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

Humanitarian Ceasefire

It says: In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected.[94][95] I looked at both sources provided, neither of them state that Israel ignored the 3 hour ceasfires, it only says that Hamas continued to fire rockets into Israel during it. Most of my sources state that Hamas has ignored the ceasefire and Israel is only attacking if it is responding to Hamas' fire. Let me know if any of you can fine info stating that Israel has ignored the ceasefire when it isn't responding to Hamas' fire. Also, let me know if you can see any indication of Israel attacking in Gaza during ceasefire in the sources provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by איתמר בועז (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

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

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." [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3]. --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 [4]. 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 [5] [6] [7] [8][9] --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)

Removing the photo is vandalism

The photo was removed again [10]. The removal of this photo will be treated as vandalism because there is no reason for it be removed. What happens when someone vandalizes? We revert the edit immediately, we don't keep adding to the article until no one knows who did the vandalism and when it occurred. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all editors here can agree that removal without explanation is vandalism. The Squicks (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like the picture was removed again by another anonymous editor [11]. I'll restore it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the history of this issue. But those just look like bad edits to me. Where's the vandalism? Vandalism doesn't occur every time someone makes a bad edit. Vandalism occurs when someone makes an edit in an attempt to harm Wikipedia. Normally I don't care when terms are thrown around loosely but I see that threats (of blocks) have been left on the talk pages and that's not cool. Unless you know something about those particular users that wasn't said above. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could make an argument that someone could try to "improve" the article by removing the image. However, without an edit summary, in light of the decision above that the image should be included, such edits do take on a certain bad faith light. I left the warnings on those pages and I hope I wasn't too overzealous. I invited them both to discuss the issue here and didn't specifically accuse them of vandalism. I didn't think I threatened. Repeated vandalism results in blocks. It wasn't meant as a threat, but as a warning of the reality that all wikipedia editors live with that new users should be made aware of. The image is being removed repeatedly without an edit summary, harming the integrity of the page. My understanding of WP:VANDAL is that that in fact could be interpreted as vandalism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope I didn't sound too harsh up there. Maybe I was. I agree that the edits were wrong. And I agree that it could be vandalism but it could also just be a new user removing a photo that they think doesn't belong. Wikipedia is intimidating enough for new users. We have to understand that they won't be aware of the policies. I made my first edits without checking to see if they violated the consensus on the talk page or even knowing that there was a consensus policy. Indeed, I didn't know any of the specific WP policies. I think not "biting" means that we have to give them the benefit of the doubt even before they have earned it like we have.

I just think that if we don't know that this is most likely vandalism and it is coming from unregistered new users then the best thing to do is just tell them politely that they made a mistake, direct them to the policy and the talk page if they want to contribute. At least that's how I like doing things.

But if the same user is removing the image repeatedly, then maybe it is vandalism. I thought that might have been the case, even though it wasn't specifically said. That's why I meant about "knowing something" above.

Now if only we could figure out a way to get the rest of the users here interested consensus. Hmm.... --JGGardiner (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You make an extremely good point. I don't "know something" as you put it. I just see a real potential for this image to be removed repeatedly (by real vandals who don't have good intentions) and then forgotten. I do think we should continue to assume good faith, so I think it should only be considered a confirmed instance of vandalism if the same user makes repeated removals.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why photographic evidence of facts is to be excluded. NPOV doesn't require us to hide facts, it requires us to display them in a neutral fashion. If there is any credible, well sourced reports questioning the photographs as displaying facts, then we must report that (and have done so in the past) but asking for removing content for NPOV reasons is a highly, HIGHLY, unusual reading of Wikipedia practice, as I have come to understood it through the years. If there is any further controversy around this, it will be taken to ArbCom as a violation of WP:POINT. This is about disrupting the prsentation of facts, the sole goal of wikipedia, by alleging that it somehow it violates neutrality. I have never heard that position be successfuly used in any article. The photos, if not copy-vios, are valuable content that illustrate the facts, actually, even just to illustrate for encyclopedic purposes. Only thing is to be on the look out to use photos of this conflict, not shooped or stage, and to make sure the licensing is good. --Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured

I have posted a section with this name before, but this time I have more details. Electronic Intifada is accusing Israelis of targeting medics [12] and has video evidence for it. [13] I am thinking about amending the article with the information, but before I do, is there any suggestions, objections, thoughts? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could find other sources confirming this, then maybe such a section should be included. However, I'm skeptical about the reliability of the two references provided right now. So, at this point, I don't think this information should be added. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Rabend (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources are fine. I added a section earlier describing Israeli attacks on medical services and clinics. I see that this section has now been deleted. It looks like somebody wants to keep this news buried. NonZionist (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think these sources are not fine. Electronic Intifada and PalSolidarity don't sound much neutral. When I quote sources supporting "pro-Israeli" events, I ignore all the clearly pro-Israeli sites out there. Rabend (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@##^# @!##%^# IT! Could someone already ban that NonZionist troll/spammer/hater/provocateur/etc.?! Anyhow, these sources are NOT fine. "Electronic Intifada" and "Palestinian Solidarity" is as reliable as a website that would be called "Hamas online" or on the contrary, "Kill all Palestinians and make Israel the rulers of the Universe". Seriously, I'm sorry for the language but this NonZionist is constantly bullshitting and spreading his propaganda in any posibility. He has NO reliabilty whatsoever. And about the video on the 2nd link, you don't see anything there at all. No proof of anyone being injured, no visible source of fire nor anything. You hear loud bangs (persumably gunshots), and camera is jiggling. I don't want to say "Pallywood" because there is nothing in that video that can prove of disprove it, but seriosuly - I can take any random video and claim it to be something else. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as you are entitled to express your opinion, Boris A., I am entitled to express mine. Along with others here, I try to speak in behalf of the victims -- people who do not have access to the big media. I do believe that EI is accurate, and I will continue to believe this till I see evidence to the contrary. If I am outvoted, that's fine: That's the way democracy works. There is no need to suppress my contribution in advance. NonZionist (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, any one who helps the Palestinians or has a pro-Palestinian viewpoint is a propagandist for Hamas. Your logic is sh*t --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources attesting to the targeting of medical facilities and workers are available in the section above. Some of that information is already in the article in a subsection under Health. NonZionist, it was moved to that subsection by someone else. Some of the information you added seems to be missing now. I'm trying to look at the diffs, but with all the sly removals of information between edits by people trying to add things, it's hard to find where and when the changes were made. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiamut. I found it. I added the section because I saw a number of people in favor of it -- a partial consensus -- and I saw others editing the article with no consensus at all. Consensus does not mean unanimity. If we waited for unanimity, nothing would ever get published. Of course, I do not object to people editing my text, and softening it to some extent. I want to be reasonable.

