Talk:Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–2009)

Orphaned references in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC_IslUnivGaza_bombed":

• From Islamic University of Gaza: "Israel bombs university in Gaza". BBC. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on 2008-12-28. Retrieved 2008-12-29.
• From 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: Israel strikes key Hamas offices

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Bias

There is clear image bias in this article. Two photos of rockets from Palestinian side, and no photos of any bombardment from the Israeli side. Please balance. Fig (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding pictures from the Palestinian side licensed under a free content license. If you have any of these please add them to the article. Blackeagle (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So THIS is why there's been a sudden flurry of image 'clean ups'?? lulz. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it's interesting that some editors are being astonishingly quick on shifting through images of the conflict to remove any images of Gaza with the faintest whiff of not having adequate license. I suppose this hard work should be "applauded" despite the ultimately POV effect that it has on descendant article (which is, I have no doubt, the intent). This, combined with the Israeli journalist ban in the area has been very effective at preventing many images at all getting into Wikipedia.

I suggest therefore that to improve the current NPOV situation, the two images of Hamas rockets are removed until suitable images of Israeli attacks can be found to give a balanced article that reflects the relative magnitudes of attacks, both the text and the actual event. This is important, because otherwise it means that media bans such as Israel has implemented in Gaza can be very effective in portraying global POV outcomes, and it will thus encourage more such media bans. Fig (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting point?

Wouldn't it be relevant to include the events leading up to the Israeli airstrikes? At least Hamas ending of the cease-fire and subsequent rocket attacks, perhaps also with the rationale behind these decisions. kzm (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are covered in the background section of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. Is it really necessary to duplicate them here? Blackeagle (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a timeline, the question is when the 2008-2009 I-G conflict started. (And it shouldn't be duplicated of course, but moved and/or summarized in the other article) 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

700 rockets the day israel attacked

I don't think that's right. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict says that that occured on the 24th, which was the reason that israel attacked. Additionally, that other fact pointing to the 24th has a citation linked to they NYtimes, so we should probably go with that.

NPOV

Please write according to the sources.. When source states that one side "said" something, it's not a fact. You either put "allegedly" before the statement or something along that line. PluniAlmoni (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not put "allegedly". You can attribute it to the source by simply writing "X said ...". Tiamut^talk 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun incident - needs subheading

The Zeitoun incident has been added as a subheading in the main page due to its high importance. It should be added here also. Fig (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the Zeitoun incident incident to 4 January even though there seems to be issues with it as far as did it really happen and by who. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 10th's last paragraph.

Almost the entire last paragraph is based on anonymous sources, and needs to be edited out. OR needs a more 'mainstream source' (and 'unbiased') for it to be acceptable. Specifically (Only) the parts about the Hamas soldiers suffering from exhaustion, and the 'narrative' of a young Hamas soldiers disobeying orders and others becoming AWOL.70.32.43.178 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't refuse sources because someone doesn't like them, we quote the source and hope that the reader can decide for himself. thank you.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo News, Google News and other non-stable news sites

Links to Yahoo News, Google News and other non-stable news sites should be archived at webcitation.org. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

why it's not listed in details that Israel is using illegal weapons ??

Israel's use of 'white phosphorus' scars Gazans

Human rights groups say Israel is indiscriminately using white phosphorus in Gaza's densely populated areas. When ignited, the chemical can burn the flesh off of a person, down to the bone. Israel says the use of white phosphorus is permitted under international law, although it hasn't openly admitted using the chemical. Ayman Mohyeldin visits the burns ward of a Gaza hospital and finds many Palestinians badly scarred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.141.135 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it isn't true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is NOT an illegal weapon as much as certain parties desire it to be. Especially if used for producing smoke screens etc.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is an initialism for White Phosphorus for those who don't know.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorus (WP) is a flare- and smoke-producing incendiary device[1] or smoke-screening agent that is made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus. White phosphorus bombs and shells are incendiary weapons, but can also be used as offensive anti-personnel flame compounds capable of causing serious burns or death. The agent is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The slang term "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter", dating from World War I and common at least through the Vietnam War, is still occasionally heard . which it seems that Israel is using it against civilians in Gaza. and it is on new . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.166.240 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Missiles containing white phosphorus were deployed. Dr Ahmed Almi from the al-Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis describes serious injuries and chemical burns, with victims covered in a white powder that continues to burn long after initial exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.199.163 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has hired a military advisor to give technical details on the use and misuse of armaments, for just this sort of occurrence. The advisor's statement was quoted on GlobalSecurity.org, which gives detailed reports on US military actions; they are one of the main sources of information for the US invasion of Panama page, for example. The use of white phosphorus by the IDF has been reported on in a LA Times story, CNN video story, and Time story.

No weapon is allowed to be used in a way that endangers civilians. Nor is WP a weapon whose use in Gaza is not subject to scrutiny under that rule; quite the contrary, the news reports above are quite full of quotes from those who believe Gaza, as one of the most densely populated areas in the world, is an unsuitably target-rich environment in which to be using WP. Nor is WP a weapon that the IDF has admitted using, despite the preponderance of evidence, and having finessed their stance on its use. The issue is notable and verifiable.

HELLLOOOOO????!!!! All weapons endanger civilians, did you ever hear of bullets? Who do you think WMD's were meant to target? Military forces in the field? Not. Once they were used, the victim militaries developed counters to them. How many Japanese military died in Hirosima. British military in the London Blitz? Iraqi and Iranian military in the War Against the Cities? The fact that a Scud killed Americans in the 1st Gulf War was a fluke, it had been shot down. Of course its debris hit the warehouse. Civilians always suffer at the hands of their leaders, elected or not.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GROSS imbalances in sources

I count roughly 100 Israel-based references, and 5 Palestinian. This is beyond absurd. 5 references to reports by journalists WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN GAZA??

This infuriates me. I've spent a lot of hours developing Wikipedia. If it's to be little more than a vehicle for IDF propaganda, why should anyone take this site seriously? Trachys (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged WP:NPOV Trachys (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you actually point out the IDF propaganda? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you actually point out any statement made either by the government or the IDF that ISN'T propaganda?? You're incredible. Trachys (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trachys, who are you?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)