Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

Back to International Law

I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):

1. Length - At this rate, we'll need to start a separate article for this section. That's fine if that's the way people want to go, except that nobody ever reads articles that are that specific.
2. Gaza as occupied territory - This debate deviates severely from the discussion we ought to be having. But, if other editors want to go there, the Israeli position must be represented adequately. The sources used to rebut it fundamentally violate WP:Synthesis, because they don't respond to the Israeli position; instead, the editor must synthesize them to clarify that Gaza is occupied territory in spite of the disengagement. It's also synthesis to say "the UN and other international organizations," when the only other organization quoted is the Human Rights Council. Let's examine the sources used to establish Gaza's position as occupied territory:
   1. An International Court of Justice decision from one year prior to Israeli disengagement (i.e. irrelevant).
   2. The fact that there is an "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs office on Occupied Palestinian Territory." Consider the fact that the argument has to be made in the citation, because it's not actually made in the source. To draw such a conclusion violates WP:Synthesis.
   3. Gunness refers to Israel as an "Occupying Power." That he does, but in an interview, not some sort of official publication. As mentioned above, this also does not touch upon the disengagement, and so is synthesis.
   4. HRC - Again, there's no consideration of the disengagement.
3. Ad-hominem attacks against Falk - I don't see the reason why the whole "Falk is a controversial figure…" part is included. It adds very little to the article, and is quite long.
4. Gary Grant - Again, I think it generally best to avoid quoting interviews in lieu of actual published works. Also, why are we quoting Gary Grant? On what grounds is the value of his legal opinion asserted? If we have to quote him, let's at least cut down on the paragraph, because it can be summarized in one sentence.
5. UN speeches - The snippets from Egypt and Jordan are, again, not actual publications. UN speeches are better than interviews, but still. If these government have published amicus currae briefs, or something like that, it would be better to quote them than a speech--a speech is just a summary of the country's position, and not an actual WP:RS in itself. Even if they were actual publications, I don't see what they add to the article. Everything they say has already been said, and they don't give any reason why Israel violates international law; they simply state that it does. Of notable irrelevance is the Egyptian statement, which pertains to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to the conflict (which is, after all, the subject of the article).
6. Specific incidents - Are we all ABSOLUTELY sure that we want to start listing specific incidents. By the middle of next week, the "International law" section will be bursting at the seams with incidents in which Israel and Hamas violated international law. I vote we stick to the bigger picture, because all these incidents fall under its wing. But, if I have failed to persuade you, let's consider some specifics about the UN school incident: Investigation is ongoing, not to mention the fact that it has its own section. Besides, in what legal capacity is the OIC brought into the picture? They don't even elaborate on anything.
7. Petition to the court - This section needs to be seriously cut down; it's way too long. Also, are they arguing on the grounds of international law or Israeli law?
8. Hamas ideology - Why is this in the article? Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters.

Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed references 2.1 and 2.2 (numbering scheme follows list above). Maybe I assumed to much, but I figured that WP policy was so clear on the subject, that their removal would not prove too controversial. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks against Falk should be removed. By all means feel free to do so. He has a page for that crap doesn't he? 'Controversial' in wiki I/P articles is code language for unreliable, by the way, and is found as the standard epithet for any wiki page covering a critic of Israel. One could say the same of Dershowitz, that he is 'controversial', and this would be improper, since a link will take anyone to those pages where his status is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're on board with the discussion, Nishidani. What's your opinion on the other points?

Meantime, I've looked back at the source for the Supreme Court petition (point no. 7 above), and found that there was no discussion there whatsoever of international law. Can anyone find a source that says the petition is founded in international law? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, and just glanced through, and haven't had the time to check anything, so I responded on the first point I knew about off-hand. I agree with you also that 'Hamas ideology' has to be excerpted from the article. Hamas has its own page, and its ideology is discussed there. It is totally inappropriate here, and as you quote it, evidently an attempt to prejudice the reader by hitting the 'barbarian' button, aside from its irrelevance to what should be a strict factual accountancy of the conflict. I'll certainly look through the rest, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up the talk page a bit and you'll see the 'Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation' section. I put a link to the archives in there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.

The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!

Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.

