Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

File:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG (under Campaign >> Attack on Gaza)

It says "War on Gaza" - I know it is highly debated wether this is a war, massacre, conflict etc, but shouldn't the text under the photo reflect the name of this Wikipedia article? If the article name is changed so will the text under the photo, but currently it's still called a conflict and not a "war on Gaza" --62.0.140.228 (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only because that's what Al Jazeera, the source call it in their series of videos released under creative commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

US Army Strategic Studies Institute

The quickie approach to editing wikipedia: Google what you want in, find it, and, even if the source is from China, smack it in, is all very well. Longterm articles will have to replace much of this ephemeral junk from the propaganda wars, or amphetaminized journo hacks, and set its sights on what is really understood as being the dynamics of the historical event. I suggest those who are serious not only download this study on Israel and Hamas from that august centre, but actually read it. It is the kind of material which could help several articles, and this one, to be edited responsibly. - Israel and Hamas Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

External link

Could you please add this link as an external link :

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine

This page contain all the news and operational update publish by the ICRC since the beggining of the conflict.

Thank you!

Done. Thanks for the link. I put it at the top of the list. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done! thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.144.142 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Move the article to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict

Gaza is a city loated in Gaza Strip, and the attack is on Gaza Strip not only the city of Gaza. The title might be misleading, as it implies that the conflict is between the "city of Gaza" and Israel, while it is between "Gaza Strip" and Israel. Yamanam (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But the media popularly call it Gaza.VR _talk 15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We are here to represent the facts, not to convey what the media say. The fact is that the attack is on Gaza Strip, keeping the title as it is now will help misleading the readers, which is not what we want. Yamanam (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the city of Gaza is usually referred to as Gaza City. I think just Gaza is fine. Rabend (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 12 contains the latest of several move debates. The result was to stick with the current title and wait. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Effects - Elsewhere

The section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Elsewhere should be merged into the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Reactions sections. Actually, part of it is actually covered under "Civilian protests and support". Personally, I don't think that we should focus too much attention on anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim attacks in this conflict, because such acts of hate in no way affect the conflict. 3-4 sentences summarizing attacks on Jews and Arabs abroad should be enough.VR _talk 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and remember this article is still too big. It's so big that half of needs to be moved/removed in order to get back within WP:SIZE limitations (100,000 bytes max).VR _talk 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Background/Demography

I restored a short paragraph on Gaza's demography to the Background section. I think it is vital for understanding the way this conflict goes that the reader knows that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth with half of the population being small children. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian sources?

Is there a consensus that Iranian sources don't meet WP:RS? I ask because content from them keeps being removed. [1]

If Iranian sources aren't allowed, shouldn't US sources be removed too? The US is as biased towards Israel as Iran is biased against it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is concensus that evidence solely sourced from Iranian sources dont make wprs. Only a case by case review can work with sources.Superpie (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? because they are swarthy Middle Eastern people? from a country in the axis of evil? Bush jr. thinks they are bad... What is the reason? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think evidence sourced solely from any one country's press wouldnt make wprs. Obviously that and the Iranians being all swathe. Superpie (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because WP:RS clearly frowns upon extremist sources, which Iran's leadership currently is.--Stenwolf (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli leadership sucks too [2] we should not cite Israeli media ever --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really fair to compare Iranian and US sources and treat them as equally unreliable because the metrics available don't support that position. I suppose as a general guide

Iran is still locked in a battle to avoid being relegated right of the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index (method here) with the likes of my charming neighbour Myanmar.
There's a strong state oversight component

As for which sources are regarded by WP as reliable, no idea but I'm sure someone here can answer that. I do think many editors would benefit from spending 20min a week reading the Tehran Times to broaden their minds. It often has interesting articles. Furthermore, since the writing is all squiggly, goes the wrong way and is from an alien foreign culture that I assume has the wrong god and that is too complicated for me to bother to understand I'm just going to conclude that it's inferior, irrational and evil by it's very nature to save a lot of time and advocate assigning an unreliable status to all Iranian sources on that basis while somehow convincing myself that I'm complying with guidelines....
I just wanted to get that in before anyone else suggested something along those lines. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are we arguing here? Is it (a)Should Iranian government's statements/claims about the war be included? [I think 'yes'] or is it (b)Should we consider the Iranian government's statements/claims about the war to be exactly the same as independent reporting by BBC, The New York Times, and so on in terms of how we cite things? [To which I answer 'WTF']? The Squicks (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why the article said "As reported by the Iranian TV". I don't know what are people arguing about, throughout the whole article, if a controversial media is quoted (Israeli, Hamas, Iranian, ..) we always said "As said/reported/stated/claimed by X". This is not a blog, this is a news agency. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes to what Darwish07 just said. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, you just summarized WP:Attribution. Of course, you are the same genius who defined wikipedia better than Jimbo Wales, so its no surprise ;).--Cerejota (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who disagrees with (a)? Anyone who agrees with (b)? [Not being sarcastic; I really am asking. The Squicks (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing 'As reported by Iranian TV" seems somewhat un-preferable compared to Iranian TV said on 16 January that" or "Iranian TV has broadcast" or "Iranian TV has stated that". This is much more a matter of copy editing than NPOV issues, though.

I'm not aware of any blanket bans on Iranian sources, nor Israelis sources, nor Palestinian ones etc. Can anyone inform me of such a policy?VR _talk 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OLD wikimeme. Here is how its started: a bunch of public execution pictures were removed as copy-vio. So all kinds of editors (some of which are here, or their socks ;-) got up on arms because "OMG! CENSORSHIP!", and started saying that since Iran wasn't a signatory of any copyright treaty, then we could copy their crap at will. Not so, said, well, Jimbo Wales himself: copyright is local as per wikipedia, so if its a copy-vio in Elbonia, its a copy-vio in wikipedia. Henceforth, some kids had to be corrected because they said "OMG! JIMBO SEZ NO IRANIAN SOURCES!!!", which I think was resolved via WP:DRAMA, but the meme was born. There is no ban on sources, only great variance on what is realiable. If its Debkafile/CAMERA or YNET its "SUPER-DOUBLE RELIABLE" if its Electronic Intifada or Al-Jazeera its "A PIECE OF CRAP". But no ban.--Cerejota (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest i think both sources should be used although it should clearly be stated where each source came from. And by doing this we shall let the reader decide whether this is biased or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeMiStIeRs (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Length

Has work begun on grouping sections together, summarising them, and moving bulky material into linked articles? How to begin such a project? I have no experience whatsoever on this kind of thing, but I could try to help (with guidance?) if anyone takes up leadership in the effort. I really feel that all of the collaboration here has resulted in an article that is highly informative with a surprisingly small incidence of NPOV what with all of our emotional investment in the issue. Congrats all around, and let's see if we can continue to improve. PinkWorld (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I was going to have a pop at moving the International Reaction stuff on, however im stuck for ideas in bringing the two different styles together. Advice from an experienced wiki on this would be great. Superpie (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time a user moves some information out to another article, the information gets moved right back in. Often a user who summarizes gets accused of making the article POV. I tried to keep control on the article size, but have given up.

Perhaps if there was a collaborative effort amongst several users we could successfully bring the size down.VR _talk 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see directly above for concrete proposals. I am able and ready, but need this pesky thing called "rough consensus" :D.--Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposals area good start. However, how do we prevent information from coming back into the article one it has been moved?VR _talk 05:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask everyone to regard the International reactions sections as a work in progress. Im concentrating on World reactions right now, I know it looks like I've taken a hatchet to it but I think its neccessary. Please message me with issues. I will viciously set upon any unexplained reverts. Superpie (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're increasing the size of the section, I'll have a terrible temptation to revert. On the other hand if you're reducing the size, then all the power to you buddy.VR _talk 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Im cutting it down rather drastically, I just want to assure everyone im basically moving it on to the sub article on reactions and not vandalising the section :) Superpie (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, good job.VR _talk 06:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Created a new section for UN-only info, just so you know.--23prootie (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry i've been reverting you. I think perhaps its a good idea to move the UN response to International Reactions and leave direct UN involvement in aid etc where it is? It looks rather like the UN hasnt made comment on the issue if a reader was to click just to international reactions Superpie (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of reference is taking up almost one third of the page. Anyway to reduce that? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the page now, I think you'll like it. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the big improvement. :D --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian ceasefire

The Humanitarian ceasefires are currently mentioned in two sections: 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Humanitarian_Ceasefires and 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Humanitarian_aid. Given the length of the article, I propose the material be covered primarily in the first section, with the second section just referring to it, concentrating more on the aid.VR _talk 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest this bit: "Israel has repeated the temporary truce every day from January 8th to 13th. Shortly after 1 pm during the January 9th truce, the truce's start-time, Palestinians fired three Grad-type rockets at Ashdod. While supplies were being transferred through Kerem Shalom border crossing On January 9th, Palestinian militants fired several mortar shells at the terminal. No casualties were reported.[309]" be moved to the first section outright and I agree with you on the issue of focus. Superpie (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but i think someone who knows needs to make it unambiguously clear right up front whether or not Israel is supplying aid (which they pay for) to Gaza in this article re: this unaddressed question in the archive

This sentence seems problematic According to the Israeli media, Hamas has been raiding and looting trucks carrying humanitarian aid sent by Israel and international organizations in the sense that it says 'sent by Israel' quoting the source and yet there is no entry for Israel here. Nor does Israel appear in the list of countries supplying aid in the Humanitarian aid section. Is anyone in a position to clarify/rectify that apparent contradiction ?

That section was subsequently removed but this issue still seems important because it appears to be 'common knowledge' in the US that Israel is supplying aid, it goes unchallenged and might just be careless/disingenuous phrasing by part of the media and editors here. I expect it to reappear at some point as it has many times before. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If its any use, media in the UK notes that 'Israel allows aid in' but makes no further comment on where the aid came from and who paid for it. I'll have a look for some sources. Superpie (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's eons away from being a objective, neutral source, but its worth mentioning that the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that "Meanwhile, Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency ambulatory service, has been put on high alert and is operating 600 ambulances in Gaza to help any wounded or sick in the area. On January 12, the Israeli government released official plans to build a field hospital inside the Gaza Strip to be run by the IDF Medical Corps in order to aid any Palestinian civilians wounded from the daily operations."

