Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This addition (in bold) to background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos from the Israeli side - all deleted

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

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

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

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

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

Image removed

I'd like to know why the image "Image:Orphanschoolmosque.jpg" was removed.[1] The user offered no explanation in the edit summary.VR talk 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

child casualty and total death toll

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

[2] 

quote from cnn.com

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

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

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

Old and inaccurate. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And if anyone is wondering, I undid the wrong version reinstating the phrase, but I have removed the phrase. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Next shock picture uploaded

image in question - any better than burned babies?

(copied from my talk regarding the Ayman2 image:)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I don't vote in wikipedia - I discuss. We need to get out of that voting mentality, it promotes "us v them" cliquism and unproductive point scoring, instead on focusing on working together to make an encyclopedia. That said, while the ISM stuff made me change my mind (I had an embarasing brain fart on that one), it wasn't on the ISM in general, but just on the specifics of casualty pictures - subjected to pretty well documented controversy - in the context of this article, in terms of making an editorial desicion: for a lot of the information here we all could get 10 more sources than are already there, but we don't because it is not needed; likewise, just because a picture is from an image reliable source, it doesn't mean we have to use it. In this case, I advocated not using it, because I prefer the sourcing less controversial in order to move on to more important things. ISM remains a reliable source, in my opinion, under other contexts and other topics, for example at St. Pancake Rachel Corrie it is a reliable source for pictures.--Cerejota (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Blessed is her name. Anyway I'm sorry but I think that was a typo. I had intended to write "non-vote" hence the quotation marks. And I'm also sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. I was trying to say that several users, none of which were me, had expressed concerns about using ISM pictures in that non-voting discussion and so they shouldn't be added without seeking consensus first. And that is a shame because at the end of the photos of this boy there is a picture in the ISM stream that would appease those who were unhappy before.[3] --JGGardiner (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole picture business is getting boring, ridiculous and quite frankly pointy. I mean, the lead is a mess, we aren't doing progress with [{WP:SUMMARY]], there is very little updating of key events, and to top it off, the picture stuff is becoming pedestrian: this image is patently un-encyclopedic in the context of this article. Its a war wound. In war, people are wounded. *yawn*. WP:DEADHORSE:Bring back baby, if we are going to have fun with something. (edit conflict - naw, if we need to rediscuss, we will do so - let one hundred RfC's bloom!) --Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Naked what? I think that's his back (and shoulder). --JGGardiner (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Take a closer look. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously that's his back. Look at one of the other pictures (which is less gruesome by the way).[4] --JGGardiner (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
And I must dispute the assertion that there was consensus to 'not to include emotive pictures' Nableezy (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, rather there was/is no consensus for inclusion. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
emotive ? okay it's getting silly now. what next, not showing anything above the ankles ? that leaves us with a severed foot. feet upset thai people so that's out. a shoe ? hmmm...might upset animal rights people. a shoelace ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus for that picture, I don't think that can be applied across the board. Nableezy (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

thumb|300px|Famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm). (unindent) Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR. Removing photos is the same as removing text. We include photos from all sides. See: commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties and upload some photos. We need some Israeli casualty photos.

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

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

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

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

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

WP might be a controversial weapon (I'd prefer not to have it used on me!), but I have personally been under WP as a smoke screen, and it is certainly much more humane than being shot, bayoneted or napalmed. Tell you what, why don't you put the picture under "White Phosphorous." Anyway, it is sort of a silly controversy in a world where land mines and flamethrowers are both (mostly) considered legal weapons of modern war. V. Joe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A major problem is : "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible." [5]Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly a major problem, the caption would just say Burns reportedly from WP exposure. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
'A major problem, Tundrabuggy, is that you call an undisputed picture of severe injuries from the war, 'garbage', when your wrote above: 'So now any piece of garbage must be put up to illustrate the evils of Israel.'Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
But I do not think this picture incredibly necessary to the article, we do not need a picture for every human rights violation that either side has done, if we did this would be the longest article in the history of wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Shockingly, I agree with Nableezy. 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
... says V. Joe (talk) Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Then start another article on human rights violations by both sides. It is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Nab & VJ on this the pic more appropriately relates to burn injuries and a controversy on specific weapons. An image that would better reflect Gaza casualties as they relate to the event in general would be bodies in rubble. Please excuse me, I realize that is a callous thing to say. RomaC (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
But it was next to the section discussing the use of WP. It wasn't in the casualties section -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

said seyam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see:

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

2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire. All the immediate background should be elaborated there.--Cerejota (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in this sentence?

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

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

Why is Fatah listed on Hamas' side?

