Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

Intro

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

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

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

Request permission to upload photo

I want to know if would be okay to upload a photo of a victim of the Israeli assault. The victim is a "baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank." [5] I know user:23prootie(backed by a few other users) has contested the use of other photos because they were not of "the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children" and that the photos were not "tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood)" and there were copyright issues.

But this image past the tests because it is

1. of a child 2. Black and white, no blood. 3. Under a license accepted by wikipedia.

I have also uploaded an image of destroyed buildings [6]. I believe no one will contest that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realized how are we supposed to find photos of victims that contain no blood. They didn't die from pneumonia! La Howla - Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to elaborate on the 'Under a license accepted by wikipedia' ? Is the provenance of this image known because we seem to keep hitting issues with people putting AFP and such like photos on flickr ? I swear that in the end we're going to end up with images of the cats and dogs killed on both sides because everyone likes cats and dogs. What next, architects complaining that showing images of destroyed buildings is pornographic ? Bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The photos are released under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, the photos were uploaded by an organization called the ISM, and their web site links to the flickr account [7]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just trawled through hundreds of photos in the getty image library looking for this picture just in case it's AFP etc. I couldn't find it. That of course proves nothing but that's where these kind of images have been before. Does that help in the slightest ? Not sure. Hopefully including this photo won't turn into a 'prove with absolute 100% certainty that evolution through natural selection is a fact' type of argument over the provenance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that this is the original work of the organization. I know that there are people on flickr who upload images from AFP, as you have mentioned, but I do think that based on different factors (It is a Palestinian-based organization, they have access to Gaza, they have photos not found on any other news site that I have seen), I do think that these are their photos. Works that are not theirs but are in their photostream are under all rights reserved tags, meaning we can't use them. The works under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 can be trusted as their work. The only problem is whether uploading it will lead to another edit war. I need clearance. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This ISM photostream is really helpful. Personally I would give higher priority to wide angle photos of the devastation caused by 'precision bombing' if there's going to be yet another controversy over images coming out of Gaza. I think the priority should be so show what defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[56] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. looks like given that that is apparently what this is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are not many photos with a bigger scope of the destruction, let alone pictures free for us to use. I chose that particular photo of the buildings because it is taken from a distance allowing for a bigger glimpse of the destruction. I don't think anyone will object to the photo that I have added already. As for the photo of the infant, there is not many shots of the victims of the assault, the ones available at ISM are shot from a close angle featuring only one victim in each photo. So the options are limited to us, thus we use what we have. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough..and before anyone starts contesting graphic images again showing dead and injured people (..not wishing to jump down anyone's throat before they've even said a word but I'm going to anyway...) can I ask them first to test their arguments in the contexts of other articles e.g. Viet Nam war and so on and so forth to make sure they make sense as other people have tried to point out. Alternatively if this event is a somehow a special case let's hear those arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the photo with the caption "Almost one third of the victims are children including this infant killed in an explosion caused by Israelis in Attattra, northwestern Gaza" and already user:Thingg has reverted. Thus the edit war has begun, to be continued...--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of this discussion. I'm just trying to help out.... :( Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong and I can understand your action. Thanks for reverting your edit and you are free to share your thoughts on the matter. The discussions are mostly in the archive, but I summarized some of the main points in the first post of this thread. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This image was removed between last night and this morning. I don't know by whom or for what reason, but it seemed like there was consensus here about its inclusion. I would like to remind everyone on this page of wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit [8]. I restored the image and I will leave a note on the user's page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this picture, WP:NPOV --Rick Smit (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No...and Why? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to include this picture, then- for balance- we should include a picture of one of the elementary school children's playgrounds that Hamas has fired a rocket into. The Squicks (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

balance? you do realize that 98 percent of the killed were killed by Israelis. So you think 2 percent Israelis = 98 percent Gazans and others killed by Israelis?? If you want to add the Israeli photo, go ahead and add at least 20 more Palestinian photos. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the image here on the Talk page before but it was removed by User:The Squicks with this edit who claimed it blocked his ability to post comments (unaware no doubt that without notifying me, it could constitute a form of vandalism). I am reposting the image in a smaller form so we will all know what exactly we are talking about (in anticipation of its next removal without an edit summary). I have no problem whatsoever of posting other images for balance. I do think an honest portrayal of the events on the ground is in order (something that is difficult because, to my understanding, international journalists have been denied entrance into Gaza by the IDF in violation of an Israeli court order). This makes the posting of this particular image all the more pressing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, balance but proportion as well.

Fallacy arguments such as if we don't have A we should not have B doesn't work. While they were two photos related to Hamas attacks and none of the impact from Israeli's attacks, no one advocated removing the two photo. Instead I found one of the latter and added it to the article. The argument if we find A, then we can have B doesn't fly. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby: Let me try to understand your logic. Since the Palestinians have failed to kill any Israeli children so far due to luck, the childrens' preperations, and their own inspid incompetence, that means that those attacks morally mean less compared to the Israelis one's that succeeded? How does that fly, morally? Is there any moral difference between trying to kill someone and failing and trying to kill someone and succeeding? If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level? The Squicks (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks are you going to compare the type and amount of firepower used by both sides as being the same?? The images aren't about what each side has attempted to do, it is about what they already have done. You show the results with the images and I did say balance but proportion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no inherent objection to including the picture. I just support morally proportionate balance. So, if we represent the 'A' side with a picture we need to represent the 'B' side with another picture. I would like it if Cdogsimmons or another editor would find a 'B' side picture. (I can't do it myself, since I have never used Flicker and the other sites).

The firepower is not the same, but I'm not talking about firepower- I'm talking about both moral sides. There is an equally valid point of view on both sides. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. But anyway, I did say add a photo though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo. Remember there is only one Palestinian photo, not 20, not 5, not 2. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The body count speaks for itself. Balance in the article IS a concern. I see no problem with presenting accurate, well sourced images portraying both sides of the conflict. As I indicated before, the IDF's censorship of the International Press is an impediment to that goal. If you want to put in 20 pictures why don't you try doing that and we'll see what the result is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have access to photos that are under the same license from the same source. But I didn't think that I needed to add anymore and that they didn't represent a bigger scope of the carnage. Here they are [9] [10] [11] [12][13] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please upload more photos to the Commons. Other Wikipedias in many languages need the selection of photos. We also need a variety of photos of Israeli casualties. We also need more bomb damage photos from both within Israel and the Gaza Strip. Please see all the subcategories of commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Create more subcategories if necessary. It is difficult to find these type of free images for any conflict or war. Please upload them. See commons:Category:War casualties and commons:Category:War damage --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the inspid incompetence seems to be present on both sides seeing that Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right... At least the IDF is trying to sort out the militants from the civilians they're hiding among. Hamas fires rockets almost exclusively at population centers, and sends suicide bombers to explode in buses, restaurants and night clubs. Do you not see the moral difference here? Rabend (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Um dropping one ton bombs and firing missiles in densely populated areas doesn't suggest sorting out the militants from the civilians. No one buys the collateral damage excuse. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo? We had the reverse situation before (an Israeli bias in photos), some users complained, and then the situation was resolved in a civil way with a compromise. Why can't we do what now? The Squicks (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't resolved until I added the photos, and even then it is still being contested. Do what I did. Search for the photos, learn how to upload them, upload them, insert them and then prepare to defend the usage. Don't expect others to do this for you like I did. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I attempt to do that if you and other editors are just going to prevent me from adding a photo? The Squicks (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not going to do that, assuming that the photo you find meets the set criteria for inclusion. And because you care about improving the quality of the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I would be the one to challenge your photo. Go ahead and find a photo and photos of any of the three Israeli casualties or the injured, or the shocked victims. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, you are being very provocative. on one hand, you said this is Wikipedia, and we're only here to report, and on the other you've said "Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them.". I suggest you calm down as you are not helping this discussion. Also, the article itself currently states "*Casualty figures in Gaza cannot yet be independently verified" in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezek (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Nezek, I was quoting The Squicks. "This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report" is not my statement, it is his. He wanted to debated the morality, and we debated it. I don't mind debating it, and of course he initiated the conversation. Being pro Israeli, The Squicks's words were like beautiful music to your ears, while my response (using the same language), was provocative and angry to you. In the end, I could give a rats a** what you say. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How old are you? no one cares what you think you're doing, pro-what are you, or what you give a fuck about. you aren't helping by arguing politics, so stop it. --Nezek (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infantvictim.jpg‎ && Casualties

Let's stay calm everybody. Don't make these issues personal. They should not be personal. Making things personal only messes things up. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's verifiable, refer to the video link posted above under section 'Photos'.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also recommend discussing this in the section above devoted to this subject already. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What mates it represent the casualties unfairly? That was a real child who was killed on the Palestinian side, there are about 1000 vs 10 deaths. So I don't see what's represented unfairly — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are tasteless, offensive, and sensationalistic images all over wikipedia. Man, there is child pornography in here: Virgin Killer. Yeah, this is offensive to Israeli interests, but we are not here to take care of the ego of one side of a conflict, I am here to write an encyclopedia, which usually are better served by pictures. That said I will support removal if that is consensus, and if it is proven that the image is doctored, false, from another conflict, or a copy-vio. I am sure that if this is the case CAMERA will continue their selfless struggle for accuracy and find it - unless, of course, the image is true, in which case some other way to make it the others fault will be found. Until then, your reasons are not good reasons to remove, nor reasons to remove antisemitic protests in San Francisco (which if I am not mistaken, were not removed, but moved to an appropiate sub-article). --Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you're going to make up your own comment and respond to that like Cdog did below, I'm not responding to you either. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

moved by Superpie (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Sensationalist? What does that mean? If you are shocked by this image, perhaps it is because the thought of dead children is shocking. As a matter of FACT, there are 300 of them in the Gaza strip today as a result of this conflict. As a father of a 6 month old, I personally don't like this picture any more than you do. I wish it didn't exist. But to remove this image is TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!! This is the reality. A dead child. If you want a cookie cutter version of that reality reflected by wikipedia we have vastly different ideas about what this project is about. I refer again to our set policy that wikipedia is not censored - WP:CENSOR. "Sensationalism" is in the eye of the beholder for which I do not see a set policy. I don't understand you when you say that this dead child is the "fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties" besides my perception that you would like to minimize the importance of this image for whatever reason I have no idea. This is the image that we have. If you want to give us other images to debate lets debate them, but don't hand me a line like "you don't like this picture so it shouldn't be here". It's about as effective as the 5 anonymous editors who have tried to surreptitiously remove the image while no one was looking in the last two days.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything that Cdogsimmons said multiplied by 300. Perhaps we should step back a bit and make a list of the mandatory minimum requirement in terms of images for this article i.e. identify key themes e.g. lots of dead/injured human beings, trashed infrastructure/medical stuff, no food/water, rocket attacks, demonstrations and so on and make/agree a list of what must be in this article to illustrate what is happening for a reader. It might provide a bit of structure to efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I am almost appalled that you say you agree with him, considering you're generally civil and on the mark (as in the remainder of your comment, sans the first sentence). Hopefully you only agreed with the content of Cdog's comment, rather than its tenor, although I'm not even sure why you would do even that, because Cdog for some reason seems to think "babies" and "children" are equivalent (apparently just for the sake of his arguement). Even though I specifically say "I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be)" he centered his whole arguement around the fact that many children are dying and the allegation that I just don't want gruesome images in the article. But, as I said, if Cdog just wants to yell and scream about something, he can go to his corner and do that. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cdog, try this for a second: Read my comment aloud, and then get a friend to read yours, ensuring he includes the SHOUTING!!!! you implied with your comment. Your reaction in that scenario should hopefully be something to the effect of well, if the guy's going to be such a jerk about it, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to him. I just wanted you to act that out so it would be no surprise to you when I say that if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, please don't take me too literally, I'm rarely literal. I'm not advocating a gallery of 300 dead babies, that can be left to contemporary artists. Yes, I agreed with the content rather than it's tenor. I like peace and quiet. The basic problem is of course that we somehow must show what has happened in a way that genuinely adds value to the article and it will certainly upset some people. I have no strong attachment to this particular image but nor do I see a charred dead baby as either "Sensationalism" or different in any way whatsoever from a dead adult, child, soldier or militant. Maybe that's just me but I really don't. One thing I tried to say before somewhere is that these moral judgements people make about images are often based of local/regional/religious etc cultural value systems that can't be extrapolated globally and Wikipedia is global. What you find acceptable/unacceptable/sensationalist will of course be based on a local set of rules in your head/society. Those rules won't necessary make any sense whatsoever in a different place. For example, feet are extremely offensive here but there's no hesitation in showing blood and guts in the media. Death has a completely different treatment in a Buddhist society vs others. We need to find the best images for the article. I don't know what they should be but I'm not willing to exclude any on the basis of local cultural tastes/values. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

..and to me choosing the images is an optimisation problem not a moral problem. The objective is a good encyclopedia article and not moral/cultural imprinting by inclusion or exclusion of material. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus bombs

I added to this article a statement regarding the IDF’s use of white-phosphorus bombs, and provided a source to support it. However, within 15 minutes 'Jalapenos do exist' removed it without discussion. Does anyone else agree that it is a very relevant issue within the current conflict, and should be mentioned in the article? Palestinian doctors are seeing a large number of civilians arriving at hospital with serious chemical burns, and an independent source (HRW) has supplied video footage of the bombs being deployed. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why he would. It is an important element and it is verifiable by many reliable news source. I will restore the section, and if he doesn't like it, he should be the one to take it the talk page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is, since dumping phosphorous is legal. As well, wouldn't you rather have a lit battlefield where the militants can be targeted and the innocent civilians spared rather than an unlit battlefield where the IDF has no choice but to destroy everyone in the area? Regardless, I expanded the section and think that it should stay. The Squicks (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd rather that they be brutally scorched and physically scarred for the rest of their lives rather than for them to be put out of their misery. No, I rather that both things didn't occur. That loaded question is offensive. And the point is of this discussion is that the use of white phosphorus is one of controversy, thus it belongs in that section. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are any sources claiming Israel is using WP as a weapon (like coalition use of 'shake and bake in Iraq' - which is probably illegal), and not just for smoke/illumination (clearly legit, I think)? The HRW note by Reuters even underscored that they had only seen it used for the latter purpose. kzm (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, that's undeniable and this article is supposed to provide a comprehensive understanding of what is actually happening 'in theatre' to use that deeply offensive term. Furthermore, surveys show that 9 out of 10 parents would rather that lethal projectiles of any nature were not rained down on the streets where their children play so removing it seems weird. Okay, I just made that up but you get the point. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that phosphorous is legal too. I thought the issue was really about Dense inert metal explosive which really are pretty controversial and perhaps are not well understood in terms of their long term health implications. Anyway, I'll leave it to you guys. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)..I'm not saying they are being used by the way, I'm saying that injuries have been seen by a couple of medics which they say are consistent with that weapon being used etc etc..previous IDF activities..etc etc..and so on. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Logicman, I explained in my edit summary why I removed it. On that note, I recommend reading edit summaries of edits that interest you. To repeat: the issue was included in the section "Alleged violations of international law". I read the sources you provided, and in those sources there was no allegation of an international law violation, nor was there a refutation of such an allegation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Happy editing.

Here is what B'tselem has to say about the legality of the use of white phosphorous: 'The Third Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which relates to incendiary weapons, states that such weapons may only be used against military objects. When the military object is located within a civilian area, the use of phosphorous is absolutely prohibited.

Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.