If that's true... it's obviously very notable. I gave up looking for an unambiguous RS but then I have a short attention spa....oh look a puppy, look at his little face. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:DarthArafat.png

Darth Arafat sez: "You cannot hide forever, The Squicks"

I have looked and I see that Magen David Adom's actions are covered by more reliable sources. I have to admit, thought that reading "In Erez neither we, nor the Palestinian ambulances are allowed to cross and park truly 'back to back'. Patients have to be carried from one ambulance to another, a distance of approximately 50 metres, through the checkpoint. Such are the security rules" made me extraordinary angry and I almost screamed "Stupid ----ing Israelis. Stop making it so hard for me to want to support you." c est le vie The Squicks (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Luke, I am your father, come my son to the dark side ;) Nableezy (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side is for losers! Don't do it! ;) Rabend (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Some nice flikr photos of Magen David Adom are here. The Squicks (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I don't believe that we can use any of them given the copyright; I'm just posting the link for deep background. The Squicks (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(quadruple edit conflict. i hate all of you, in a good way) Ok I added a passing mention to the Magen David Adom. More info on their activities should be added to other sections like "Shelter", "Health", or elsewhere in the "Effects on Gazans" section.VR _talk 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that we want to keep the article as short or make it shorter, but I would really like to see some distinction made so that the fact that Israeli groups are- indeed- helping in Gaza is made clear. So, Israeli is, in fact, giving humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Squicks (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I think help should be mentioned on a what basis, not who basis. So there may be a section on hospital treatments of victims, but there should be a section on all things UNRWA or RED Cross related. So if the Red Star of David has, say, provided some ambulances, it should be mentioned in the "Health" subsection where we talk of the shortage of working ambulances.VR _talk 08:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But if its mentioned on a 'what' basis, than the oddity, curiosity, and ironic nature of the aid is not depicted. BTW, here are some more sources on it: [3] [4] [5] [6] The Squicks (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all apologies: when I wrote "but there should be a section" I meant "but there shouldn't be a section". Your above sources tell me that we should split the humanitarian issue into another article, so that we can cover it more comprehensively (including give attention to the Red Star of David).VR _talk 08:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we use the term "Red Star of David" or "Magen David Adom"? I would prefer the latter since the latter is more widely used by all observers. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the first mention in the article be Magen David Adom (Red Star of David), and subsequent mentions just "Magen David Adom"? Its what most sources in the English language use... While everyonbe in Israel knows what Magen David Adom is, I am afraid the rest of our readers might not possess this knowledge. --Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

about the trucks - from the videos shown locally (Israel) in news channels the trucks are labeled with the letters WFP or UN from what I remember, but I'm not sure if they sent a camera crew to document each time aid trucks are let in so it might have been from an archive...--217.132.240.173 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera photos for day 17 and 18

[7] I added photos from day 17 and 18 footage, please make use of them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

Okay then, nice work. The only thing that I think that I can add (and I know this is nit-picky) is that 'Injuredmother.JPG' seems like a poor choice for a picture since the mike is blocking most of her face. It's not astecially a very good picture; it's like having someone's thumb over the camera lens almost. The Squicks (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then let's not add that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the photos! BTW, where do you get copyright free images from? Just curious.VR _talk 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User Tiamat found the Al Jazeera creative commons repository [8] You can take stills of the video footage. Right now I am having trouble getting a shot of IDF helicopters launching some sort of weapon very randomly on the dense residential area. I think I should just give up on getting shot of that. But out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what type of weapon that could be, I spotted this in two videos I have watched including this one [9] starting 9:15. I have taken stills from other parts of video, however, and I will upload them shortly--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For free images see the resource section here: Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

I uploaded day 14 and day 12 images as well, here is what I have so far.

--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arion

The editor might have had this vessel confused with another one since the article did not match a few news stories matching the story. One of the cites was to a main page of a news source that did not mention it and another was in Greek. The original editor might have translated it incorrectly. POV concerns as well. "Free Gaza" activists/participants would have sufficed instead of a breakdown of the passengers. Please see: http://www.financialmirror.com/News/Cyprus_and_World_News/13555 and http://news.ert.gr/en/greece/society/17696-neos-apoplous-gia-to-arion.htm Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I was looking at the most recent expedition not the Dec. 30th one. The sources still need to be updated and the section should be checked for POV and minor corrections. My apologies.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Greek vessel Arion has made two attempts to reach Gaza with activists, doctors, parliamentarians, and supplies. December 30: Arion encounter with Israeli ships in international waters. Claims to have turned back after being rammed by an Israeli ship. Israel denies this. Some sources state "technical" difficulties. Jan 14: Arion again encounters Israeli ships in international waters. Forced to turn back after the ships threated to open fire. A third attempt might be made. The section is still inaccurate as is. Too many news sites to reference so google news: "greek vessel gaza december 30" "The Arion" etc. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that it took 2 days to get false information out of the article.

pamphlets

Pamphlets dropped on Gaza from Israeli planes contain a phone number (972-2-5839749) where anyone can report Hamas "activity" for "targeting". As this number can be dialed from everywhere, I think its quite dangerous and has abuse potential. Maybe it should be noted in the article. --helohe (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NO. It's important information. Its dangers are well known. A lot of Iraqis and Afghanis got rid of neighbours they disliked with this kind of trick.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You think the IDF'll make a sortie over the Welsh vally's? ;). This is very important to note in the article Superpie (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another detail that might be noteworthy in the article is IDF's use of Gmail as a secondary way to contact them. You can see a scan of the pamphlet here (source). To my understanding these pamphlets ask Gazans to become a sort of confidential informents for IDF, and so any contact is considered a government secret. And yet the Israeli government trusts this third-party company with it's data. Could this be a first? it's certainly reckless --Nezek (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The pamphlets are only one of the methods the IDF deploy to target hamas activity, so in reality it is not relied up on too much, though how ever i see your concern regarding fake phone calls. Most of these calls may be and will blocked once the person has " prank " called the number. Although this worries me regarding the iraq incident where people just phoned and said they thing their next door neighbor is a terrorist. Though again i hardly think the IDF will only relay on one type of information before it acts. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

I can't remember the incidents' names but there was a hit that got botched and the guy was aware of the danger so he used payphones but they put a charge in the payphone and got him. Also there was one incident where a bomb was put in his seat where he lays his head - this is a different guy I think... anyway, rivalry can be a factor in this kind of activities but they can use various intelligence methods to make sure the information is true. The Fatah isn't friendly with the Hamas and Egypt isn't friendly with them as well so it might be a factor that helps gather intelligence. --217.132.240.173 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove the phone number. As it is said in the article, it is dangerous and prone to abuse. What is the point of publishing the actual number in the article? Noting the fact is enough. 89.139.106.49 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinians killed by Hamas

Firstly this should not be part of "casualties3", grouped with the Egyptian casualties. The Palestinians killed belong in Palestinian list of casualties.

Secondly, I suppose those killed should be included in the civilian count, as that is what news reports seem to allege (i.e. there was battle between the Fatah and Hamas). Finally, it was agreed on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_7#Infobox_blaming to not say who killed who, but only who was killed. If we were to go to the "who killed who" route, we'd have to make note that some Israeli deaths were caused by themselves (i.e friendly fire), and who killed and wounded the Egyptians (both Hamas and IDF), cluttering up the infobox unnecessarily.VR _talk 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as to the infobox. However, when/if we create a casualties subpage we need to note seperately in the body text of that article that some Palestinians have been killed by Hamas. The Squicks (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we also note that some Israelis have been killed by Israel (friendly fire)? Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry, this has already been reported on several occasions on the main Israel - Gaza conflict section. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

Gerald Kaufman

His reaction belongs in International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict not here. I don't even want to explain why not (non-Israeli/Palestinian politician making remarks with no bearing on the conflict).VR _talk 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post

Unfortunately, there is no room in International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict either. So it looks like he is being flushed down the Memory Hole. I should have saved the text while I had a chance. At least I got to read him before he disappeared. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls: It tolls for thee. NonZionist (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you want to explain? What policy are you basing this on? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The extensive stuff from Kaufman in the Reactions#Individuals subsection has to go. It's too long and doesn't belong here. I'm going to abduct it to my /tmp unless the person who added it moves it somewhere first. Any objections ? In 100, 99, 98, 97, 96.... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, buddy, its already gone. I guess you'll have to hold your count and wait for the next POV pusher (let's hope that doesn't happen).VR _talk 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

suits me. i got stuck at twelvety Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

I removed

Israeli spreading lights and fairy dust on Gazans

as a non-free image. Since it even has the aJ logo imprinted on the image.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

These are free images. Look at the license and source, you will be able to verify them. Please revert your removal. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will revert it now, since I am not sure you are on or not. Always please check the page for each photo before removing the image so we can avoid this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, confirmation Aj has made these pictures free, if you are in doubt go to their website and check the section on Gaza, all picture they take or upload are free to be distributed, though it is illegal if you doctor the photos. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

BTW, Pretty hip of All Jazz to embrace the Creative Commons. CAMERA declares the Creative Commons antisemitic in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

im still laughing 5 minutes after reading this. though i think you might have given them another idea Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the picture is probably not of an airstrike, that looks to me more like an airburst WP smoke round (you can see the flammable wedges) than an air-launched one. Then again it could be air launched because of the conical shape. Any other MIL geeks here?--Cerejota (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to a expert in munitions interviewed on Al Jazeera English on the issue, it is indeed airbust white phosphorous. Tiamut^talk 11:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From the video caption:

Various shots of Israeli shelling Gaza strip with cluster bomb and smoke raising from building.
Various high angel shots to Israeli helicopters bombing Gaza."

It is either of the two. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose we find out which of these is true and which is false? The Squicks (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy, we use language that can mean either, which I did. Israeli air strike. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of them are true, but there are different scenes in the video, and I am not sure which caption belongs to which scene. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Squicks--entirely unnecessary. We can just make up stuff. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the caption that you put up would then qualify as WP:OR. We don't do that here. Further, any accusations of cluster bombs would have to be verified by more than just AJ. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, the only person who has a history of making up stuff is you, including the fact that you act like you know Arabic better than native Arabic speakers. You are probably going to accuse me of doctoring the photo or accuse Aljazeera taking it from some other event, but I really could care less what you say. I think I had enough of you, and this will be the last time I deal with you. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, you do not own this article and you will find that you have to deal with others here at wiki that do not share your opinions. Please avoid personal attacks and do not make accusations against others without offering proof. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Al-Jazeera is a RS. Unless you want to remove every reference to Haaretz, ynet, or the JPost. Nableezy (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to discuss this caption in a real conversation, please start a new thread, this one went downhill fast thanks to a certain someone. Thanks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office Report - Israeli lull violations

I'm adding this to the talk pages cause I know that someone somewhere will argue that Hamas is propaganda, not a WP:RS, stupid terrorists with no functional organization, or something else illogical. This is an official report from Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, listing 185 Israeli violations of the lull.

I've added this info to the background section saying:

On the 18th of December, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Hamas, reported 185 Israeli violations in the lull period.^[1]

As the rule in Wikipedia, I've stated that it's reported by Hamas, not a fact. As we always do with the several Israeli news agencies or the IDF statements cited. I hope no one will debate this basic and integral fact of Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Al Samouni house "incident" !?