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

Al Aqsa Martrys' Brigade is an armed wing that is affiliated with Fatah. Its a faction that split from the main political arm over disagreements on the use of force. (Fatah reneged on the right to use violence in the Algiers Declaration of 1988; a decision not accepted by all members of the faction or all the Palestinian factions). Tiamuttalk 16:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We should probably just list the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades directly, rather than listing it under Fatah then. Blackeagle (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, but we should do it consistently. It would be best to limit the belligerents to armed wings only for all the groups only. The political leadership is separate from the militant leadership in every faction. 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you would also list the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades instead of Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need to list the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades instead of Hamas, since the organization as a whole was a party to the conflict. However, since Fatah as a whole was not directly involved in the conflict, we should only list the subsection that is involved. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Gaza as a whole was a party to this conflict, and I said early, maybe the first archive, that I would rather have it say Israel on one side and Gaza on the other. That was rejected. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Israel on one side and Gaza on the other reflects the event. If Fatah is listed because Hamas said it was using Fatah weapons (see source), and that means Fatah provided material support, that is another matter. With that logic the USA could be listed on the Israel side, no? Problem is this has been framed as a war involving Israel (political and geographic entity) and Hamas (political entity). This largely ignores Gaza, where the fighting took place. So, yeah, "USA vs Baath" would be the equivalent spin for "Iraq War". Troubling. Sorry for the tangents.... RomaC (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe sometimes we should forget rules, technicalitis etc and just use common sense. Most people would think that Hamas is involved in fighting Israel. Most people would not think Fatah was involved. So, yes, should put Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades , and Hamas, but not FatahJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outent) The problem with your suggestion Jandrews23 is that while most people may think that, it's simply untrue. Hamas is a political party, just like the any other, except that it also has an armed wing. All Palestinian political factions have an armed wing affiliated with them, but the armed wing has a separate leadership and structure. These armed wings make up the belligerents for the Palestinian side in the conflict. The political wings are not involved in combat. There are social workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who voted for Hamas and who may even be Hamas municipal reps but these are not combatants in this war. I think we should differentiate between the armed wings and political wings for all Palestinian factions, just as we differentiate between the political leadership and military leadership in Israel. Tiamuttalk 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

International law section

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

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

citing and refs

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

Sources for Casualities

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

If there was a source for such a statement, than I would add it. The Squicks (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox maps

The maps in the infobox don't give any indication where in the world Israel and Gaza are. We know, of course, because we're brilliant, well educated, etc., but there are many Wikipedia readers who don't and would probably like to get that information first before scuba-diving into the details. Can someone who knows how to work with these things add an inset? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

THERE HAS BEEN ANOTHER ATTACK!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643759070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.61.100 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is PCHR civilian definition in consensus?

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, Zakout also says that the Ministry of Health totals for wounded include cases of psycholgical trauma.[6] The PCHR does not do that and that's a big part of the discrepancy between the two. And the whole issue of "shock" wounded issue has come up a few times here. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zakout. There are lot of psychological trauma on both sides of the border. I watched Vals Im Bashir [[7]] twice today :( I recommend it very much. I hope it will get the Oscar :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such. Most Israeli males serve in the army too, but if they got killed not during their service they would be considered civilians too I suppose. JVent (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong here, JVent. Both males and females serve in IDF. Reservists indeed are school teachers, university students, computer engineers and some even soccer players. When reservist got drafted - usually up till 1 month a year he/she put on IDF uniform join IDF forces and considered soldiers by all parties. For instance see Hezbollah seizes Israel soldiers [[8]]. They (Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser) were reservists soldiers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
JVent, I love your attitude "If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such." I still believe that there is some objective view on who is civilian and who is combatant. Does not UN/ICRC/Geneva convention/whoever have a definition for those terms? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That would constitute original research, we report what the sources say. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation, Nableezy. I want to avoid original research as much as you are. That is why I started this discussion. Wikipedia should not quote sources that Earth is flat is if it is majority opinion. Majority could be confused. Is there any well known definition for who is civilian and who is combatant exists in international law? I would frankly expect that organizations like UN, ICRC or documents like Geneva conventions would define such a term, since there are laws of what is allowed and forbidden with regard to civilians during war time. I'm not an expert in this field, but my instinct is that PCHR ( and other sources like Gaza MoH ) belong to "Flat earth" camp when they include Hamas military wing personal as civilians, but maybe I'm mistaken. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So anyone, definition for civilian? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We really have to follow the sources on this, until another independent verification takes place we should be reporting the number with an explicit citation to who is providing that number. As far as 'flat earth' the UN, HRW, AI, B'tselem, and the ICRC have all quoted these numbers, with an explicit reference to who is providing them. We should do the same. To take another definition of civilian and then use that definition to determine how many people were actually civilian is OR. Nableezy (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nableezy.BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I see what you mean, but it doesn't really matter. We have to stick with the sources, we cannot substitute our reasoning for theirs. The numbers are explicitly referenced. We cannot change the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Nableezy. Well, maybe it's time to admit that we do not know the civilian or combatant casualties numbers from Gaza side of this conflict at this point. I'm in no way suggesting to "fix" the source's data. We should quote sources estimates as-is and while clearly noting that Palestinian side civilian definition is "Flat earth" and does not match well known civilian term definition. This hopefully would improve encyclopedic value to this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, no. Your view that the Palestinian numbers are on the fringe is incorrect. Everybody is reporting these numbers referenced to the source. They are the official numbers of the government, they are to be treated in that way. If and when we get some independent numbers they will go in, but now the format is as it should be. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm just tooning into this discussion but I have got only two simple questions for you AgadaUrbanit. One, tell me where it says that these two guys were NOT included in the 390 number? C'mon, they were militant commanders, off course they were combatants. And second, how is a five-ton bomb falling on your head a non-combat situation? BobaFett85 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
BobaFett85, welcome to discussion. I refer to PCHR civilian statistics, see See [[9]]: The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
None of this matters, we report it how all the sources report it. Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, I generally really appreciate your opinions, but I have to strongly disagree on this one. We should clearly note that Palestinian civilian statistics, based on PCHR research team head report, include An unknown number of Hamas military commanders. There are two well known examples. I hope you do not want to hide this fact. Cognitive relativism has its limits. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I can argue and spot holes about your given point, but I will not cause Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Do you have independent WP:RS sources that exactly say that the referenced reports include "An unknown number of Hamas military commanders"? If you don't, please instantly stop such a discussion which does not have any place in Wikipedia. The currency here are reliable references, not truth. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome into discussion. Do you prefer it would state "at least two" Hamas military commanders were counted as civilians? Does it sound more fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, these guys were not "military commanders". Said Siam was the ministry of the Interior and Nizar Rayan was a spiritual leader and professor. I think we should state plainly (as I have) that these two "leaders" who were killed in "non-combat" situations are considered "civilians" by PCHR. I've removed the mention to "international law". Please provide a source which says that both would not be considered civiilians under international law if you intend to restore it. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, somehow your view is biased. Said Siam is highest ranking military commander - he's peer is Ehud Barak both are included as commanders in Info Box. Do you see it? As for professor, he had a strange academic hobby of using his house as weapon storage. I saw footage of him in military uniform, carrying an RPG and cheering troops. Probably you call it spiritual guidance. Please see Nizar Rayan article I quote Sheikh Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان‎, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas military commander - he will not be remembered as professor. I'm going to restore your undo, "according to international law" is quote from civilian definition AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, you didn't answer my question, how was it a non-combat situation if they were killed by air strikes which intentionaly targeted them. You are saying that if an IDF sniper had shot them dead in a targeted killing it would be a non-combat situation. It was a targeted military assasination in a state of war. Just like a general, who commands troops from the rear where there is no combat, is taken out by an assasin during a war. But the main problem here is, can you provide proof that they were included in the civilian count, or they were not included in the combatant count? I haven't seen any references that provide proof to your theory AgadaUrbanit.16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)BobaFett85 (talk)