I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

someone beat me to it! Anyway, I completely endorse the removal of this paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Hamas stuff and also the Gary Grant stuff. He does not appear to judge by his brief history here, to have any particular competence in international law, and the statements are just generic opinions by an otherwise nondescript barrister. This section should quote opinions only by recognized authorities. Dershowitz by the way is not a recognized authority on international law. I won't touch it. But if he stays, he should be balanced by Franklin Lamb's withering critique of his opinions in this case. No hurry. Ideas? Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I further indented your line. I hope you don't mind.

Yeah, I also think that Dershowitz needs to be removed. Everything he says is already said by Israel in the following paragraph, and of the two sources, he is less reliable.

I'll go ahead and remove him. If I get reverted, then we'll discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned the indent compliment! I've had a first go at cutting back the petition. In any case, this will have to be rewritten as news comes in of the Court's decision. It's sitting today, I believe. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egypt-Jordanian stuff is sourced, and needn't be a brief. It should of course be brief. The following remark in the text, 'This comes as a surprise since Egypt imposed (the) Gaza Strip blockade in full cooperation with Israel following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip,' is unsourced, and looks like an editorial comment, apart from being poorly written (= 'though Egypt collaborated fully with Israel in imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas took over its administration'. I happen to agree with it. Unless someone can come up with a source for it, it will have to be removed. I will post a citation needed tag for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put the 'citation required' flag after 'it comes as a surprise'. Some source has to say both (it was a surprise) and (b) that in making the declaration, Egypt was being hypocritical, since it supports the very blockade it denounces as a violation of international law. Otherwise we haqve WP:SYNTH probs.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that needs to be borne in mind is that there is no single, accepted definition of what international law is in relation to any particular issue, due to there being no international government. An ICJ or International Criminal Court decision is pretty clear evidence, but we don't have any in relation to this specific conflict or any of the alleged incidents during it. Therefore all Wikipedia can do is to state "Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group X says this, Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group Y says that" and leave the reader to make up his/her own mind. We aren't an arbitrator of "the truth", we simply collate facts and opinions established by others. Cynical (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So all of those doctorates in international law, and the history of rulings, are invalid. You've just downsized a notable constituency of the legal world. For the record, 'international law' since Grotius's time, refers to the law of nations, between nations, and does not require the existence of an international government. One used to learn this in high schools in the old world. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"One used to learn this in High Schools in the old worlds remember WP:Civil concerning "One used to learn this in High Schools in the old world." V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source yet that links the petition (no. 7 above) to international law, so I'm removing it. If it survives revert, I'll put a strikethrough on the above list.

Also, the quality of the Egyptian and Jordanian sources (no. 5 above) was only the smallest part of my complaint against them. They add nothing to the article (and are quite long in so doing). The Egyptian source doesn't even have to do with the conflict. How do people feel about removing them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A small point, as I recall Britian did a Blockage of Germany during WWI and parts of the German population were close to starving to death. However, Britian was not considered an Occupying power. I think they may have also done a Blockage on what became Lebannon. Blockages per se do not create Occupying powers. ITBlair (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cynical. International Law is only relevant to those who follow it. Israel is not a signatory to many "International Laws" that she found inappropriate and did not ratify many of the treaties signed by the European powers. International Law is also a recourse which has repeatedly been used against Israeli interests. ." Also, what might be legal in Israel or Sweden or Nigeria might not apply to other countries. The simple truth is that international law is in flux and has been since the very first agreements, and certain things seem to ALWAYS apply (Laws agaisnt Piracy) and certain ideas of international law seem sometimes to apply and certain other ideas are NEVER applied). Which laws are applied and by what we have politicians for. One should also never forget that lawyers of any stripe are advocates first, and "friends of the court" second V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, neither you nor the other editor, Cynical, have the foggiest notion of what you are descanting on. You can opinionize, but nothing you say is relevant to editing in this regard.

Saepe habilis. I have no problem with eliding the Egyptian-Jordanian bits, but others may object. The petition should not be struck out, though you have a point. But many of these questions before the Supreme Court of Israel have to do with Israel's international obligations consequent upon a complex array of treaties, associations with international bodies etc. It is true that, in many cases, Israeli legal scholars have argued that a number of provisions in international law do not apply to acts or laws passed by the state. But that does not mean Israeli law itself is hermetically sealed off from international law and conventions. I therefore advise you to not elide the petition, esp. since it was to be heard today, and we should shortly have some indications of a verdict. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Es, Nishidani, ridiculor. Te amo. If you can find a RS that spells out the connection between the petition and international law, I won't object to its (brief) inclusion. Otherwise, the connection would be synthesis.