I guess from around a week there was a full section about the attacks on the Samouni house. I can not find it now. This "incident"/"massacre", depending on which side you are, have received huge media coverage. How can it be deleted?

Anyway I wanted to add this dignity crisis piece of info I read today:

The bodies of those killed in the Al Samouni house in Az Zaitoun on 5 January have still not been recovered, despite appeals to the Israeli army for access to the home. UN Humanitarian Report - 13 January.

--Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to be included in the Zeitoun "incident" section, which was shortened and the name of the family isn't even mentioned. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of the family is crucial, particularly for those who wish to google for more detail. Feel free to restore it, and maintain it in the text, however many people remove it.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, I thought the family name had been replaced as a term of reference for the incident by Zeitoun, a quick google shows me not. Please go ahead with putting the family name in, im very sorry to have not done so myself. Superpie (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish

A notable and very sad turn of events, with notability based on the bilateral media personality angle.

The Palestinian doctor provided Israeli TV viewers with regular updates on Gaza fighting's human toll. But Friday's report was different — with sobs he told how his three daughters and a niece were killed by an Israeli shell....

GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Infantvictim caption

Above I argued the Zeitoun incident cannot be stated for granted in the image caption as it is disputed by Israel that the incident happened at all. Now reading the captions of A Palestinian baby killed by the IDF.jpg at Commons and Flickr, the Zeitoun incident is not mentioned there at all. I thus again urge my fellow editors to not add "victim of Zeitoun foo" every once and a while, since this assertion is not only controversial but also not backed by any source. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The source for the claim is the source for the picture: Al Jazeera English. Are you claiming the source is not reliable? We should include the picture as write in the caption: "A victim of the Zeitoun incident, as reported by Al Jazeera English." Tiamut^talk 11:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in the caption did you find a link to Zeitoun? Where in the image description did you find Al Jazeera? It says International Solidarity Movement is the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was confused about which image you were talking about. There is one of a victim of Zeitoun from Al Jazeera in the article. But my point about attribution stands. I think the caption should read "A victim of the Zeitoun attack, according to the ISM." Tiamut^talk 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does ISM say so? Not in the image description. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed by video footage that this is a victim of the Zeitoun attack, the video is where I got that piece of information. I have had to point out this source more than 3 times now and I really appreciate if people read over the discussions without having to start a new one. Here is the link [10], read that information, then to scroll to the top to watch the video footage which will have footage of the body and the paramedic's statement. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial incidents"?

There are two major changes that have been made without discussion. One is that the sub-header "Controversial incidents" replaced a sub-header "Notable incidents". And two is that this section was summarized and then had its detailed content farmed out to this article.

I strongly disagree with both of these actions. Not all the incidents listed in this section are "controversial", though all of them are undeniably notable. Further, most of them discuss attacks on civilians and moving them out of this article to one entitled "Controversial incidents in the Israel-Gaza conflict" is not right. These incidents should be discussed in the section on "Effects". If there is a space concern, each incident can have its own article where details on what happened is covered there. It's not right for us to perform original research by naming these incidents "controversial" and then banishing them from this article to another that is not properly titled or structured. I would like to get people's thoughts here before deciding how to proceed. Please provide your input. Tiamut^talk 11:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To each of the incidents, there is a controversity whether these incidents happened at all or on how they happened. Notability already is a prime criterion for inclusion into a wiki article, so everything appearing in this article must be notable already by wiki rules to be allowed to be here in the first place. It therefore would not make much sense if the section was named "Notable Incidents". One could also argue that if we emphasize the notability of the events in the controversity section, we would do the other informations wrong which are also in the article and also notable - I'd even say most incidents in the article are much more notable than the events of the controversity section, this along with the length argument in my view also justifies the splitting. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response evades the issue. I'm not asking for the header to be changed back to "Notable incidents". I'm asking for the incidents to be incorporated into the section on "Effects" and for the header "Controversial incidents" to be removed. Denoting them as "controversial" is original research. Not all of them are "controversial", and your claim that we don't know if most of them happened is just false. There is no question the "Dignity" ship sailed and was turned back. There is no question that the Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque was destroyed. There is no question that 42 people died after Israeli fire hit a UN school. There is no question that the UN headquarters was hit by white phosphorous destroying its warehouse. The only incident over which there is some question is the Zeiton killings, which the IDF claims to have no knowledge of, despite the testimony of survivors, mutliple media outlets, local hospitals, etc. There is no serious justification for unilaterally declaring these incidents "controversial", particularly absent sources describing them in this fasion. It's pure WP:OR. Tiamut^talk 11:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim that there is a controversity "if most of them happened", but "whether these incidents happened at all or on how they happened". I also oppose moving the section as is to "Effects" - except for the two incidents with the ships the incidents are all related to the actual fighting. And even with the ships which failed to breach through the sea blockade there are claims that they were involved in, let's say acts closely related to fighting by Israeli vessels. So I'd rather see them in the campaign section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the OR allegation: If one side says it happened this way, the other side says it happened the other way around, what originial research is needed to simply state we have a controversity here? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the ships could be included under the campaign section. Do you think the other incidents can be included in the "Effects" section?

It remains OR for us to surmise there is a controversy if the sources don't say that.

Also, I'd like to suggest to all editors to take a look at 2006 Lebanon War for some ideas on how to structure this article. It's a very similar conflict and the structure there is far superior to the one we are using here thus far. Tiamut^talk 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the headers and the naming of the sub article, but this info had to be farmed out. The article is huge. WP:SUMMARY suggest we do it in this way. Please see the example of 2008 Mumbai attacks or September 11 attacks or a long line of etc. Neutrality, sourcing, due weight and other content considerations are not affected by well-done WP:SUMMARY. As to "Notable Incidents" we should only have notable information, so it should be "Incidents". I agree "Controversial" is crap weasel wording, but it was consensus and had been that way for a long time. --Cerejota (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't have an article titled Incidents with a subsection Attacks on escaping civilians moralize as well- in a way? Those attacks may very well have happened completely contrary to what the Palestinian sources say, yet the title seems to be implying that those sources are ture. The Squicks (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that subsection I have edited it to reflect this, see the history. It should be Attacks on civilians. But I was reverted and I am not about to 3RR over this. If one thing I am, is consistent on the need to eliminate adjectives and extraneous info from headers. The only time in recent memory I haven't was with the (now long reverted) Confessions of a captured terrorist over at 2008 Mumbai attacks, but that was because it was such pretty English I couldn't bear it to do it. :D--Cerejota (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorous not even mentioned in the article anymore

What is going on? Why has all the material on white phosphorous use been deleted? The word only appears in a reference now and there is no discussion of its use in the article, despite mutliple reliable news sources covering its use. I've been away for one day and I've come back to an article significantly denuded of its material, that strangely omits some of the most impotant information regarding the impact on civilians. Where is the discussion regarding this change? Tiamut^talk 11:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The technique is to make so many edits that no one can catch what's being systematically censored. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who removed it. and I support restoring it, but I think the sources and text need to be rechecked when it is restored. There were no confirmed cases of WP in the sources, not in attacks on Gaza or in the one attack on Israel. But the article's claimed there were confirmed beyond a doubt. The UN section was also slightly baised, and only quoted the Israeli prime minister saying the attacks were "very sad", with no mention of claims that rockets were fired from that location, and that he considered the soldiers response on the field too agressive. --Nezek (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Senior official gives eyewitness account of Israeli shelling of UN Gaza compound:
“It looked like phosphorous, it smelled like phosphorous and it burned like phosphorous, so that’s why I’m calling it phosphorous,” Mr. Ging said, speaking 60 metres from the first explosion at the vocational training centre, and 150 metres from the second, voicing amazement that only three people were injured in both incidents. “The place went up in flames. Our workshop was the part that was hit most severely. It went on fire, as did part of the warehouse. Of course, we had to take cover until we got reassurances that there wouldn’t be further firing...There were exploding petrol tanks in the garage itself,” he added, noting that the fire service took two hours to arrive because of the fighting in the area.
It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... I would say it's a duck. Tiamut^talk 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And you tell me about OR? Maybe it was a goose? I very much doubt Mr Ging's expertise in this specific case, and even he does not say it definitely was WP. It is however undisputed that there are (other) sources who say wp was used, yet there is also a UN report of Jan 13 citing the IDF saying they did not use it in Gaza. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Put it under incidents, whatever. But it is a form of censorship to elide from the page an issue which has been heavily reported. The lacunae looks extremely odd. All major newspapers have covered this, and the pros and cons, comprehensively. Therefore we are obliged to remark on it, giving both versions, as indeed was the case when white phosphorus was discussed.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota removed the content. Cerejota, was your edit according to consensus in the talk page? Imad marie (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota is a known Zionist. 75.133.87.87 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section "Protocol-regulated weapons" from the fork article Incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and added it to the main article. The allegations are not incidents for sure. Imad marie (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Imad I don't think it is quite correct to delete, in this way.One tranfers the section here, edits it down to a half or third. Etc.

Most of these sources should be in for the moment, until we get definitive stuff as investigative results emerge.

Sheera Frenkel Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells,’ The Times,05/01/2009 (breaking story)

Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza Human Rights Watch 10/01/2009

Sheera Frenkel,UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells The Times 15/01/2009

Sheera Frenkel,Spent shells prove Israeli use of white phosphorus, Gaza doctors say The Times 15/01/2009

Gaza building apparently hit by phosphorus: U.N apparently hit by white-phosphorus shells, U.N. humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes said.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Palestian camp on this one (I wish we were not divided into camps, but so we are). These allegation is not related to an incident and cannot be relegated to that page-- this is about a series of incidents involving a military policy of phosphorus use by the IDF. Thus, it belongs here.

I would like it if we could avoid more talk of "zionist censorship" of other stupid personal attacks. The Squicks (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is the Cerejota Camp. A magical land filled with pre-4chan internet culture,^{[citation needed]} kittens,^{[citation needed]} cans of Coke,^{[citation needed]} red Marlboros,^{[citation needed]} wikicode hacks,^{[citation needed]} insomnia,^{[citation needed]} and lots and lots of wikilinks to WP:ESSAYS.^[2] And of course, according to some, either a Hamas spokesperson or and OR pushing Zionist.^{[citation needed]}--Cerejota (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Boycott

Farmers in Israel are complaining about the effects of the international boycott of Israeli goods. [11] Should this be in the article or one of its sub-articles? JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very relevant to the International Reactions sub-article. The Squicks (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Comments by farmers in Israel, by definition, cannot be interpreted as voicing 'international reactions.'Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The farmers are commenting on the international reaction itself, which is the boycott. This is a reaction to the 'international reactions'. The Squicks (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks is kinda right: notable reactions to international reactions should go in that article.