I agree that it has become very hard to keep track of the edits. I've suggested that we need more advanced history and diff tools. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Need_for_a_better_diff.2Fhistory_tool NonZionist (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just great how you're trying to spread hatred instead of understanding and cooperation. All that looking for all kinds of small pieces of "evidence" to prove some preconceived bias that you're dealing with blood-thirsty murderers who just want to kill your children. And medics, apparently. The world is more complex than "i'm always right, you're always wrong". These kinda things are what makes a medium-left-winger like me move more and more to the right, feeling like there's actually no one to talk to on the other side. I truly don't see how we're over gonna come out of this alive.
I'm sorry for this personal soaping, but this is just depressing me. Rabend (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's the facts that are depressing:

• Palestinian doctor killed by IDF while treating Gaza wounded
• Stressed medics recount Gaza horrors
• Physicians group urges Israel to step back
• Doctors call for halt to Gaza assault Tiamut^talk 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are depressing facts on either side, and I'm not gonna start posting all the attacks aimed at Israeli hospitals, or how suicide bombers sometimes have 2 devices so the 2nd one will kill the medics attending to the wounded by the 1st, or the Hamas use of hospitals for military command centers, or their dressing as doctors or using ambulances to transport weapons. It never ends. There are so many pieces of "evidence" to support the claims parallel to the one your'e making, but my instinct is not to post whatever I can to show the world how I'm a victim of these merciless Palestinians. There are 2 sides with victims here. Incessantly blaming and hating won't get us far. But maybe it's just me. Rabend (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are two sides and both have their victims. One side has over 1,000 dead and 4,500 wounded, while the other has 14 dead and hundreds of wounded. One side has F-16s, battleships, helicopters and tanks and the latest weaponry of all sorts, while the other has homemade rockets, rifles, some explosives and RPGs. I could go on ... but given WP:SOAP, all I will say is that we cannot ignore the assymetries is the name of WP:NPOV. that's not what its designed for. Tiamut^talk 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article, unfortunately, is narrowly focused on incident and ethnicity: We use ethnicity to categorize the belligerents and leave the underlying spiritual or ideological conflict unmentioned. For example, there is no mention of Palestinian values, and no mention of long-term Israeli aims. There is no sympathy allowed.

If, instead, we were to categorize the belligerents according to behavior and philosophy, things would seem far more tractable and far less depressing. We would see one side locked into a regressive ideology of war and ethnic supremacy, and the other side seeking peace and equal treatment. We would then be free to stand wholeheartedly and unambiguously with the latter side. All of our NPOV squabbling would end: There's no need to balance "2+2=4" with "2+2=5".

To substantiate this new focus on the underlying spiritual conflict, we would have to enlarge our definition of RS to include, for example, Ari Folman's "Waltz With Bashir" and Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" and commentaries in general. We would need an encyclopedia that allows us to look at more than just the surface events. Attacking the underlying cause is not "spreading hate": It's spreading progress.

Folman's film is not political. It does not preach or pass judgment. Yet in its artistic integrity, it unintentionally reveals the grim parallels between Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its complicity with the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and its current onslaught -- parallels that, if Israel and the U.S. heeded them, would lead them to understand that the Gaza campaign is both morally appalling and politically self-destructive.
-- Gary Kamiya (2009-01-13). "What "Waltz With Bashir" can teach us about Gaza". Salon.com. Retrieved 2009-01-14.

NonZionist (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I could argue in your own language, but others do it better- [14] now ask yourself - is this kind of one-sided biased and highly inflammatory rhetoric helpful in any way? you are merely pushing an agenda. It could be shown that Palestinians are self made professional victims, but that is highly argumentative and not in the least helpful. Should you wish to sink to POV war, I have plenty of ammo, of the same nature you derive your arguments from. With all due respect - many of the sources you provide are highly biased and thus unreliable. Please accept that what you perceive as truth is not necessarily hard fact, and try to contain yourself to improving the current article with a more NPOV approach. Here's another take on the nature of the conflict, from the same source: [15] --84.109.19.88 (talk) 02:41, 15 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.' [16], 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)

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)

Ban on foreign journalists in Gaza

It is worth mentioning there is no free/foreign press in Gaza since Israel withdrawal in 2005. There were number of cases of foreign journalist kidnappings by Hamas before it took full control on Gaza. So foreign journalists left. I'm not really sure that this section should concentrate on Israel. Journalists can enter Gaza using Egypt controlled Rafah crossing AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please support your editorials by at least a gesture towards sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The most notable is Kidnapping of Alan Johnston, but oops it's claimed to be not by Hamas. I'll google for foreign press response and leaving. I hope existence of Rafah crossing is not disputed.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This[17] suggests that they can't enter via Rafah. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This also states: "There should be someone on the ground to reflect reality," said Al-Jazeera television cameraman Ashraf Ibrahim Mohammed, one of the reporters in the delegation. So is there Ban on foreign journalists in Gaza at all? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian security department has urged westerners, especially Europeans and Americans, to leave the Gaza Strip as the condition of an abducted AFP journalist remains unknown. [[18]] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