As for Egypt and Jordan, I'll wait a little longer to see if there are objection, and if not, I'll take them out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is simple, I feel that International Law, which is a Trojan Horse when applied to Israel. Essentially, notice the amount of attention paid to Sri Lanka and you can perhaps understand my feelings about International Law. V. Joe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I note the petition section has been removed without consensus, and despite the fact that Joe and Cynical can't distinguish customary and conventional international law. Petitions to the Supreme Court of Israel that have been decided by that august body through reference to International Law are perhaps not commonplace, but precedents exist. Ther right to do so was estbalished soon after the Six Day War. Nothing I say will change your opinion, so go read Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992. I know you won't, so read at least pp.70ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we're losing focus a bit here. Isn't the section getting a bit long for this article ? Yes, country/person X can say something like "compliance with international law isn't required for the legitimate use of power" as Condie Rice wrote once I recall (...can't remember the exact words) and various bodies will challenge that position and so on and so forth but we're in danger of getting into a swamp here and over complicating matters. Would it not be better to make a big effort to keep this section as simple as possible (in this article) e.g. set out the UNHRC position and provide counter arguments maintaining due weight for the bodies that speak on behalf on the world/regional communities, have some specific examples/details but not too much. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I was bold, and removed the petition section. I figured if it was reverted, we could discuss. Let me make one thing clear: I completely agree with you that Israeli court decisions are often founded in international law. But, absent a RS that specifically says that this particular petition is founded in international law, this section is out of place. If you find such a source, I would not object to including it (but let's make it brief, if we can). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed you had a point. Removing it removed the source, and the point, so I had trouble this morning checking it out. But I objected more to the assertion International Law does not matter to the ISC, than to the propriety of your call. I haven't as yet enough Hebrew to read the petition, which was promoted by 9 groups:Gisha, Adalah, Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh Din, but will search to see if a foreign language version is available and whether, if so, ref. is made therein to international customary law (from what I know, there would be certainly a legal problem for the petitioners, but of course my opinion is irrelevant), CheersNishidani (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.

Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it (or I removed them and forgot). I'm way too young to be getting senile… hmf… Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I haven't been able to find the petition. If you can post a link to the Hebrew version, I could read it and tell you if there's mention of international law in it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gisha petition. They only have a summary on their page. Gisha.org. Thanks for the courtesy of offering to check it,Saepe Fidelis . I don't expect an explicit claim, so won't be surprised if the verdict is no. Keep me tuned.Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific incidents "Sub-Section Name" distorts what needed in this section By big bold I assume you mean your reference to specific incidents sub-section? Originally we were just listing those who also called Israel's actions violations of international law. Then someone made it an "incidents" section and then someone said let's delete the incidents. It should NOT be an incident section, but a list of important parties world wide calling Israel's actions violations of international law war crimes. When it's save for me to revert it i'll do so and shorten the Amnesty international section which does start to read like an incident report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, please read the discussion above about why individual country's opinions on the legality of Israel's actions have been removed.

Nishidani, I've started to make my way through the document. It's 26 pages long, so I'll try to give you an answer soon, but don't hold your breath. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold my breath? Me? With the emphysema I've got after smoking 3 cartons of cigarettes in the past week? No hurry, but I may not be around to read it, at this rate of pulmonary bombing.:)Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hope your lungs get better.

The petition makes many references to international law, beginning on page 18. I am currently working on too many things to reword the section so that it includes this information. If someone else could do that, that would be wonderful. If not, I'll do it when I get around to it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response on number 6. Fundamentally, the issue is that if we go into individual cases of alleged violation on the Israeli side, then we must do the same for Palestinian militants. Any input from other editors on whether they would rather do both or neither? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone created the section. I'll take that as "both." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

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

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

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

Independent opinion on Alleged violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces

I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the consensus is. It was discussed. The provisory consensus was he did not match up to wiki criteria of notability. I checked Gary Grant, who graduated in 1994 as a barrister, is not on record as dealing with international law, has no academic credentials in that area as a specialist or authority, who deals in civil and criminal law cases in England. It appears that AlJazeera asked a Jewish member of the bar in England for his opinion. The opinion he gave was not framed in terms of international law, did not cite technicalities, but simplyt expressed his private view. There are thousands of lawyers throughout the world who could be asked the same question, and we could then stack the subsection with their views. None of those views holds nauthority or interest unless they are expressed by people who have a public record for authoritative knowledge about what they are speaking of.