However, are these farmers notable? I mean, the press is going around interviewing people etc, and we shouldn't be mentioning any non-notable person with an opinion. Are these reactions (semi)official reactions from farmer associations, kibbutz cooperatives, or notable corporations - or their leaders? If not, I think they should be excluded as non-notable.

Lets have a sense of proportion here... I have a cousin who is a dairy farmer, should we include her opinions on the topic of trade regulations, taxation, and gas prices over at Dairy farming? I don't think so.--Cerejota (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that since Ilan Eshel- director of the Organization of Fruit Growers in Israel- was quoted, it is notable. This isn't just some reporter interviewing random farmers; this is what a semi-offical reaction to the international reaction is. The Squicks (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is notable, interestingly, in 2007 the same group decried the Gaza blockade for the negative economic effect it would have [12]. --Cerejota (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The international reaction should mention, certainly, that Jordan, and the most civilized part of Europe, the Scandinavian countries, have begun boycotting agricultural products. The link was interesting nonetheless. Jordan is doing exactly what Israel has frequently done, even in pre-blockade times, to produce from Gaza and the West Bank into Israel, i.-e. holding it up at transit or checkpoints till Palestinian producers and exporters sell it out of desperation at bargain-basement prices. Gaza was a major exporter once to the Tel Aviv market. Since 2001, and esp.2005, that source of income has been denied them.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify please

This line: "The IDF claimed that 400 dead were known "Hamas operatives," and that 250 were also Hamas operatives." in the infobox doesn't make much sense. Can this be clarified? Chamal ^talk 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. 400 were people whom the IDF knew ahead of time- given their intelligence- were Hamas members and the IDF confirmed their deaths. Another 250 or so were people who fought the IDF militarily and were later found by the IDF to be Hamas members. The Squicks (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, so the IDF determines, without any court proceedings, any evidence, and just their word that you are to be killed for the crime of being in Hamas, and we are supposed to give this super importance when neutrally presenting casualty figures. It makes no sense. While the fog of war inherently makes casualty figures meaningless at this point, whatever figures we give should be a range, without undue editorializing, specially not editorializing from one side of the conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also sceptical about these figures. Unless the IDF is in possession of the bodies of all the alleged Hamas "operatives" how can they possibly confirm identities? Is the Israeli army now getting intelligence via ouija board ? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been puzzled by this for a while. Have the Israeli authorities ever been challenged on how they know who's been killed? Phersu (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the source to see whats going on with there being two bunch of operatives, that should be altered to be made clearer... Odd. In the debate thats erupted thereafter: The article already notes its an Israeli claim, its for the reader to decide on the reliability of such a source. The Israeli's surround the strip on most sides and is one of the most advanced states in the world... who's surprised that they know who Hamas members are? Superpie (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To Cerejota These are what the IDF claims. The article states just that. It says "The IDF claims ________". I also believe that the IDF's claims are nonsense, but my belief is irrelevent. It would be POV to take their claims as fact (which I do not support), and it would be POV to censor and not mention their claims (which I do not support either for the same reason). The Squicks (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Cerejota. The phrasing is, in addition, idiotic, whether it comes from the IDF or from a wiki editor. I presume the total refers to combatants killed. It is understandable a large number will be from Hamas. But from the data we are given to believe that no member of the 4 other militias operating for a long time in the Strip have been killed. In the real world, it is not infrequently the case that, caught up in slaughter, non-combatents take any gun, particularly if they are cut off or hemmed in, and shoot back at whoever is attacking their area. It would be extremely odd were it the case that absolutely no Gazan male in those conditions thought of defending himself, his family and his property from almost certain death, in a good many imaginable circumstances, esp. since there are a good many stories circulating of men been selected by Israeli forward units from families and shot, and then the houses with the survivors being hit by missiles. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of military history knows those figures are nonsensical.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 17 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!

I noted yesterday an article defining the two strike methods apparently used in certain area-clearing actions as involving (a) a 'teaser missile' which hits with relatively smnall damage, as a warning though it can kill (b) then some minutes later the main missile. I'd never come across 'teaser missile' before, but it was quoted without inverted commas so I presume it is part of the jargon.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is source of dead baby photo a reliable source?

I'd simply like someone to show me that the source of the photo is a reliable source under wikipedia standards. If it isn't, I believe it should be removed. Lawyer2b (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Reliable sources. Is there a different guide for reliably sourcing photos? Lawyer2b (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source in my book. Though it is a Palestinian source, which I know is not acceptable in most cases. But do photos have to come from a reliable source? It seems that anyone can submit a photo even if they are not a notable person/source. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on wikipedia's standards for reliability, how can you say it is reliable? Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources notes, "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." I don't care that it is Palestinian or Israeli. If there was an equivalent Israeli group that wanted to submit photos, I'd challenge that equally. We would need proof that the photos from either source were real. Don't you think that's an objective and reasonable standard? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can submit a photo but I think that if the source is not reliable and someone challenges it, I think the burden of proof should be on the party submitting it. If some anonymous user just submits a photo of a horse for the article on horses, if people challenged it because they doubted it was a horse, the party submitting it should have to prove it was a horse (through consensus). if they couldn't, it should not be included. I'd like to see some proof that the alleged charred baby really is a charred baby and not a doctored photo or just a model/sculpture. I think that's the challenge that is being made. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the image is not legitimate. Additionally, Flickr is a reliable source (WP: Obtaining images). – Zntrip 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is the International Solidarity Movement. You can read further info about them here. I think the current understanding is that the photo (along with others in their photostream) are photo's taken by their volunteers in Gaza right now. Although the issue of whether they are a reliable source doesn't appear to have been addressed explicitly yet on the talk page I think it's fair to say that matters have proceeded on the basis that there is no reason to doubt that they are a reliable source. It's a bit of a tricky issue I agree. Perhaps someone else might be able to provide you with a better answer. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

..I'll add a bit more. I personally don't see this as any different from other images we have on the page e.g. the demonstrations, rockets, smoke over gaza that users have taken themselves and added. Nor do I see a difference in burden of proof for a dead baby image and a photo of a demonstation in San Francisco. Maybe I'm wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would challenge all those photos in this context. This is a news event. Shouldn't we want (demand) ALL material (photos, text, etc.) come from HIGHLY reliable sources? And if someone wanted to challenge the validity of a photo of a demonstration purporting to document something at the demonstration and it didn't come from a reliable source, I think I'd back that challenge as well. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ISM is confounded by Adam Shapiro. A notable member is Rachel Corrie. The organization is notable. If they have a history of faking photos and deception, it would certainly be noted and scrutinized. They are not an unknown organization --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, if the source is not reliable I think the burden is should be on the party submitting the photo. Also, that link you cite states that Flickr, et al. are sources for "general purpose image[s]". To me that's for things like the "horse" example I gave above. Not pictures that are supposed to document/prove events (e.g. a baby that was killed by a bomb). Lawyer2b (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As Falastine fee Qalby has pointed out, ISM is a well known nonviolent organization. What leads you assert the source is not reliable? – Zntrip 06:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing being NOTABLE with being RELIABLE. There are plenty of organizations that are NOTABLE enough to deserve a wikipedia article about them. There are far fewer that I think deserve to be considered a RELIABLE SOURCE for material in wikipedia articles that are NOT about them. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I point to the wikipedia policy on News Organizations as reliable sources. Can someone show me how ISM passes those standards? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also point to wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have any proof for that the images are faked, present them, otherwise I don't see what case you can make against the images. I'm been watching the photostream and it doesn't look like staged pictures on a stage. What would make the source unreliable when it comes to pictures coming out of Gaza? — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, if you have a reason as to why the ISM is not a reliable source I would like you to share it. – Zntrip 06:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to hide anything, but isn't it obvious? It's not a reliable source because it doesn't fit the description I read in the policy on reliable sources. The two biggest ones that leap out to me are 1) It's not a "mainstream news organizations" and 2) It's not Verifiable because it is Self-published. People need to go read the policies and then come back to tell me where I'm wrong (or right.) Lawyer2b (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be a mainstream news organization to be reliable, and isn't Flickr where they publish, therefore, not Self-publishing. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And to add Wikipedia:SELFPUB doesn't seem to refer to Images — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I think for a news event (like a war) Wikipedia should be using ONLY high quality news sources. You disagree? 2) I don't think Flickr allowing you to display things on their website is what wikipedia means by "publishing". (Aren't *I* supposed to be the lawyer looking for technicalities? LOL) By your standard then anything anybody uploads to flickr is considered "non-selfpublished"? I don't think that's what its intent was. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, no we can not only use "ONLY high quality news sources", especially when it comes to images which are usually copyrighted or hard to find in a War zone were Media isnt allowed in. And there is still the fact, I've seen no reason to question the pictures source as being non-reliable for images from Gaza — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that WP:SELFPUB was not supposed to apply to photos. It says that you shouldn't "cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." The limit is not on MATERIAL, it's on the SOURCE. If you're citing from Flickr, you're citing a SOURCE that is usually not allowed. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're questioning the reliability of this source only. I mean WTH is Marek Peters [13] why should we accept his photos? Is Mila [14] a reliable source??? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the RS policy applies to images. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted above that I think the larger the assertion of the photo perhaps the greater the burden of proof that should be needed. Example: To say, "here is a poster at a rally" seems less an assertion than "here is a baby that was killed at that rally by such and such an event". But I think I've said a few times in this discussion that I would support challenges to those photos as well. I think the idea that the policy on Reliable Sources and Verifiability NOT applying to photos is Ridiculous. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But still, you seem to question the authenticity of this picture, then you should get some evidence for it, and not claim "they haven't proven enough", when there is no reason, that I can see, to question the authenticity. It's already a known fact that Palestinian children have died is it so impossible to get one on a picture? — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually my smaller issue is not knowing if it's a true photo or not. For me, the bigger issue is simply the policy doesn't allow it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." Apparently it doesn't matter whether someone thinks it's true. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The policies that you are citing are for source information. Images, however, are different because the image itself is a form of proof. I would come to the conclusion that the image is genuine because the ISM acquired the image from Gaza, and the ISM has no history of publishing fake images. It is also reasonable to trust the claims that the death was caused by the IDF. Do you not agree? – Zntrip 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. I think photos have to pass the same standards as text. But I could be mistaken. I just want someone who knows to say whether they do or not! Arggggh! (LOL)

If this photo had appeared in a reliable source such as Al Jazeera would you be satisfied that it meets the inclusion criteria? I actually haven't really disagreed with quite a lot you've said so far. It seems perfectly reasonable to me but that isn't how Wiki works in practice for images as pointed by others. I don't think the burden of proof bar is set as high as you are assuming. For example, I have personally uploaded a photo of victims of a massacre that I took myself with my own camera to commons. Are you suggesting that that photo should not be used in Wikipedia because my reliability as a source has not been established ? The image speaks for itself. It seems to set the bar unreasonably hign. Having said that I'm not really an expert on these matters so I'm probably not helping much. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it was from Al Jazeera (which I think is considered a reliable source according to wikipedia policy) sure. I hope you're not offended, but I think a photo you take is questionable simply because you are not a reliable source. If the article is notable enough to deserve a photo, why can't it come from a news source? If you submitted your photo to a reliable news source and they carried it, it would have the credibility needed to be included. Again, this is my interpretation of how the policies should be applied. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I don't really disagree with you in theory in an ideal Wikipedia and no I'm not offended because my wife can readily confirm that I'm not a reliable source on pretty much anything apparently. :) Anyway, I'll leave it to people with more expertise in these matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is video where a Palestinian paramedic describes the finding of the body Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.