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

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

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

AgadaUrbanit. You have restored this sentence three times now:

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

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

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

I have to disagree. RS around the world reported Nizar Rayan and Said Siam are commanders of Hamas military. Those persons are members/commanders of Hamas armed forces (government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations), thus hardly civilians under international humanitarian law. We should clearly warn readers that PCHR civilian statistics contains unknown number of Hamas combatants both in Casualties section and in InfoBox. Otherwise I feel we'd confuse the reader and hide the truth.
CNN [10]: "Nizar Rayan, one of the main founders of Hamas and a commander in northern Gaza"
JPost [11]: "Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander"
UPI [12]: "Hamas military commander was killed in an Israeli airstrike"
NYPost [13]: "He was both a military commander and the spiritual leader of Hamas' brutal military wing."
JPost [14] "Siam was the Hamas political echelon's liaison with the group's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, and was responsible for the various security apparatuses in the Strip"
Haaretz [15] "Sayyam ... head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas."
AP [16] "Hamas confirms Israel strike killed security chief (Siam) ... who oversaw thousands of security agents in the Gaza Strip."

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

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

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

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

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

Reading List.

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

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

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

@ Nishidani_ What you refer to as "correctives to the disinformation campaign" of others, is frankly a disinformation campaign of itself and simply inappropriate to this talk page. If you believe that a section of this article is "totally dishonest" as you suggest, you should be putting up specific diffs for discussion and improvement. It strikes me as a sore lack of respect toward editors here who do not share your views to label their perspective "dishonest" and a "disinformation campaign." I urge you to refactor your comments. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wow, lack of respect. wow. Nableezy (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
like wow, yeah. Respect is one of the 5 pillars upon which wikipedia is built. I recommend reading those two wikilinks and incorporating them. In case you think I am joking about this, here is a quote to mull on: "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give firm standards as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". (my bolds) Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre"?