In these things we normally choose the best specialists, to avoid opinionizing by non-professionals being cited, something which lends itself to POV stacking.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware Gary Grant was jewish, it changes everything! How do you know, could you point to the direction of the source of this information? Al Jazeera English presents him as "Gary Grant, international law expert" here [1] and used his services in the past about other international conflicts here [2]. So the fact is that Gary Grant is expert enough and notable for Al Jazeera English. I'm pretty sure that Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are also jewish !!! I suspect they are even Israelis :)

I think that Gary Grant opinion should be referenced, I was not convinced by your reasoning. At least could we reflect some other international opinion that Israel actions are Act of Self Defence, for instance current US president probably is notable enough and hopefully not jewish. Bush is not the only world leader who thinks so. Though I'd prefer it to be professional opinion and not political one, since we talk here about law and not about politics. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Grant International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists

AlJazeera just asked a Jewish barrister in London his opinion. It doesn't matter to me whether he's Jewish. It matters to me that he is not competent, as Falk and the other two are. Look at his legal work. There is nothing there to do with international law. I don't have to convince you. But you do have to create a new consensus if you wish to plunk it in, and if you do, you will open that page to a large number of edits interviewing nondescript Arab, American, Uzbeki lawyers saying they think it violates international law. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh, half the anti-IDF statements were removed cause of people arguing that it was WP:UNDUE to include all of the that. NOW, if people gonna return this un-notable Gary Grat opinion, I'm going to return all the other statements deleted from a lot of other countries officials and security councils meetings. NO. People deleted a lot of anti-IDF yesterday cause of UNDUE, so No more pro-IDF will be added unless the old anti-IDF will be returned. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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™.

In that case, let us include Gary Grant! And maybe even George Waterboard Bush! NonZionist (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No way this should be included. Gary Grant's only achievement in life is having talked to al-jazeera --vvarkey (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a wikipedia procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Government opinions are political opinions reflecting national interests, as any one party perceives them. Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast, and the public polled to register the effect. International law is an area where professionals debate intricate issues. If we wish to be informed about it, we do not ask politicians, or newspaper editorialists, or barristers in London, or Arabs or Jews or whoever. We consult men with a distinguished record. The three gentlemen we have already are all Jewish, and disagree on this question, as the proverb tells us to expect. We cite them because of their eminence as professionals in this area of law. We do not challenge them for their ethnic background, which is irrelevant.

If there is a difficult issue you feel strongly about and want to press into the page, then make a suggestion on the edit you wish to do, and wait for other editors to comment. When several agree on it, or come to a compromise, this is regarded as a consensus, and means that, when you edit that compromise in, or consensual verdict on the text, in, it can't be erased haphazardly, since it is the result of collaborative work and agreement, unlike most edits.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast,"...classic. Thanks for that one, most excellent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pal, if you collect'em, I think you'd prefer, as I do, Nietzsche's dictum: 'Public opinion is the absent of private opinions' or something along those lines. I think it's in 'Human, All to Human', but read it four decades ago, and can't quite vouch for the phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

sickest man (round here that is compliment) Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 and copied everything from this section to it. I wasn't sure what to leave behind in summary on the main page. Please discuss the move here; it may be that people think it should be moved back; but I decided to take action as the article was getting too long. I think it is an important section so hopefully this arrangement will be satisfactory. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No please, this is a core part of the war and where most of the media focus has been on. WP:NOTPAPER. The situation is clearly emphasized by a lot of media and reports that the small paragraph you put instead of it give the issue no fair. There have been other long articles on @ikipedia by the way. Examples: the Holocaust and Pink Floyd. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest instead that "the Humanitarian aid deliveries" section be abridged cause this micro-detailed list of aid is not very usable to Wikipedia since even the UN and others said that it was a "tickle of aid" and a "pitiful gesture" --Darwish07 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwish07. There is far too much one-off or hot-heaqded editing without consensus in here, making keeping track of what's worth conserving and what needs weeding out, extremely arduous. Editors who have worked hard should collaborate in making sure these constant one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information be reverted, until those doing it come to heel, register in here and talk with everyone else about why they are editing in one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough if everyone wants it back, I have no strong opinion on the matter. In my defence, this wasn't a "one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information". All the info was retained on the new page. Furthermore, a number of people have called for something like this to be done for about a week, and I hadn't seen anyone speak out against it. It was actually a considered move. But its fine if people don't agree, as I said above - where I also pointed out that I do consider this an extremely important issue.