Attia Barami: “The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct URL and that the part of the video you are talking about is 2:20 min. after it starts. – Zntrip 07:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes...There is no image of the body in the video, but we can agree that the photo description matches the medic's information. Particularly these parts in bold. The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the video, and from about 2:20 there are images of the body — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh crap, I should have watched the whole video. I have a problem and it is not being patient. Thank you btw! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want to include links to the video/audio that come from reliable sources, go for it! But you can't just say, "here is a photo from an unreliable source that matches a description from a reliable source and therefore the photo becomes reliable". I think that is attempting to "game the system." Gentlemen/women, I must go to sleep as it is way past my bedtime where I live. Hopefully someone who knows more than we do can say what the proper application is of wikipedia's policies. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to sleep, we need a break. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is only you who say the source is unreliable, but I've seen to reason for it to be unreliable, especially when comes to images from Gaza it looks like it is quite a reliable source — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is still no source to the claim an Israeli tank ran over the baby...--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[15], read Attia Barami's statement/interview — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion this is. I too had questions about the picture's origin and thanks to Lawyer2b's earnest questioning we have our answer. The video clearly portrays what reasonably appears to be the same dead child as in the picture. I think Lawyer2b's concern that the image is not from a major news outlet is understandable, but in combination with the fact that the International Press has been restricted from reporting inside Gaza, I think that the picture's credentials hold up just fine, for now. I haven't heard of the ISM faking pictures. And the picture looks like what it was claimed to be: a dead child killed during the Gaza conflict. I have questions myself about the story about getting run over by a tank and being eaten by dogs. I don't see evidence of that happening in the picture. But that hasn't been how the picture has been presented on this page. I~~n fact, no claims have been made about the origin of the picture in article to my knowledge.~~ It could hypothetically be just a picture of a dead baby, next to the caption "a lot of babies have been killed during this conflict." Obviously if evidence comes to light that the photo is somehow not what it appears to be, if it were a doll or something, (a hypothesis that was made earlier in this page) that would change things. But based on the record as it stands now, I think the burden of proof has been met that the picture is authentic (it looks authentic), and that people who question its authenticity should present their own evidence.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article now does say the infant in the picture was killed in the Zeitoun attack.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real point to the discussion, or it was lost. The problem with your argument, Lawyer2b, is that it started from being about reliable sources, but then when we pointed out to you that the sources for other photos are not notable nor reliable, you quickly changed your argument to one of verifiability. When we verified that this body is indeed of a baby killed by Israelis in a attack during this assault, you switched back to your first argument... You still didn't prove that the RS applies to images, "it would be ridiculous if it did not" is not proof.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, 1) I'm sorry you don't see the points I think I am making, namely, that there is a photo which appears to violate wikipedia standards and what should be done about it (i.e. Do the same standards that apply to text also apply to photos?) 2) Several times you have brought up that "sources for other photos are not notable nor reliable" and I believe each time I have responded that I support challenging their usage as well. You seem to have consistently ignored my response. Why? 3) I'm unclear. Are you saying I'm being disingenuous? Lawyer2b (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, I am not aware of a wikipedia policy that an image on a page dealing with a current event must come from an "established news source". Therefore, I do not believe that this image violates any wikipedia standard. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm amazed. What has scarcity of sources to do with reliability? If we have no RS for material, the obvious solution is not to include the material. There is no press allowed into gaza? so don't publish what you think the press would have published if it was there. The lack of reliable sources is no excuse for lowering standards or using unreliable sources.--Stenwolf (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that an article dealing with a news event is restricted to using only images from "established news sources". Scarcity is beside the point. Censorship however is the reality that we are dealing with in Gaza. Propaganda is the reality. This image, to my knowledge, meets Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of WP:RS distinguishing between types of content for purposes of reliability determination. Either we require RS for included material or we don't, as far as I can see from WP:RS. When something doesn't have RS, why include it? Are images somehow privileged content? If you think so, please share your reasoning. Past practices, IMHO, are not very strong reason for continuing a bad pattern.--Stenwolf (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stenwolf and Lawyer2b, this is actually quite an interesting discussion that could affect policy. I suggest raising this issue at WP:Image's talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, users are encouraged to upload their own photography, yet that does not qualify for OR or RS issues. Most RS images are copyrighted, so unless there is an article that is about the image they are almost always off-limits. I would suggest you look at Wikipedia:IMAGES#Obtaining_images for information on how we are advised to use these so called non-reliably sourced images. Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS applies only to textual material, not images. Images are judged by how relevant they are to the the topic (as per WP:IMAGE), and that due weight be given WP:NPOV, as long as they are copyrigth compatible with Creative Commons commercial and/or GFDL. Nableezy is correct: if RS applied to images, we wouldn't have images in wikipedia, as most RS images are not licensable by Wikipedia.

I suggest that if Stenwolf cannot take our word for it, he go and ask around, Cdogsimmons point out to where, but even User talk:Jimbo Wales might be in order. I also placed a welcome tag to his talk page with a good summary of the core policies. I advise him, as I would any new user, to read and understand them - and to not try esoteric policy arguments unless he wants people to think he is a sock puppet.

As to changing policy, watch it there will be attempts, this baby picture thing will ripple, it is ripe for SlimVirgin-level drama. Of course, Jimbo will step in and crush it, as use of self-pub pictures is part of the business model for Wikipedia, just as citing textual sources is also part of the model. --Cerejota (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Do_images_fall_under_WP:RS_policy.3F. Regards --Stenwolf (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun incident?

It is an attack, Democracy Now! calls it an attack, people with common sense call it an attack. Leave the word incident for situations such as you wetting the bed. Shall we make the changes? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. We're not even sure this thing even happened. Unreasonable even, considering that the IDF just started the ground operation the day before. Rabend (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As according to who? you? No. You are not a reliable source. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Falestine, would ask you to provide links on the Talk page when you are putting a suggestion forward. "Democracy Now!" is not the best source, some editors will argue it is biased, so preferably to "neutral" sources. What happened in Zeitoun has been reported by Reuters and the New York Times. I agree "Zeitoun attack" or even "Zeitoun killings" are both more specific and appropriate terms than the wishy-washy "Zeitoun incident." Rabend, your objection to the content appears to be your personal opinion. Wikipedia deals with reliable sources and verifiability. The links here satisfy those criteria. RomaC (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in that Reuters article that could be a "confirmation" for the alleged IDF intent that is implied by the terms "Zeitoun attack" or "Zeitoun killings". Rabend (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the word 'attack' implies any such intent, it only states that an action occurred, it makes no mention of any motivation. If it were to say 'intentional attack' then I think you would have a valid point, but the word 'attack' by itself does not raise motivation or intent at all. Nableezy (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Check out the dictionary definition. It clearly implies intent. Rabend (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The first definition I see is '(military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn" ' I personally dont see intent in that definition [16]. So I respectfully disagree as well. Nableezy (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, let's go down that road. check the definition for enemy. The first definition is 'an opposing military force; "the enemy attacked at dawn" '. Are you claiming that the civilians killed in that incident were an opposing military force? because that would imply most war crime allegations in current conflict are non starters.--Stenwolf (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming that. Israel has claimed that they are attacking their enemy, Hamas. That because some of those subject to these attacks have been civilians does not somehow preclude describing it as an attack. My point, if you read above, is that attack does not imply intent. It implies the use of force against another. That Israel has, in the context of the wider attack on Gaza, also struck with military force other targets, oh lets just call them 'soft', while claiming those targets to also be enemy targets does not make it less of an attack that the targets were in fact civilian targets. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is about being wishy-washy. :D--Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