""The Foreign Press Association recently issued a statement saying Gaza had become a "no-go zone" for its several hundred members."" [[19]] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One is obliged not only to assume good faith, but act in good faith, which means not being underhand in the presentation of evidence or tendentious. The evidence you provide is from April 2007. That is not recent. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For Gaza journalists, kidnap is no longer the biggest fear [[20]] Here violence (killings) against journalists fully credited to Hamas This explains how come now there is no foreign press ( except for Al-Jazeera ) in Gaza during this conflict. Please assume good faith on my side AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One is obliged not only to assume good faith, but act in good faith, which means not being underhand in the presentation of evidence or tendentious. The evidence you provide is from April 2007. That is not recent. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So you say it is not relevant to question why there is no free/foreign press in Gaza after Israel withdrawal in 2005 and during this operation/war ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is you refer to "recently" it was just a quote - foreign press reactions for kidnappings, sorry did not mean to confuse anyone. Please assume good faith on my side 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. 'People (abroad) are seeing images from Gaza of a sort that were not broadcast in previous wars, such as Kosovo or Afghanistan. Incidentally, these pictures are hardly being broadcast at all in the Israeli media.' Barak Ravid, 'Diplomats: Gaza op causing long-term harm to Israel's image,' 14/01/2009. As I said before, one reporter of channel 2 was hit with a petition signed by 32,000 cvalling for her dismissal for failing to control a wince as one of the few images of the carnage from inside Gaza was shown. Journalists have had a variety of problems in Gaza before and now. Hamas kicked out Amira Hass in December after a mere week there. But the point is, if Hamas is stopping journalists from entering, why the necessity by the IDF to disobey the Supreme Court ruling when journalists are clamouring to get inside the Strip? Since Hamas, in the tale, is opposed to journalists entering, why should the IDF trouble itself to do what Hamas is apparently doing? Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This info is relevant, since apparently the lack of reporters in Gaza in not only due the policies by which Israel decided to conduct the war, but also due to the danger they've been in since Hamas took over the place. We are obligated to describe the entire picture, and not only selective parts of it. Rabend (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, the evidence was that April 2007 many journalists left after two kidnappings. It was posted to counter the fact that the IDF refuses to implement the Supreme Court decision which allowed journalists, who desire to get inside the strip, a right to go there. The entire picture is to be described, certainly, but the kidnappings are not known to be conducted by Hamas. As far as I know, Hamas considered Amira Hass, a persona non grata. And she had to leave in early December after a week's sojourn there. .Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added "Most foreign journalists left the Gaza strip due to the the Hamas take-over." to the background section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Skäpperöd. Still the section in the subject still looks one sided to me. Adding "and Egypt" to reflect fact of existance of Rafah crossing somehow does make situation on the ground more clear. Could we reflect facts brought in this discussion, like Hamas attitude to free press into Media Coverage section? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted this, even if it is still in the wrong section, and will be eventually removed from there. The first link referred to journalists trying to enter Gaza now, and being blocked. The other two, which I've left in, refer to a specific period, April 2007, when many journalists left out of worries about their security, not, as it was phrased, because Hamas had taken over (it took over a year earlier than that).Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool thank you, Nishidani, make it more balanced. Although I'm not sure it was literally "two kidnappings", it were more cases. You could say that it happened after Israel stopped providing security as a result of withdrawal from Gaza strip, though it did not happened immediately after; it was a process which took some time. As I see it was serial kidnapping concentrated on journalists with intention to expel foreign press out of Gaza strip. Till free/foreign press said we feel persona non grata after most notable Kidnapping of Alan Johnston case. So free/foreign/independent press left. Currently "Media coverage" gives an impression that free press flourished in Gaza prior to Israeli military operation under Hamas rule, but now we have to blame Israel for lack of independent sources in Gaza strip. So how about to reflect relationship between free press and Gaza self government inside "Media coverage"? Thank you for your thoughts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Johnston kidnapping had nothing to do with Hamas, and was resolved by Hamas. Hamas does not have total control over such an intensely populated urban area with powerful clan social structures. Indeed there's evidence that it preferred some distinguished journalists not to be around (persona non grata) because it could in no way guarantee their security, and anything that might have happened to them would have been blamed on Hamas, whose foreign image was already in trouble. There is a huge desire to jam this page with every possible angle of news that might tilt it one way or another. 'Ah, this'd cast'em in a bad light' . I would remind all that this article is bloated and will be whittled down drastically when committed long term editors take a look at it, and begin a review to bring it back to standards of succinct, balanced and comprehensive quality, excluding all the futile material being thrown at the article. Stuff like this will stand up a day or two, and then be chucked out. If you are committed to it, there are many things to do. Many sources are useless (China Press releases for info any newspaper has), reduplicated, or say nothing we cannot get from main sources. The narrative is of a war. It is not a sociology of Hamas, its ideology, or whether like other highly deeveloped states with access to the best paper mills of Norway, and sophisticated printing presses that are bomb-secure, Hamas supports na 'free press'. This is not to be a 'black book' job on their world or background. People who feel passionate about this can go to the Hamas and associated pages. What doesn't strictly adhere to a thematically important structure for the war, or to the details of what actually occurred leading up to, during and after the war will be cut. So, let's not waste time on illusions.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A thought and a note. Thought: If Hamas is to blame for the media not being in Gaza, wouldn't it ake sense that the media could come in now tha they are apparently not in power over Gaza? Note: I have exerpts a report from the AFP, 9 Jan about the Israeli ban on foreign media in Gaza.

Reporters Without Borders: "In view of the scale of the military operations and the repercussion they are having throughout the world, we believe the Israeli government's decision to exclude the press from the Gaza Strip is untenable and dangerous." ... Signatories included Germany's Der Spiegel, El Mundo and El Pais in Spain, US networks ABC, CBS and CNN, France's Le Figaro newspaper and RTL radio, Britain's Sky News and Guardian newspaper, and pan-Arab channel Al-Jazeera. Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government last week to allow foreign reporters into the Gaza Strip... But Israel...has so far maintained its ban on journalists despite the ruling. ["World media urge Israel to let press into Gaza," AFP, 09 Jan 2009, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090109/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaisraelmedia_newsmlmmd] PinkWorld (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

And of course we have the 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping in 2006 by those pesky Holy Jihad Brigades. Thank heavens for Hamas or they would never have been released, eh? But of course! Fox News was recently deleted as a reference by someone here in favor of the Electronic Intifada. sigh Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphs

Earlier, this article contained graphs of the monthly fatalities in Israel/Palestine and monthly rocket fire. Both of these graphs are informative and do a fairly good job in giving the reader background and also information on how well the truce was kept (or not kept). I've re-inserted both graphs. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who removed them ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove them they they shouldn't go in until this conflict is over and we have hard figures after the fog of war lifts. That said, if you are going to use them, at leas thave the decency of putting a caption with the sources so that we can verify. Doing "AFP, UN, IDF" doesn't cut it, we need the actual sources for V.--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel banned from Davis Cup (Sweden)

A prominent member of Sweden's largest political party likened Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in calling for a boycott of Sweden’s upcoming Davis Cup tennis match against the Middle Eastern country.

“Israel is an apartheid state. I think Gaza is comparable to the Warsaw ghetto,” said Ingalill Bjartén, the vice chair for the Social Democratic women’s organization (S-kvinnor) in Skåne in southern Sweden, to the Sydsvenskan newspaper.

“I’m surprised that Israel – where large numbers of the population suffered under the Nazis – can do the exact same things the Nazis did.”