I understand. The problem is that we tried hard to make the paragraphs on humanitarian crisis section as abridged as possible. Any size smaller than that will omit critical facts from the situation, making the paragraph a not-complete and an unfair encyclopedic reporting case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, do you think we should link at all to the new article(Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009), or just delete it?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just delete it to avoid redundancy. If some one want to add a lot of extra not-mentioned facts, he'll create the page again anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas fires missiles during "humanitarian corridor"

During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Hamas continued to fire during the three hour daily truce or from a Humanitarian corridor? Superpie (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to what I know, they keep firing missiles during the 3 hour "Humanitarian Corridor" cease fire. I saw it in several articles other than the one I linked to. I know that there have been several exchanges of fire between Hamas and IDF, but as much as reports go, IDF didn't initiate any attack during these 3 hours. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Today Hamas broke the truce and fired several rockets. One hit a kindergarten in Ashdod. Rabend (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Was this truce ever accepted by Hamas? Not to argue the point that they did fire the rockets, but if you want to say the broke the truce you should be able to say they accepted it. I think it can go in the article, but something along the lines of 'Hamas fired rockets during the 3 hour humanitarian corridor (or whatever sounds better) that the IDF commited to not engage in hostilities.' That good? Nableezy (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

True, the truce was never accepted by Hamas, as far as I can tell. I'll update the article. Rabend (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what? The ref in the article does state that Hamas agreed not to fire during corridor times. So I think that does constitue a 'truce'. Although maybe 'truce' should be replaced with 'corridor', since it is not an actual truce, and 'corridor' is the term used both officially and in the media. What do you say? Rabend (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant find the where it is in the article. Could you link the source here? I cant find much with google news. But if a reliable source says they accepted or agreed to not engage then I think that can go in. Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it, i think we can safely say that they broke the truce, and I think the wording is good. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas uses ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons

There are a lot of video sites showing Hamas using ambulances for military purposes, thereby breaking the International humanitarian law. IDF has also noted that. Can you find notable sites reporting this? Rabend (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Regarding this edit[3]. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.

May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR _talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary"[4] also isn't a reason to remove images.VR _talk 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the image was too large and badly misplaced. Please don't start personal attacks and let's just act like cordial human beings. It's bad enough that some people are killing each other.--23prootie (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is also unsourced and doesn't have a copyright. And the uniforms, are these really civilians?--23prootie (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of images do you prefer? I don't think you will find an image of Palestinian children handing out flower bouquets to Israeli soldiers. We are not going to sugarcoat what the Israelis have done and if the truth affects "the naive reader's judgement" then so be it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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™.

I prefer ones that are not of dead Palestinian kids that were alive until a Hamas terrorist forced them to be his human shield. These are not my favorites. Rabend (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the Palestinian kids that were killed at that UN school? Oh wait there were no Hamas militants there, but Israelis slaughtered those kids anyway. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Rabend (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The scary unsourced one, that's really creepy.--23prootie (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we could not find a more innocent/rosier looking image of the slaughter. If you can find one, please let us know. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary" and "creepy" are arguments to be thrown out the window.

As for sourcing, what source are you exactly looking for. Please note that images enjoy certain exceptions to the policy of souring and original research. See WP:OI in that regard.VR _talk 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo was removed again, inspite of this discussion. I've replaced. --vvarkey (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And again. Still no discussion upon removal. cojoco (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also being talked about down in #Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture Nableezy (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a different image. I translated the Arabic caption on the original image using http://translation.babylon.com/Arabic, it it came up with

"The Gaza massacre December 2008 dozens of Palestinian policemen dead after the bombing of all Palestinian security headquarters in the Gaza Strip"

So I think it would be safe to say that they're policemen cojoco (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, there are like 4 image discussions going on, got mixed up. (think it is time i weaned myself off my wiki-crack) Nableezy (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it again. 23prootie removed it with the comment "Week of air strikes: better if the image is about women or children, overcrowding hospitals or the UN being target toget more symphathy votes, alsowhy aren't Israeli victims shown?" cojoco (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it again for a third time, still with no discussion from 23prootie. This time it was removed on Copyright grounds, but it is a legitimate Wikipedia image on the Arabic wiki with a licence that needs translation. I can see no reason to remove the image.