People with common sense call it an incident. Attack implies a planned move. Its not clear that the shelling was deliberate at all. Incident is much fairer. There is no greater weight for it being termed the Zeitoun attack than the Zeitoun accident. Keep POV's out of editing. I have just read the section in question, theres nothing to suggest this was a "military attack" in the sense of a military attacking which is deliberate. If an army strikes something without intention it is an accident, an incident but not an attack. I think the section should be returned to incident. Superpie (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No people who are trying to sugarcoat the massacre call it an incident. A shooting is called a shooting whether the shooter intended it or did not intend for it to happen. An attack is exactly what it implies, a display of violent physical force in where the people and buildings are slaughtered and destroyed respectively. The Israeli's intention is debatable, but their action is what it is, an attack, an assault, a slaughter and destruction. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think waiting for the facts to become clear before making assigning value terms in jugement is important. Many pro Israel writers would view the Zeitoun incident as an unfortunate accident. Incident is a good halfway point between the two views until the facts become clear. You have not addressed my view that when a military does not intend to strike something, it is an accident. Superpie (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a military attack, attack does not imply intent to strike a civilian target, it means intent to strike a target. How can you say that when the military shells a target that they are not attacking that target? This line of thinking does not make any sense, whether or not it was 'an accident' is irrelevant to the fact that the military attacked this target. Whether this was accidental or premeditated is not implied by the word 'attack'. Nableezy (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Was "Operation Cast Lead" intentional? If so, then, by your own definition, Superpie, it is an attack, and the very name of this article is a whitewash. Or are you one of those who believe that Israel never kills anybody intentionally and starts its wars by accident? NonZionist (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. In the event you attack someone unintentionally you "accidentally attacked Barry", you did not just attack. Assuming I even accept the logic put forward here. "Attack is to strike at an opponent"^[3], or "particulary the onsent of planned aggression" ^[4] the civilians were not opponents and its unclear as to if the strike was planned. Go ahead, wheel out the many definitions that fit the situation but the simple fact we can both quite easily find sources to substantiate our views only serve to evidence that incident is the better term than attack to use. Superpie (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what happened to the residents of that building in just one word? They were ____ by IDF (fill in the blank)...Anyway, this intention vs what actually occurred argument is going no where. Solution, we use the name that reliable secondary sources call it. User:RomaC pointed out Reuters and New York Times, calling it an attack.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are failing to address the points I am making talk. As the writing notes ACCURATELY, the event would appear accidental. Thus accident is much more accurate than attack. The victims were ACCIDENTALLY attacked. We are not required to sum up the event in two words minimum, the inclusion of accident or the compromise, incident is more than possible. If you continue to be deliberately evasive in ignoring my points I shall be forced to find out what to do in the event editors cant agree and i'd rather not spend my time doing that Superpie (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Accident my a**. Yes please go find other editors to speak with, you're unable to understand what attack means, you are unable to comprehend that WP has a no original research policy and that we go by the information supplied by secondary sources, and no the attack wasn't an accident, they attacked the building as simple as that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time Israel starts a war, it is an "accident". Israel never "intends" to kill anybody. "[A]ccidents do happen." -- Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Jerusalem Center for Ethics conference (See Aviad Glickman (2009-01-11). "Mazuz: Israel bracing for slew of lawsuits over Gaza op". ynet Israel News. Retrieved 2009-01-16.). And every time a Palestine sneezes, it is a deliberate intentional attempt to kill everybody everywhere. How do we know this? Because Israel tells us so. NonZionist (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN and the BBC are both refering to Zeitoun as an "incident" ^[5]^[6]. Im not doing any original research at all, im noting the body of text which we're discussing right now. Have a read. Stop being bloody obstructive. There is more evidence for it being FAIRLY termed an incident than an attack. Ive outlined why repeatedly above and you have failed to engage with them. Superpie (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (thats the UN my friend) concluded there was no evidence the attack was deliberate. ^[7]. Thought you knowing something about the event may be helpful. Superpie (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You just called it an attack. Hilarious contradiction. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Yes, it WAS an attack, I accept your logic about an attack being the application of force but I also note above repeatedly that attack can be interepreted to mean intention thus making incident, given that the event appears accidental more logical. It can be "accidental Zeitoun attack" in which case you'll get pissy or it can be "Zeitoun incident". Its your choice, stop getting in the f* way. Superpie (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we name it "The unintentional accidental crumbling of Zeitoun building" for dumbf*cks like you who intend to shove the pro-Israeli pov into everything. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just choose one of the options Falastine. Superpie (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Zeitoun killings"? People were killed, in Zeitoun. "Zeitoun shelling"? RomaC (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, next time you do that, I or some other editor will request you be blocked. You can make your point without calling other editors "dumbfucks". Also, "incident" is a neutral way of calling it: let the facts speak for themselves... Ask the MILHIST people.--Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to object to this, the phrase "accidental attack" is not the opposite of "attack", it is the opposite of "intentional attack". The word "attack" does not imply intent, that the house was "attacked" is indisputable, and the article makes clear that nobody is accusing Israel of intentionally targeting civilians. This insistence that we not call a spade a spade is ridiculous. Nobody has suggested titling the section "deliberate attack" or "intentional attack" but this insistence that we not use the word attack makes no sense. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy I have above listed definitions which make clear that attack can be taken to mean intent which makes incident a much fairer term to use. I do not understand why describing it as an incident is undesirable, light on this issue would be good. Superpie (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "attack" in the context of a military conflict as neutral descriptor as you can get. Remember, the whole conflict is optional, so there is already implied responsibility, which is not the same as intent: any reader should be clear by the time they get to this part, two days into reading the article, that Israel's stated intent is to not harm civilians. If nuance is sought, let presentation show the facts and let the reader determine if the attack was intentional or not.--Cerejota (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a thing where I come from, but if you dont mean to cause pain to someone, it was an accidental event, if you did, it was an attack. I really am bewildered by the refusal to use incident instead of attack which I maintain, is biased but i'll abide by the emerging consensus. Superpie (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting all the arguments above (automatically excluding Falastine's, naturally), I think that 'incident' is a good, balanced term. Rabend (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, by definition, if you shoot at something you are attempting to cause it pain. Also, by definition, if you shoot at something you are attacking it. Not knowing that what you are shooting at is not actually a military target does not take away the intent of shooting it. Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Israeli's were shooting at the family within this house, or even at this house at this moment in time. Only that they shot it. Superpie (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie presents an interesting argument above: If a belligerent fires a weapon that causes death and destruction, but there is no evidence that they were shooting at that particular target, the event should be called an "incident" rather than an "attack." But this logic could be problematic, arguments could be made that List of Qassam rocket attacks should be renamed "Qassam incidents".

Again, how about "Zeitoun killings"? (as people were killed, in Zeitoun); or "Zeitoun house shelling", as a house was shelled in Zeitoun. These terms seem to me to simply reflect what has happened, much better than "incident." RomaC (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I walked into an article populated almost entirely by the obtuse? Qassam Rockets are fired with the intention of hitting Israel, thats as accurate as they go. Please dont go being a pain in my ass by trying to draw parraells between what appears to have been an accident with the current evidence and a true malicious act of war. RomaC I would agree to the "Zeitoun house shelling incident" Superpie (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sugarpie, do you think calling other editors "obtuse" is constructive? RomaC (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think identifying unreasonable attitudes and unreasonable arguments is proper yes. I think many editors here are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to dilute this very simple discussion with so much debate that it will go away. Superpie (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Hamas intentionally targeted one of the places hit by any of the Qassam rockets? That would indeed be incredible. I see no difference in the argument that they did not intend to hit 'this house' or 'these people' then saying Hamas did not, indeed could not, intend to hit any specific target, and thus it should not be called an attack. Are you saying that the IDF did not intend to hit anything at all? Then you might have a point, but I dont think that is what you are saying, unless you mean that somebody is dumb enough to fire multiple shells and think they are not going to hit anything? Your argument does not make much sense to me, and it is not because I am obtuse. And if I were Warden Norton you would get 2 months in the hole for that. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, sugarpie? Oooh baby. Superpie (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun discussion continued

The section's narrative states that it is disputed if that "attack" happened at all, so I think it is not ok to use "victim of the Zeitoun attack" in image captions and "Zeitoun attack" as the section's caption - it should be "alleged victim" and "alleged attack". Also, the narrative needs a rewrite so different POVs get equal weight, which is not the case now. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See above. Concensus is that attack is apparently, fair. Superpie (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To OP: On the one hand, I strongly agree that a full rewrite is order (mostly for flow, pacing, etc reasons to assist the reader). But I can't understand what you mean. There obviously was some kind of an attack; given that there are real victims. How can we use the term "alleged victim"? That's like calling someone an "alleged pregnant woman", an "alleged white man", or saying "alleged man wearing alleged green shirt" in response to a picture of a green-shirted fellow. The Squicks (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That came across as much too snarky. (...) Look, the fundamental fact is that there is a large number of sources supporting the fact that it happened. And only the IDF disagrees. I'm 100% for NPOV between both sides. But this is a particular situation where the IDF basically has nothing to say. So, there's not much... material that we can say on their side. We have details of the incident and then their denial. Their denial is just that- a denial. It can't be expanded into a counter-argument, like how the UN school section has a counter-arguement. The Squicks (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The narrative states (sourced) that Israel says no such attack happened. The victims pictured are claimed by someone to have suffered/died during the attack, which only makes sense if the version "there was an attack" is true. If however the version "there was no attack" is true, the pictures are of victims from other attacks. Per WP:NPOV, we must not support/tell only one version ("there was an attack"), which is done if pictures are captured with "victim of the attack". 08:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I must agree here. This incident is a little too controversial to be taken as fact. It is really not clear what portions of the story are actually true, anywhere from 0 to 100%, as opposed to the UN compound, which Israel confirms it attacked and explained why. Since this incident relies heavily on eyewitness accounts, and we really have no idea what happened there, its mention should be a relatively short one, and without an image. The UN incident, however, deserves coverage. Rabend (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged victim? I mean, give me a break... some people should seriously check their cynicism at the door: you can rightly question the events surrounding the incident, but question the victimhood of actual people? Man, get out of your soapbox, and be, well, human for second. A victim, is always a victim.--Cerejota (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to become personal. If you read the above you will find that I in no way dispute that the depicted victims are victims. The question is what incident they are victims of, and whether we can attribute them to a Zeitoun incident that according to Israel did never happen. So far we have two pics and one narrative about Zeitoun. To use "alleged" in the captions is just one way to avoid integrating the different POVs already presented in the narrative into the captions again. But we cannot have image captions stating "There was that incident and this is a victim of it" and at the same time have a narrative saying "It is disputed whether that incident happened at all". Skäpperöd (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the incident, only who/what caused it. Superpie (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From the article: "The IDF stated that it had no knowledge of such attack, and argued that the claim is unreasonable since it claimed to have no forces present in that area on January 4th. Israeli television claimed that Gaza hospitals had no knowledge of the attack." Skäpperöd (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we're not even sure this thing happened. IDF does not acknowledge it, it does not fit with the location of forces at the time, and all we have is eyewitness accounts, and images from god knows where. The IDF generally acknowledges such tragic incidents/accidents and attempts to explain them (like the several UN shellings). As such, this incident should get minimal coverage here, if at all. Rabend (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And we say the IDF does not acknowledge it. The attack has received a lot of coverage around the world, that the IDF disputes the account that is in numerous RS is not reason to have this be not discussed. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IDF generally acknowledges such tragic incidents/accidents and attempts to explain them (like the several UN shellings