The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel’s obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.' [14], so your contention that this use of phosphorus is legal is incorrect. It may only legally be used as a smoke screen and only against a military object outside of a civilian area. Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Btselem contradicting the International Red Cross with that statement? The Squicks (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, both groups say it is acceptable to use as a smoke screen in a non-civilian area, both also say that the use of it as a weapon in a civilian area is not acceptable. The ICRC is saying that they have not used it in this way, but they have not said that it is permissible to use as a weapon as B'Tselem is accusing them of doing. But yes, the ICRC has said that the IDF has not used it in this manner. I was just disputing the assertion that 'dumping phosphorous is legal' Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And HRW has accused them of using it as a weapon in this illegal manner. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, here is a link to BBC News that talks of the use of white phosphorous. It also mentions the UN allegations of illegal Israeli use of the stuff (in other words, it is a legal weapon, but they are using it against civilians, which is illegal). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm Someone reference that in the article. That constitutes an alleged war crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.50.218 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the use of white phosphorous be considered chemical warfare? Trent370 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead proposals

Proposals

Discussion

I support version two for the reasons I already gave here. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a comment on the proposal, but that division was slick, hope I added the other suggestion correctly :) Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We might not always agree on things, but I look forward to discussing the issues with you. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And I support version 3 for reasons given here. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. How about we hash out the start date, first? As I have stated on the other page, I think placing the start date at December 27 is unfair, since the first bout of violence began on December 19, the day the truce ended, and to place the start date at December 27 portrays the events as "Israel attacks Hamas/Gaza. Period.", ignoring Hamas's contributions to the violence. Also, since there is a significant section about the ceasefire ending and the events immediately after the end of the ceasefire, the later date of December 27 seems inconsistent with the article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

the first one seems cut and dry, as a lead should be. the third one seems neutral also. the second one reads like an israeli pr piece. i don't think even the most biased pro-palestinian editor would suggest we put "hamas warned israel they would keep sending rockets if the blockade wasn't lifted and raids stopped. with no end to the blockade or attacks, hamas launched its counteroffensive . . ." Untwirl (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you call it a counteroffensive and a "massacre" in the same breath? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

:I support version 3 since it is the most readable as well as detailed. As Goldilocks said, version 1 is too short while version 2 is too long.--23prootie (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving support to version 1, which has become more detailed.--23prootie (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support 1 -- except for the "targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas". Israel states that it is targeting Hamas, but in reality, it is targeting all of the Gaza Strip. It has targeted Christian-sponsored medical facilities, for example: Are these facilities part of "Hamas"? NonZionist (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 3.
I do think that the info in V2 is very important, but should be in the 2nd paragraph. However, one suggestion: "targeting militant Hamas members and infrastructure". In the following sentence you mention that Hamas is the government of Gaza (which is kind of an awkward statement, I think), so it looks like Israel is going after just members of a government. We all know that Hamas doubles as both the governemnt and a militant organization, and I think the emphasis regrding military activity here should be on the militant side of Hamas. This is truly how things are from the Israeli point of view. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the primary functions of governments is defense. Thus, most governments have a militant or military component. Why should the Hamas government be treated differently, here? What's more, in most cases, a military attack on a country would not be characterized as an attack on the country's government! If France were to start bombing Germany, would we say "France is targeting the Merkle government" or "France is targeting Germany"? Why twist things in a special way when speaking of Hamas? Is that not our systemic POV showing? NonZionist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support version 2. The other versions suggest Israel launched the attack with no special reason at the moment the truce expired. Squash Racket (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose version two which uses a novel framing device to assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves. The lead has been discussed a lot before this thread, check archives. Reverting to the previous version that has a consensus. RomaC (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not equivocate. There is no consensus for the previous version. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• You are reading into it. Hamas was "warned" and frankly they have said "bring it on." Would remind RomaC that this action is not against the Palestinians but against Hamas in Gaza. West Bank Palestinians are not being "targeted." The Palestinian "people" are not being targeted. This neeeds to be clear in the introduction. In fact, Hamas could bring this to a close anytime they wish. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves" - hmm...and they are not responsible? And both sides agreed to the current version which would be a REAL concensus? Squash Racket (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Squash, that's a matter of synthesis and interpretation. Maybe the Nazis brought the Bombing of Dresden on themselves, but the Wiki article is about the bombing of Dresden, and the lead doesn't mention Nazi aggressions at all. RomaC (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talking about the Dresden bombing without the context of Nazi aggression in the lead is wrong, in my opinion. If you don't include the context when describing events, you can completely change the picture around. For instance, making the Brits look like blood-thirsty aggressors using disproportionate force on the poor Nazis. Not every reader will read the entire article all the way thru to really understand the context. Rabend (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support version 3 (and strongly oppose version 2). I'd be okay with cutting the exact time too. hmmm...I thought most outlets were calling it an offensive rather than a campaign...never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I see your point regarding version 3, what I wonder is if "The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War ", why is Wiki terming it something else? RomaC (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

..once again, we're on the canvas after a knockout blow. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the Arab media calling it the "Gaza War" or the "War on Gaza"? There is a difference. The first connotes two belligerents, and the second, one. The two denotations should be counted separately when assessing frequency of use. I'm opposed to both terms for another reason: I see war as a "weasel word" -- a deliberately ambiguous term that is used by editors who are too timid to say anything definite. "War", like "jihad", can mean anything from a motivational campaign to armageddon. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support version 1 (and renaming the article Gaza War). RomaC (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Version 2 is totally unacceptable, and wouldn't even warrant consideration, in my own view, were there not those who take it seriously. That leaves 1 and 3. I still think it premature to have a definitive vote on this, because it appears from the discussion on the other page that newspaper use of terms is evolving. I can, for the moment, accept that versions 1 and 3 are acceptable interim solutions. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have given not one "reason" for your rejection of two.Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishi, just above, do you mean "...I can, for the moment, accept that versions 1 and 3 are acceptable interim solutions."? RomaC (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ba'u fatigue,guv, as the Cockneys'd say with their variation of the glottal stop. I've adjusted (well actually I've never quite been adjusted to the world but . .)Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i'll translate as i'm au fait with the lingo. 'battle'. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fanks, Shorn.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support version 1 I thought multiple sources were being used to establish the common usage of the term "Gaza Massacre" in the media, not only in the Arab world, but also in other countries like Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Why are we backtracking on this, merely due to the insistence of some editors who refuse to accept this evidence. Here is an updated Google News search. And here is an article in a prominent Pakistani newspaper which has the same title. As far as I can see here, there is a set of editors who accept that the term "Gaza Massacre" is in common use but are uncomfortable with the term because they feel that it will mislead readers; hence the desire to attribute this term entirely to Hamas which is what Version 3 does. Moreover, Version 3 speaks of the "Gaza war". As a quick google search, this term is far less commonly used than "Gaza massacre". So, I think Version 3 is inaccurate as well. Version 2, of course, is not neutral at all. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob2718. Well, if Turkish, Pakistani and Iranian sources qualify as constituting with Arab sources one category, then we have to say 'Islamic world', since those three nations are not Arab. Again, Turkey is not an 'Islamic' state. 'Islamic' again however generally is a covert synonym for 'terrorist'. Things are complicated.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i guess to a first approximation the islamic world is s.e. and s. asian, indonesia, india, pakistan and bangladesh so if the term is being used there... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You used quotation marks for "Gaza War", but "forgot" to add these for Gaza Massacre.

Google News:

• "Gaza War":2367 hits
• "Gaza Massacre":217 hits

Thank you for your explanation. Squash Racket (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake (although I've been very particular about quotes in previous posts on this subject :-) ). However, I think your post misrepresents the results. The number you quote comprise distinct results, as classified by Google News. When I did the search, the first two results for "Gaza Massacre" ended up with about 45,000 related articles compared to about 25,000 for "Gaza War". (of course, this is tricky, because it involves the algorithm that Google uses to decide what is "related" and what is not) Jacob2718 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

Second part of your comment: I don't know how on Earth you got your results. At this moment Gaza War without quotation marks yields around 71000 hits, while Gaza Massacre yields around 7700 hits. Either way Gaza War has around 10 times more hits than Gaza Massacre.

I hope you explain how you got your results. Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the search results carefully. I'm not interested in having a long discussion on this. Google tends to club results that it thinks are similar in one group. That is what accounts for the low figures for both results ... most results have been clubbed into groups of "similar results". In fact, if you think about the search results for a moment, you'll see that both figures you quote are unusually low for something that has received so much media attention. The reason is Google's grouping, as I explained above. 45,000 is the approximate figure I get by counting the number of distinct elements in each group (as reported by Google) and about 25,000 is the corresponding figure for the "Gaza war" (both within quotes). As you can see "Gaza massacre" receives about twice as many results as "Gaza war". In any case, further discussion on this is futile; the links and results are clear and everyone can make up their minds. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no need to talk about that any longer. Results yield 10 times more relevant Google news hits for "Gaza War" than "Gaza Massacre". That's the bottomline. BTW the numbers given above are NOT low I suppose. Squash Racket (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob appears to be counting the "all X news articles" numbers (they appear in green under a group of stories. I don't think that is helpful for us because if I type in, say, "Khaled Meshal" (that spelling) gives me 559 results. But the first grouping has 20,821 articles. If I type in "Hamas" it gives me 293,634 results. But the first group of articles has 20,821 results. Because those are the same grouping. It is a group of articles that google thinks are related to what I'm looking for, not ones where my exact search terms necessarily occur. For that I have to look at the other numbers. At least that's my understanding of what's going on. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm talking about relevant Google News hits. First he acknowledged his mistake, now he tries to talk himself out of it. Let's move on. Squash Racket (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

JGGardiner is right that from the search results themselves its hard to count how many times the exact search term occurs. I noted this explicitly in my post above. Equally, it is incorrect to count by grouping all distinct results (several of which do contain the exact search term) in one group. Indeed the number that Google shows on top -- "2400" results for the Gaza war -- is obviously not the relevant number; the actual number of news articles on this issue is much larger. How do we count correctly. I think disaggregating the results gives you a far better number. That way you get about 45,000 for the Gaza massacre and about 25,000 for the Gaza war. I reiterate that this is figure is sensitive to the algorithm google uses. But this is the best figure we have: so, Gaza massacre is used by about twice as many sources as Gaza War.

By writing 10 times in bold, Squash persists in disingenuous editing. The facts are simple, Squash; you don't have to shout! Jacob2718 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

JGGardiner did NOT agree with your position:

I don't think that is helpful for us

You keep repeating a number that can not be correct as doesn't focus on the exact phrases that we were looking for. That's why I think the 10 times more is close to the truth. We can write "multiple times more" if you're sensitive.

Talking about disingenuous editing: we were talking about Jacob2718's "mistake" all along, nobody assumed that he was intentionally misrepresenting the facts to influence the outcome. I think I was very kind there. Squash Racket (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Squash. I advise you not to get agitated. If I wanted to misrepresent facts, I wouldn't do it by putting clear links next to my claims, as I did :-) Lamentably, your lack of attention to detail is evident. For one, it leads to this conversation since you didn't initially notice that Google tends to aggregate results. Example 2: "we were talking about .. mistake .. all along". No dear, we agreed that one should place quotation marks around both phrases and then we were talking about something else i.e. what is the relative frequency with which each phrase is used. Example 3: I said "JGGardiner is right ...[about something]" I didn't say that he agreed with my position. You really need to read more carefully, if we are to engage in a discussion! Now, I suggest you look at my posts calmly. The aggregated results do contain results that contain the exact phrase as well as results that don't. The question I was asking is how does one count the number of results that contain the exact phrase given that Google aggregates results. Your answer is to count the number that appears on top of the page. I think its evident that your answer is wrong, for reasons I've given above (it yields too small a number). So, we need to come up with a better method. I suggested disaggregating the results, and as an argument for that, I explained that this gave us numbers that match better with our intuitive expectation of what the total number of results should be. Counted using this method the phrase Gaza massacre appears twice as many times. I've repeated my arguments multiple times here and while I would welcome constructive criticism of these arguments, I'm not interested in the irrelevant and excited claims you have persisted in making. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You made the "mistake" in a fashion that supported your vision of the war and I was very kind not to bring this up as an intentional misleading move from you.

Yes, also the so far uninvolved editor agreed that your calculation is wrong and mine is right as yours contains an awful lot of irrelevant hits too instead of the actual phrase we were looking for as I and another editor pointed out above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support version 2. I cannot accept anything that includes pretending that there is equality between calling something "Operation Cast Lead" and calling it "The Gaza Massacre" . Even if the whole world were to see it that way, the facts are as Version 2 puts it. It is not terribly long and it could be shortened (since someone above complained of its length). By having that material in the beginning, the next couple of paragraphs could easily be shortened and much of it reduced to the body of the article. So far I have not seen complaints that anything is wrong or mistaken in #2. It is accurate and far less POV than others. It balances the accusationn of "Massacre." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support version 3. In my opinion it is the best proposal. But more importantly I think it is one which is most able to achieve consensus status. It already has support or approval from a group of editors with pretty diverse perspectives (or "POVs"). I think it is a descriptive, reasonable, NPOV edit. It isn't just a fair comment but as if it was literally written from a neutral point of view.

I realize this version it isn't everyone's idea of perfection. But we have here the chance here to create a paragraph that upsets very few people. And that's as close to perfect as we're going to get on this article. So let's not pass that up, okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also very wary of marginalizing the term "Gaza Massacre" by ignoring our Arabic sources and associating it exclusively with Hamas, which, as Jacob pointed out, is what version 3 seems to do. And so I stick with the minimalist version 1, at least until the title changes. RomaC (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about

I think this is probably as accurate as we can get given limited space. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the individual aspects of each proposal so that we can arrive at a lead by consensus with which all are satisfied. Also, I am willing to make change the phrasing of my proposal. I dislike the version which you have proposed for some of the reasons I have previously stated. For example, I think December 19 should be listed as the start date. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 10:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the start date of December 19. The article already acknowledges a prior conflict by using 'intensified'. The conflict evidently intensified greatly on December 27 on not on December 19; that much is undeniable. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It also intensified on the 19th, given the relative calm of the truce. It intensified further on the 24th, and it intensified further on the 27th. All three are important starting dates, but as I see it, while the 27th is an appropriate start date for "Operation Cast Lead," it is not an appropriate start date for the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" since that completely skips over the Gaza=>Israel part of the conflict and jumps right to the Israel=>Gaza part of the conflict. Whatever the periodization, it seems unbalanced to omit the 24th attack from the lead. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We are supposed to be covering what is notable. In that context, look at these Google Trends results. Not even a question that the relevant date is the 27th. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this version 4, a problem I see is that if it is placed, as much as I try to AGF, I think arguments could be made as follows: ...Since the "Arab World" and the "rest of the world" sources overlap, there is confusion. Also, we now no longer have the name one side is calling the event and the name the other is calling the event, instead we have three different names, and only one reflects Israel's POV. That's unbalanced"

I can see this situation resulting in calls for a vote on including only one of "Gaza Massacre" or "Gaza War." The second option would likely prevail if a vote were framed on this false dilemma. So, believe that "Gaza War" would be more properly assigned as the title for this article, and keep the two sides' names in the lead. RomaC (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I changed the wording as you were writing this. Is the current version better? Your suggestion would also be acceptable to me. However, I think, version 3, where one name is attributed solely to Hamas leaders, in direct contradiction with the multiple sources we have, is problematic. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another proposal, which I think is brief while describing the main events and avoiding POV. The question of what to name the article is a separate issue, and I agree with several editors above that we are approaching the point - if we haven't already reached it - where we can call this Gaza War or 2008-2009 Gaza War. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I already said this above, but I'll repeat myself. We are supposed to cover what is notable. How do we decide what marks a sharp break from the past? The most objective way to do that is to see when news coverage and attention exploded. In that context, look at the relevant Google trend. There is a very dramatic rise in news and attention around the 27th and nothing like that either on the 19th or the 24th. Hence, the 27th marks a clear break which neither the 19th or the 24th do. This data is essentially conclusive and it rules out version 5; in my mind now, this issue of the start date is not even a question. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This version is also good, although I liked the addition of "The Gaza War" by Arab and Israeli media (no need for Arab and Hebrew translation). Rabend (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I still have a hard time accept ting the references actually refer to it as The Gaza Massacre only as "a massacre" that is taking place in Gaza. It may make for consensus but it will still be wrong. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We had some long discussions about that, and I doubted that it's really "the" massacre (obviously it's not really a massacre at all), or that the name is of equal importance to the official Israeli name, but I believe Nableezy if he says that this is the official name used in Arabic, and I'm willing to accept it in certain wording, and if "The Gaza War" is also mentioned. Rabend (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Jacob's assumption that a spike in google searches exactly corresponds with the beginning of an event. I would imagine that there would be a delay since people need time to hear about it and develop a curiosity about it. But as I said in the lede talk page, if we define Cast Lead as the beginning of the conflict/war/whatever dealt with by this article (as he suggests), then there has to be a statement of context in the first paragraph. We cannot begin an article "X commenced a military operation against Y" without including either the stated aim or the main RS explanation of motivation for the operation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "statement of context" statment. Rabend (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I request you to take a step back and look at this from a neutral position. If you try and provide context that "Hamas escalated rocket fire", you will have to provide context for that as well -- why did Hamas escalate rocket fire. The background to this war is not so simple. We have an entire section devoted to explaining the background. Second, the stated aims of each party are stated very clearly immediately after the name and the factual context. Third, Jalapenos, it is obvious that the spike in attention and news is directly correlated with the start of the Israeli attack; you can't get out of that! Now, you may believe that the war truly started on December 19, but clearly the rest of the world started paying attention (and the phase-transition is dramatic) on December 27. We clearly have to go along with the latter position. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