Proposed rules from discussion below:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).--23prootie (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pro-Israeli photo added with silly caption added by user:Mbz1

"Side by side and the world apart. While the[the pro-israeli] demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, [pro-Palestinians] demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a caption is definitely inappropriate. Unless the image is edited to remove or change this description, it should be taken out of the article and possibly deleted completely. I think the image would be fine, if the caption was changed to something more neutral, or if there was no text at all (since the file page already has a description as is). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Already changed it. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the description associated with the file's page has been edited, the image itself includes a caption that needs to be cropped (since it's not text that can be edited). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought this issue to the talk page and lodged another complaint about how the article is becoming increasingly pro-X. It's not like there was anything you could have done about it, like, I dunno, cropping the image. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that image was to make that point. It's just confusing otherwise. I'm putting up some more tomorrow for people to choose from. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh I cannot the crop the image because um the article is locked. An um I can not change and upload the image because it is not mine. And I have a problem with the image itself, as it clearly put together to compare the protesters. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: it's not like you could have signed up for an account, downloaded the current image, and uploaded the edited image. Anyone with an account on Commons can upload images, and anyone can overwrite someone else's image. -- tariqabjotu 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction, I would still have to wait 10 days so that my account can be autoconfirmed and even had I opened an account 3 days ago, I would still be limited to voicing my suggestions in the talk page where I still have to deal with annoying sarcastic remarks.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone with an account on Wikimedia Commons can upload images. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not hearing me out. I am not advocating the cropping of the caption. I am suggesting that the picture be removed in its entirety! I don't have the capabilities to remove and add another picture on this locked article and that is why I "lodged another complaint" on the talk page. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this silly picture. It's clearly trying to promote a point. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn that. As if the IDF is trying to promote piece by killing and injuring thousands of people mostly women and children. Cute trick Mbz. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, please stop SOAPing. These statements are just your personal opinions and are irrelevant, at best. Rabend (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like to see yourself in a mirror,User:Darwish07?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the last version of the image was OK, and there's nothing wrong with including it in the article, since the inappropriate caption was removed. Plus, even the thumbnail quality was improved. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if the protests are related, and if they are protestting in favor of the attack to bring Shalit back I would think it is, it can stay in the article, if it is not related, if this was from a demonstration from before the strikes, it should be removed. Im sure there are pictures of pro-israel demonstrations, if this is one of them then I think it would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The silly caption has been sneaked back in. I dunno how to revert images, can someone take a look? if the creator of the image objects to it being modified, let's delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to revert to the other version of the file within Wikimedia Commons, but was unable to do so. I was probably not doing it the right way. (I've never dealt with that domain before.) So, I agree with Vvarkey - either the caption needs to be removed anew, or the image should be taken out of this article completely. I personally think the last version was OK, because it didn't have any captions within the image itself (so wasn't biased either way), and was actually of better size and outlay than the original. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of my image with no caption at all.After all the image speaks for itself and leaves no doubt who wants two state solution and peace and who wants the destruction of Israel and war. I hope this is going to be satisfactary.Here's a new caption:"Two demonstrations regarding the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.The images were taken on the same day, at the same time. The demonstrations were located across the street from each other". The image is not pro Israeli, the image is pro Peace, pro friendship and against the war and against the hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the pro-israeli signs are an expression of arrogance and self-conceited attitude. "Israeli wants peace (but only for the Israelis so we give you the green light to slaughter the Palestinians)". "Israel wishes you a terror-free day (to the israelis only, we support Israelis terrorizing the Palestinians by slaughtering them with all the weaponry they have.)" Not one of those people holding those signs are against the Israeli assault on the Gazans where they are massacring dozens of people each day. Maybe you want to stick that as a caption on the photo. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They are against the war. My heart hurts for every killed child, no mater what religion and what nationality a child is. The war was started by hamas that fires rockets to Israel while hiding behind Human shield made out of their own women and children. Hamas kills their own kids. I'm sure that as soon as rockets from Gaza to Israel stop flying there would be peace! May I please ask you to use your common sense. As you probably know Isreal withdrew from Gaza few years ago. Why in the world they would risk the lifes of their soldiers to go back? No, Israelis want peace and friendship with Palestinians and it is what my image shows.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the point where you need to step back and to take a good look at your self. The pro-Palestinian protesters are protesting the wanton killing of a helpless people who are destitute and crowded in refuge camps, while the people supporting Israel could give a damn about the lives loss on the Palestinian side just as long as Israelis are safe, as one Israeli here said the Palestinian civilians "were sacrificed for the greater good." [5] The pictures you posted are open for interpretation, and it can certainly go against your point. So keep them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But you did not answer my questions. Why after leaving Gaza Israel went back? Who benifits from this war, how and why? Do you hold hamas responsible in any way at all, or in your opinion only Israel is at fault? I'm telling you that I would sacrifice my own life for the life of a child no matter what nationality and what religion the child is. Do you? I want peace. Do you? I want two states solution. Do you? You're saying Israelis want peace for themselves, but are you agree that peace in Israel could only come together with the peace in Gaza? Please do answer my questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More subpages/move material since size expanding