Welcome to the world of hasbara, unless this was meant to be comical and ironic. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

even in their denial, the idf refers to it as an attack, "'The IDF stated that it had no knowledge of such attack," not incident. it seems neutral to me. Untwirl (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as we like to bash the IDF, it is an army that is part of a very democratic and highly transparent country. Hasbara does not cover up significant events, it explains them, as the name suggests. The only reports of the actual incident happening that I have seen rely on those "eyewitness accounts". Perhaps I am wrong, but it looks like RSs are regurgitating these accounts. I am not one to completely cover up things. But in this case, the only thing I heard about it is from nameless eyewitnesses. And for me, that's not good enough. Particularly as the descriptions are of such horror stories. Horror stories, like soldiers rounding up people and shooting them in cold blood, necessitate stronger confirmation, due to their being powerful elicitors of emotions. And I don't find Mads Gilbert to be a confirmation for anything. I think we are doing a disservice to WP by leaving is so much dubious detail. Rabend (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Democratic, if your mom was Jewish. Otherwise, you pretty much fucked. I mean, you'll have Knesset people voting to have you banned just for the lulz... See? I can sopabox too! --Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice soaping indeed... False, but nice.. Arabs get the same rights as Jews. Now they just can't vote for parties that oppose the existence of Israel. Kinda like if the Native Americans started a party to kick all 'foreign invaders' out, visited the Taliban, and went into congress.. Rabend (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nice analogy of Palestinian Israelis with Native Americans, something that has gotten people around here called antisemitic - guess you will not be called so. However, your use of the analogy is close to "if pigs had wings, we would all need umbrellas" school of false logic: Native Americans in reservations are not allowed to vote for Congress or President - hence could never find themselves in such a situation. And Congresspeople, as a matter of routine, visit "enemy" countries, like Cuba or Venezuela, with much bruhaha from their opponents, but no legal consequence - a key difference from the Knesset banning Palestinian parties. Of course, Israeli democracy based on social-democratic practices of proportional representation, is better than the USA's in a formal sense, but I would be damned if I find a recent example of trying to ban an active electoral political party in the USA, much less one with representatives in Congress. And the USA abolished all racial and ethnic exclusivity laws in the 1960s - Israel doesn't even allow Palestinians to marry each other across the green line withotu risking Citizenship. Please do not insult my intelligence with pedestrian analogies, and I promise I will not insult your with sheer encyclopedic knowledge of crap. Deal? --Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Mads Gilbert as a source without context, can we? We can't just say "Israel has done ________<ref>[[Mads Gilbert]]'s editorial article</ref>", can we? We need to be more descriptive than that. The Squicks (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but we can say "Mads Gilbert says Israel has ______<ref>A reliable source quoting Gilbert</ref>"VR _talk 04:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I must object. And rather strongly. See the discussion below about that guy. I personally don't think we should be using anything he says. But if we do, we must note who he is. Full disclosure is a must in this case. Rabend (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is frustrating. So, by your logic we can not quote, Khaled Mishaal cause he opposes your POV and supports "terrorism"? This is the same case as the above Iranian TV one. You're against Gilbert cause he's against your POV and culture, it's clear. Even if he said "I fully support Al-Qaeda", what's your problem!!?? It's not our frickin job to judge people, even if they supported people who killed our own families. Every one here in WP knows that. You're wikilawyering again. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, chill. Second, it is nothing like Mashaal saying things, as Mashaal represents one of the belligerent sides. No one expects to take a testimony by him to be neutral and objective and thus serve as a "wiki fact". This doctor, however, is implied to be be neutral and objective, and as such, the user is inclined to believe what he says. When a source is clearly sympathizing with one side only, as is obvious in this case, it must be mentioned clearly, otherwise the reader will assume he is objective. I would not take word-for-word the testimony of a doctor in 1994 in Hebron, if his name was Baruch Goldstein. Rabend (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must say it. Is it me becoming crazy and insane or is that every fact that can lightly be considered criticizing Israel get attacked by all possible kinds of faulty logic to get removed!!???? And it's often the weird pretty-looking-outside-absolutely-false-inside kind of logic. I swear I'm serious and I'm not attacking anyone. I just want to see if anyone share my, possibly ridiculous, view. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have noted already, the IDF is disputing that they caused it, not that it happened from all my reading. I see no problem whatsoever with a victim being captioned as a victim of the Zeitoun incident. It only becomes neccessary to note alledged if the caption incorporates that the Israeli's may have caused it. Thats POV, as nothings clear as of yet, so I doubt anyone will caption it so.

I suspect "alledged" remained from the brief time the incident was an "attack". So... Nobody is denying the event, only the cause. I see no problem. Also, I think many of you are getting hung up on the meaning of attack again. I suspect the Israeli's use it in the manner I put forward earlier, I cant recall the last time I saw a general say "Yes, we attacked that house full of children", attack is only ever used in these circumstances to denote intent, an intent to attack. In my view.Superpie (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I cant recall the last time I saw a general say "Yes, we attacked that house full of children" Lidice, Srebrenica massacre, (...) It's a sad surpise how often Generals intentionally make those statements/orders. The Squicks (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With the growing debate around Srebrenica in Western academic circles, its not such a good example anymore. I dont wish to dilute the conversation, but I'd urge you to cover it, interesting stuff. Anyway, You're talking about orders from a leader to his or her followers, im talking about a leader explaining his or her actions in a PR environment (which is all we have) and I cant remember the last time a General described an accident as an attack. Superpie (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I dont think Lidvice and Srebrenica are comparable examples either. Superpie (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean between each other, I agree fully.

One was a reprisal "taking of hostages" which has since been banned in international law, but at the time was legal and practiced by both sides (the Soviets in particular did this, but so did the Allies in general, and the USA did it extensively in other conflicts, including Mai Lai and most notoriously in the No Gun Ri in the Korean War) in order to control partisans/punish civilians. I am by no means justifying the Nazis's actions, but it is a minor crime compared to the Holocaust, and actually separate from the systematic, industrial, way the Holocaust was done - it is more like 19th Century warfare than 20th Century warfare. War is Hell.

Srebrenica was a genocide whose "growing debate" is bullshit comparable to Holocaust denial. Only people denying this Holocaust are Islamophobic blogs and commentators, anti-communist academics reacting to their previous Cold War support of the mujaedin and other Islamist extemists by denying everything, admiting nothing, and of course Serb ultra-nationalists who perpetrated and enabled the massacre (and the extermination camps like Omarska camp - all that was missing was yellow cresents sewn to clothing to drive the point home). Wikipedians apparently have considered these views fringe views, and hence doesn't give them much coverage, an assesment I share fully.

Funny how false analogies prove to be when even shallowly examined with facts.

That said, we shouldn't give this an other incidents more than their due weight: even if we accept at face value Israeli claims of not targetting civilians (which we should do when writting NPOV), civilians will die in any war in a built-up urban/suburban area as the Gaza Strip is. But giving due weight is completely different from ignoring, or questioning/contrasting with fringe views only repeated in extremist blogs and opinion pieces.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One point on the above, we shouldnt accept Israeli claims of not targeting civilians at face value, that would mean accepting them as fact. We should present them as Israeli claims, that would be NPOV, other than that agree with everything above. Nableezy (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I would like very much not to be lumped in with Serb ultra nationalists when I note the debate around Srebrenica, there is a growing school of thought that Srebrenica was massively exagerated, some would say even facilitated for Western political needs at the time and there is at least some evidence to support this. There is absolutely no harm in this view being put forward given there is no concrete evidence either way and to stifle it developing and leading it to answers by comparing it to holocaust denial is irresponsible and close minded in the extreme. Superpie (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to see that there are people that are going to be as offended by that last line as some are offended at Holocaust deniers. If you feel this way about Srebrenica, take it to that talk page. But here it is just an inflammatory statement without purpose. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting some related reading to an example used in discussion with another editor. I talk about a debate, not a denial and frankly, any offence taken is not my responsibility at all. I didnt deny anything, I merely noted the debate and how this related to its use as an example. Anyway, as you say, its irrelevant here. Superpie (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing per MoS

A lot of headins are too long, too elaborate and some infact are clear synth and npov violations. Fixing. of course feel free to revert, but keep in mind that everytime you revert wikifairy stuff, a puppy dies. Please, I beg you think of the puppies. They are cute and innocent. Think of them. Then try to revert. :D--Cerejota (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did do one that is controversial, which is "Effects on Gazans" for the "humanitarian crisis" long thing. I think this is not a question of POV, but of the narrative and encyclopedic voice. Let the facts speak for themselves: if there is a humanitarian crisis, any half-wit will see it if properly sourced.--Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, there's been a talk about it in /Archive 17. Please check it there. And I can't see how "Effects on Gaza" is shorter than "Gaza humanitarain crisis". --Darwish07 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Count the letters and spaces? 15 chars vs 23 chars. Shorter. That said, lets revisit. We need to have a pretty article, too. --Cerejota (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that :). The idea that it's illogical to reduce "humanitarian crisis" to "effects" cause of 8 letter. "Gaza Humanitarian Crisis" is not big at all, and there have been very much bigger titles throughout wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I've waited for your reply but nothing happened. I'll return it back. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, if we ever goign to have a falling out, I don't want it to be over this lameness :D. Its aesthetics at play here. Just because everyone else ignores the MoS, doesn't mean we have to, and the MoS makes aesthetic sense. --Cerejota (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, you're much experienced on WP policies than me over here, but I could not find any title lengths recommendations on WP:MoS. Frankly I do not see the "Gaza humanitarian crisis" title lengthy at all. And even if there are WP:MoS title length rules, I doubt they'll condemn a 3-words-only title :). --Darwish07 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You actually are right, since I last read the MoS this has been changed: Wikipedia:MoS#Article_titles Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words. it used to say "Titles should be short" (don't make me go an seek the diff!!!) without explanation. I guess some people are playing Nomic, because one of the reasons I remember this is because it was debated. I should mention that Wikipedia:MoS#Section headings says that everything that applies to the Article Titles applies to section headings, thats why I quote from it and not WP:HEAD.--Cerejota (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mads Gilbert

Mads Gilbert should be adressed "Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert" rather than simply "a Norwegian doctor". Just terming him "a (Norwegian) doctor" suggests he is a neutral bystander, which he is certainly not. This is not about judging his views and political activities, just for clarification, as he is cited at least twice as a source in controversial incidents. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't that's fair. The source only refers to him as a "doctor". He is many things (say, a male, a father and husband maybe, a university graduate...) but we should only mention him by what a reliable source[17] used mentions him by. And the reliable source I see calls him a "Norwegian doctor" nothing else. If users are allowed to call people whatever they want, without the RS saying so, then this will set a dangerous precedent.