None

Current its fine, and "intensified" is not what thsi article is about. The events this article coveres started on Dec 27, not intensified. That we are unable to agree on calling this the Gaza War which is how all the Israeli Media is calling it and how almost all other media is calling it speaks badly of us, but lets not make it worse by POVFORKING this article into being about something else. Next thing you know, people are re-creating Operation Cast Lead because "there is no article that covers it". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cerejota, this article covers events that started with the Dec 27 airstrikes, not ongoing rockets or indeterminate ceasefire violations or accusations of incursions or targeted killings or blockades or suicide bombings etc. etc. The article could and should be called "Gaza War (w/date ref)". We got stuck with this title after early discussions ran into a wall because some editors wanted to use "Operation Cast Lead" and others wanted to avoid the official IDF term. Is it time to set up new discussions on the article title? RomaC (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

also, agree with Cerejota and RomaC. If we are going to keep going back into events that preceded this offensive in the intro, where do we draw the line? Keep it simple and discuss preceding events in the background section, not the intro. Tiamut^talk 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cerejota, RomaC and Tiamut. See note above. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Once more, Cerejota is spot on. Ditto. However, I think Gardiner's original points, elegantly argued, are to be born in mind, as Nableezy's refinements. I think these will have to be taken up in serener times, when the whole article can be reviewed with the melancholy wisdom of hindsight. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Christmas Day was an intensification of the pre-Christmas shoping, decorating and cooking preparations. Doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with 27th as start date, as well as changing the title to "Gaza War." the current title is too cumbersome and non-specific. it actually gives a reason to argue for the inclusion of events before/during/after the ceasefire. Untwirl (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's what I've been talking about from the start in the Lead page, I swear. Let's keep it simple. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also joining the "Support Cerejota Movement".--Omrim (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, this article from its very start was about the current hostilities that started with the launch of 'Operation Cast Lead'. If the title doesnt reflect that then I think that is cause to change the title, not the entire article, which you can see started on 27 December 2008, so obviously some people thought it important to have an article specifcally about this, not about the ceasefire, not about the end of the ceasefire, not about why the ceasefire ended. This was the topic of the article from the very start. Nableezy (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling this the Gaza War but I would remind people that that would not mean that one can ignore everything that went before. However, evn if it is called The Gaza War by mainstream media, we would still be required for NPOV's sake to give the leadup as indicated in Version 2. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please think before writing. We are not required for NPOV to give the 'leadup as indicated' in any version, let alone 2, which you may as well drop. It is wholly partisan, blames Hamas,i.e. reflects the Israeli POV,Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) and only partisans will support it.

When it was originally created this article was titled 'Operation Cast Lead' and was intended (as far as I can tell) to document those events that began on 27th December when Israel began its current offensive. There is, of course, a background to these events which should be detailed in the article (though not necessarily in the lead), but a military operation of this size does not happen without weeks or months of preparation and considerable political will. I can't help thinking that some of the discussions about the commencement date are little more than childish bickering over 'who started it'. My support would go to version 4 of the lead as the most neutral and encyclopædic in tone and content so far. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Initially, I opposed calling the article "Operation Cast Lead", but now, I think that this is the most appropriate title. This disaster is Israel's baby: Israel alone gets to name it. Calling the article OCL will enable us to focus more clearly on the nature of the operation. We will become free to distinguish between aggressor and victim. NonZionist (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with people yelling NPOV is they seem to misunderstand what NPOV means. It does not mean that every word is completely neutral or that the words have to balance each other out. Presenting the information that Israel calls is 'Operation Cast Lead' and the Arabs call it 'The Gaza Massacre' is by definition NPOV, the narrative voice takes no POV on the matter, it just presents what both sides call the conflict. Also, NPOV does not mean it has to agree with your POV. If the article presents accusations, to be NPOV it would need to present accusations on both sides and responses on both sides. The lead paragraph does not present any accusations, and thus does not need any rebuttals. Some editors are going to insist that because some have named it the 'Gaza Massacre', then there has to be a response to that. Im sorry, but the response to that is the Israeli government has named it 'Operation Cast Lead'. The titles given do not have to balance each other, they just both need to be there. Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone heard the saying "less is more"? I still think the best proposal is version 1 since pretty much every info there is found in all other versions and is probable the only neutral one.--23prootie (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration of what caused this event is for the background section. No reliable source is reporting as fact any reason (Al-Jazz and JP/Ynet/Haa not RS in this case, as they are pushing narratives even if the rest of their reporting verifies). There is no deadline, and in the name of article quality, I think eshould stick to uncontrovertible facts for the intro, provide information on the constracting view on the causes in the background. Pretty much any reliable source is saying what we are saying: "Israel says it wants the rockets to stop", "Hamas says the blockade is the cause of the rockets", and that "this part of the ongoing, wider I-P conflict". All of these are factual, uncontroversial, and well sourced. NPOV is served. In fact, no one has proven this otherwise to me or anyone else.

Of course this is all about the intro. In the background section we should eleaborate the narratives with an eye to not overlap other articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota’s point as well. But I’d like to point out that is compatible with Version 3. That draft was really about addressing the conflicts regarding the naming disputes that had been occurring. So it modified the third sentence and added the fourth. But it works with or without “intensified”. I personally prefer it without.

I’d also like to say that is important that we learn to achieve change through dialogue and compromise and to not just accept the rough de facto version that is created from back and forth editing conflicts. Right now we are acting too much like the subjects we write about. And that strategy hasn’t worked out well for them. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with defining the article's subject as December 27 and onwards. I'm also fine with naming the article Gaza War, or conflict, or whatever. I also don't care about the focus of that stupefyingly long argument, about the name "Gaza Massacre" in the first paragraph. However, I strongly believe that we cannot begin an article saying "X attacked Y. X has its point of view, and Y has its point of view. Then a bunch of stuff happened. X and Y also have a long history of hating each other." If we begin "X attacked Y", we are unintentionally (and perhaps unavoidably) implying that X "started it". To cancel that, we must immediately add the stated or the plausible reason for that attack. After that we can talk about points of view. I've checked some other WP articles on "X attacked Y, marking the beginning of a conflict" situations (far from exhaustively), and in all the ones I saw, the reason was either stated in the first paragraph or was the sole subject of the second paragraph. I think we should do the same here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapeno, I think I agree with you but I have read this para several times and am still not clear. How about some kind of draft to illustrate your point? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you would also include the reason for the "plausible" reason for the attack, and then you would want to include the reason for the reason for the "plausible" reason for the attack. You see how this spirals? Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tundrabuggy. Option 1:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[37] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas, following an escalation of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.[38][39][40] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
Option 2: First paragraph as it currently stands in the article; second paragraph dealing solely with the stated and/or plausible (according to reliable sources) reasons for Cast Lead.
Reply to Nableezy. You're assuming a symmetry that doesn't exist. We broke the symmetry once we said "the conflict started when Israel did this and this". We did that because it was unavoidable: the article has to start at some point in time, and the two sides aren't considerate enough to coordinate the timing of their actions with each other for our convenience. If we said the conflict started when Gazans launched rockets, we would be equally obliged to state right at the beginning the stated and/or plausible reasons for that. Like I said before, that is what's done in the similar articles that I checked. I also think you're being overly skeptical about the term "plausible". I mean plausible in a definite sense, namely: the main reason(s) cited by reliable sources. Further, in this particular case, the plausible reason seems to match the stated reason, namely that Cast Lead is fundamentally a response to Hamas rocket attacks. This says nothing about whether the response is moral, justifiable, proportionate or effective, merely that it is a response. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current lead is better than all the proposed alternatives, but I think it could be better still. "Version 2" is obnoxiously partisan, though I do think the rocket attacks deserve a mention. I like Gaza War for the title. How about this:

I have intentionally left the "w" in "Gaza war" and "m" in "Gaza massacre" lowercase. I have not (yet) seen either of these phrases used as proper nouns. Arguing over the "symmetry" of each side's justification is tantamount to fighting the war itself... we cannot and will not achieve consensus. Per User:Jalapenos do exist's arguments above, I only mentioned the Israeli action, which was to launch a military campaign with a stated objective and motive. Thanks, dbw (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Version Two with minor alteration "following the expiration of the truce and citing Israel's refusual to lift its economic blockade, Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel.[15][16][17][18] "

I think version two with the above edit is fair :D. Superpie (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont, and I am quite certain a large number of other editors would say the same. It still reads like an Israeli PR piece. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)'

What, no support cerejota movement? :...(. BTW, don't take it personal on the WP:POINT, or at least too personal :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I jizz in my pants... This is not the first line, thats about the only intro we need. I would use the Capital War, but lets just all fall behind this version, regardless of title. It is NPOV, balanced, truthful and backed by moar sauce than all the BBQ in Texas. Opposing this is borderline WP:POINT. Shit, and it came from a new SPA, take that wikipedians, a noob pwnd us all! --Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"The conflict has been described as the Gaza massacre... in much of the Arab World." Most sources (even Al Jazeera) do not title it "The Gaza Massacre"Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither does, for that matter, the proposal above.--Cerejota (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source cited

How on earth can someone cite a sentence from a PBS show:

But WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way.

This is not a reliable source. I'll delete the referenced sentence in Wikipedia till noted otherwise. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? PBS is one of the most respected media networks in the US. The Squicks (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is patent nonsense, I'm reverting that change. The Squicks (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Darwish, I am sorry but this is like super-reliable. Its like quoting BBC, except better, cause PBS is not government run. --Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is not government run, its funded by a tax run by the government called the licence fee. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

However, for context, this should be included, if we quote: "The allegations have not been independently confirmed by reporters on the ground–the Israeli military has banned foreign media from the Gaza Strip in what the Foreign Press Association has called an “unprecedented restriction of press freedom.”" By reading the source, it is being made obvious that the article is providing balance with this sentence, and we should follow their editorial example. In fact, we are required to.--Cerejota (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! How much of the information in this article has been "independently confirmed by reporters on the ground?" Probably 2%. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this appeared in mind too. I'll add this information. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not in the US. I just thought it's yet another TV show. I apologize. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, at least I didn't know. Some people here in previous debates criticized BBC Arabic because it was written by "Arabs" :). --Darwish07 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that we take everything bad about the Israelis at 100% face value without any attempt to context, while bad things said about the Palestinians must have clarifications, context, etc and create drama and hand-wringing? The Squicks (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. For example in the lede, most things put there because of "Pro-Israeli" requests (the city names for places attacked for example) have one or two sources, while things that are there by "Pro-Palestinian" (for example Gaza massacre) require almost 10 sources, and even then there is no possibility of full consensus, just rough consensus by sheer reverting. I would offer that in any case it is pro-Palestinian things that are met with impossible-to-meet challenges, and the article itself, with out providing any input, is challenged as "non-neutral" with all-or-nothing demands that leave no room for consensus other than "my-way-or-the-highway".

And not to boast, but both are additions I created and added (well my original arab translation was machine generated so it was changed). I will defend just, sourced, and relevant content that makes me learn things about this conflict, regardless if editors percieve it benefits one side or the other. So far I have concentrated on the lede, title, and to a lesser extent structure and MoS, because the conflict is ongoing and the fog of war is thick. But I will give my opinion on the body.

(BTW, I do agree with you that section on the medical attacks is badly named, and there should be the response by the Israelis to this - its out there. However, it should remain and it is relevant: most editors who have criticized want it removed: an untenable situation, as these are verified facts. The reaosn the ISraeli view is not presented is because editors that might source it abstain because they oppose it altogether: when it comes to consensus, silence is acceptance.)

It is a fact of wikipedia that there is a significant pro-Israel bias, not for any sinister reasons, but because our definition of reliable sources excludes any press that might be sympathetic to the pro-Palestinian voice. The same thing happens to pro-Israelis in Arab Wikipedia, or so we are told. So protestations like this are disingeneous at worse, and uncurious at best... go out there and see that most articles on the I-P and A-I conflict are heavily biased as pro-Israel, even if they are NPOV and well sourced - a fact illustarted by the number of FAs that no pro-Palestinian editor accepts, and the lack of the inverse. The evidence simply doesn't support your assertion.

That said, I think the biggest problem this article and other I-P and A-I articles have is not POV-pushers - that happens all over wikipedia. Its that good editors from either POV get caught up in the Manichean "us v them" mentality of their E.I. and CAMERA controllers instead of following their instincts as Wikipedians and letting the facts speak for themselves. We can come together and build a featured article. There is no need to provide narrative if the facts are presented in a neutral, encyclopedic voice. We have other controversies that are equally passionate, like Abortion, which nevertheless have move forward because editors don't get caught up in the extremists and pov-pushers of their own side and instead move forward with. If it were for me, recent events wouldn't be covered in wikipedia at all if they are on-going, to allow less passion. But then I hate poke-cruft too, and we have Mudkip and crap...--Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Word. We have had editors claim that BBC Arabic is not reliable to give an Arabic name to the conflict, and it is unreliable because, and this is a rough quote: the BBC Arabic is written primarily by Arabs. It is not written by British journalists who happen to speak Arabic. And that Aljazeera suffers from this same issue. You can see it in the Archives (10 i think). That I saw that as an utterly racist assertion that Arabs are somehow incapable of accurately reporting even the name of something in Arabic should be understandable. Cerejota, small note, PBS is partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is in turn federally funded (see it on the newshour every night), though I agree its reliability is equivalent to the BBC (like i said, watch it every night). Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but a very quick stroll through some A-I articles shows the fallacy of "pro israeli" statement. Case in point the entire fourth paragraph relies heavily on publications that have been refuted in Wikipedia itself. --84.109.19.88 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'Blockade agreements' - Let's re-open some old wounds

I tried to make the section as neutral as I could- citing the disputed claims of both sides. Supposedly, the Israel government disputes the figures cited by BBC, The Nation, and The New York Times given that it has its own contradictory figures. I believe that there was a discussion about this somewhere in the talk page archives. Does anyone have any idea about what those figures are? The Squicks (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which figures you are looking for. Shabak - An official source has the following concerning attacks against Israeli civilians and hamas takeover of gaza: The increase in attacks between 2005 and 2006 (the year hamas assumed control of Palestinian legislative council) was 17% (1831 during 2005, 2137 during 2006). between 2006-2007 the increase is 41% (2137 during 2006, 3032 during 2007). During 2008 a high attack rate was preserved (in first 6 months 1828 attacks which constitute 60% of entire 2007). Starting 19-June-2008 (the low hostilities agreement) there is significant reduction in attacks, but by 30th NOV they have reached 2019, or 67% of total 2007 attacks [15]

these numbers are provided to show direct correlation between hamas seizure of power and attack intensity on israel, which led to the blockade in the first place. As for number of trucks entered during the period - I would assume OCHA is RS, more than either Israeli or news agencies. Certainly raw data can be compiled from the reports, if no one had done that already.--84.109.19.88 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Section titled: "Iranian involvment"

As Iranian involvement is widely reported as an important feature of this conflict, please feel free to improve upon but not merely delete all related content as Pietru il-Boqli did [| here] and Tiamut did [| here].

