an article to become increasingly less neutral is more of a concern than what exact term is used. Women and children are not the focus of this article. Women and children have a greater impact on the reader. There will be a proper place when we are not dealing with estimates and preliminary numbers. It should be there but not at such an extent. Also, is the breakdown of women and children often used in the casualty tables of other military conflicts? (not trying to be contradictory or snide with that last bit) Edit: "I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that." Totally reasonable by the way but I think we will start running into more encompassing numbers pretty soon. Sounds OK for now.

I dont even believe that the scenario is true, just trying to show that we cant say that 'women and children' == 'civilians.' I would ask anybody else with an opinion to either concur or object to the idea me and person above me agreed to, namely: 'a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that' Nableezy (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And once we have some sources that report the 'civilian' count, I'm all for having that as the standard without qualification. Nableezy (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuous pro-Israel editing of International Reactions page - what can be done?

I just had a look at this page. It's obviously not getting as much attention as this one and as a result people are getting away with much more biased editing.

Pictures of anti-Israeli protests are continuously removed. There are pictures of pro-Israeli protesters throughout the article. There are even pictures of protesters calling for the release of Gilad Shalit, though this is unrelated to the particular incident.

There is an enormous list of "anti-Semitic violence" almost none of which can be linked directly with the current incident.

It would be great if people would keep an eye on the page. I know a few people are doing so already. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wander over there from time to time to see if anyone is playing with my stuff over there. I'll broaden my looking :). Superpie (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a box on that talk page like the above about Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions I'll put one up. Gather evidence of specific editors engaging in 3rr, editwarring, constant POV editing etc and you can complain directly to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement since this already has been arbitrated. They can be sanctioned with blocks for period of time or from the article entirely. Same with this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Is Eurovision really relevant to this article?! 80.176.88.21 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Not remotelely. Superpie (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasteless photograph

I've read the comments above and while agree that there are special and unique circumstances where horribly gruesome images may be permitted, I still don't think it adds anything to the article besides "shock value". It doesn't fully highlight the human suffering of the people of Gaza as oppose to Hamas. I would prefer if the image would show the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children, for example the incident in Zeitoun where children where left starving beside their dead mothers. I'm sure that would satisfy most of your violent fetishes. Also, there are several instances where an image might be gruesome and yet tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood) or Pietà, for example.--23prootie (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Why aren't gruesome photos of Israeli soldiers included, if Hamas has publicity then so should they.--23prootie (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Gazan policemen can be regarded as "real victims" of this conflict. They were policemen, not militants. I also resent you describing a desire to see truth and reality represented for what it is as a "violent fetish". Misplaced Pages isnt here to make violence "tasteful and classy", it isnt here to be aesthetically pleasing. In my view, choosing images which represent death, violence or suffering in a light which detracts from the real pain of the event is distasteful and irresponsible in the extreme. I've spotted a few pictures from the Israeli side, but they're copyrighted unfortunately. I shall keep looking. Superpie (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

for undue weight purposes, the ratio of dead on each side should match the ratio of photos/article space that those facts are given. just because the images offend you isn't reason enough to have them removed. as referred to above, images of muhammed offend muslims, but those aren't censored. Untwirl (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this statement. Who said the measure to be used is the number of dead, and that should determine the percentage in the article that this side gets? I think that the measure to be used is years of experiencing terrorism directed at civilians, in which case we should write a lot more about the Israeli side. Or maybe we should count who's more guilty. And then what? There are two sides with victims in this conflict, and both should be represented equally in images. Rabend (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is there are better photographs that are less controversial that best represents the conflict. And that is not one of them. Please see the statistics, almost a third of the victims are children, and where are they in the article?--23prootie (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are no pictures of Israeli victims in the article. How can that be neutral, no matter how inhumane they can be, they're people too.--23prootie (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because an Israeli who took a picture of another dead Israeli could potentially be in a lot of trouble from his military superiors (if a soldier) or the local Police (if a civilian). Taking pictures of the dead is a war crime. V. Joe (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you seek out such images. Superpie (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

there are plenty in Google, like this one, for example but unfortunately, I am not an expert on copyright tags. An he point is that image has a pro-Hamas bias.---23prootie (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i thought your point was the "tastelessness" of the image. now it has a pro-hamas bias? we aren't here to provide "publicity" for either side, only to report info from reliable sources in a way which gives weight proportional to that info. if gazan deaths are 100:1 compared to israelis, it would be providing undue weight to give them equal time/space. Untwirl (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Im having a look on some of the public domain sites right now, the best images I have seen however are copyrighted (reuters has some very good stuff). We cant have all the images of Palestinian casualties removed from the article merely because there are not ones that exist of Israeli casualties. Superpie (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, these pictures have not been verified as factual. After the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy where mainstream photographs were pulled as false and actual propaganda, we should have learned our lessons. In fact, already in this conflict mainstream media has had to apologize for putting out false images. We should not go this route. Photographs of protests, fine. Graphic and possibly false photos, NOT. (I could upload my photographs of Bigfoot .) Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

per above: Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. These photos are as relevant as Holocaust atrocity photos as others have pointed out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust atrocity photographs have been verified and released after the war. It is inappropriate to use such "atrocity" photographs in the middle of this operation. We have no way in which we can verify that they are what it is said they are. Please see my comment above, re 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy as well as the recent France 2 blunder. Misplaced Pages is an enclopedia, not a newspaper

Are things really going to sink this low here, disputes over the images of the victims of war. I mean, think about it. It's quite disturbing. Yes, a discussion about balance is reasonable of course (and pretty tasteless) but many people keep ignoring WP:UNDUE and just assume some kind of equivalence of representation as if it's a right by default. It's been said so many times that this is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. That said, I really have no objection to a 1:1 ratio as long as the images relate directly to this event and faithfully represent reality. I don't think it should be 1:1 but if that's what it takes to get some reality into this article then fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't equivalence of representation be a right by default? Rabend (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the photos cannot be included in the article simply to score political points. They have to add genuine value to the article from the educational perspective. It's about the article not about people's political agendas. I think you're assuming that an image has some kind of score attached to it that acts as a metric of it's political value and then concluding that the sums of the scores must match. i.e. assume political motive -> assign political score to images -> calculate total scores for each side -> apply balance. Do you see what I mean ? It's wrong. It's difficult to remember this is an encyclopedia sometimes but when we're dealing with images like these we can't afford to get it wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These are protest posters and therefore some artistic license might be allowed. I definitely saw some that were well known photos from past Israeli atrocities; the ones I uploaded certainly might be Gaza and certain are what is happening in Gaza, unless the UN is lying. (Why aren't their guys sending out photos.) Do we need a copy of a verified Gaza photo or are you saying NO Gaza photos not released by Israel are verified since of course there isn't any media allowed in Gaza. But I guess it was hard to get photos of what the Germans were doing to their concentration camp victims before the end of the war, too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza holocaust

This is not a conflict between two equal powers as it has been portrayed here. Clearly one of the parties in the conflict is a punching bag. For this reason I suggest to rename this article the Gaza holocaust.--tequendamia (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at do not feed the trolls.--Omrim (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The equality of the conflict is not relevant, the article and its title must be NPOV. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Would all of those who have concerns about the lead as it is now written please be sure to put your opinion on the appropriate page--here: Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead. We are trying to determine if there is WP:consensus regarding the lead there and with the talk strewn all over hell it is difficult to get everyone in one place. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You dont just change shit that has been there for 3+ days, if you want to change it get consesnus first, Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner. Nableezy (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun Casualties figures

Most media outlets (CNN, NYT just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?--Omrim (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• 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
• Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status as of 11 January 2009