The comments come as Bjartén and her counterparts from the Left Party have both called on Sweden to skip an upcoming Davis Cup tennis match against Israel, currently scheduled to take place in Malmö in early March.

“If the match in Malmö goes ahead, I can guarantee that I’ll be there to demonstrate just as I would have in Båstad in 1968 and 1975 if I'd been alive then," Left Party foreign policy spokesperson and Riksdag member Hans Linde, who was born in 1979, told the paper,

“I’ve been to the West Bank and I don’t think Israel is a democracy worthy of the name. It’s a racist apartheid state,” said Linde, adding that his party wants to see an “athletic and cultural boycott of Israel”.

Note: Why it was deleted ?

--Citizen Times Publication Sweden (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just heard Irit Linur on radio recalling genocide of Jews on Europe soil ( 6 millions killed ) during World War II. She claimed that it is somehow related to European reactions on this conflict. She called for air raids on European targets. "It least let's give them the reason to hate us". This is joke naturally. 10:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

I don't think we need to include every statement from every left-wing politician on the globe, particularly as they might be out of context. Rabend (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I go with Rabend, though I'd replace "left-wing" with "non-notable with regard to the issue". Skäpperöd (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. Rabend (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There are always many both anti-Israeli and pro-Israeli statements. In times like now, the anti-Israeli sounds louder than it really is, but there's no reason to make it more notable than it should be. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we shouldn't be soapboxing, but I disagree... I haven't seen a single statement critical of Israel by a single elected official in the USA to date. None. The news is filled with pro-Israeli interviews, arguments justifications etc. In fact some debate programs have two pro-Israel debaters, one who is "hard line" the other more "soft", going at it, with no voice for the pro-Palestinian camp. Maybe in Europe its different, but pretty much the only criticism for Israel I have seen was in Jon Stewart's Daily Show (normally pro-Israel) precisely decrying the lack of any balance in the TV news media's coverage: JustASC's commentary on this, with the Stewart video

I would suggest that language like "anti-Israeli" - even in cases when arguably true - be substitued, in the spirit of civil discourse, with "pro-Palestinian". --Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very telling observation Cerejota. Cryptonio (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Cerejota is right in the broader picture, but comparing Israel to the Nazis as the Scandavian "Left Party" person quoted above does is not pro Palestinian," is it? Hans Linde does not have an article in wiki and Ingalill Bjartén is probably only mentioned on this page. It is clearly an attempt at a Jewish/Israeli slur. Apparently only one "side" of this issue can appreciate this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the call for a boycott belongs in the international reactions article, not here. Untwirl (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a mere "call for a boycott" -- it is an anti-Israel "It's a racist apartheid state" /anti-Jewish "large numbers of the population suffered under the Nazis, ie Jews" -- slur. It deserves to be kicked off wiki altogether. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

do you really need to be told that wiki doesn't censor? you finding something an offensive "slur" isn't a reason to not report it. maybe you can find a quote from someone notable who agrees with you and post it for balance. Untwirl (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

anit-Israel? anti-Jewish? No the statement is anti-genocide and anti-oppression, you can't go and blame everyone who has legitimate criticisms on Israel as antisemitic. I guess Jon Stewart is antisemitic as well for not saying Israel should have the right to do what ever they want to whoever they want. Pathetic, this conflict isn't one sides fault, the blame lays on both sides, but right now it's not Palestinians who are killing hundreds of children, people will come out against it and they're not antisemitic for that — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am highly against using terms like "anti-Israeli" or "anti-American". They are highly opinionated classifications of statements which approach the kind of self regulating censorship the Soviet's were famous for. If for example I were to say that Israel needs to stop attacking the Palestinians I could mean this as 'advice for a good friend and ally' or 'a criticism of foreign & defence policy'. Likening Israel's actions to similar parallel's of isolation along ethnic grounds, resistance, reprisals & revenge such as South Africa's Apartheid & Hitler's Warsaw Ghetto could just be drawing examples. It certainly isn't the equivalent of calling people to arms to attack Israel just as saying the USA shouldn't invade Iraq (in 2003) isn't anti-American for exactly the same reasons. As for the people using terms such as 'anti-Israeli' and saying a statement like this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I say you're as bad as the Soviet's. You may as well be calling moderate reformers "Anti-Soviet" while their names are quietly removed from books and old newspaper articles.

 An interesting point to note here though, given the nature of this comment is that Israel was in fact the principle international ally of Apartheid South Africa. They developed nuclear weapons programs together, trained together and operated on many of the same economic & social frameworks. These are 2 countries that not only have a long history of cooperation (until Apartheid came to an end) but they are 2 countries that had many similar solutions for similar problems. This is undisputed fact and readily admitted in Israel (asides from the nuclear program). So that part of the statement is not only uncontroversial but rather pointing out the obvious. The Warsaw Ghetto part of the statement on the other hand speaks more about the actual geographical and strategic nature of the segregation of Palestine & Israel. The coralling of Palestinians into segments of cities or country-side and the erecting of walls to keep them secured is the same as what occured in Warsaw, as are the uprisings against the well equipped military guards. The only controversial part of that statement is putting the Israeli's in the shoes of the military that later killed millions of them but that is a leap you would have to make through passionate opinion as this politician mentioned nothing of the later stages of the holocaust and only spoke of the ghetto.
 Simply put, you're all being reactionaries and spewing highly opinionated bile into an encyclopedia either out of ignorance of the histories of South Africa, Israel, Gaza and Warsaw or because you're just on here to sabotage the article. Either way you should probably either reconsider contributing or reconsider what you are contributing.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Smiley Face in Protest Photo Still POV

I still think that dual photo with the Israel rally and big smiley face is just a making fun of the death and destruction Israel is engaged in and therefore highly POV. (Remember the original caption was extremely POV and had to be removed.) There already are a number of good rally photos on wikimedia here. I just added a couple more general ones without "unverified" shots. 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean. The photos show an actual event and both sides seem to be expressing their own POV. e.g. smiley face vs facist state ? It seems balanced to me. I will say though that the image is way to big for most people with a internet connection on this planet to be able look at in a sensible download time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with anon. It's not appropriate for the same reason that pretending that a bearded man with a poster 'Kill all Juice' is suitable to represent protestors. Let's only cite mainstream representations of each side. The Squicks (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland. I think the photo pair does a good job of presenting the disparity of views. This is one time when I cannot agree with Carolmooredc: I see no attempt by either party to make fun of death and destruction. The smiley face reads "Israel wishes you a terror-free day". This states succinctly exactly what the Israel supporters believe -- that Operation Cast Lead is well-intentioned part of a noble "War on Terror". NonZionist (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas military activity" section