Below is the content of the Iranian involvement section at the time of this post:

Iran is viewed by many observers to be a serious component of the "Battle of Gaza." [[16]] Hosni Mubarak warned that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." [[17]] Saudi Arabia's [Shura Council] member Mohammed Abdallah Al Zulfa stated that "Iran is the big threat in today’s world, supporting all the terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah to some other terrorists that we don’t know their names yet," and that "Iran destabilized the region by supporting all the illegal activities and activists such as Hamas." [[18]] "Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman reportedly told the Israelis that Egypt wouldn’t oppose a quick strike designed to bring down Hamas." Palestinian Authority chief Abu Mazen blames Hamas, which is largely an Iranian proxy, for the fighting."[[19]] Hamas "has drawn itself increasingly into Iran's orbit. Much of its imported weaponry, and the expertise with which it now produces and refines its own rockets, have been provided by Iran. Dozens of its commanders have been trained in Iran in recent years, coming home and disseminating that 'education' as Hamas has built an army in Gaza. And, increasingly too, Hamas has come to act in the service of Iran's aims," according to a Jerusalem Post analysis. [[20]]

Doright (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the archived discussions, people decided that it was not good to start section on "Iranian involvement" or "US involvement" because it would never end. If you do insist on including this section, I will insist on a section on US arms supplies to Israel. US involvement is well-documented as a matter of official record and extends past some US/Israeli rhetoric and allegations that has yet to be confirmed by anyone. Tiamut^talk 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, all the references Doright mention are old references that are not related to the article anyway. Even the single 28 Decemember reference he cited mentions a pre-28-December quote. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it again, every reference cited in that section; is either: a)Journalist opinion, b)News agencies analysis, or c)pre-war events and quotes. The section has summed up neatly all the kind of references that can not be used in our article.--Darwish07 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Congress Cheers Israeli War on Gaza
• Bush Ordered US to Abstain From Gaza Vote
• Rights Groups Condemn US Role in Gaza Conflict
• Rice: Hard for Israel to Avoid Killing Gaza Civilians
• US Abstention Stuns Security Council
• American Weaponry Facilitates Killings in Gaza
• British Link With Drone Aiding the Israeli War Effort
• US Says Arms Shipment to Israel Not Linked to Gaza

And here are articles about Iran:

• In Washington, All Roads Lead to Tehran
• Iran Bans Activists From Fighting Israel
• Tehran Opts for 'Moral Support' in Gaza War

The attempt to draw Iran into this slaughter is yet another indication that Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan is being used as the script. The attack on the Gaza Strip is not an "intensification" of a conflict with Palestinians as the introduction suggests: It is a continuation of a conflict with the entire region. Here's the timeline:

• 1996: "Clean Break" hatched
• 2000: Neo-con PNAC calls for "new Pearl Harbor"
• 2001: PNAC gets its wish
• 2003: 9/11 used as pretext for destroying Iraq
• 2006: Israel destroys Lebanon
• 2007: Israel bombs Syrian installation
• 2008: Israel wipes out the Gaza Strip
• 2009: Israel gets U.S. to wipe out Iran and Syria

But, of course, we're supposed to pretend that all of these invasions exist in isolation. NonZionist (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, enough with the secret-evil-puppet-master-Zionist-moneybanker-scheme-to-conquer-the-world stuff. You have your own sandbox. Use it. Don't clog up article talk pages. The Squicks (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a valid point, that Iranian involvement in this conflict is negligible to US involvement. There are RS articles about shipments of arms immediately prior to the initial attack, along with RS detailing US denials that the two are related, as well as the boasts of Olmert that he convinced Bush to order the abstention of the UNSC resolution. And if the 'Iranian Involvement' section were to include allegations from the past about funding or other support, that would surely open up a 'US Involvement' to further detail past support of Israel. And I don't see the word Zionist anywhere anywhere in his post besides his username. I would say neither belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Iranian involvement is NULL compared to the US involvement. This Iranian section is totally based on quotes from the past and a couple of journalists opinions, thus if this section to be added, I have the rights to extract unbelievable facts from the academic paper "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". And no one will be able to attack it cause it's considered a reliable source. People want to play the that game? I think it's just better for everybody to stick to the war facts and not bring our own views on here.--Darwish07 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian involvement in NULL? Hardly. Just like Hizbollah (which is also a military organization that took its own people hostage in the name of religious(?) belligerence), Hamas is a militant organization that is heavily dependant on Iran. Anyone with access to intelligence information will tell you that. Media information, however, is a whole other story, the difference being that the US and Israel are western democracies, which by nature allow more access to info and as a result more can be discovered by reporters, while Hamas and Iran run dictatorships whose leaders are elected democratically. As such, there's pretty much no free info or room for journalistic investigation there, and if you publish the wrong kind of article, the Iranian governemnt will shut down your newspapar. So the fact that there are less reports about Iranian involvement do not necessarily weaken this statement, but rather reflects the amount of freedom that a reporter has. Rabend (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Iran involvement = NULL for the sake of soapboxing, but I said that it's null "compared to the US involvement". It's not our job to assume what the situation of a country is, or bring opinions that's not reliably cited. As I said above, all the cited references are:

• Journalists opinions
• News agencies analysis
• pre-war events

which isn't accepted in Wikipedia. My reply is simple, if we're going to return back in time and dig in opinions and analysis for Iranian involvement, we can add a 300-page paragraph describing the US involvement alone. For the sake of avoiding useless and ugly debates, and to avoid digging in events pre-war, this section must be removed. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The place for details of support Iran might provide to Palestinian organisations belongs in the separate articles on those particular groups. The section on Iranian involvement in this current Gaza conflict should be deleted immediately. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The simplest approach is to not deal with who is supplying who in this article. Apart from anything else the volume of material supplied by the US and Iran are differemt by many orders of magnitude so it's simply absurd to just mention the Iranian supply chain. 125.27.13.215 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a section documenting the heavy U.S. involvement. The huge involvement by foreign powers turns the conflict into a global one. NonZionist (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted the whole section. The whole article was sliding to utter nonsense, sorry. The references of both the Iranian and the US sections was of funny quality. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran vs. US involvement:

First, the United States government is heavily involved in supplying Israel. It has been since the Eisenhower Administration, although actual amounts of aid have varied from year-to-year. The U.S. has also heavily supplied numerous other countries, including Egypt. I oppose adding either a U.S. section or an Iran section, since both countries are in fact "interested spectators," although the different between U.S. Aid is that the United States has supplied weapons and supplies and money (the last two though private citizens and NGOs) and even a handful of U.S. Jewish (and fewer non-Jewish) volunteers and immigrants, while Iran has supplied both weapons, money and the Iranian equivalent of the Green Berets. (Namely, a few companies of trainers/elite militants) who provide aid and training to Hamas Forces, as well as proxy aid from the Syrian government. I feel that adding this section or a section like it, especially without a great depth of sources, is beyond the scope of the article and Iranian actions especially are going to be hard to verify. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Darwish, ty for the extra policing. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than simply discarding this important and well-sourced information, I have moved it to a new article: 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement. NonZionist (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if NPR or The Washington Institute for Near East Policy are considered RS, but they seem to have their facts straight. I assume a blog is not RS?--84.109.19.88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I only skimmed the previous discussions on photos, so somebody please inform me if I'm just being clueless, but isn't there some verifiability criterion for photos and their captions, too? My question is prompted mainly by the horrifying picture of the dead baby. I mean, if there's a photo of a demonstration where a bunch of people are holding Palestinian or Israeli flags, I think "well, it's pretty obvious what this is, it would be hard to fake, and besides, why would anyone want to", so I won't be inclined to ask questions about its authenticity. But I look at this image and, honestly, I can't tell if it's a baby or a burnt plastic doll (which is a horrible thought, if it is a baby), and of course there's nothing in the photo itself that indicates that it has to do with this conflict at all. This may seem overly cynical of me, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and have to be cynical: in a conflict where public perception counts for so much, aren't we to consider the possibility that somebody on either side could burn a doll, or at least adopt an unrelated photo from another situation, in order to score PR points? Also, in this particular case the source of the image (International Solidarity Movement) says that the baby was run over a tank. I don't know much about tanks, but I would expect that in that case (and the horrible-ness just gets worse and worse) the baby would be, you know, crushed and covered with tread marks; which just whets my skepticism more. Answers? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The description says "...This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank.." that would explain the burning marks. Tire tracks are not always clearly visible. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(00)00234-6 ) --helohe (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

oh, there is already a discussion about the picture above. --helohe (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Request_permission_to_upload_photo

If a picture of a Palestinian baby is placed in the article, I wonder if it might be possible to try to find a picture of the Israeli baby who was reported to have been injured in a rocket attack. PinkWorld (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

A discussion regarding balance and proportionality has been started above at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Request_permission_to_upload_photo.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance and proportionality aside, shouldn't we try to find what where exactly this picture was taken so that we can report it on the image caption? Then it could say something like ... with this child dying on 13 January in the al-Nabkya market district attack so that the image makes more sense to readers. The Squicks (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The baby was killed in the attack on Zeitoun, discovered two days later when medics were finally allowed to collect the bodies. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I oppose this picture too. My condolences to her/his poor mother, but it adds nothing to the article. I prefer pictures showing the huge destruction of Gaza, the attacks on the police station that made ~30 dead bodies instantly on the ground, the 300 meter queue for people on The UNRWA stores begging for bread. This is the stuff that describes and shows the crisis, not a dead baby one. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not preference, it is about availability. And we use what is available for us. Shukran for opening the photo to a vote btw. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the picture adds nothing to the article. It shows the human cost of the war and some of the realities on the ground. I do not oppose the inclusion of other pictures. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is footage of the body in the hospital (needless to say I don't think the scene was staged), here is the link [21] starts at 2:20. Here is the description "In a report Thursday, the UN said thirty of the victims killed in the Zeitoun attack had been taking shelter in a home on orders from the Israeli military. More than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated there and told to stay indoors. Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.

Attia Barami: “The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I oppose this picture too. Please remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I advocate its removal too. It's sensationalist, not representative. -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy against "sensationalist" photos? That seems like a fairly subjective standard for the removal of cited information from Wikipedia.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose- Without re-going over "why" I oppose the inclusion of images of this sort V. Joe (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "sort" you are talking about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no vote taking place. This is a discussion. "oppose" doesn't suffice. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a consensus being attempted and it is absolutely correct that people express their opinions. I too oppose any sensationalist pictures. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the "National Enquirer" or some other equally terrible tabloid. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it's inappropriate to continue "voting" when people ask for discussion and have pointed out sections above where this issue is being discussed. The argument that the photo is "sensationalist, not representative" is weak. One-third of the casualties are children, often killed in their homes or in the streets while fleeing for their lives. The photo is a strong image. It makes me wince actually. But I don't think the fact that it provokes a reaction is grounds for non-inclusion. It's a document of the violence of war and its effects on children. This is an issue covered by a number of RS's in the article. Please consider engaging with some of the arguments being made above. Tiamut^talk 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One third are children, but how many are babies? -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think a vote is appropriate I am amenable to a vote. But I think it belongs in its own section, properly labeled so there can be no misinterpretations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Much of the discussion that occurs here indicates that we do not grasp the realities of the slaughter. We try mightily to avoid offending the killers, and we think that is what "NPOV" requires. If we could put ourselves in the place of the victims of this insane orgy of killing, we would begin to understand that be neutral, it is first necessary to be human, and to be human, it is necessary to have compassion for the victims. If photographs can awaken our decency and release us from our ivory tower, then include them. NonZionist (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This is an Encyclopedia. The photos shall not "awake our decency and release us from our ivory tower". That should not be the purpose of photos at wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera offers its photos and footage under creative commons license

• It at their website here [22]. Shall we select some photos for uploading at Wiki commons? Tiamut^talk 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we need to arrive at an agreement as to which to upload to the article. Rabend (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Their CC license is "NC" which makes it incompatible with GFDL and the CC license used by Wiki Commons. Sorry but the content can't be used. Content in Wikipedia MUST be able to be used commercially. --Cerejota (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Says on the website: "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use." Also, on the license page, "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." These are videos not still photos, by the way... (but I suppose screen captures could be made?) RomaC (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The website footer says "Unless otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Please see licensing information accompanying each individual video. " When you click on a video it then says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", which can be used commercially. I think this makes the footage (and stills that are derived from it) compatible. 155.69.179.33 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have video editing software they can use to capture stills from the video available at the site. I used to, by my new computer still doesn't have such a program. We really need visuals for this article on the impact of the offensive on Gazans, so any help in getting stills from this material would be much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be easy, use the download link and open in VLC and under Video, Screenshot or what it says in English. — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm downloading the program now and will post photos in commons from it after I capture some stills. I'll try to put in a wide selection so that we can decide which ones we want to use. I encourage others with video editing programs to do the same. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an update ... I'm downloading the video for Day 18 and it looks like it will take all day. If others want to download other videos to take stills from them, don't do Day 18. We should split our efforts. Tiamut^talk 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ah crap, I forgot you were uploading day 18 footage. I took the screen shots for nothing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows movie maker takes stills, though quality isn't always great. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With Vista snipping tool, you can take snap shots while video plays making downloading unnecessary, but if size is an issue, you would have to download the video. I will upload an example --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[23] from day 13. Please tell me what you think --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fine. Please upload it to the Commons. Be sure to say exactly where you got it from, or it will be deleted. Name the date, location, and provide a short description too if possible. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A note, the whole site now says "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use. This means that news outlets, filmmakers and bloggers will be able to easily share, remix, subtitle or reuse our footage." which makes all of it kosher (i had to use that word, cannot think of another way to describe it, so please nobody take it the wrong way) Nableezy (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Halal? >:)--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my American life has weakened my ability to think in Arabic. But nicely done :) Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Its taking forever to download the video. I want to do it that way to get a high quality still from it. Falastine, your example looks okay to me, but I don't know what others think. Tiamut^talk 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a video snapshot someone uploaded: File:GazaZeitoun.jpg --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Free video and snapshot tools and categories

Snapshots from the free videos at http://cc.aljazeera.net can be uploaded to the Commons via commons:Commons:Upload, and categorized in these categories or their subcategories:

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

Create more subcategories as needed. The Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository may eventually include photos and videos from various conflicts and wars. I sent them an email asking them to post some free images too.

Short videos can be uploaded too if they are converted to formats accepted by the Commons.

The template to use on the image or video page: Template:Cc-by-3.0

{{Cc-by-3.0}}

The direct upload pages if you already know know the license, and its copyright tag:

• commons:Special:Upload
• Basic upload form - This is good for uploading multiple images one after another. Paste in the basic info.

Some (mostly free) tools, help, and resources:

• commons:Help:Converting video
• commons:Commons:Media help
• commons:Category:Commons resources
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop --Timeshifter (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

commons:Special:Upload is not easy to use with specialized license tags. Please see:

• commons:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Special:Upload is not uploading for me

Fortunately, {{Cc-by-3.0}}, is found in the license selector menu at commons:Special:Upload. It is called "Attribution 3.0" in the Creative Commons part of the license selector.

For specialized license templates such as the one in the next talk section it may be easier to use this:

• Basic upload form

Everything else is uploaded by the normal upload page linked from the sidebar of all Commons pages:

commons:Commons:Upload --Timeshifter (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you ask them to post videos in lossy formats as well (the available ones are hundreds of MBs each) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVent (talk • contribs)

http://cc.aljazeera.net/contact is an online form for comments. It says

"Please use the contact form to provide us with feedback on the Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository. We'd love to hear how you're using our content and what sort of content you'd want us to consider adding to the Repository."

I left a comment there myself asking them to post photos too since they probably already know some of the best photos to be found in the videos and elsewhere in their archives. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Many more free photos from ISM (International Solidarity Movement)

Please see:

Flickr: ISM Palestine's Photostream.