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

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

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

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

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

I just started to think that the ten reffs could be lesser but I was wrong. The not a Brunte (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [17]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [18]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [19]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [20]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
with all that I think the current wording is fine, but you could open a discussion on the capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And I would be cool with narrowing down the references to the ones above that explicitly call it 'the gaza massacre' regardless of capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The arabic sources use one of 2 phrases that both translate to gaza massacre, either مذبحة غزة, or مجزرة غزة‎ Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And the name Hamas uses should be included as the name the government of Gaza uses, just as the name the government of Israel uses is included. Nableezy (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Can it be shown that the conflict has been referred to by the Gaza government in any official or ongoing capacity, rather than just once as an offhand quote in a newspaper? Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Those were official statements, including one broadcast around the world on Al-Arabiyya TV. I think that qualifies as more than an offhand quote. If something is attributed to a Hamas spokesman it is attributed to Hamas which is government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Nableezy, ergo Caps. As for "...in parts of the Arab World" what exactly is the point of including this qualification? I saw a quick discussion that more or less forced a compromise that "Arab World" ought to be qualified somehow. "...everywere the Arab World" would be problematic, but the general statement "...in the Arab World" is not. It's a matter of grammar and sets and subsets, for example the general statement "Pizza is popular in Italy." is correct, but something like "every single Italian loves pizza" is not correct. We do not have to "compromise" and say "Pizza is popular in parts of Italy." Keep it simple and real. RomaC (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And I repeat again:
I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread.
Nableezy (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That there is one of something does not make it a proper noun, nor does it mean that it should be capitalized. If my family has one dog, it is "the family dog" and not "the Family Dog." The reliable sources refer to it with a lower case 'M' and so should we. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it had to be capitalized, but this is most certainly a proper noun (which does not have to be capitalized). The closest comparison I can think of would be this. Hamas leaders, when referring to the State of Israel, generally refuse to use the word 'Israel'. The instead prefer the term 'the Zionist entity'. It cannot be argued when a Hamas spokesman says 'the Zionist entity' he is referring to the State of Israel, and 'the Zionist entity' is a proper noun. And entity is never capitalized in that situation, in any English translation that I read. There being one of something does not make it a proper noun, but by referring to a specific event with a name, here said conflict and name 'the Gaza massacre' that does make the name used a proper noun. I am not arguing about capitalization, but tb has repeatedly asserted when the quotes are referencing this situation as 'the Gaza massacre' that it is not the name given. I think that is patently false. Nableezy (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually your own example speaks against you. "Zionist" is capitalized as an ideology, but "entity" is not. specifically because they are making the point that they are not "naming" Israel ie The Zionist Entity would be "recognizing" Israel by another name. By using small-case entity, they are making a point that "entity" in this case generic though a "Zionist" one. "massacre" is any massacre, though it is the Gaza one. 'The Zionist entity' is not meant to be a proper noun, (ie a name) and it isn't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You apparently do not understand English. That is really all that is needed to be said. Your position has been rejected, give it up. Nableezy (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The 'separate thread' part was from a different thread, so feel free to bring it up here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oren0, do you think that the quotes I cited above refer to it as 'the gaza massacre' as the name? forget about capitalization for now. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgetting about capitalization for a minute, it seems that most editors support the use of the term and I'm willing to abide by that consensus. As you can see, I have cleaned up the lead to only reference the citations that actually call it "Gaza massacre" by name. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
All right, perhaps we should move on from whether or not it is a name used and determine whether or not to have the massacre capitalized. I am not going to state an opinion at this point, really because I think both sides are valid and I have to turn it over in my head a few more times. But the rest of yall just idly watching, state your piece on whether or not you feel the 'Massacre' should be 'massacre' or 'Massacre' in 'Gaza Massacre'. And if you could include a rational explanation that probably would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you took my comment the wrong way. That was just an example of what could be called a massacre. The meaning of the word is exactly the same in both languages. I have not said it is the most common name used by Arabs. It certainly has been used by Arabs, but the only thing that matters, to me at least, is that it is used by the opposing government in this conflict. The translation is what the translation is, the arabic words are what Hamas used, and the English words are the translation of those words, both according to a dictionary, and according to sources who translated those words. We cannot just change the English translation of the word in Arabic. Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And Al-jazeera English is by no means the English translation of Al-jazeera. It is almost a completely separate venture, and its programming is nowhere near the same. Nableezy (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, forget what I said above. If the meaning and usage is exactly the same, then it only needs to be established who is using that term and to what extend. If Hamas is using that term exclusively, it should be sourced and mentioned. If all or most or specific Arab RS use that term, too, it needs to be sourced and mentioned accordingly (which imo is not the case with the current version).
I would personally be disappointed if all/most Arabs exclusively use "Gaza massacre" for naming the event or otherwise refer to it as a massacre - that is what I regard flaming, the term then would only be chosen to imply guilt and cruelty of the opponent and make the Gazan share of the conflict forgotten. With all respect to the Palestinian arguments, but if someone arms himself with the stated aim to exterminate his neighbor and keeps throwing rockets at him ... In contrast, if eg the Zeitoun version turns out to be correct that civilians were forced into a building that was shelled thereafter with no other aim but to kill them, that would of course be a massacre. But enough of WP:SOAP, let's see what the sources say, unfortunately I cannot participate in their evaluation because I do not speak Arabic. Thank you again Nableezy for patiently explaining the Arab usage to me, I really hoped there would be a simple "technical" (linguistic/cultural) explanation and not just the inflamatory one. Now what is left for me is only to hope the sources show that not all/most Arabs are flamers. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but when I see these pictures and look at the numbers and look at what is described as a humanitarian catastrophe, I think it understandable to call this a massacre, nothing to do with Arabs being 'flamers'. Nableezy (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that not only the Arabs or Hamas calling it a massacre. I've seen sources in Europe, the USA, and even in American Jewish community calling the events a massacre. Anyway all of this is non-relevant, cause the point is to mention the war names with no business of us whatsoever to judge if it's right, wrong, propaganda, flamatory, cold-blodded, or any of those stuff. This is one of WP basic rules and everybody knows that very well. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos

You keep eliding material, on your own, with no discussion. The three industrial centres knocked out by the IDF are specified because they are the fundamental pivots of the economy of the Gaza strip, cement for construction, and flour processing, etc. Before Gaza had some private infrastructure for storage, milling of foodstuffs, and large-scale building construction. These were economic targets like mills and silos (same happened in Lebanon), not military targets, like workshops, all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry. That effect is major, it has devastated the possibility of internal reconstruction, since now everything must be done abroad (Israel etc), and nothing done by Gaza's entrepreneurs themselves. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if this is total war or indeed even a war where infrastructure is a target. Aren't ANY factories legitimate targets for air attack? V. Joe (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That may be the position of the Israeli government, but not of the UN, HRW, AI, Btselem, and the ICRC. Nableezy (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Just asking, incidentally, what is the AI? Also, lets be honest the IDF's viewpoint on which targets to hit is kind of crucial when they are the guys with the Air Force. Are you suggesting that hitting the factories is a war crime (as defined by whom?) or merely something that MIGHT be a war crime? V. Joe (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The AI is praying in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the digital. Amnesty International.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Smartass. V. Joe (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
File:DarthArafat.png
Darth Arafat:V Joe, did you say something?
What I am suggesting is that numerous human rights organizations have explicitly said that definitions made by Israel as what constitutes a legitimate target is so broad that no other Western democracy has made them. That they are at odds with what the above international human rights organization have said are consistent with international law. That Israel says something is a valid target does not make it so, it only makes it that Israel claims that it is. That is what I am suggesting. Nableezy (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Also consider the Geneva Conventions, which Israel cites in their defense in the destruction of Gaza infrastructure. According to the Geneva Conventions, which Israelis quote, "A legitimate target must 'make an effective contribution to military action' and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer 'a definite military advantage'" [21] Israelis have destroyed homes, civilian and government buildings, farm and factories on the excuses that the buildings are Hamas affiliated, or Hamas are firing from near the premises, or for even more inane excuses.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, fun with the conventions. The G.C's, which is a HUGE series of treaties, doesn't seem to mention the status of factories, or at least as I can find with a quick scanning. Which convention and which protocol? As for effective contributions to military action, factories are certainly that, whether they are making MREs or tanks. As for a home or farm, if they have enemy combatants, officers or soldiers in them, they are a legitimate target. This also includes mosques and other places of worship. V. Joe (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Jala and others, regarding unilateral edits, please consider that artful editors might counter with RS-based assertions for example that Beersheba is not a civilian but a military target, because, the Beersheba economy is based largely on the Israeli Armed Forces. Shall we reduce ourselves to this? The article we are working on covers a controversial event, let's just stay real and Wiki, please... RomaC (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
These were economic targets like mills and silos... all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry Thank God some (most?) Hamas members decided to launch their rockets from there instead of from beside schools, hospitals, residental homes, and the like!
Anyways, a sentence along the lines of "Before the conflict, the three areas served as industrial centres for the Gaza strip" makes sense to me. Going into long, intense detail about who/what/when/where the areas produced seems unnesseceary. The Squicks (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The source says no such thing. They were privately owned, one of them had private guards and was locked up. There was no proof given Hamas had fired from these, indeed one is 600 yards from the border with Israel. It would be easier working in here, if you dropped the quick wisecracks, and actually studied the material, and thought about it before commenting on everything.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, we have a one-paragraph section on effects of the conflict, which, being one paragraph long, can only deal with generalities. The details are amply described in the separate article. Along comes an editor and starts listing factories that were destroyed and how, when the paragraph already says that 15,000 factories and workshops were destroyed. The edit was sloppy and in the wrong place, as the order of the paragraph was Gaza-Israel-elsewhere, and the addition, which pertained to Gaza, was inserted in between Israel and elsewhere. I moved the addition to the separate article and explained what I did and why in the edit summary. This was a very mundane edit, the kind that is done all the time to keep articles from deteriorating into collections of junk. Why you have a problem with it - well, I have a guess, but I'm supposed to force myself to think otherwise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a brief paragraph section, pared down to the bone, because editors, like yourself, keep it that way. 15,000 factories and workshops is one thing, most of them are shed businesses. The three industries hit are not small-time entrepreneur operations that are neither here nor there. They are the lifeblood of the economy, being the largest enterprises, well-established businesses, in Gaza. I'll argue for its retention. I see no reason why two lines specifying this are 'junk'. Israel has junked Gaza, certainly, but I don't think all specific notices of how much was junked should be dumped out, in an article probably no one will read. If you are so keen to maintain terse objectivity, apply your wits to the far longer sections like 'Executions of Palestinians','Attacks on Israel from outside Gaza', and two or three more, which expatiate in great detail on matters tangential to the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, ever since the three sections "effects", "media" and "reactions" were farmed out to separate articles, I have felt, like you apparently, that what's left is much too short. But I saw a consensus to keep them confined to generalities and I respected it, for example by taking care to describe close to a million people huddling in bomb shelters or fleeing their towns in a single, dry sentence. Since no one is objecting on structural grounds to your addition, I conclude that the consensus no longer exists, and that highly notable details can be added. I think this is a good thing. I will still move the addition in question to its proper place in the paragraph, and, if I have time, check its content vis-a-vis its source, its style, etc. BTW, I did not say that the addition is junk, but that without proper editing articles turn into collections of junk (even if each individual segment, taken completely on its own, is fine). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Good. A large part of the article is junk, and I know what you are talking about, and thoroughly agree. The point I made was that there is a total disparity betwen sections. I edited two lines into one of the thinnest. The problem is, most editors are focused on a section, do battle there, and do not look, when editing, at the article in the round, leading precisely to this discrepancy in overall weighting.

There is, by the way, no good objective source for the cliché '1,000,000 people huddling in bomb shelters'. It is the entire Israeli population of the area according to demographics, potentially within Qassam ranges, without a discrimination between notorious areas under constant fear and barrages (Sderot) from a very large number of settlements that have had very little to fear from Qassams. I know the Israeli area affected quite well, have lived there. This is what media say. I have difficulty believing it. But I haven't touched it.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

aftermath?

the information presented under this title belongs here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_foreign_involvement ... Cryptonio (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cryptonio (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Plus, the information on the ceasefire violation was already included under Ceasefire Violations. Cryptonio (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire breached

This news report http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/28/2475752.htm?section=world Mentions a roadside bomb that was remotely detonated from within Gaza, killing an Israeli officer. It goes on to say that Israel reponded with renewed helicopter attacks, and that tanks & bulldozers were moving into Gaza once again.

I figure I'd post it here for dicussion rather than change the article. Some may wish to debate the veracity of this, or to talk about the direction this article will take if the fighting does indeed break out again in full.Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this may have been dicussed further up the talk page. If that is in fact the same incident I appologise Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The roadside bomb and the farmer killed afterwards are already in the article (Ceasefire violations section). First I've heard about tanks and helicopters though. Anyone got any other sources for this? Blackeagle (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw no mention of any farmer killed in that article. It says that an Israeli officer was killed and three others wounded, and that the Israeli government issued a statement that they would respond and that not long after they did, with helicopters. It only mentions that tanks & bulldozers were seen moving within Gaza, not that they were part of any retaliatory attack by the israeli government, it's implied though. Perhaps it's a separate incident? Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"One Palestinain man died soon after the bombing in skirmishes near the border." He's not identified as a farmer in your article, but I'm pretty sure it's the same fellow we mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagle (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I see that now, I just came accross this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5601165.ece although it seems mor information is availiable nowAndrew's Concience (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose new, streamlined and improved introduction

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ok, lets look at the proposals one by one:

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

OK that was unintentional, I will edit it back in.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It still neglects the issue that any English teacher will tell you that not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre". This has been commented on by numerous editors, even on the No Original Research noticeboard. Thus I (and others) believe it should read something to the effect, that "parts of the Arab world describe the event as a massacre" (no bolds) Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In which case you'd have to mention that there are at least some in the west who would also regard it as a massacreJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Just as you would have to mention that there are some in the west who regard it as legitimate self-defense for Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it still states that the 2008-2009 conflict began on December 27th, which is ridiculous. Numerous editors have commented on this as well, yet it still gets edit-warred back in. A word similar to "intensified" is one of the few words that make any sense in this context. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think AGF no longer applies here with Tundrabuggy, your repeated lie about how 'not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre"' has repeatedly been proven wrong. For all those who did not read the above discussion or the thousand times this has been disproved in the archives, here you go:
SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [22]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [23]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [24]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [25]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
I cannot believe how many times you are willing to say something that you have been proven wrong on multiple times. I would encourage other readers to look at #Start of conflict for further nonsense. That you actually dispute that the term 'the gaza massacre' has been used has been thoroughly refuted. You want to make an issue of capitalization then fine, but dont come here again and again saying nobody has called it 'the gaza massacre'. It is an outright lie that you know for a fact is an outright lie. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you can point away, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about, sorry. A particular thing preceded by "the" is not necessarily a proper noun. "the dog" for example -- you would not capitalize dog. "the Cocker Spaniel" on the other hand, is the name of a breed, and "Goldie" is the name of a particular dog, but dogs are dogs, and while they are a "specific thing" ie a noun, "dog" is not "proper noun." Perhaps since you are so relieved that not all proper nouns need to be capitalized, you can demonstrate one that does not need to be. Perhaps we can take this discussion back down to the bottom of the page where User:OrenO has restarted this discussion making the same point I have been making right along. The capitalization issue is not an issue in itself - merely evidence that you are mistaken. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am no longer discussing irrational arguments that have been refuted time and time again. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6) The ja23 proposal replaces:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something like this, but with the sourcing and wikilinks:

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


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

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

Re [26] and [27], the language being restored here is pretty clearly inappropriate. First of all, identifying the Palestinian Ministry of Health as "Hamas-run" is gratuitous and carries no information; it simply serves as a kind of rhetorical prod to the reader, "don't trust these guys." (I imagine it read aloud in an Israeli accent; "khhhaamas" ;) It's a government ministry, it's run by the government, which is run by the party in power. Flagging that party serves no legitimate purpose and is only an attempt to lead the reader around by the nose. And what does the Jerusalem Post, a hawkish Israeli paper, report?

Tony Laurance, who heads the World Health Organization's office in the West Bank and Gaza, said the information from the Gaza Health Ministry "is likely to be close to accurate." It was "reported on a daily basis by hospitals to the central information center within the Ministry of Health," he added. That center had identifying details of the casualties in terms of names and ages and places of residents.[28]