Who on earth has been editing the "Hamas military activity" section? It is dreadful - it reads like it was written by a 7 year-old and is full of garbage. Is it really worth suggesting that Hamas's military tactics include: "Hamas' tactics to confuse the Israeli military include [...], not walking about in groups, and spreading false informations."[sic]. Come on guys, sort this out. This article improves and deteriorates like the ebb and flow of the tide right now... Fig (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm quite poetic. nice. we do seem to have a problem with 7 year old apocalypse now fans so your comment is duly noted. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fig, you're referring to a subsection being worked on, I believe, by Skapperod. While I agree to a certain extent with your criticism, I strongly urge you to be civil and avoid throwing around words like "garbage". If you want to make edits, make them. If you want to offer specific criticism, make it. I created the subsections "Rocket attacks" and "internecine warfare", also included in this section. If you have any constructive criticism on how to improve these subsections, I will be happy to hear them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be prepared in a sandbox and reviewed on the talk page before adding to the article please ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am sorry but the entire section is written poorly and is neither neutral nor properly sourced. For example, the subsection on internecine conflict was earlier removed after discussions. It contains the allegation that Hamas executed 40-80 Fatah 'collaborators'. Now, this is an extremely strong claim and there is no source for this claim except for a couple of Israeli media reports that quote unnamed sources and themselves state that this figure cannot be verified. The Haaretz journalist who wrote this report is herself reported to have said the editors sensationalized her headline. see here. Now, strong claims like this (40-80 fatalities is a very large number between 4-8% of the entire fatalities) require multiple strong and neutral sources. User:Jalapenos do exist seems not to have attempted to do that at all. In addition, there is text like "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan, as Hamas hopes the West will take it seriously as a negotiating partner after the current escalation of violence" and then this prominent quote from an Israeli soldier which starts with "Hamas was playing cat and mouse ..."

I think the entire section should be removed and, as Sean says, discussed first on the talk page, improved and only then be put back on the article. I'll do this in a little while unless there are strong objections here. (At the very least the section on internecine conflict can go, unless the editor who put that in can provide multiple neutral reliable sources for it here. Since, such sources have not been produced in the past, I doubt they'll turn up now). Jacob2718 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing the entire section, since (a) it's obvious that a section on the military activity of a side in a conflict is necessary, and (b) such a move falsely lumps an entire section together and risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Internecine conflict subsection: the one reference is fine for now, since the reporter cites multiple sources for her information. Haaretz is a perfectly good reliable source, and Amira Hass in particular has a long history of reporting the affairs in Gaza from the Palestinian perspective, so I wouldn't worry about the accuracy. Nevertheless, I will look for other sources.
I will also drastically edit the other subsections, and then if anyone has a problem with the result they can take it up here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look for other sources. Pending that, please remove the section on internecine conflict. The article you refers to provides the 40-80 figure with the following text:

Estimates of the number of suspects executed range from 40 to 80, but amid the prevailing conditions shelling, fear of walking the streets and media blackouts it is virtually impossible to verify the numbers or identities of the dead.

In addition, the journalist who wrote this story seems to have herself complained that the editors distorted it. I re-iterate that the claim that Hamas executed 40-80 people is an extremely strong claim; one would expect such an event to receive widespread publicity. To include it in the article, we need multiple, neutral and reliable sources. The source here, published only in the Israeli media by a journalist who disclaims her story and relies on unnamed witnesses, claims the toll cannot be verified meets none of those criteria. Please remove this section for now and later, if the requisite references turn up, it can go back in. thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I drastically edited the problematic subsections mentioned by Fig and Sean, but the original version was restored by Jake Wartenberg without discussion, and now it's sitting alongside my version, so it's now redundant besides its other problems. I will presently revert once, but will not be dragged into an edit war. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist. If so, (edited as agreed here, only to find the original reverted), I think that it would be better to adopt the original suggestion, remove it wholly, since several editors have remarked on its inadequacy, and paste it here. We can do a quick review of it, co-edit, and, since this would be a consensual version, it could then be reposted on that basis, and thus not subject to wild reverts. Just a suggestion Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has problems with the wording/grammar, please improve and do not delete. The sources are good (The Times and Der Spiegel), and a section about Hamas military actions and war aims is badly needed. Expand/improve. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Why should we segregate information about war aims into its own neat little section? Why can't that info go into the already ready sections such as 'Background' and so on? Let's fine the comments by the two source, which I think should be citied somewhere, in the already existing sections. The Squicks (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to restore my version in two edits, but in the middle was reverted by Skapperod. As I said, I will not make any further revert so as not to get into what could look like an edit war.
As for what needs to be done. This section has three parts, let's deal with them one by one.

1. Rocket attacks: nobody in this discussion or anywhere else has raised any complaint about it, so there's no reason to do anything to it. Terrific, thanks.
2. Internecine fighting: Jacob has argued that it should be removed until further sources can be found, as it currently is based on a single source. I disagreed in principle, and separately from that, am now looking for furhter sources. We can discuss this and reach consensus, but by that time I may have simply found additional sources and everyone will be happy.
3. Everything else: several editors have said that this is badly written and partially irrelevant, and I agree. I have an alternate version ready, but I can't put it in because of reverts.