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/ismpalestine

It says the photos are taken by ISM members. See

• International Solidarity Movement

All the photos from there that I have checked so far are licensed under

• http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

See commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0

The image license tag to use is

{{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}

Paste it into the image or video page on the Commons during or after uploading. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely nothing from ISM is acceptable. ISM makes the IDF look like an unbiased source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • We use pictures from partisan blogs and independent photographers all the time. For example, New antisemitism. If its free and relevant, we can include, in fact, we should. Unless it is proven beyond doubt to be staged and shooped, and then it should go into Pallywood, not here. --Cerejota (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on my understanding the application of Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy, I think you are wrong. 1) Photos from partisan blogs and independent photographers should not be used. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources notes, "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." 2) Just because it is free and relevant is NOT good enough to include it in wikipedia. 3) If something is NOT from a reliable source, the burden of proof should NOT be on those who object to material being included, but rather the burden should be ON those who WANT it included. I have created a section below to discuss this. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I *think* you are wrong. We allow for self-published photos all the time, in fact a huge quantity of the images that wikimedia hosts are from photos taken by users themselves. The restrictions on images, as I understand them and were explained a few archives ago, were that sourcing was more relaxed for photos than for prose. I am not entirely certain, and unless somebody who is sure can answer I would suggest the OR or RS noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And most RS images are copyright. Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong. I appeal to both good judgment AND some authority here to explain how the policies of Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability apply to photos. I would argue strongly, however, that good judgment should be applied in context. I can understand a difference in standards between someone taking a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge and asserting "this is the Brooklyn Bridge" and someone taking a picture of what looks like a dead baby and saying, "this is a dead baby that was killed at such-and-such an event". The latter would seem to demand a much higher threshhold of reliability. Don't you agree? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at New antisemitism. There are two pictures from a partisan blog, of non-notable people, in non-notable demonstration used to illustrate points in the article. WP:IMAGE is clear that images should be judged in terms of how they illustrate the text: if the text is reliable, then whatever is illustrated is reliable - regardless of origin. WP:NPOV does say that "due weight" considerations apply to images, so balance in images should exist. SO those are the only two content considerations. The rest is legalese (copyright) and technical stuff (formats/size etc) --Cerejota (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please ease up on the wikilawyering, Lawyer2b. The images are fine to upload and fine to use in articles where the images are relevant. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b wants to prove that he really earned his ID by hard work ;). --Darwish07 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Images are being uploaded. Palestinian casualty photos should be categorized in:

• commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Timeshifter (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-Check

Who and why removed the tag? I searched the edit summary and no dice in the explanation, and I will not go around comparing versions. We need that tag because significant neutrality issues have been raised that we are unable to fix so we need uninvolved set of eyes. I see no reason to remove the tag. --Cerejota (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, I think one the major problems with the article is about the presentation of IDF strikes. Note that the article baldy claims that Targeting of medical facilities and personnel has occured at the hands of the IDF. This does not seem right at all. The idea that the IDF deliberately searches out ambulances, clinics, and hospitals and destroys them in order to murder as many innocent people as possible... this is not a statement of fact. This is a higly controversial allegation made by one side against the other. The Squicks (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I see that someone changed the section that I created called Alleged abuse of medical facilities into Abuse of medical facilities. This is the same problem, only flowing the other way. Neither biased phrasings should be here. The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed with zero explanation by User:Dimorsitanos. Squash Racket (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now both sections use the term Alleged [...]. That's a start twoards a much stricter NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed header back to "Attacks on medical facilities and personnel". There is no doubt they have been subject to attacks, though whether or not they were intentionally targeted remains debatable. Tiamut^talk 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend re-added the word "Alleged". Could other editors discuss here please? There's a fundamental difference between attacks which Israel acknowledges making and the PR spin it puts out claiming Hamas militants are in the civilian buildings it admits to attacking. The fact that the buildings were attacked is not dispute, even though the reasons surrounding the attacks are.Tiamut^talk 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a problem given that the phrasing "Attacks on _____" subtly implies that those facilities were intentionally targeted. Think about it. A section titled "Attacks on their own citizens" that describes an incident where a failed Hamas rocket hit a Palestinian area would be equally biased for the same reason, the phrasing "attacks on" implies intent. We cannot imply intent here.

If we going to neutral and not imply that either claim is true-- that they were targeted or that they were not targeted-- than we should phrase it differently. What about something like "Danger to ______" or "__________ destroyed"? The Squicks (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As well, I'd like to ask: If Israel supposedly wants to destroy Gaza's heath care system and is deliberately targeting it as a total war strategy, when why would Israel be taking injured Palestinians into its own hospitals? It makes no sense. The Squicks (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that some other editor has changed it to Israeli attacks resulting in damage to medical facilities and personnel. That's much better, IMO. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the phrase 'attacks on medical facilities and personnel' does not imply that the attack was intentional, it only implies that there was an attack. The phrase 'alleged attacks on . . .' in my mind makes no sense, either there was an attack or there wasnt, and alleged should be used if only one of the parties, hamas or israel, is accusing the other of something that is denied. If there are RS stating that there was an attack on these facilities, then the title should be 'attacks on . .' and if there is only speculation then it should be 'alleged . . '. But there is no subtle implication that the attacks were intentional, if that was the intended implication then the name would have been 'intentional attacks . . .' To me the phrase 'alleged attacks' is the opposite POV equivalent of 'intentional attacks', where just 'attacks . . .' takes no POV. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has changed it back to Attacks on medical facilities and personnel and Abuse of medical facilities while refusing to comment and explain their reasons. ARRGH! As stated before, the phrasing "Attacks on ____" and "Alleged _____" are both POV and we must to fix this. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on is not POV. You keep equating "Attacks on" with "Alleged" in terms of POV, but what would be the equivalent of "Alleged" would be "Deliberate" or "Intentional". Attacks on its own does not carry with it any prejudice either way. Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not saying that the attacks were accidental. The implication, then, is that the attacks were deliberate. Bending over backwards to excuse and whitewash Israeli war-crimes does not constitute NPOV! If Israeli medical facilities were reduced to rubble, would we be using the word "alleged" to absolve the bomber and cast suspicion on the wounded victims? Yes, perhaps the victims are only hallucinating, or perhaps they blew up the clinic themselves, just to make Israel look bad! Since the victims do not have the IDF imprimatur, they are not a "Reliable Source", so let's shut our ears and cover our eyes and pretend that Israel did not "intentionally" attack Gaza and all of the victims died "accidentally" when they "deliberately" got in the way of Israeli bombs and bullets. NonZionist (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew

If anyone here speaks Hebrew, can they read this YNET article about allegations about improper use of text messaging (at least that what I understand the article is about)?

Sadly, I don't. However, is Israel now being accused of improper text messaging along with massacring babies and medical personnel? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Hebrew. So I don't know. For all I know, the Jews are sending each other erotic literature via texting for instant stress release. The Squicks (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) first, whats the point of this, second it is easy for anybody to get a reasonable translation of almost any website. why dont you let me google that for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently Hamas is sending civilians in southern Israel text messages warning them about rocket attacks? Isn't this notable enough to put in the article-- this means Hamas is trying to avoid civilians casualties just like the IDF does with its messages? The Squicks (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly non-notable in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless we add a humoristic, anecdotal section to this article.. Their "psych warfare" text messages are in such poor English/Hebrew that if this wasn't a war, it would be almost funny. Rabend (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Or you can see the photo in the article: http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/28102008/1788242/SMS_Wa&91;1&93;.jpg
There was an earlier message sent with bad Hebrew ( http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3648737,00.html ) which translates to: "Do rockets until all cities not to defend you shelters, qassam rockets, hamas" - something like that. http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-187322-00.html?tag=11-56-17 reports a new message that translates to: "The nazis commited the same horrible crime you are now committing in Gaza. And like the Nazi leaders were tried in Hague, so will you be judged in front of the International Court of Justice and come to your punishment" - it's a bit too literal of a translation... tried as in tried in court, come to your punishment - receive your punishment. It says that it's signed "The Hamas" and that this message was sent from England and that the police is aware of it and is dealing with it. It says the message was recieved by thousands of subscribers (cellphone subscribers - it doesn't specify if it effected just one cellphone company's clients).--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this notable? It's a novel instance of propoganda/psychological warfare. This may be the first time in history that text messaging has been systematically used for that purpose. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I was completely mistaken. These text messages were sent as a matter of psychological warfare against Israeli civilians. In that case, I agree with Jalapenos here. The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So it matters which side is doing what to determine notability? I think it is non-notable either way. Nableezy (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this qualifies for psych warfare, albeit an unsuccessful attempt, since these messages are sent to 10000s of civilians. Additionally, Hamas reports about kidnapped soldiers. Again, they are largely unsuccessful, but i see them as tactics. Rabend (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

HORRIBLE article

As a neutral reader of this article, all I can say is that it's way too long, biased toward different point in different sections and contains incorrect informations and useless ones as well. Trying to correct mistakes goes nowhere as fanatics are trying to restore what they wrote every 2 seconds. Perhaps when the conflict settles down someone will trim the article and fix its neutrality. --66.36.140.174 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as another reader trying to stay neutral I'm not sure I understand who you mean by 'fanatics'. The editing is certainly polarised, that's for sure but if you have specific instances that you can identify with 'diffs' that demonstrate the action of a 'fanatic' it would be very useful to see them. Naturally you need to compare the edit made to the associated reference cited to check whether the edit is verifiable first. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that it's gone somewhat awry lately. Turning, again, more into "let's add evidence that Israel is evil" instead of a succinct, objective article. Really discouraging. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I think you're faulty in here. If all the facts are properly cited, then the facts speak for themselves. If the facts put Israel in a bad sight, it's not the problem of the editors who cited those facts. Also remember that my imperialistic analysis says that a huge number of the details are actually from Haaretz, Ynet (badi'ot ahronot), Arutz Sheva, IDF statements, Livni statements and lots of other pro-israeli sources. Sources from Hamas and Arab media are close to null. Really my point is, why blaming the facts if most of the cited references are on the pro-Israeli side? --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree that it's a matter of the existence of facts. It's a matter of selective reporting of facts. You have more than enough facts to support either claim that both Israel and the Palestinians are committing war crimes, or whatever anyone wants to suggest. However, it seems that one side is more intent on posting whatever they can to prove that the other is pure evil. Posting more evidence does not mean that this is what's going on real life. It only reflects, in this case, the unbalanced intent and activity of one side. Rabend (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think Rabend has a point. The article is very much in danger of suffering from NPOV drift resulting from sampling errors due to the polaristion of editors. And the longer it gets the higher the risk as Rabend alluded to. It's kind of inevitable I guess especially if things like entire sections aren't being properly discussed on the talk page before being added. It's clearly true that different camps are focusing on their own areas of interest rather than there being a shared common interest of improving the quality of the article. Maybe I'm overstating it and generalising but I do think 'less is more' needs to be considered for this article at some point. Not a very helpful comment I suppose... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, point to specific issues and let's try solve them together. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove anything that makes Israel look bad. Simple as that. In fact, probably best not to mention casualities at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)..hell, let's delete the article. What war ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sean, that was helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a lot better than my first idea which was to replace the article with a redirect to a picture of a kitten. More seriously though, if you want a serious suggestion, I think what would be useful would be for an experienced Wiki editor to take a step back, look at the article from a distance in the cold light of day rather than the hot fog of war, try identify the key features that should be included or split off to separate articles and propose a hign level structure that could be discussed and agreed. The article is mushrooming at the moment. Maybe it's not the right time yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article isnt that bad. At least as far as im aware, my work is limited to only a few parts of the article. I can only suggest you get involved, bring conflicts to the talk pages and dont give up because there are some reverthappy editors out there :). Infuriating though it is. Superpie (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Proposal

As per Sean's image sugegstions, and Rabend's view of how the article can be NPOV:

2008-2009 Palestinian Lovefest
Also known as Operation Cats Lead, which began intensified with the Big Bang.
The Economist, an anti-Israel, antisemite left-wing New Antisemitism rag controversially claims otherewise, but what do they know.

Is source of dead baby photo a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand why you're questioning the reliability of this source only. I mean WTH is Marek Peters [24] why should we accept his photos? Is Mila [25] a reliable source??? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the RS policy applies to images. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeitoun incident?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first definition I see is '(military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn" ' I personally dont see intent in that definition [27]. So I respectfully disagree as well. Nableezy (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeitoun discussion continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massacre

I wonder if the implication in the lead that "Massacre" is only prevalent as a description in the arab world needs adjusting. It seems to be used in plenty of non-Arab countries including non Arab Islamic ones but also places like Bangladesh: [28], London: [29], [30], Auckland NZ[31], Australia [32] although that one may be a blog, and by all sorts of people like George Galloway etc. --BozMo talk 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you cited two "opinion" sections (first Independent article and the Australian "source").

The other Independent article doesn't use the phrase "Gaza massacre" for the whole operation only refers to a specific incident. The New Zealand "source" is a press release of Unite Union, NOT an article.

Try with something more convincing next time. Squash Racket (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps you could think a little deeper before asking me to be "convincing". We are discussing prevalence of a description not trying to establish a fact, since what the article mentions is prevalence of a description. That a description is used in opinion sections of prominent Western papers means that it is used in places outside the Arab world (and you can find immediately another ten countries on Google, excluding ones like the Jersusalem Post who put the phrase in inverted commas) I just got bored listing them). I make no claim that the people who have used this expression outside the Arab world are NPOV individuals, just that they are not part of the Arab world. The implicit limitation to the Arab world is poor. --BozMo talk 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should know that "opinion" sections and press releases don't count as reliable, neutral sources. Bring more convincing, meaning higher quality references than these. Every single time we try to establish common usage of a name/phrase we do this based on reliable sources, not blogs and the like.
Or do I miss something here? We could bring low quality sources to establish the term "Gaza Holocaust". I think you should "think a little deeper" as you suggest regarding to where this would lead. Squash Racket (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what I said, please think more. Reliability of sources depends on what you are trying to establish. When you are simply discussing the usage of a term opinion pieces which use it are significant. When we are discussing "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World" then notable opinion pieces outside the Arab world using the expression are relevant.

The term "Gaza Massacre" occurs on more than 20,000 UK websites including the British Communist party, opinion pieces in major newspapers. Of course loads of these, perhaps all of these are non-NPOV sources. These are not neutral sources but neither are they arab. It also appears in a lot of Asian (non-Arab) websites not as a quote but as a description. It also appears in opinion pieces written by Palestinian sympathisers. To limit noting its usage to the Arab world is no longer accurate. I am not suggesting that we call what is going on the Gaza Massacre based on the present media description but that we widen what the article says from "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World" to something like "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World and by some commentators elsewhere".--BozMo talk 13:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to waste anymore time here, the article is quite messy anyway. What I know is this: whenever we try to establish common usage of a term/phrase/name on Wikipedia, we only use reliable, neutral sources, not partisan references, blogs, press releases, etc. especially in heated, controversial topics like this. And once again: with your new method the term "Gaza Holocaust" too can easily be established.

But I guess your suggestion will be popular around here. Squash Racket (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Reliability of sources depends on what you are trying to establish." That is not true. I think reliability of sources depends on the reliability of sources. Please think more. Squash Racket (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, life is short. I am happy waiting and reviewing later and as you say the article is pretty rough. --BozMo talk 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi BozMo. I agree, that the phrase is being used beyond the Arab world. Earlier, there was a bit of discussion of how we could demarcate the set of people/countries that are using this phrase. For example, this phrase seems to be quite common in Iran and in Turkey and, as you say, in parts of South Asia none of which fit into Arab world. Nevertheless, 'other commentators elsewhere' is a bit unwieldy, especially since 'other commentators' have also used other names for this conflict. Lets keep thinking about this and perhaps a review later will change the terminology to something more accurate. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, I have also seen numerous non-Arab sources using the term "Gaza Massacre." This should be a matter of as you say, adjusting the phrasing. But frankly, if you look at the Talk archives, you'll see that it has been a constant struggle to note in the article that even Arabs are using the term. Countless challenges, ranging from it's OR to it's not NPOV to attempts to dismiss based on the application of capitalization or quotation marks to coordinated wikilawyering to repeated unilateral reversions by editors who should know better have come and gone over the last days. Somehow Wiki policies have sort of prevailed here, but the shell-shocked editors who've been holding the fort might be wary of provoking another wave of attacks by adjusting the phrasing. In any case, the term is most widely used in the Arab World, I'm just satisfied that much has survived. RomaC (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not think it matters what anybody besides the Israelis and the Arabs, more specifically the Palestinians, are calling this. We use Arabs because the Arabs as a group are involved in this, as evidenced by the Egyptian-Franco ceasefire negotiations, the meetings of the Arab League, of which the PNA is a member, the representation of the Arabs in the UNSC by Libya, and that the name in Gaza will almost certainly be the name in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Amman . . . I don't think it as at all relevant what it is being called in Iran, Malaysia, Antarctica or whatever. Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

from the article: "Similar claims were made by Arab media and Palestinian sources during the 2002 Battle of Jenin but were later proved to be false.[citation needed]" I found the citation.