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

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

Maybe this reflects that Palestinians are split in de-facto civil war. There is Fatah Palestinian National Authority controlling West bank and Khhhaamas-run Governance of the Gaza Strip. It was reported [[29]] two parties continued to fight also during this conflict. So for dumb Israeli as myself such clarification is required. Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
If there are Fatah estimates (i'm sorry, "Palestinian National Authority" estimates ;) then let's have them linked on the talk page, first. Then we would have to ask, according to reliable sources how credible are these estimates? Because I've checked for media coverage of Gaza casualty counts and haven't found anything that even mentions them. "Maybe" isn't good enough, we need to have solid sources backing each piece of text we put in this article. Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that Fatah does have some relationship with the Italian guy who claims it's all a Hamas-PCHR-WHO-UN conspiracy to boost casualty figures, but that's my own idle speculation and is irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact is there are two Palestinian Prime Ministers and two MoHs. How do you suggest we differentiate between those? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Which one speaks for Gaza? The one affiliated with Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... Both? During the conflict Fatah and independent officials even enjoyed clear majority in the media. Abu Mazen represented Gaza in cease-fire ceremony in Sharm el-Sheikh with Egypt and European leaders. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Fatah speaking for Gaza is meaningless, Hamas still have to accept that for it to be at all valid. Hamas is both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Not de jure. They wrested power in a 2007 Battle of Gaza bloody coup. Now maybe the Gazans are happy with their "leadership," I don't know. It would be (in US) as if the Republicans were to throw out all the Democrats (by throwing them off rooves and taking over their offices at gunpoint, etc) and decided to run the country their way. Hardly de jure, no matter how often you repeat it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
De jure, there's no legitimate government. After abu Mazen dismissed the Hamas government, he was the legitimate government, but only for the short period allowed by the PA constitution after which new elections were necessary. He ignored that provision. Both governments are illegitimate, although the Hamas government in Gaza was at least elected, while Abbas is basically a Washington/Tel Aviv appointee, FWIW. <eleland/talkedits> 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
De jure, there's no legitimate government. And, thus, we cannot calling something that's Hamas-run "Palestinian run" or simply "Palestinian" because it would be unclear to the reader. Simply. Really, how is "Hamas-run" a POV statement? The Squicks (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is "Israeli Defence Force figures" an inherently POV statement since it includes the word "Israel"? The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The PM said Abbas had no authority to dismiss that government. As of the last elections, widely recognized as free and fair, Hamas is the governing party of the PNA. They are the de jure government of the PNA but can only exercise de facto control in Gaza. And tundrabuggy, the coup attempt was actually from the other side. Nableezy (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was about to say that, Tundra read up your history... But, Hamas is de facto government because the Palestinian Authority is the internationally recognized government of both Gaza and WB - de jure government. If Hamas were the de jure goverment, Egypt would open up the border at Rafah. de facto can be a subjective view, but de jure in this case is objective in the same way notability is... except the reliable sources are other nations. So calling Hamas de jure is crap until other countries recognize them, which none have, not even Iran.
Mentioning "Hamas-run" does smacks me of passive-agressive provocation, but it is factually correct: We gots to stop the storms in a teacup... stop biting the baits. --Cerejota (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well then the Israeli estimates should say 'Kadima-run' or 'Israeli-government-run MOH' since that's also factually accurate.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Hamas-run"? --I see Jandrews and others' point. In this article for example, we see "government-run" not "Hamas-run." RomaC (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I see your point but I think the problem is that putting Hamas-run creaetes an implicit accusation that the figures are falsified or doubtful. Particularly given that Hamas is a militant group. I think the wording is used to try and discredit statements about palestinian casualties, etc. The article is full of 'Hamas claims', 'according to Hamas', etc.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What you are saying is we shouldn't clearly attribute Hamas' claims to Hamas because people might not believe it if they know who is the source, but will more likely trust the information if they are not aware who "MoH" really is. That is pretty thin ice you are walking on. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No what he is saying is that the continued attempt to have any government office be related to the party in power is something unseen elsewhere. The MoH is a governmental institution, that Hamas is the current government is irrelevant to that. Or should we put The Labour Min of Def for Israel or the Kadima PM or FM? No we dont, we list it as Israels Min of Def. This continued insistence that we must treat the government of Gaza as something other than the government of Gaza is annoying. Nableezy (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a form of perception-shifting. We don't use USA vs Baath in the Iraq War. RomaC (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Or for that matter, The GOP vs Iraq, or Cheney and friends vs Iraq. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And if the issue is that this was only against 'Hamas-run part of Palestine', which to me at least equals Gaza, then perhaps you should be arguing about having it say the Gaza MoH. That would at least seem to be in line with your position that because Palestine is divided that division should be noted, and at the same time representing it as it is, a government ministry. Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]There is no question that Hamas threw out the PA and are governing on their own. It is my understanding that there is no power-sharing going on between PA and Hamas in Gaza. There is no two-party system, no opposition party acknowledged. Do correct me if I'm wrong. That may be a "democratically elected" government, but my understanding of democratic is that the voice of others is heard as well. I am also under the impression that not every Gazan is happy with Hamas and Hamas' decision to provoke Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind you , PA is transferring money for reconstruction to Hamas. However, in the latest poll, most see the responsibility for the failure of the truce to be more on Hamas than on Israel. Pretty weird for a Ma'an poll. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Your understanding is incorrect. Hamas holds the majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, and that happened by beating Fatah in an election, you know something that happens when there is more than 1 party. Long story short, Fatah got pissed, attempted a coup and lost. Hamas is the, and this cannot be disputed, de facto government of the Gaza Strip, they are the governing authority. Government agencies on both sides have to be treated the same. You cannot say that the government ministry in Gaza must be suspect but we can accept as gospel the statements of the Israeli government. That is not how NPOV works. Nableezy (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I never denied that Hamas was the defacto "government" of Hamas. Just the de jure. I have never suggested for one moment that we accept anyone's word as gospel. The Hamas government, however, is considered a terrorist government by much of the west. It is a government that cannot provide for itself but is a beggar state. It has taken unilateral decisions to provoke its neighbor without taking the temperature of its own people. It doesn't have a transparent governance and its leader is in self-imposed "exile" in Syria. When it took "office" it immediately decided not to honor the agreements made by its predeccesors. This is not a government but a gang of thugs that have taken over. It is not a democracy and is not accountable to anyone. You cannot compare this "government" with Israel's for transparency or accountability. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? So I cant compare Hamas not recognizing agreements by Fatah to, I dont know, lets say Netanyahu's position when he became PM a while back not living up to the Oslo Accords? I dont want to do this anymore and have to say the same thing 20 times, the government of Gaza has to be treated the same as the government of Israel in this article. Nableezy (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And as far as de jure or the view of much of the West, the city of Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by much of the West, indeed much of the world. What yet that fact, which is given full prominence in encyclopedias such as Britannica or Encarta, is relegated to a footnote in the Jerusalem article here on Wikipedia, with the reason given being that it does not matter what the world says on the issue, all that matters is what the government says about themselves. Anybody arguing that 'Hamas run' be placed before the mention of government ministries should logically then be looking for every incidence of Jerusalem being mentioned as the capitol of Israel and change that to 'Israeli claimed capitol of Israel'. This would be so much easier if standards of practice were recognized instead of arguing both sides of an issue whenever either side fits your agenda. Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Al-Arabia-Grad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Al-Arabia-Grad-YouTube was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