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In the "Israeli offense" section, we have a subsection "Objectives". Why shouldn't we have something similar in the Hamas section? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more along the line of what I'm thinking. The Squicks (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been asking for help in drafting such a section on Palestinian militants and their tactics. We to cover the different factions involved in the fighting too, as listed here [21]. There's also a section on tunneling on that page, which should definitely be part of the tactics section. I was waiting for people to respond before adding more info. Maybe we should do it all in sandbox? before adding it here? Tiamut^talk 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any inherent problem with adding in sources piece-by-piece, incrementally. The Squicks (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end I replaced the "urban warfare tactics" subsection with my ready-made "Engagement with IDF ground forces" subsection. The content is practically the same, but I think my version is a bit clearer. I hope this is acceptable to you, Skapperod, and to the others in this discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I would like to go ahead and remove the section on internecine fighting. If you find additional sources, please put it back in. I remember this discussion from a few days ago. The Jerusalem Post published a similar story which, if my memory serves me right, relied on an unnamed source said to be close to Hamas! This story has simply not been repeated by neutral mainstream media outlets that are covering the story in detail and while it may or may not be true, it involves too serious an allegation to be included without multiple neutral sources. Second, the section on war aims is ridiculous. The section reads: "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan". On what basis did the writer in Der Spiegel make this inference? No justification is provided. The writer is entitled to his/her personal opinion but this is hardly verifiable content. The Times article that is cited includes the line:"With an easy smile that masks his fanaticism", which gives away its lack of neutrality. Moreover, this article gives no justification for claiming that the capture of a soldier is a top priority. Once again, if we want to make statements about "top priorities" of Hamas, we need better sources ... preferably sources that report on what Hamas has to say directly. For all these reasons, I'm about to remove subsection 3.3 and 3.4. If they are better sourced and rewritten they can go back in. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the removals. I also found the content under the sub-headings to be mismatched. We also need to list the different factions involved, their forces and capabilities, aims, tactics, etc. It's hard to find this information. I'm still looking. This site for the Qassam brigades provides their aims in their words [22]. Can we use such sources? Tiamut^talk 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done - the re-organisation is a big improvement! :-) Fig (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we really use the term "truce" for Israel's 3 hours a day of one-sided non-agression?

Hi, I am curious if it is OK for us to copy and paste the word "truce" that the IDF uses for the 3 hours a day. I think a truce has to be an agreement from both sides, not just one side deciding not to attack. Am I correct? Would there be better terms to use instead? I think it might be better to re-write the 3 hour truce sub-section by specifying the difference between what the IDF is offering (a 3 hour pause in hostility from their side for humanitarian purposes), and what they are calling it (a truce, a 2-sided agreement).althena (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A truce is, well, whatever someone labels a truce. If Hamas had completely fought back, that would not make it 'not a truce'. That would make it a 'failed truce'. As such, Hamas hardly did anything during that period- which makes it a 'partly failed and partly successful truce'. The Squicks (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Squicks, although a it is hard to label it a truce exactly, since neither party is directly talking to the other. V. Joe (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Althena. If we're going to use "truce" it should be clear that's the IDF name for it. Israel announcing a 3-hour suspension of its strikes after it was heavily criticized by human rights organizations for failing to provide them with safe access to the dead and wounded, isn't a truce. Tiamut^talk 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's reasons or motives change nothing with regards to the name of those events. It seems news sources happily use the word "truce" for it, and it is appropriate, so there's no reason not to use it. okedem (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree - truce, according to m-w , is "a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces"

this was simply a suspension of bombing by israel and should be stated as such. Untwirl (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to waltz in, but, erm, may I suggest, you know, we chack, what the sources say? I mean, "V" around here is not for vendetta... :D--Cerejota (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"pause in fighting" [23] seems to be pretty popular. "truce" is being used to refer to the proposals to put an end to the fighting and not the "three-hour lull", as it is also being commonly called [24].

And by the way, the "lull" seems to apply only to Gaza City. See this source: Gaza: Medical Personnel Unable to Enter Tiamut^talk 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most logical choice be the word "pause"? That seems like the most accurate term. Neither side really agreed to anything or really changed anything. It was like listening to CD playing that suddenly skips. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Israeli news channels and websites it was called "opening a humanitarian corridor". --62.0.136.146 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier, I've altered the wording slightly to reflect the concensus here that truce is inaccurate. Props to whoever noted the definition of truce in the first para. Superpie (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can the Arabs call it The Gaza Massacre, based on Arabic from one member here, the we can say "What Israel calls 'opening a humanitarian corridor." You can see several (reliable0 references to that expression here [25] From the Jerusalem Post, Voice of America and AFP for starters. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli attempts to reduce Gazan civilian casualties

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.

Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

---

File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg

Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.

How about by stopping to bomb and shell Palestinian neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals! I really have a problem with this section since it is very similar to the psychological warfare section present here previously . Is this section neutral?--23prootie (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that numerous reliable sources have alleged that Hamas is hiding in civilian areas/buildings/clothes/etc is notable while Israel is taking care to seperate them out rather than doing what usually happens in total war is notable and thus must be mentioned. This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. The Squicks (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are we depending on IDF sources for civilian count on the Gaza side? They are not counting Gazan bodies, they are too busy running them over with tanks [26]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why stop bombing? If anything more bombs show be dropped in Palestinian neighborhoods, true victory will not be reached until one side is completely destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.58.203.31 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are these people who hang around Wikipedia talk pages and every once in a while anonymously grace us with their opinions? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand you may not agree with me, but I have every right to voice my option as you do!!!!

wikipedia is not a forum. helohe (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It sure looks like a forum to me!

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.

Reverse the renaming of "Gaza Humanitarian Crisis" section to "Effects on Gazans"

We have 20 UN OCHA reports, 2 UN security council meetings, several Amnesty International reports, Human Rights Watch reports, and the International Red Cross reports, all of them calling it a "humanitarian crisis". Renaming this section is not acceptable. There's no room to debate something reported by about 30 official reports. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who changed it to "Effects on Gazans". As I said in my edit summary at the time, I agree that the situation is widely considered a humanitarian crisis; I think that fact is evident from the content in the beginning of the section; my problem is that much of the content in the section does not deal with a humanitarian crisis, and putting the title "humanitarian crisis" before it all falsely implies that everything that follows constitutes elements of a humanitarian crisis. (Yes, I actually said all this, briefly, in the edit summary! It's amazing what you can cram in there.) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The only section that might not seem humanitarian is money, but then that's what people need for food and water... CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

17 UN OCHA reports include the banknotes shortage as a crisis. OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with a broad focus? Calling it "effects on Gazans' means that we can include information about money supplies, about the disruption of the normal lives of Gazans, about recruitment of people to fight, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Squirks, This is not broader focus, this is understating a situation widely and internationally and formally reported. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not debating the nature of the situation. I'm just asking why, in the purposes of categorization, we can't have a section about all effects on Gaza residents- including non-humanitarian related effects. The Squicks (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "humanitarian crisis" is one of the most reported facts of the war in all the world organizations. It shall not be understated under a section named "effects". --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Darwish. "Effects" is a weasel-word -- an abstract euphemistic evasion. "Effects" can be positive or negative, but since there are no positive effects, the term fails to summarize the situation appropriately. Call it what it is: a "humanitarian catastrophe". Let's not mince words. NonZionist (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist: stop poisoning the well, please. There is not a snowball's chance in hell it will ever be named "humanitarian catastrophe", and you mentioning it is a way to troll pro-Israeli editors. Many of us are tired of such blatant soapboxing. Its not cute, and its against house rules. --Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"humanitarian catastrophe" is Original research. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