'No Jenin massacre' says rights group
By Paul Wood
BBC
3 May, 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin. The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
...
Much of the controversy about Jenin has concerned the number of dead with the Palestinians claiming hundreds and the Israelis saying less than 45, and all of them fighters. Human Rights Watch says at least 52 Palestinians died of whom 22 were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed wilfully and unlawfully the report says. Palestinian civilians were used as human shields and the Israeli army employed indiscriminate and excessive force, the report says.

My PoV is chomping at the bit to say something. I wonder if there is any way to connect the section on accusations of massacre to sections related to international and humanitarian law. PinkWorld (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

That line should be removed as utterly irrelevant to this. This article is not about Jenin, even if the line is utterly inaccurate as regards to Jenin. Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit summary and edit

Please take a look at this: [33]. I object to the edit summary and the edit itself. What Rabend removed were not "sob stories", as he put it, but facts regarding the circumstances under which these facilities were hit, the number of people they served, and the reactions of people concerned by their destruction. Rabend also in a subsequent edit added the word "alleged" before "attacks on medical facilities and personnel", even though there is no evidence to suggest that these attacks did not happen. In fact, Israel admits to hitting some of these places, in one case calling the clinic to warn people to evacuate.

I would ask other editors to intervene here to restore what has been deleted and to restored a neutral title to the section, not one that makes false equivalences. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these were the "sob stories" deleted:

• On January 12, a Palestinian doctor attempting to evacuate the wounded from a building hit by missiles in Jabaliya refugee camp was killed when a third missile was fired at the site by an Israeli helicopter.
• Barry Morgan wrote to the Israeli Ambassador to London asking for an explanation as to why Israel had attacked the Shij'ia Family Health Care Centre which served 10,836 families, who had "effectively been removed of any hope of medical provision and support."
• Patients and workers were given only fifteen minutes to evacuate, before the bombing.
• No warning was given prior to the bombing. The well-known center, which served 100 patients a day was clearly marked as a medical facility, and is located in the middle of a residential area, with no government or military facilities are nearby. Tiamut^talk 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever restored the material. I hope that Rabend comes here to discuss his edits to this section before attempting to delete the material again. Tiamut^talk 16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am here. I don't think this article should include every bit of information available about every incident. Should I include the stories of the civilians hurt in today's Grad attacks in Be'er Sheva? Or rockets landing in a (thank god it was empty at the time coz everyone's in shelters) kindergarten in Ashdod?

"The kindergarten was home to 28 children ages 2-5. No military constellation can be found anywhere near it. The attack traumatized the children and parents alike, and perhaps they will suffer from long-term PTSD as a result. The kindergarten teacher described the horrific consequences of the attack, saying that it will take long months to repair the damages. etc etc."

And this is just one incident. Do you want me to do the same for the rest? Stick to succinct facts. This is an encyclopedia. Not a "60 Minutes" report.

And the doctor getting killed is indeed sad, but I doubt the helicopter recognized him as medical personnel and decided that he should thus die. He happened to be there. If a nurse in Sderot was hit today by a Qassam exploding in her house, should I include it as well? And Barry Morgan(?) writing to the Ambassador is notable enough? This article needs to be shorter, providing very relevant facts out of the inifinty of facts there are out there. Rabend (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add whatever material you think is relevant to the article. If other editors disagree with your additions, they can challenge them on the talk page.

Please do not remove relevant and notable material added by others, particularly without discussing your deletions here.

If you feel Dr. Barry Morgan, who represents the clinic, and asked for an explanation from the Israeli ambassador, is somehow not notable, make your case here first.

There are no justifications for the other removals you made.

Finally, there is a tonne more material that should be added to this section, due to Israeli attacks on Al-Quds hospital today. Gaza: Destruction to medical facilities "unacceptable" and Israelis shell hospitals and UN HQ. I will be adding more to this section in the hours and days to come. I expect that you will refrain from making deletions of relevant, reliably sourced and notable information. Tiamut^talk 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will edit material that is not relevant enough for this article. If you want, you can start your own private blog documenting all the horrible one-sided atrocities committed by the merciless murderers. I'll be happy to read it and finally learn the truth. This, however, is an encyclopedia. We do not have the volume for all the details of all the incidents that ever occured. I will not post the horror stories of those injured by Hamas militants, as they are not integral to this article. I expect you to do the same. Rabend (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As (un)luck would have it, indeed a hospital nurse and her 7-year-old son were hit by a Grad missile today. The son has a piece of shrapnel in his head, and he's in serious condition. I doubt he'll ever be the same. No, this is not note-worthy enough for WP. Rabend (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, we ought to include both. Personally, I find the Hamas attacks on completely civilian Israeli schools, hospitals, children's playgrounds, and so on to be more morally upsetting than Israeli attacks on Palestinians facilities of that nature that Hamas turned into their staging grounds with civilian human shields. But all civilian death is a tragedy, regardless or whatever side. And all civilian deaths are relevant to this article. The Squicks (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, all civilian death is a tragedy, but I sincerely doubt that "Archbishop Barry Morgan wrote to the Israeli Ambassador to London asking for an explanation as to why Israel had attacked the Shij'ia Family Health Care Centre..." is important enough to be included in an encyclopedic entry. We can't include everything. We have to, unfortunately, apply a threshold of importance for inclusion. This will leave some of the descriptions out. For both sides. Isn't this reasonable? Rabend (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The information about the Doctor's death I find to be notable, but the removal of the other info seems to be a good faith effort to tighten what is presently an extremely long article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle about keeping a narrow focus. As well, the Effects on Israelis section needs copy editing (the material is fine, it's just not written very clearly). But I personally think that the letter from Morgan is notable, since it has been covered in the news and since it involves the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article is semi-protected for two weeks. --Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This page is very close to getting protected for edit warring. Please make sure to discuss edits here. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think edit protection is needed. That will simply stifle article development. What is needed are more admin eyes on this page, looking for edits that are made in bad faith. There are lots of them, and we could use help isolating them and making sure that those making them understand that such shenanigans won't be tolerated. Tiamut^talk 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many bad faith edits going around. Rabend (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of edits are in good faith. Personally, I strenuously oppose protection. The Squicks (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It id bad enough that registered editors do edits without summaries or talk page discussion etc, which in a controversial article I consider the signs of vandalism, to have anon SPAs with all the duck signals of meattery and socketry and an uncanny grasp of the intricacies of 3RR and slow edit warring to continue un opposed. I am all for anons editing, I am also for anons returning the favor and respectind the BRD process. Its quid pro quo. Of course, we can let them open so that the statistical analysis tools tells me who are the socks and puppets. :D Less drama is better, I say. --Cerejota (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection from anonymous IP edits

I believe semi-protection needs to be returned until the war is over. The number of IP edits has increased greatly in the last few days. Many are vandalism without edit summaries, discussion, etc..

Wikipedia:Protection policy: "administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption – for example, due to media attention – when blocking individual users is not a feasible option."

Can someone make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I don't have time at the moment. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested.--Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a comment. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1,000 Casualties it's officially a war now

With more than 1,000+ casualties the article should be renamed 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War. Kermanshahi (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a war, it's a massacre. But if you prefer more "neutral" wording, might I suggest 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza. Tiamut^talk 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Swedish newspapers seem to call it "Attack on/in Gaza" "Israel's attack on/in Gaza", don't know about other countries. If their headlines etc take notice to the one-sidedness of the conflict. — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it also fits quite perfectly the criteria for a siege, as in the Siege of Jerusalem But we won't be able to say so until academic sources settle on terminology.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good and there already is a Siege of Gaza, so either Second Siege of Gaza (though I'm guessing there's been other)or Siege of Gaza (2008–) (2008– to indicate still ongoing) — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By happenchance, I read Arrian's account of that late last year (Book 2). The wiki page on Alexander's siege is not much chop, and should be on User ChrisO's list of things to do. Artillery was fundamental there as well. Thanks for the link fix, and this reminder Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

this is a battle within a war in my view. And comments like that Tiamut are not useful. Superpie (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is of course welcome, but it's a fact that many people in the world view this as a massacre, a fact recorded in the lead of this article. It's not the description that's inflammatory, but the actions of the ground. Tiamut^talk 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is likewise welcome, but massacre is an emotive and judgemental term, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre". This is unquestionably a conflict between Israel and elements within Gaza, its for the reader to review the evidence and deduct the currency of "massacre" as a description, not for a few editors to decide from the go. Superpie (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reminds me. We need more pictures of those 'elements' within Gaza because we only have the victim from the Zeitoun incident and the baby so far which may not be enough information for a reader to make an accurate assessment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie, I expressed my personal opinion, one that is shared by millions of people, that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a massacre. You are free to disagree with that position and express you own opinion. I did not however suggest we name the article "Gaza Massacre". If you are really interested in minimizing unconstructive discussion, rather than responding by pretending that I am suggesting something I am not, you would focus on the merits and demerits of my actual suggestion for the title, and not my opinion, expressed in passing. Tiamut^talk 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my private moments, I think of the phrase 'eine grosse fröhliche Jagd' as pretty close to what's going on. But back to editing. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a war, it's a massacre. But if you prefer more "neutral" wording, might I suggest 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza. Tiamuttalk 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)" Tiamut, I will not apologise for reading into that comment and noting the unusefulness of suggesting the merits of it being known as a massacre. Dont lace your comments with opinion and get huffy when somebody takes exception.

I have already commented on the issue of a name for this article elsewhere and in my view, the 2008-09 Gaza/Israel conflict does the job fine. Yours is biased because it ignores the role of rocket firing in bringing about the conflict. Ok? talk) 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'War On Gaza'? 'Massacre'? Here we go again, with people refusing to accept the fact that there is a difference between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian combatants/miliants and asking the article to make them be the same. Sigh. This is not a "War on Gaza". This is a "War in Gaza". in Gaza and not on Gaza. This is a war between Hamas and the IDF taking place inside the area of the Gaza strip. This is not a war between the IDF and every last man, woman, and child living in a certain area (which would be an extermination campaign and not actually a war).

These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate. Look at basically any article based off of The Troubles, where Irish civilians were in danger from British soldiers, or the Second Chechen War, where Muslim civilians/Russian soldiers, or the 2008 South Ossetia war, where Georgian civilians/Russian soldiers, and so on. There are so many instances where we could use inflammatory language and we have sources for them but we stay neutral. The Squicks (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

its not just Hamas and Israel fighting though is it Squicks talk) 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we too stay neutral, bearing in mind the Israeli philosopher Anat Biletzki's point that that impartiality between Gaza and Israel brings us back to comparing the numbers. Over 900 people, out of a population of 1.5 million, have been killed in Gaza. That is equivalent to 180,000 Americans being killed--in two weeks. Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Since Israeli hospitals have fortified bomb shelters and since Hamas agents shooting rockets at those hospitals are incompetent (as one user once put it, "I made a better rocket in my 5th grade science class"), there have been very little suffering so far. That somehow makes it morally right? Would you suggest that the nurses and doctors along with their patients work outside so that the international body count can be more even? The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But enough soapboaxing. I'd like to point out This article in today's The Economist that makes the distinction right in its headlines: The war in the Gaza Strip and How the Israelis might end their assault on Hamas. Note that the IDF has an assault "on" Hamas. It is fighting "in" the Gaza Strip. The Squicks (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a really important distinction that is not getting across enough. The war is against Hamas militants, and is taking place (unfortunately) in Gaza. Indeed, it is not a war against Gaza. Rabend (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the POV stated by the Israeli government through numerous proclamations, but I honestly dont see it as true. The very first attack was on a police station, sure you can call it a Hamas police station, but it was in fact a Gaza police station. Israel has decimated the infrastructure of Gaza, destroyed multiple schools, the entire governmental structure, and wiped out near the entire electrical grid. That Israel makes the claim that it is attacking Hamas and not Gaza should not be presented as the title, it should be presented as the POV of the Israeli government. Nableezy (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would draw parallels to the Iraq War, where the stated POV of the Bush administration was that this was not a war against Iraq or Iraqis, but against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime. I seriously doubt that anybody in all seriousness can question whether that was a war on Iraq or a war on Saddam Hussein. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What I said was a general statement, and not regarding the article. If Israel was truly fighting Gaza and not just the Hamas, Gaza would no longer exist. All the damage you mentioned was either part of the Hamas infrastructure/militants, or collateral damage due to militants firing from there. Had Hamas fought only outside heavily populated areas, I doubt there would have been heavy casualties. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm putting it out there, since I am very familiar with Israel and the morals of the IDF. Rabend (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? "If Israel was truly fighting Gaza and not just the Hamas, Gaza would no longer exist." What????? Are you you saying that if Gaza was the target, it would have been obliterated by now? ---Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, I took that to be a suggested name for the article for using "War in Gaza" rather than "War on Gaza" or "Gaza War". Though I think the point about fighting outside of populated areas is incorrect because of the fact that the Gaza Strip is the 6th most densely populated place in the world. How many open areas are there to conduct any type of defense? Also, as you rightly said, Israel possesses the capabilities to completely and totally wipe out the entire Gaza Strip, probably enough to wipe out the entire Middle East. Who in their right mind would assemble in an open area and challenge that clear military supremacy. Hamas does not have tanks, they do not airplanes, the do not helicopters, they do not have an type of accurate surface-to-air missile, they do not have any effective anti-tank weapons. That such a situation would turn into urban guerrilla warfare should have been obvious to an eighth grade history student. Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So due to its military inferiority, Hamas had to take this war into its population centers (I probably would have done the same), and that's why we can't avoid civilian casualties in this conflict. Rabend (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont think Hamas has taken the war anywhere. They live in population centers, and one day Israel attacked them (not going into any justifications/legality arguments/whether it was an attack or counterattack) where they were, which were population centers. And as one of the stated goals was destroying the Hamas infrastructure, that translates to destroying Gaza infrastructure as Hamas is the government of Gaza. But whatever, I was just trying to say we shouldnt call it 'War in Gaza' Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They should not have made their bases and hid their ammo in these population centers. They knew a war was coming, they boobytrapped every other home in Gaza and tunneled everywhere. This could have been avoided. Let's just hope for better times... Rabend (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think calling it a war against Hamas is something of a simplification, there are many militant elements in Israel which this article notes later on, but not in name. Thoughts? p.s. Calling it the war on Gaza is quite inaccurate, I read somebody suggesting the Economists choice of term "war in Gaza" which fits much better. Superpie (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By definition, an attack on Hamas is an attack on the Gaza Strip. When a nation attacks the governing body of another, for our purposes we'll say territory, they are by definition attacking the territory. Too many times I have seen people try to make the distinction, as if Hamas had never won an election, as if they are not both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. When the US attacked government structures in Iraq they attacked Iraq. When the Israelis attacked the government structure of Gaza, they attacked Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this notion. Secret motives aside, I do believe that the Iraq invasion had the potential of helping the Iraqi people free themselves from a dictatorship. I don't think the US was aiming to be in a war with Iraq. Only with its leadership and army that supported that leadership. Rabend (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

People, I know its hard to let go, but it turns out once more Cerejota's crystal adamantium balls (handle with care) were right. We should rename to "2008-2009 Gaza War". I won't gloat anymore except to say that ALL the media in the middle east, including Israeli media, is calling it so (besides massacre). There is near unanimous agreement that what we have here is a momentous historical milestone, that marks a new phase on the I-P conflict. It is time we listen to what the reliable sources are saying: yes, "assault", yes "massacre", yes "war on hamas", yes "war on Gaza", yes "Palestinian lovefest". The reality is, and has been since the weeklies came out last Friday, that this is now known as Gaza War. Man, even the damn protests for and against int heir propaganda call it the Gaza War. I implore all of you to consider and ponder the sources, specially the more thoughful, less newsy ones (le monde diplomatique, the economists, etc), and call this by the name historians are calling it, in the fashion they call Capital W War. Examples abound Pacific War (how can you make war on an ocean?!?!?), Six Day War (how can you make war on a week sans Sabbath?), Phoney War (I mean, historians have a weird sense of humor!!!) etc etc etc. "Gaza War" doesn't imply action, it implies historicity, it implies encyclopedic value. Lets not fight the wars here for a second, and ponder that. Thanking you in advance... --Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If this 2008-2009 conflict is a war, then what was the previous eight month (sorry, 6 month. Wishful thinking Superpie (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) ceasefire, peace? Calling this a war is inaccurate. Superpie (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And if this is a war then why did it get bumped from "In the news" to make room for the Golden Globe Awards? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But I should say that I'm okay with the "Gaza War" title. I mentioned that a few days ago on the Lead page. Although I'm not quite sure that we can say what historians will call it in the future. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The title "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War" is neutral and acceptable. 2008-2009 Gaza Massacre, 2008-2009 War on Gaza, Second Siege of Gaza, 2008-2009 Gaza Holocaust, and so one are not acceptable at all. The Squicks (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could direct everyone to that lifeline of evidence freedictionary.com, war is thus defined: "a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." and so on, so forth. We dont call the Israeli–Palestinian conflict a war do we? Conflict is more accurate, gives greater suggestion to the true chaotic nature of this event. Atop this, its definition is very similar to war so I see no real argument in terms of defined meaning, only potentially suggested meaning and conflict ties to the established norm already noted in describing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Superpie (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my issue with the present title: "conflict" denotes, usually, a series of battles, incidents, massacres, killings, etc etc etc, of a more or less chronic nature. It is aslo used in the media to refer to any armed confrontation between organized groups, be them state or para-state. For example, there is the Arab-Israeli conflict. But inside this historic conflict we have the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the 1982 Lebanon War/2006 Lebanon War. Likewise, we have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inside of which we have many discreet incidents. This is the first that is an actual War in the most classic sense: there are two sides, both well armed, and both with regular troops and weaponry. This isn't an intifadah of suicide bombers, sniper towers, kids with rocks, and riot police. This is War. It is a consequence of the unilateral withdrawal. Historians will mark this as a phaseshift.