  4. ^ "Profile of a professor who was prepared for martyrdom". The Independent. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  5. ^ "Hardline Hamas leader killed in air strike on Gaza home". The Telegraph. January 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ynet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference nydn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference AP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  10. ^ "Israel braced for Hamas response". BBC. 2009-1-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ "Israel pounds Gaza for fourth day". London, UK: BBC. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2009-01-14.
  12. ^ "Israel vows war on Hamas in Gaza". BBC. December 30, 2008. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
  13. ^ "Israeli Gaza 'massacre' must stop, Syria's Assad tells US senator". Google News. Agence France-Presse. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-9. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  14. ^ "Factions refuse Abbas' call for unity meeting amid Gaza massacre". Turkish Weekly. Ma'an News Agency. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  15. ^ "Iraqi leaders discuss Gaza massacre". gulfnews.com. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on http://www.webcitation.org/5dfW1C8nU. Retrieved 2009-1-8. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); External link in |archivedate= (help)
  16. ^ "Hamas slammed the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre" - "Israel airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 225". Khaleej Times. Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA). 2008-12-27. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  17. ^ "it's impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre" - "Hamas denies firing rockets from Lebanon". Special Broadcasting Service. Agence France-Presse. 2009-1-8. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
  18. ^ "Arab Leaders Call for Palestinian Unity During "Terrible Massacre"". Foxnews.com. Associated Press. 2008-12-31. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  19. ^ "Gulf leaders tell Israel to stop Gaza "massacres"". Reuters. Reuters. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  20. ^ "OIC, GCC denounce massacre in Gaza". Arab News. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  21. ^ "Diplomatic race to stop the Gaza massacre" - "سباق دبلوماسي لوقف مذبحة غزة". BBC Arabic. 2009-1-5. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
  22. ^ Libya calling the operation a "horrible massacre" - "United Nations Security Council 6060th meeting (Click on the page S/PV.6060 record for transcript)". United Nations Security Council. 2008-12-31. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  23. ^ Jacobs, Phil (2008-12-30). "Tipping Point After years of rocket attacks, Israel finally says, 'Enough!'". Baltimore Jewish Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  24. ^ New York Times (June 18, 2008). "Israel Agrees to Truce with Hamas on Gaza". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  25. ^ "TIMELINE - Israeli-Hamas violence since truce ended". Reuters.
  26. ^ ‘Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Threatens Truce with Hamas,’ Fox News, November 04, 2008
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian20091105 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ "Israel says world understands its actions in Gaza".
  29. ^ Ibrahim Barzak (2009-01-04). "World leaders converge on Israel in push for truce". Charlotte Observer. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Amos Harel. "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes". Haaretz. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  31. ^ Yaakov Katz. "A year's intel gathering yields 'alpha hits'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  32. ^ El-Khodary, Taghreed (December 28, 2008). "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  33. ^ "Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels". BBC news. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  34. ^ "Israel resumes Gaza bombardment". al Jazeera. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  35. ^ Israel strikes key Hamas offices
  36. ^ "Hamas military labs in Islamic university bombed".
  37. ^ Roni Sofer. "IDF says hit Hamas' arms development site". ynetnews. Retrieved December 29, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  38. ^ "Gaza relief boat damaged in encounter with Israeli vessel - CNN.com". cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  39. ^ "Pro-Palestinian activists say Israel Navy fired on protest boat off Gaza shore". Haaretz/Reuters. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  40. ^ "IAF and IN Strike Additional Hamas Targets, Operation Continues". Israel: Israel Defense Forces. 2009-01-01. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  41. ^ BARZAK, IBRAHIM (2009-01-04). "Fear, shortages for civilians caught in Gaza fight". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  42. ^ GAZZAR, BRENDA (2009-01-04). "Gaza civilians tell 'Post' their city has 'gone backward 50 years'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  43. ^ MAX, ALEX (2009-01-01). "Israel targets Gaza mosques used by Hamas". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  44. ^ Kareem, Abdel (2009-01-05). "For Trapped Gazans, Few Options for Safety". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  45. ^ El-Khodary, Taghreed. "Gaza hospital fills with gravely hurt civilians". San Francisco Chronicle - New York Times. pp. A 3. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  46. ^ McCarthy, Rory (January 2, 2009). "Israeli warplanes destroy Gaza houses and mosque as air strikes continue". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  47. ^ NISSENBAUM, DION (2009-01-01). "Israel vows to pummel Hamas but treat Gaza civilians 'with silk gloves'". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-01-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  48. ^ "Israel Confirms Ground Invasion Has Started". MSNBC. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  49. ^ BARZAK, IBRAHIM (2009-01-04). "Israeli ground troops invade Gaza to halt rockets". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  50. ^ Black, Ian (December 27, 2008). "Israel's hammer blow in Gaza". Guardian. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  51. ^ Curiel, Ilana (December 27, 2008). "Man killed in rocket strike". ynetnews. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  52. ^ "Hamas, Israel set independent cease-fires". CNN International.
  53. ^ "Israel wants rapid Gaza pullout". BBC. January 18, 2009.
  54. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7841902.stm
  55. ^ Israel and Hamas under pressure for Gaza aid truce Reuters 2008-12-30
  56. ^ Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza, Haaretz. December 30, 2008.
  57. ^ Israeli assault on Gaza Strip draws widespread condemnation
  58. ^ Protests Against Israel's Gaza Bombardment Spread
  59. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4016850/Gaza-attacks-Israeli-strikes-spark-protests-across-world.html
  60. ^ BBC NEWS UK | London protest over raids on Gaza.BBC News. Retrieved on 2009-01-08
  61. ^ VOA News - Protests Against Israel's Gaza Bombardment Spread.Voanews.com. Retrieved on 2009-01-08
  62. ^ http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,24949313-5005361,00.html?from=public_rss
  63. ^ . Jerusulum Post. January 22, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292939271&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help)
  64. ^ a b c d Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'. BBC News. January 19, 2009.
  65. ^ MYRE, GREG (2003-04-20). "Israeli Soldiers Kill 5 Palestinians, Including a Journalist". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  66. ^ Cite error: The named reference hs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  67. ^ Cite error: The named reference btselem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  68. ^ McGreal, Chris (2009-01-23). "Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  69. ^ Beaumont, Peter (2009-01-10). "Does the world have the appetite to prosecute Israel for war crimes in Gaza?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  70. ^ "Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza". Human Rights Watch. 2009-01-10. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  71. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH286481
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_26&oldid=1136754135"