...and getting back to the issue at hand. Darwish, let me reassure you that nobody is denying, debating or seeking to sweep under the carpet the fact that the situation in Gaza is widely held to be a humanitarian crisis. Nor has anyone challenged the ample sources attesting to that fact in the beginning of the section. The issue is that naming the entire section "humanitarian crisis" restricts that section to dealing only with elements of a humanitarian crisis, and not with other significant effects that do not constitute part of the HC. Carol has mentioned the issue of cash; I would add the danger to medical personnel and psychological issues, which do not per se constitute elements of a HC. Even if you disagree and consider everything currently in the section to be elements of a HC, surely you would agree that there are other things that we may want to add to the section in the future that would not fall in that category. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unusual call for you Cerejota, and Darwish07, 'humanitarian catastrophe' is not an infraction of WP:OR. It's quite an acceptable term, used by government officials, UN reps to describe conditions there at least since 2006, when Jan Egeland and Jan Eliasson, in their article,'La catastrophe humaine de Gaza est une bombe à retardement', was carried in Le Figaro,(Paris) 28 September 2006. Egeland is the the UN Assistant Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs and Coordinator of Emergency Aid. Jan Eliasson is Sweden's Foreign Affairs Minister and former (1992-1994) UN Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs. It was picked up by Mearsheimer and Walt in their controversial work, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), who cite this paper ( p.383). Even Tony Blair's used it, according to Hasard, though he tried to fob it off, in his usual Bushy-eyed blathering style, on Hamas, as though they were the only ones to see things as they are. NonZionist was not bloviating (this time!), but sticking to an accredited term among international observers of distinction.Nishidani (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Humanitarian crisis" is more widely used, but "humanitarian disaster" and "humanitarian catastrophe" are also quite common. (Check google news with "gaza" + one of the aforementioned).

During the siege there was a "humanitarian crisis", now it's an unequivocal disaster. But since "crisis" is still more widely used, we should probably stick with it. Tiamut^talk 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I've always stressed throughout my whole involvement in this article that we should not touch any info outside of the war circle or we will enter a endless loop of debates (how far can we return back?, why pick A but not B?, "A" pro-Israeli fact in 1999 will need a "B" pro-Palestinian fact in 1999, what about "C", is it realated?? and so on). I have a big repository of reports and Press releases in here (~35 files) that call it a crisis. If it was me, I'll call it a "black catastrophe" but I have to stick to the time limit (post 27 December) and the reputable reports within such time limit. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the name of the section is "Effects on Gazans," could the section be expanded to include other impacts on ordinary Gazans? PinkWorld (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Death-seeking culture

The section on international law included the following paragraph that I have removed

In March 2008, a Hamas parliamentarian spoke of a "death-seeking" culture that uses women, children and the elderly as human shields against Israeli military attacks. "The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed methods of death and death-seeking," Fathi Hammad said in a speech televised on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television station. "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad said. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said.[526]

First, as far as I understand this speech doesn't constitute a violation of international law, so I don't know what it was doing in that section. In fact, I know of no section in this article where this will fit in. This article is not a forum for general discussions of the ideology of Hamas or Israel or any of the other groups involved. I hope the editor who inserted this will refrain from edits like this. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This information belongs in the main article for 'Hamas', in my opinion, since it is not specifically related to this conflict and since its well sourced info about the political ideology of a political party. The Squicks (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it belongs in Hamas or perhaps in Fathi Hammad (if he is notable enough). But not here. I mean, it happened a full 9 months before the events chronicled here. I really dislike these egregious examples of SYNTH popping up. They should be removed on sight, and a note made of why.

On the other hand, these are obviously trolling, intended to deviate discussion and irritate pro-Palestinian editors, and bait them into a counter-attack, and then used as justification for further disruption, and on and on. So please do not over react or go all dram when seen. Just remove and explain. Contrary to the real world conflict, no one dies if Wikipedia gets edited, and you can always revert. If the behavior continues, report it as vandalism. --Cerejota (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here, and it almost certainly doesn't belong in the Hamas article either. We have one very angry MP making claims about the intentions of others - so? It's not so unusual to have this even in established democracies, let alone someone serving for probably the first and only time in a brand new democracy. It's inclusion as if "this is the ideology of Hamas" makes it appear as if this article is being edited by ultra-partisans. The deputy Prime Minister of Israel said he'd find the buses to transport 1000s of Palestinians to the Dead Sea and drown them there - is that the policy of Israel? He said that 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity" in which to live beyond Israel's borders - do we include that when discussing Israel's many wars? He's been quoted saying "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers ...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations...at two we'll bomb their banks...." - why's that not in this article? It's all much, much more relevant than what Fathi Hammad said! PR^talk 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Avigdor Lieberman has the buses info as cite #21, and Indepedent and cite #16. I understand your wider point, but it is irrelevant to wikipedia: the fact is a Hamas legislator said these things, they are notable, but the legislator has not article in wikipedia, so Hamas is the natural, and logical place to put the info. Not this article. --Cerejota (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what PR is talking about. Clearly, the most reasonable thing to do is to include all fair criticism of all political parties in the fertile cresent area. The Squicks (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

rocket attacks (again)

jalepenos do exist (btw - great name) stated that no one has a problem with that section - actually, i created a section that stated some problems with it. please refer to the section above (re: rocket attacks) to see those issues.

1. the word 'notable'

2. dead links

3. no mention of wounded or casualties

Untwirl (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and sorry I missed your earlier comments. 1. I agree with you, good call. 2. I'll see what I can do. 3. I didn't want to put that in because it should be covered in the casualties section, but I could be convinced otherwise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

this page moves so fast i'm surprised anyone can keep up. just think what we could do if we all put all this effort into something useful! ;) the totals do belong in casualties section, but if you look at the sections on israeli offensive, casualty numbers do appear there for individual strikes. Untwirl (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you just convinced me. You want to add the info? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

not really. :)

the links are dead so i couldn't even if i wanted to. that is actually the first thing that should be fixed or we should probably take this out. i'd like for it to be in if properly sourced. Untwirl (talk) 05:56, 15 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)

Depleted Uranium Shells

For such a claim, we need more (reliable) sources than the Iranian TV. Rabend (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard a lot about this claim in Aljazeera English (TV, not webpages). I'll search for more references. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's Iranian TV doesn't automatically mean it's false. Also I clearly indicated that it was Iranian Government TV to let the reader judge the possible bias of the source. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, yet for such a strong claim, we still need confirmation. Rabend (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for sourcing is key, and for V too. But why is this controversial? Depleted uranium is standard munitions of any modern army in the world, and is widely used in armor too. Protestations that it is radioactive are unfounded, and its real harm is as a heavy metal, with similar health effects as lead etc. It is more dangerous than lead because it shatters (being a crystal) and becomes a fine particulate that aerosols and hence its easier to breath than lead... Depleted uranium. And in terms of international law, it is completely legal.