BTW, am ok with Israel-Gaza War if that is a compromise, but like Gaza War better because its shorter and the RS use it way way way more, so it has "well known name" going for it.--Cerejota (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't call it 'Gaza War' because there already was a 'Gaza War': At the Siege of Gaza. The Squicks (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?--Cerejota (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Temporal Context"?

This entire section is garbage. Most of its sources are highly biased opinion articles or ideological websites. We even cite Wikipedia itself as a supposed source (WTF?!). The idea that 'The United States has long made war against the Palestinians' is highly biased and is stated baldy as a fact without a specific reference. Must we refuse to distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian militants in this section? This is highly controversial.

The 'Iranian part' and the 'American Part' have the same problems, only from opposite ends: One uses biased pro-Palestine sources to make an original research synthesis and the other uses biased pro-Israel sources to make an original research synthesis. The Squicks (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire section needs to go too. Any attempt to reduce the size of this article surely needs to look at this before removing sourced info about attacks by the IDF. The section has already proved fertile ground for some ninja edits, it's taking up space that could be more usefully used to describe what is actually happening in Gaza and most importantly it's removal wouldn't damage the article. What about if the people who produced this move it over to a separate article if they want to continue working on this aspect of the Israeli actions and it's context ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about the international reactions to this conflict. Wouldn't information about the United States' reaction belong in there? The Squicks (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anywhere it should be in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article I guess. I was going to mv it to my /tmp but I see you have already abducted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I copied the whole section from the history and put it in User:Sean.hoyland/tmp. If whoever created it has a warm feeling of kinship towards the text it's there if you want it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my fellows, how we limit most coverage of notable punditry to a sub-article? Say, I dunno, Commentary on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I am just saying that we need to give the quote farmers some land to sow, amirite? Main article should be for the heavy stuff, like the leadership of both sides. --Cerejota (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordination of efforts for the Al Jazeera CC material

..is there any ? Who is doing what ? Are enough people working on it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on Day 18, but I'm having difficulties getting non-blurry frames. Any suggestions on how to get a clear shot from the video? Tiamut^talk 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am uploading images, but for some reason they are not working. first attempt [34] second attempt [35].--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about video but I'm sure someone here does. Tiamut, is it about the same quality as Falastine's here because that seemed fine ? Which day are you doing Falastine ? I checked if anyone had put these videos out to bittorrent sites because that would significantly speed up the download but it seems not. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the recent stills from 1/13 (Day 18) footage. I will guess I will have to try again later to upload them.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about Al-Jazeera's images. Where are they getting them? Is the media embargo still effective? Its an important question to ask. V. Joe (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia article. "As of January 14, Al Jazeera, whose reporter Ayman Mohyeldin was already inside Gaza when the conflict began, is the only international broadcaster with a journalist reporting from inside Gaza."--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aljazeera had a limited media presence within Gaza before this began, BBC has 1 reporter as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat working now. [36]Please check the quality, it is not as good as the first one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. They are very helpful. I have gotten help there several times. I have also helped edit some of their resource pages. I recently helped a guy from Turkish Wikipedia to get an SVG map of Syria by asking there. He had asked me for help on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

War On Gaza Day 13

Okay, I've watched this one because the description said the following which looked high priority to me.

• Various shots of Israeli helicopter bombing Gaza.
• Various shots of smoke raising from building.
• Various high angle shots to Gaza strip.

However, the video doesn't actually contain that material. It contains handheld footage shot at a hospital of casualities coming in. Seems callous to say this but I would assign this video a low-ish priority if we need to assign priorities. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ...oh, and I emailed them to tell them they are spreading filthy lies with their inaccurate description and asked for an amendment. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

they've updated the description. see, they're nice people. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Details on humanitarian ceasefires

"A three-hour ceasefire took place on 9 January as well. Three Grad rockets were fired from Gaza at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[192]

Hamas continued to launch rockets throughout the Israeli ceasefire again on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[193] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[194]"

The above has been removed from the text regarding humanitarian ceasefires. Im happy with that, however does anyone wish this information to remain? If so, could they rewrite it in a manner more keeping with the tone of the section that Hamas has continued to fire through Israeli ceasefires rather than "on this day -this happened", "and on this day -this happened". Else I will try to do so at a later time (I think others could do it better, as I would leave it out though I can imagine many would think it worth noting). Thanks Superpie (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. This indeed helps shorten the article. Rabend (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

someone keeps changing the lead

i restored it to the consensus based version Untwirl (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was user Doright claiming it is OR in this edit [37] Nableezy (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF is not a reliable source for civilian count

The worst source to go to for a Gaza civilian count is the people who killed them and have a reason to lower the number. In addition, IDF doesn't count the bodies (running them over with tanks like they are nothing is what they have done), Palestinian medics are the ones collecting the bodies, counting them. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda. It should not be in the infobox at all.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither it is a mouthpiece of Palestinian propaganda. Dude, we are working towards a good article, no need to get yer undies up in a bunch. :D That said, the IDF should never be the sole source, but their views are centrally notable to this topic. Same as Hamas. --Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because I didn't say Hamas, I said Palestinian medics (with the Red Crescent and other health organizations), who actually count the bodies. Whether or not they report back to Hamas and the numbers are released through the MOH, they are 1000 percent more reliable than the IDF. The infobox should contain the count based on the Palestinian sources. You can say "IDF claims that 250 civilians killed" elsewhere in the article. Yuu really need to lay off the WP policy citations btw. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, WP:CHILL its not a policy, its an essay. Read it, laugh, cry or ignore it. But please, unless you give me an specific reason as to why I should do something, do not try to tell what I should or shouldn't do. We are people with minds, not robots to order around... That said, I mentioned Hamas because it is the rough equivalent of the IDF. In the case of the Palestinian Red Crescent, the equivalent is Magen David Adom. I do agree that the Red Cresent is more reliable than the IDF for these figures, but they are at the same leven with regards to notability (ie the coverage the encyclopedia should give to their views). And of course, we should always verify.--Cerejota (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is your reason. The constant citation of essays are annoying. chill? I am chill, don't order me to be calm. Now to the important point, should we put the Hamas number of IDF deaths if there is one? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is a rough equivalent to the Israeli government, and their figures should be treated as the figures of the government of Gaza. I personally think the figures on both sides should be cited explicitly, as in the IDF says x militants and y civilians, the MoH says z civilians Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. Attribution is a principle whenever there is controversy.--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My goodness. Are you stating that Hamas is unconditionally reliable wereas the Israeli government is unconditonally unrealible? This doesn't just contradict NPOV, this blasts NPOV into a million pieces. The Squicks (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said that? I for one said that they are equally reliable, or equally unreliable, and as such should be explicitly cited whenever each sides stats are used. Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My goodness gracious who said that? I agree with Nableezy, they are equally reliable, or equally unreliable. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, IDF's views on civilian deaths should definitely be in the article. However, I don't think they should be in the infobox. Does that sound fair Falastine fee Qalby?VR _talk 04:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed to that earlier in the thread. Thanks for doing the change. Can you see if you can resolve the dispute above at Zeitoun incident? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that another user has kept the infobox from being censored, and restored the IDF count. Good. I strongly oppose censoring it. The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers the Hamas, the IDF and a third source claim should be presented since they have as much importance as the actual numbers, like in the "Jenin massacre" it is important to see what each side claims and what is the actual number. --62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Elements in Indonesia

"Elements in Indonesia are seeking to put together a coalition such as the one put together after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[419][420]" - what are "elements in Indonesia"? Besides, the two references have nothing to with the facts stated by this sentence. --JensMueller (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Definite weasel words, that portion should be removed. 67.42.114.117 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove. Its dubious. Superpie (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing per MoS

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian sources?

Is there a consensus that Iranian sources don't meet WP:RS? I ask because content from them keeps being removed. [38]

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli leadership sucks too [39] we should not cite Israeli media ever --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL; DR

Yeah, it is ridiculous, thank you to whoever put the tag in there. Nao, some suggestions:

1. Better summarize the sections that already have sub-pages (like international reactions which is huge inspite of there being a sub-article in clear contravention to the purpose and practice of the summary style), and do not add new material to the summary unless it is really, really, really, as in "no one objects because its d'oh"-level consensus. Continue the edit war on the sub-article :D.
2. "Background" section is longer than any other section, and it can't be summarized into a separate article, by definition it is a core section and there are more than a few articles covering the background. I suggest moving content to the many see also on the top, maybe with a reordering. Maybe this weekend I will propose some stuff, unless some of you step up and do it. Or rewriting the SYNTH mess it is until this is over and we have stronger reliable non-synth narratives.
3. A general cleanup for redundancy ahs to be done: there are almost 500 sources, and there are incidents and events covered three or four times. This is also a result of POV-pushing: we do not need to segregate the actions of the Israelis and the Palestinians so much: attacking a hospital and attacking from a hospital have a hospital in common, which should be how they are grouped.
4. I propose a few other sub-articles be spun-off: Casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize the tally and information on casualties; Media coverage of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize the highlights; Controversial incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize, probably listing the top two or three in lede style.
5. In general I recommend we follow the great WP:SUMMARY example of 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which I was heavily involved in the structuring and discussions and which is a great example on how to handle controversies successfully.

Of course, we can also choose to have this unreadable behemoth... --Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've an odd affection for this ugly, ugly baby only editors involved could hope to make sense of. Superpie (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of a seperate Casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. That's an open invitation to have a long and pointless list of attacks citing Palestinian sources with no real encylopediac value. It's also manifestly contradictory to Wikipedia principle. Do we have a list of people killed by the PLO? Or a list of people killed in the Russian invasion of Georgia? The Squicks (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree with your view, based on experience on the practice in Wikipedia, and the dramtics of manifestly contradictory are manifestly incorrect. Go ask any editor with more than a couple hundred mainspace edits. Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War, Casualties of the September 11 attacks for example. It is a textbook use of the WP:SUMMARY style, the usual way we split-up huge articles. We have to split, and the usual way is to take sections and turn them into articles, as was done with the "Timeline" and "international reactions". When people ask me not to quote essays, this why I do it: it seems people are not aware things like WP:SUMMARY exist. --Cerejota (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. My use of "mainfestly" was rather silly. (I must also confess that I laughed out loud when I found that the first "casualties of" page that comes up in Wikipedia searches was Casualties of Retail, the celtic rock aor album. Ah, such is Wikipedia...) The Squicks (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also take umbrage with 2-- the idea of shortening the Background section. By definition, that section needs the expanded context. As other editors have pointed out, its manifestly unfair to only mention the immediate lead up to the war (I guess I'm calling this stuff a "war") and to aviod mentioning the overall changes in the blockade/missile issues. The Squicks (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, there are a gazillion articles that already cover that topic, and we prominently cover it. This article here is for events that transpired after Operation Cast Lead began. The Cease-fire is the immediate event that preceded it (what you call "blockade/missiles"). Now, it is important to point out to our readers that this is the case, but not to the point most of the article is background, rather than about the events it is supposed to be about. This is self-evident to any person whose goal is a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

yes to what Cerejota just said and I was looking at you when I said "I think what would be useful would be for an experienced Wiki editor to...". Nice work! Sean.hoyland - talk 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[Since "silence =/= consensus" seems to be the guideline we are using here, I want to make it clear that I agree completely with 1, 2, and 5.] The Squicks (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not seems to be the guideline we are using here, it's how Wikipedia works: WP:CONSENSUS says explicitly: Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Please don't be one of those Nomic people who think the rules mean what they want them to mean. I am all for IAR and SNOW and less BURO, but say you are IAR and SNOWing, don't play it like the rules support you. Conversly, don't claim/imply something strange and unusual and (g-d forbid!) un-wikipedian is going on, when in fact the letter of the rules is being followed. People apparently hate it when I cite rules and generally accepted essays, but I wouldn't be forced to do it if people actually read those things, instead of thinking they know what are the rules. I have caught a few making claims that contradicted the words of the rules, just after telling me I was wrong for defending them. Lastly, anything we say here is ultimately useless unless we edit the article, and consensus is ultimately whatever is stable in the article. Which is something many have trouble grasping. --Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you misunderstand me. I am well aware of WP:SILENCE. I was just wondering whether or not- given the constant frentic pace of the editing on this page (witness the constant edit conflicts)- we were using it here or if we were going to ignore it (which I why, thus, I typed "the guideline we are using here"). Note that, when we have different editors in different time zones, its certainly tempting to believe that "You have not replied in less than 12 hours, therefore you agree". I want to kill that temptation. The Squicks (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, hold it everybody. The problem is that we have too much information here. So yes, creating separate articles is a good idea, but we need a concrete proposal on how to prevent the information partitioned out from coming back in. How do we do that?VR _talk 05:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Page semi-protections? The Squicks (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see a lot of anons making the edits. It's editors who, with very good intentions, just get a bit emotional sometimes. I suggest that each we get consensus for a structure of the article, then allocate a particular amount of KB (space) to each section. Then we enforce this by saying that any edit that violates the space allocation will be reverted. I know it sounds a bit radical.VR _talk 06:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The quality of their edits is what is at stake not the quantity: however you just have to compare the article when there is semi-protection with when there isn't. General quality hits the drain and edit wars start over stupid crap. And most of those anons are SPAs, probably puppets of the meaty or socky kind. Investigations are on going, I am told. At least one of the IPs seems to be connected to a well known I-P/A-I conflict articles editor, and at leats one seems to be a banned user. Lets see if these bear out, and then pursue the proper channels. I already requested indef semi. --Cerejota (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

probably puppets of the meaty or socky kind... at leats one seems to be a banned user. Lets see if these bear out Could you be more specific as what IPs are doing what? I'm confused here. The Squicks (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fleshing Out References

I clicked some of the references for this article in order to add more information (title, author, date, etc.) to them. My findings are below.

Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Jan 4, 2009
Updated Jan 5, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733174237&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel rejects EU calls for immediate cease-fire
Radio Netherlands
05 January 2009
Last updated: Monday 05 January 2009
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6122316/Israel-rejects-EU-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire

Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza
Marie Colvin, Tony Allen-Mills and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
Times Newspapers (? - Copyright 2008 Times Newspappers Ltd)
28 Dec 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece

Israeli Troops Mobilize as Gaza Assault Widens
By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers
28 Dec 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
ABC News - Copyright © 2009 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195

Palestinians say Gaza death toll now 1,010
CNN
14 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/14/israel.gaza/index.html

חיילי צה"ל נפצעו היום באורח קל
יום שבת, 10 בינואר 2009
14.1.2009
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1414914
(I can only hope that I got the title of the article and the date of publication.)

http://www.nrg.co.il links are in Hebrew. Can a Hebrew speaker get the article information from them, please? Thank you. PinkWorld (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Israelis, Hamas clash near Gaza City, witnesses say
CNN
updated January 11, 2009
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.gaza/?iref=mpstoryview

Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed
CNN
15 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html

IDF: Civilian deaths less than 25% of total
By YAAKOV KATZ
14 Jan 20090
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Two Egyptian Children, Police Injured in
Israeli Air Strike Near Gaza Border
By VOA News
11 January 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm

Hamas: 120 police dead, 95% of security buildings demolished and hundreds of civilians slain
Ma`an
29 Dec 2008 http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34375

Three Palestinian soccer players killed in Gaza violence
RIA Novosti
14 Jan 2009
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090114/119490704.html
PinkWorld (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Policemen

Previous consensus on talkpage ([[40]]) was that police casualties should be left alone, and combined neither with civilians nor militants/fighters.

I don't see that this consensus has changed, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can we re-reach an agreement on this?VR _talk 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From HRW: Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. [41]
My understanding of this would be that police are presumptively considered civilian, and it would have to be presented as an Israeli claim that the police are in fact considered militant. I would suggest leaving it police separated with a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities. I would argue that were not engaged in hostilities, as all of these came prior to the ground assault and nobody has accused the police of firing rockets, so I can't see how they could have been engaged. But I know that will lead to howling about 'cmon they are hamas police' so Id rather just avoid the issue for now. Nableezy (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I support them being treated as neither civilians nor militants. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see here Nableezy (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I support them as the verified reliable sources treat them. --Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute... we have no consensus as to whether or not they should be counted as civilian or as miltants. The reliable sources are deeply divided and frequently disagree. If we as editors create our own 'consensus' to label them all as innocent civilians as Nableezy has suggested, that means that were waving our hand and ignoring what a large chunk or reliable sources say. That simply is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And if we are going to bring up international law, isn't it a war crime for Hamas police officers to decide to wear civilian clothes and use civilian buildings for their bases? The Squicks (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said "I would suggest leaving it police separated with a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities." And HRW is a RS. I know this has been discussed on the RS noticeboard before. And we have pictures of dozens of dead policemen in uniform, and no it is not a war crime for police to wear civilian clothes, have you ever heard of "plainclothes detective" Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(double edit-conflict... jeez) I don't think it's fair to label policemen, especially 40 who didn't even begin their duty, as equals to fighters of the Izz ad-Din Qassam, al-Quds, or al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades or local Hamas militiamen. However, Israel claims that some were part-time rocket launchers, but their basic argument is anyone or anything associated with Hamas is fair game. So to go by the sources, we should simply state that they were policemen, but Israel claimed they were... whatever they claim they were. Simple as that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Four points: (1)Yes, I obviously read what you wrote. You said you were going to leave a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities, and I said that we should- instead- treat policeman as policeman without any other labels. (2)Stop putting your words into my mouth. I did not claim that Human Rights Watch is not an RS. Don't lie and say that I did. (3)I pointed out that the concept "Who is a civilian" is a matter of controversy amoung sources, and people simply ignored me. (4)If policemen are being targeted specifically, and they disguse themselves as ordinary people to hide- isn't that unacceptable? If someone was shooting at me while walking down the street, they are at fault. If I ducked in front of a group of children after shots started to be at fired, both of us are at fault. The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since you established that you can read, please read this; what I said is sourced to a RS, HRW. I was responding to Cerejota about HRW being a RS, it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW. And everything else that you said was strictly your opinion without any type of supporting facts. So to clear up what I did say. I did not claim you said HRW was not a RS, so to claim that I did was a lie. I suggested labeling them as police with a note, sourced to HRW, which you say is a RS, that police are considered civilian if they are not engaged in hostilities. I specifically said I did not want to list them as civilians. Is there anything else I left unclear? Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can read, than you should have been able to read that Cerejota did not claim that HRW is not a reliable source either. ARGH! Again, I think that we should treat policeman as policeman without any other labels. No labeling of them as "civilians" in endnotes, which is what you want. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And everything else that you said was strictly your opinion without any type of supporting facts... Well, if I just google the terms "Gaza police" the first article that shows up says that "Hamas, the militant group that has controlled Gaza since mid-2007, has an estimated 20,000-strong security force composed of police; Protection and Security, a unit similar to the U.S. Secret Service; and Internal Security, an intelligence and interrogation squad with a rising reputation for brutality. Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." The Squicks (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I just said above "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW." Why do you insist on reading half of what I write? And I didnt say label them as civilians, I said to present the sourced information that 'policemen are considered civilians under international law unless they are engaged in hostilities'. I did not say to label them as civilians in the end notes. I did not say that they should be presented as not engaged in hostilities. I did indeed say that their status should be elaborated on, without taking a stance as to whether they are civilians or combatants. I do not see why that is so difficult to understand. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, great, "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion"... so you'd rather insult what s/he wrote as not being a good enough response in your eyes and put words in their mouth as well. The Squicks (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, reading half of what I wrote, the other half, in case you didn't notice, was "based on me giving the source HRW." Stop assuming you know what I think because you obviously do not know what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, by saying "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW" you're forgetting that he never did explicitly claim that HRW is not an RS... (...) Look, since this is getting close to a 4chan style argument- let's just forget it. There's no point in all in this.

Anyways, your main point is whether or not to include the endnote: "International law considers non-combatant police officers to be civilians" or something like that. I disagree, but I don't really feel strongly enough about it to remove it or to push for removing it. The Squicks (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, forget it, I did not mean to insult you and I did not mean to insult Cerejota (and Im pretty sure Cerejota wouldnt get insulted at that, but I leave it Cerejota to decide if there was an insult there). As you can see for RS noticeboard, there are those who dispute that HRW is a RS so I felt the need, on my own, to link to the relevant discussion on that noticeboard. And as regards the end note, I would say also include the rest of the statement (unless engaged in hostilities) so that we make no decision as to their civilian/militant status. So long as we do not say 'they were engaged in hostilities and thus combatants' or 'the were not engaged in hostilities and thus civilians' I think that avoids any NPOV issues while giving the reader further explanation as to why we are not including them in either group. Nableezy (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need to complicate things for no reason. Regardless, the reason why I disagree is that the placing of such an endnote would give the subtle impression that the Hamas police should in fact be considered civilians. To use an example, it would be like if an article about the prophet Mohammed with a section discussing the Aisha controversy in a fair and neutral way had an endnote to the first paragraph saying "Medical convention considers relations with underage girls to be pedophilia." It's a somewhat strained analogy, but you see what I'm getting at. Sure, the endnote's information is technically 100% true. But it's 'begging the question' in a way given the nature of how the article places that information. The Squicks (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has just suddenly occured to me that you're a Muslim. I want to make it emphatically clear that I just picked that analogy to illustrate a point. I'm sorry if it is offensive or insulting. That's not my intent at all. I just am trying to say that a single sentence endnote off of a sentence can seem like begging the question, even if that's not what the article and its authors want at all. The Squicks (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

all good Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, so we basically have consensus to treat policemen as such, without categorizing them as "civilians" or "militants".I'll change that ASAP.VR _talk 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Individuals placement

where should this be placed User talk:Yousaf465

I would urge you to move it to the main article, if not, certainly below the UN and other reactions. Superpie (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian ceasefire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if its mentioned on a 'what' basis, than the oddity, curiosity, and ironic nature of the aid is not depicted. BTW, here are some more sources on it: [42] [43] [44] [45] The Squicks (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Al Jazeera photos for day 17 and 18

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

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

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

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

User Tiamat found the Al Jazeera creative commons repository [47] You can take stills of the video footage. Right now I am having trouble getting a shot of IDF helicopters launching some sort of weapon very randomly on the dense residential area. I think I should just give up on getting shot of that. But out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what type of weapon that could be, I spotted this in two videos I have watched including this one [48] starting 9:15. I have taken stills from other parts of video, however, and I will upload them shortly--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Moving attacks on UN

I think moving these two events from where they currently are to controversial events would make more sense.

   * 2.4.2.1 Al-Fakhura school
   * 2.4.2.2 UN headquarters

Thoughts? Superpie (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just moved Al-Fakhura to controversial incidents. Yes, the UN head quarters should also be moved.VR _talk 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also moved aid back to the section with the medical and humanitarian crises. I don't think it belongs in the section discussing Israeli and Palestinian military tactics.VR _talk 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Rabend (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians revisited

The infobox is still cluttered even though decent sources are coming in. It is time to modify it. Civilian can be used and "women and children" can be used in the casualties section where appropriateCptnono (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper tag

I have reverted his latest.

Squash: understand that {{POV}} is fully redundant with {{activediscuss}}, down to inclusion in the appropriate neutrality categories etc. The removal is not a removal of the neutrality issues, but tidying up and consolidating into a more useful tag, that presents the same information: {{pov}} is meant for articles whose only issue is POV. That is not the case here, as has been made abudantly clear.

Furthermore, since there are POV matters, we need a POV-check tag, because we want to resolve that matter. I can barely understand you placing a pov tag, I simply cannot phanthom why the pov-check tag is being removed. Please don't.

Lastly, in your edit sumamry you claim "see talk" but I don't see any explanation on your part of why you insist on this. Please feel free to do so here.--Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The template that I originally inserted says: The neutrality of the article is disputed. Let's say that kind of reflects reality. Someone changed it afterwards without discussion to "the article is nominated for neutrality check" which to me sounds a bit strange, so I added back the original, simple statement.

I referred to the talk page for current POV disputes (not for a section about the template itself) just as the template asks for this. If you think "activediscuss" highlights the problems enough, I'm just wondering why do you "nominate" the article for POV check instead of simply adding the "neutrality is disputed" tag. Squash Racket (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The {{active-discuss}} tag was palced by an administrator to replace the {{edit ninjas}} and {{pov}} then in place, because he argued and it was taken as consensus, that the templates were redundant. So you didn't place the {{pov}} tag, you reverted the change an admin made weeks ago and was consensus. ANother user did the same thing that you did, and was reverted and a thread opened here in which all consensus was that placement was vandalism, and {{active-discuss}} was better.
2. You seem to not understand: {{active-discuss}} covers POV disputes (and adds the article to the same categories as {{pov}} does. That means adding {{pov}} resolves nothing, because the warning is already there. This is, in English, "redundancy".
3. {{pov-check}} is a maintenance tag intended to invite other uninvolved users to constructively comment on neutrality issues. We should all be working towards resolving neutrality disputes, and this is a way to promote that goal. So it is not redundant, but serves a different purpose.

I hope this explains it all, however, be aware this was discussed before throughly and a result of consensus. --Cerejota (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit my comments, so please refrain from that. Thank you.

Here's the diff for the clean addition of the template when I arrived here. I don't really think it' relevant what happened weeks before that.

Quote for the tag {{neutrality}} that I inserted:

# The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.(...)This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject.

Squash Racket (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOVE

If you don't care about the opinion of your fellow editors who have been here discussing and shaping this article for weeks, then so be it. Again, for the second time, {{active-discuss}} does exactly the same thing as {{pov}}. Redundancy is not good. Could someone else please tell him so?--Cerejota (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see no serious difference between {{pov}} and {{povcheck}} except for the wording of the latter to me sounded a bit strange ("nominated"). Both invite editors to comment on the POV issues of the article. But it's OK, I didn't revert your edit before you presented your reasons and the issue is not decisive. Move on. Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an invisible difference, they put the article in different categories. {{active-discuss}} puts the article in the same categories as "pov", so "pov" is redundant.--Cerejota (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arion

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

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

Split-off "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire"?

The article is getting too long and too detailed in certain parts. May I suggest creating an article 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire from section 1.1 "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire" to reduce the size of that section?

Opinions? Comments?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 09:19

Might be an idea, will there not be quite a lot of overlap between that and the blockade article? Superpie (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article for that 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is my point about the background section being too long: it has material that goes in other articles. Its recentism at its worst, and why all of these conflict articles are an open sore in encyclopedic quality.--Cerejota (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict makes no mention of the truce. I'll start the article and try to trim the section here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 11:56

Ok, I started the new article but I haven't removed any of the content here. Anybody want to tackle that?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 12:19

Unwise, Pedrito, to do anything until a satisfactory précis of the material has been done. I suggest thosed interested and capable review the new page, make a succinct synthesis of it, and then post it here for review. If it comes up to snuff, we can then pop it in here. This is no easy task. Editing out material directly here, as several editors of different POVs jump at the task of 'slimming' this section down, is likely to be chaotic. Some method and consensual work is required.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but the article he started is full-sized and well-sourced, and of a non-current event. I see what he did here, but this is quite literally a Snowball. I challenge anyone to AfD that article with a straight face. The slimming takes negotiation and care, but not the new article, it is not even WP:SUMMARY, as it is beyond the scope of this article, and not even a POV fork, in that It is quite frankly a key article that someone finally got written. You see, thats why wikis are superior, that kind of crap just happens. The funny thing is that it does illustrate how ridiculous the background section had gotten in terms of size: it is the size of a regular article. If people don't get it slimmed down, I will start thinking POINT, its just defeats all common sense to have a background bigger than the original article. like having a lede the size of the article. --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, took a deep breath and cut up most of the "Background" section... Let's see how long this lasts. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 14:13

Killed and wounded - in the box

"3 top soccer players" - top? you mean professional? it should be changed.
"Among the wounded there were 1,600 children and 678 women" -I still don't understand this one - if from the 5,100 wounded this is the confirmed ones, shouldn't it be like "***Among the 670 reported civilian fatalities 519 are confirmed as". "Among the 5,100 wounded there were confirmed: 1,600 children and 678 women" - isn't that phrasing better?--62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrests and other things - should this be included somwhere in the articles about the conflict?

155 arrested for rioting http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647869,00.html
Israeli citizen offers the Iranian embassy copies of Israeli papers http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656848,00.html
That the reporters were released to house arrest http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656756,00.html
71 Palestinian illegal residents arrested, some released some still in custody http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654528,00.html
500 Palestinian illegal residents arrested http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653465,00.html
Hamas executes 6 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651845,00.html
5 arrested for rioting in Nazareth http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649149,00.html
suspected in mall shooting http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649055,00.html
--62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you only reading ynetnews.com ? It seems like a potentially flawed research strategy. Never mind.. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked for one incident and Google took me to ynet news. Also they are a news source with current English translations (I don't know if word for word) of reports, also it is a website that is linked to a newspaper. Those are some of the things I found there and I wondered if it is relevant in one of the articles about the conflict or not. If they are, I can research other news resources... --62.0.140.228 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bunching of pictures in International Reactions

If somebody with some talent in images could fix this it'd be great. I've... Somehow got rid of one for the time being, but its of the UN security council in sesh and it is interesting. Thanks Superpie (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things

There was a specific exchange here that bothered me so I started typing a reply when I realized that what I wanted to say applied to this discussion generally. I said to someone the other day that you can't have a good article with a bad talk page. If this article is going to improve, it needs to start here.

I don't want to point fingers or single anyone out but it does really feel like battle lines have been drawn here. This talk page feels very unwelcoming. I don't consider myself to be either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I've spoken a little here but I've been really choosy about where to comment. I have avoided saying what my feelings are about specific issues because I thought it would make one side or the other feel like I was the enemy.

The article's text is always changing. A lot of what’s there now won't be next month. You can get some kind of plurality in one of these little fights and put something up on the article but if you want it to last, you need to find a real consensus. All of our work is meaningless without that. A real consensus only comes when you account for the concerns of those who disagree, not when you find an excuse for why you didn't.

I think that, at least for a little while, I won't be editing this article. I'm just leaving this message for the benefit of the people who will. I think that you're all well-meaning people. And I have faith that things can improve. Above all, I think that we’ll get the article we deserve. So good luck. Peace.

And don’t tell me to see WP:SOAP! --JGGardiner (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright Ghandi ;). Noted though :) Superpie (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, one down. just kidding. come back... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

US Army Strategic Studies Institute

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

External link

Could you please add this link as an external link :

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

pamphlets

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

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

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

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

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