Finally note that a person can have two different capacities in two different contexts. Ariel Sharon, for example, was a Prime Minister in one context, but he may be called a general in another.VR _talk 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the source addresses him just as 'Norwegian doctor' we should do the same. Nableezy (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that since this guy is very controversial ("When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: 'Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.'"), a mention of his "activism" must be part of the context of his report. It doesn't matter if this specific source only notes he's a doctor. We can put together from other places a more complete picture (even from his WP article), and thus can report on that. Rabend (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is good form to:

1. If the source had a Wikipedia article, Wikilink the source, e.g. Mads Gilbert

2. When introducing an article which someone might considered biased (and when discussing a war, you can assume that, 100% of the time, readers aligned with one or another combatant in the war will assume that the article is biased), it is good form to quote the article in format "On date, source reported that info>.reference", for example

“

The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of Depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.^[8]

”

Even that is not enough for some people, for example some editors may prejudge that anything coming from the Iranian Government is automatically false, and will summarily delete references from sources they denigrate without comment. At that point you get an edit war.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But should we do that with Israeli news sources too? So say "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" or "The conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post..."?VR _talk 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to go to that extreme. We should assume that most resources are reasonable enough. But when someone decides to quote a very controversial source, such as the Iranian government TV or that Gilbert fella, that disclaimer needs to be there. In my opinion, we shouldn't ref such sources, as it's pretty much like reffing a blog, but some editors insist on the above two sources. Rabend (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was simply trying to point out a double standard here, where Iranian sources are called Iranian, but Israeli ones are just sources, no qualifier added.VR _talk 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erxnmedia and Rabend here. If some individual reporter/activist with an equally strong bias were to visit Gaza, such as Norman Podhoretz, and pronounced the Gaza situation to be mostly normal and the civilian death count to be incredibly exaggerated-- would we take that at face value? Would we simply state: "According to reporter Norman Podhoretz, ______"? No we would not. The Squicks (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" I would say "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" and for "The conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post" I would say "The Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post" and let the reader follow the wikilink to judge the quality of the source. I do not consider a story in Press TV to be automatically biased because it is Iranian; because it is Iranian Government TV though it is noteworthy to point that out, just the same as if Israel had a state-sponsored newspaper, I would be tempted to point that out. For the people inside Gaza, Iranian news is not controversial, it is only controversial for people outside Gaza. Wikipedia should have WP:NPOV and this needs to be maintained scrupulously in war articles. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit redundant to use the term Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post? It's not like readers will see that and think: "Oh, right, the paper from Jerusalem, Texas". The Squicks (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Palestine? Nableezy (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So from now on every sentence will be of the form: "According to the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, The British newspaper The Telegraph, The United States magazine Playboy, the Russian newspaper Pravda and Martian TV program Mars Today, there is a truce.[sources]"?
I mean, every sources out there is biased to some extent. Wouldn't it be easier to just note the sources that the majority here perceives to be potentially very biased? Rabend (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't perceive Iranians or people from a particular country, ethnicity or religion to be "very biased". Whether sources are biased must be decided on a case to case basis.VR _talk 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be on a case to case basis. I also don't perceive Iranian people to be biased as a default. I do, however, consider anything coming out of the Iranian government to be very biased. Rabend (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Playboy is perhaps the finest and most reliable news publication in the US, please do not compare it the Telegraph and those others! Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the main concern over Press Tv is, however this can be true to any other news paper. And in this case we should use our common sense to see whether an article is biased and further more i disagree with Gilbert being politically active. Having an open mind in politics is different than getting actively involved in politics. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (GNT)

Maybe you should read about him then. Rabend (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the article should actually state "Norwegian doctor and pro-Palestinian activist", so the reader is aware of whose account he is reading. Not writing that is witholding important information by giving the apperance that a neutral doctor is making a claim, when clearly he is not one. Rabend (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"High-Profile Doctor in Gaza Called an 'Apologist for Hamas'--Thursday, January 08, 2009 By Jennifer Lawinski [18] From a RS. "A high-profile Norwegian doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack is now treating patients in Gaza and is being accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel." See also: The Hamas Broadcasting Corporation, in The Spectator magazine.

I don't think we should adress him "pro-Palestinian" activist, since a Maoist alleged of supporting of terrorism is not necessarily pro-("all")-Palestinian, but only pro-"certain"-Palestinians. If you want to definine "pro-Palestinian", you get in bad trouble anyway - e.g is Hamas "pro-Palestinian" or rather "self-serving"... Skäpperöd (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, read about him. How would you describe him? Rabend (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read about him, that's why I have trouble describing him in short terms and decided to stick with "political activist" , link his article, and let the reader figure out what to make of him. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a thread promoting CAMERA's[19] narrative? An ultra-partisan, discredited, spooky, and sensationalistic group such at it should be approached with a ten foot pole. Notability is not what CAMERA wants to be notable, and we see what is being done here. Mads Gilbert has its own article, where this perspective on him belongs, not here. In the middle of an event where hundreds of human beings die, thousands are wounded, dozens of thousands are displaced and their lives disrupted, where millions are spent in weaponry, where the southern Israeli economy is paralyzed, the musings of a Norwegian doctor are quite irrelevant. --Cerejota (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look on how they attack Jimmy Carter, one of the most prestigious ex-presidents of the United States. They call his talk "rants" on their home page. In my personal view, I consider them heavy headed fundamentalists. I call those kind of people "Osama Bin Laden with a tidy business suit". .--Darwish07 (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose creating section for attacks on UN facilities

UN seeks Israel Gaza school hit probe

Israeli forces fired on a UNRWA school sheltering refugees again today, killing two. The article above notes that this is at least the 4th such attack by Israeli forces on a UN facility. (I believe it's the fifth actually, but the source says four, so we can go with that for now). Sources for the previous Israeli attack on the UN central warehouse are here: Senior official gives eyewitness account of Israeli shelling of UN Gaza compound amnesty condemnation. There are many others on both of these are the strike on Al-Fakhura school (which already has its own article).

I think this article warrants a summary section on this issue that links to main articles when necessary. Most of the attacks have received significant coverage in the media. We barely mention these incidents in this article now, which seems patently wrong given how much attention they have garnered in the international community. Tiamut^talk 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the controversity section here and in the seperate controversity article, the HQ and the al-Fakhura school incidents are covered. Maybe we should merge the two paragraphs in this article (HQ and al-F) into one paragraph and add the other incidents. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the above section, the "Controversial incidents" sub-header is original research. It should be dismantled altogether, and the information should be integrated into existing sections, such as "Effects". The attacks on UN facilities are notable and have received a lot of press coverage. They deserve their own subsection within the "Effects" section or the "Ground offensive" section. Tiamut^talk 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The title 'Controversial incidents' is fatuous, since 'controversial' is a term favoured invariably in wiki whenever something goes wrong with the IDF's actions, and they hit some non-military target.It is also routinely inducted to describe a position when whoever or whatever institution makes a criticism of Israel's actions, i.e., it's weasel wording flagposting a hasbara POV. I dislike 'weasel' wording. It is a protected animal in danger of extinction in Palestine. The use of weasel word is in no danger of extinction on wiki Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a weasal word. Further, it's original research. I cannot understand how this was allowed to stand and how this material was farmed out to its own article under that OR, weasal word header. Please look at 2006 Lebanon War for some ideas on how we might better cover these issues. Tiamut^talk 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I adressed the "OR" issue already above, if one source says it was a blue ball and the other one says it was a red ball, it would be OR to say it was a purple ball, but it is certainly no OR to state the sources contradict each other. There is also nothing weasely about the word "controversity", weasel words are words free of content.

If the UN however gets an own section, which for now I neither support nor oppose, I am not sure if we should move it to "effects or leave it in "campaign. The UN is not a fighting party in the conflict - which would be an argument to have an "Effects" subsection -, but of course the UN is heavily involved in the actual fighting with mortars hitting UN compounds (defenitly) and UN compounds being used by fighters (allegedly) - which would be an argument to have them in the campaign section where they are now. I want to hear some more arguments before I make up my mind on how to decide here. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a native speaker of English and longterm editor of I/P articles, I don't take any one's word for it, as authoritative, that putting 'controversial' anywhere or everywhere, is not, in itself, controversial. What is not controversial is having a section head named lucidly and without equivocating adjectives, 'Incidents'. I have removed the adjective, as both unnecessary and question-begging (there is no 'controversy' that incidents took place etc.) Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skäpperöd. The term 'Contraversial' is completely true. It's not question begging because the question itself is vertifiably true: the nature of the incidents are controversial. The Squicks (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The incidents are not controversial. The details are. All historical events, like even eyewitness reports, are covered by perspectives that differ according to source. Historians themselves assay the evidence, and construe it with differing interpretations. This does not mean that therefore all historical events, or reports, are ipso facto controversial. This is primary school stuff. Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All historical events, like even eyewitness reports, are covered by perspectives that differ according to source... This is primary school stuff.' It's also primary school stuff that all historical reports are not on the same level of vertifiablity. The death of JFK is treated fundamentally different than the death of William McKinley, and for good reason. And it's also primary school stuff that events are more clear, and non-controversial, many years after the fact when the fog of war is lifted.

Again, it's not question begging because the question itself is vertifiably true. The Squicks (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article one such incident. This is obvious WP:COATRACKing and WP:POVFORKing, transparent even. However, weasel-wording "Controversial" isn't exactly halal/kosher either, you are moralizing, the only neutral description is the one without adjectives - introduction of adjectives is always biased... one man's "controversial" is another's "uncontroversial" - let the controversy, if any, be reflected in the information. In any case, there should be an "Incidents" sub-article, a section in the main article like the current one, with small summaries of incidents, and WP:SUMMARY off the "Incidents" page as needed, as is the case with the UN school and Mosque attacks. Anything else is uncalled for. --Cerejota (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should be a separate article on List of Israeli attacks on UN facilities as there is at least 4 now since the Lebanon war in 2006. I think it should be as justifiable as the List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks article. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From the current NY Times headline article (as of my posting this comment):

Christopher Gunness, the [UNRWA] refugee agency spokesman, said: “Where you have a direct hit on an Unrwa school where about 1,600 people had taken refuge, where the Israeli Army knows the coordinates and knows who’s there, where this comes as the latest in a catalog of direct and indirect attacks on Unrwa facilities, there have to be investigations to establish whether war crimes have been committed.”

The strike was the fourth time Israel has hit an Unrwa school during the 22-day war on Hamas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html

I added the emphasis above. Grouping together the Israeli attacks on UN facilities is not original research if the attacks are being talked about collectively in the NYTimes.

--John Bahrain (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One has to be careful about not reduplicating. I've put a note to Erlanger's article, with the '4th time in 22 days' added, in the incident section. The important thing is to have on the page every important incident or event. These will have to be sorted out later, into 'incident' or 'violations of international law' or some other categories, according to how things develop. For the moment, I'm putting just the link and a few words therefore to the incident category.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

^ "Official Statistics About the Lull Zionist Violations From the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office" - "إحصائية رسمية صادرة عن المكتب الإعلامي لكتائب القسام حول الانتهاكات الصهيونية للتهدئة". Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office. 2008-12-18. Archived from the original on 2009-1-17. Retrieved 2009-1-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
^ Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack
^ http://www.answers.com/topic/attack
^ htp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819492.stm
^ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/zeitoun.gaza.israel/index.html
^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582768/
^ "Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims", January 4, 2009

[qassam_violations_report-1] "Official Statistics About the Lull Zionist Violations From the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office" - "إحصائية رسمية صادرة عن المكتب الإعلامي لكتائب القسام حول الانتهاكات الصهيونية للتهدئة". Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office. 2008-12-18. Archived from the original on 2009-1-17. Retrieved 2009-1-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)

[2] Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack

[4] ttp://www.answers.com/topic/attack

[5] tp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819492.stm

[6] ttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/zeitoun.gaza.israel/index.html

[7] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582768/

[8] "Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims", January 4, 2009

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]