Its mention on this article is as irrelevant as mentioning that "F-16s" or "Apaches" were used: these are things that are assumed of any regular combat using modern military forces. I see nothing interesting in its mention, even if well sourced, and can confused readers who do not know what DU is. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think everybody is as comfortable with depleted uranium being spread around the neighborhood as you are, see for example Campaign Against Depleted Uranium. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think DU should be mentioned when it is reported on by reliable sources. While I think Iranian sources are just as good as any others, others here don't. I'll see what I can find on the subject too. Tiamut^talk 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/israel-using-depleted-uranium-against-gaza-victims.html

Ha-ha-ha-ha... No. What about Middle East: Israel may be using 'banned' weapons in Gaza from Adnkronos International? The Squicks (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

and what about that: http://newsfrommiddleeast.com/?xstart=b&new=50593 ?

This is better http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10274628.html it also mentions DIME. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this from Canada http://www.mcgilldaily.com/article/6491-hyde-park-israel-s-moral-high .^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid using Op-Ed articles as sources? I could easily find dozens of editorials from pro-Isreali people and clog this article with allegations about Hamas. The Squicks (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It is shameful really. These people know better. They are using the talk pages as a forum to spread (not, as suggested earlier, "pro-Palestinian", but staightforward "anti-Israel") propaganda. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 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)

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." [[27]] Hosni Mubarak warned that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." [[28]] 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." [[29]] "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."[[30]] 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. [[31]]

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)

I will begin to put together a "U.S. involvement section". We will compare the $3,000,000,000 per year Israel gets from the U.S. with the $0 Hamas gets from Iran, and the 3,000,000,000-to-0 factor will help us to see who is really behind this slaughter and who isn't. Here are articles on the U.S. involvement. (The articles at the non-RS source are compilations with links to RS sources.)

• 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)

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)

Targeting of medical facilities and personnel

BBC and The Independent both claim that the IDF called a clinic operated by Christian Aid and told them to evacuate in 15 minutes. They then blew it up. Unless someone can prove that they are wrong or are unreliable sources, we must assume that the IDF is targeting medical facilities. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is unlocked, read discussions on this matter that are archived and edit accordingly. BTW, there is nothing on this under 'BY ISRAELI FORCES'. Cryptonio (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC is obviously reliable; I'm not familiar with The Independent, but I have no reason to doubt its reliability. The issue is that what it says in the articles is that (a) the occupants were called and told to leave the building; (b) the building was struck with a missile; (c) the military said that there was terrorist activity nearby. It is not at all clear what exactly happened. To me it seems most likely that the "terrorist activity nearby" was being targeted by missiles, that occupants of surrounding buildings, including the clinic, were warned to leave for fear of an inaccurately fired missile, and that an inaccurately fired missile indeed hit the clinic. To NonZionist another scenario might seem more likely. But none of us can say that the cited articles are claiming that the clinic was targeted. If they were, they would say something along the lines of "the clinic was targeted". That's how reliable sources claim things, and whenever we cite them we are cautious not to ascribe to them things they didn't say. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera offers its photos and footage under creative commons license

• It at their website here [32]. 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)

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)

[33] 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)

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)

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)

Section 'Palestinian offensive' poorly named?

This article seems fairly reasonable. I was able to get a synopsis of this conflict by going to the sections I was interested in etc. But there was 1 section that didn't seem correctly labelled. Under 'Palestinian offensives' there is a section labelled "Engagement with IDF ground forces". Unless this is outside Gaza or specifically a counter-attack with the strategic capacity to get outside Gaza I wouldn't consider it much of an offensive. Offensive's are not 'attacks' but attacks where you go towards or into enemy territory.

The rocket attacks are to a degree offensives and perhaps Iran does have designs to push into Israel's borders so those sections are fine. But I just don't think a ragtag bunch of militia, fighting a professional army house to house in the cities and towns they live in can be considered an offensive. Perhaps this needs to be relabelled defensive actions or put under the section for the Israeli ground offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.107 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas using human shields

I believe an emphasis should be placed on the fact that the terrorist group Hamas is using human shields. For example, firing rockets near schools, storing weapons in civilian apartments, firing rockets in residential areas.WacoJacko (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you know about NPOV. If you want to add reliably sourced facts concerning this aspect of the conflict, please do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Hamas and the IDF are using human shields. [34] JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We include those allegations in the article already. The Squicks (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly mentioned in the section about violations of internation laws. This section is also poorly referenced so far. I'm going to look more closely into that, particularly acknowledging the human shields issue, the firing from within populated areas, and the targeting of civilians. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 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)

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)

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)

Requested move

Gaza War? Operation Cast Lead? There seemed to be concensus above about moving the article to a new name, but which one is better? Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

gaza war - much more widely used Untwirl (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is source of dead baby photo a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any proof for that the images are faked, present them, otherwise I don't see what case you can make against the images. I'm been watching the photostream and it doesn't look like staged pictures on a stage. What would make the source unreliable when it comes to pictures coming out of Gaza? — 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 don't understand why you're questioning the reliability of this source only. I mean WTH is Marek Peters [35] why should we accept his photos? Is Mila [36] 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)

Depleted Uranium?

This is how the section on Depleted Uranium now appears.

Depleted Uranium Shells

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

An ISM activist named Eva who is in Gaza also saw a reference to that same doctor and that same statement on a BBC news TV broadcast. However, there are other quotations from that same medic in which he has said that he does not have further information on DU. He offered information on DIMEs instead. It is possible that what he initially thought to be wounds caused by suspected DU had actually been caused by suspected DIMEs. I feel terribly dimwitted at the moment, though: I did not save a copy of any of those "switch" interviews. If anyone wants one, I could try to find one. PinkWorld (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

This was discussed above, with the added info that there's nothing too shocking about DU. As such, I'm going to remove that section altogether. Rabend (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)