1. That huge aid table should be its own list or part of Humanitarian aid for Gaza? Article has slowed down terribly since put in. Doing minor clean ups and can't even clean up my mistakes quickly it takes so long to load!
2. Incidents: there are/ will be eventually so many that needs own page anyway
3. Casualties as well, unless put together with incidents. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture

This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is relevant to this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, there have been recent demonstrations in Israel in support of Gilad Shalit, so those can go in the "Reactions" sub-article. --Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also deleted the picture and someone returned it back. This one need to be reported for clearly violating the 3 edits rule. I'm no longer permissive with people after all this shitty arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's irrelvant and politically motivated. But the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This image on the "Gilad Shalit" protest has returned. I'm going to remove it again. In fact, I left a message regarding this on User:Mbz1's talk page more than 12 hours ago here. In addition, there was discussion regarding this image yesterday with Jandrews. Apart from the question of relevance, User:Mbz1 has not provided any mainstream media sources that report on this protest. when was it held? Why is it notable? Despite the fact that these images have been reverted several times, User:Mbz1 simply claims that "If they are removed, I'll put them back". In my opinion this is inappropriate. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by Israelies, by hamas.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding no one. The repeating of a lie isn't going to make it the truth. 99 percent of the slaughtering was done by the Israelis so far.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it doesn't belong here.

i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.

as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! It is entirely relevant. The fact that there is another article on him is completely irrelevant. Just as there is a photograph of Muhammad al-Durrah on that page as well as on the Second Intifada page. I seriously question how relevancy is being established here on the basis of POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Nature of an Image

(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"

Wikipedia does not censor (as regards the snuff site comment), this was discussed above. Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's a matter of taste. Pictures of the body parts of Israeli infants strewn across a Tel Aviv street are not posted in the Second Intifada article, nor should they. WanderSage (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What photo of children are you referring to? That is a picture of slaughtered grown men, unarmed men. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a distasteful subject, visual representations of it will likely be distasteful. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose does it serve but to disgust? Anyone with any trace of humanity is going to be revolted by pictures of blown apart people, regardless of whether they are Nazis or schoolchildren. In this sense, it is POV as it appeals to raw emotionalism , while the purpose of this article is to describe and give context to the conflict in neutral detail. WanderSage (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be replaced. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not necessarily saying that it needs to stay, but the argument that it should go because it will 'revolt' some i think shouldnt be accepted. That a distasteful image is used in a article on about a military conflict in a densely populated area shouldnt be surprising. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the reader should form his opinions based on rational facts, and not highly-emotional imagery. Rabend (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah, so you're claiming that this picture isn't a rational fact, while the above picture of a group of Kassam rockets is one. Right!?? I call this information censoring, not rationality. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contest for which side is the cruelest, so stop trying to "win" all the time. I don't see a reason to post bloody images of qassam victims, since I don't try to win the world's sympathy thru sheer horror. The same goes to victims on the Palestinian side. These cheap tricks are degrading this site. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I'm just angry from some earlier discussions, so sorry. The fact is that even if there's a picture about Qassam's danger to house, we'll put it. It's not who win and who lose, it's that many in this world consider this a massacre, so the image is expected to be cruel and disgusting. Just as the other massacre images below. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, no problem. We are a little edgy over this war. Still, the fact that many consider this a "massacre", does not make it one. As you know, qassams/grads do not cause only property damage. They also kill. But I don't approve of posting a picture of a woman who was hit head-on with a rocket, her body parts all over the place. This doesn't help the neutrality/objectivity of this article, but rather mainly serves to shock the reader. The reader should be shocked by understanding the entire conflict, context and history included, and not by out-of-context horrors. Rabend (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually one of the less graphic photos depicting the carnage. There are photos of dead Gazan with dangling or missing body parts, you can't even out make out their faces. Being highly sensitive and squeamish myself, I would not have the brought up the pictures if the bodies were not intact. Articles discussing massacres/genocides/assaults wherever you call it, do have photos of the carnage, this is not the first and not the only. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The BobaFett85 captioned the picture with "...Hamas policemen..." where is he drawing this detail from? From his you know what. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely the fact that all the dead are in matching uniforms and wearing utility belts. WanderSage (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I translated the Arabic caption of the original image source, which also says "policement, and added the translation to the image. So I think it's safe to say they're policemen. cojoco (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can remember very well that those was the death of IDF attacking the Gaza police station. I'm not the one who put the "Hamas Policemen" claim, but I'll try to search for references that prove this claim. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-censored that image, but it is still available for the sic people who wants to view it. Ek!--23prootie (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia does not censor, it also does not assume the role of a tabloid or a porn site where people can put anything anywhere they like. That photo doesn't even have a correct copyright tag. Its liscensing below:

This image does not have information on its copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless it is demonstrated that this image is under an admissible free license, it will be deleted soon.

To the uploader: please provide at least a precise source (e.g. a link to the website you found the image on). A more experienced editor will then be able to help determine what its copyright status is. Without a source, it is likely to be deemed a copyright violation and deleted immediately. Please read the image use policy before making any further uploads, or ask for advice at the copyright questions noticeboard.

This tag may be removed once a correct and truthful copyright tag and a source has been added.image with no license as of 2009-01-10 (CSD F4)

Administrators: delete this file

--23prootie (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How old are you?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?--23prootie (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is NOT censored. This can be found at WP:CENSOR. Such debates have taken place in the past:
  • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where extremely controversial cartoons were a subject of debate (here). In the end it was decided that the cartoons will be displayed in their full glory.
  • Another related controversy is recorded at Talk:Muhammad/images. Once again it was decided, that no matter whose faith was offended, the images would remain, and won't be hidden.
  • Hiding images. Anyone who finds the image distasteful can configure his browser to not display the image.VR _talk 09:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. --vvarkey (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.

These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.

There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only important Sir when the Jewish community is suffering, so we can put around FIFTEEN ugly pictures of the holocaust victims. But when it comes to ONE picture of Palestinians killed, we say "EMOTIONAL", "PROPAGANDA", "The CNN STRATEGY", "eik", and "how can my cute little baby/eyes see this picture". I'm sick of bullshit arguments. This is bullshit, not logical debating, plain bullshit. This is the same bullshit as several points made in previous debates like that the UNRWA and Amnesty International is "anti israel" or BBC Arabic is not qualified as a source, or we should not say that the Arabs term the conflict as a massacre because "it's off the limit". Really, this is just clear nonsense. It's the same bullshit argumenting method people like Alan Dershowitz's use when he's debating with Norman Finkelstein. ENOUGH is ENOUGH. This is not about systematic bias, it is about blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, those images from the Holcaust are in the public domain as well, also you cannot seriously compare the current crises in Gaza to the Shoah. If this is Genocide, it is the most inept genocide in history. Simply put, there are more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank then they were when Israel was founded. Hell, there are more Israeli ARABs in Israel then there were Arabs in all of Palestine in 1946. Also, unless you believe in the Nazi ideas of the Jews, Jewish Germans and Jewish Poles did not blow up buses in Potsdam, Vienna or Kiel, Germany was not surrounded by Jewish neighbors who sought to annihilate her (all Nazi complaints that France and the Soviet Union were dominated by Jews belong in Mein Kampf and not reality). The situations are not comparable, and if Israel was as aggressive as the Reich, they could've occupied and not given up Syria and Jordan by now, having crushed them in several wars. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this issue becoming yet another controversy ? I really struggle to understand why on Earth anyone could seriously object to images on the basis of their graphic nature. Reality isn't propaganda. If we can get good images of the results of the actions of preferably both sides in this conflict we should probably consider ourselves honoured. And bear in mind that some of the external links are of a very graphic nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSED. I am opposed to the use of graphic images in regards to this conflict. The first reason is that the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime. The second reason is that these images are very rarely copyrighted, and the final reason is that they are both inflammatory and it is impossible to know which images are genuine from an ongoing conflict. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with Valentine Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with V. Joe as well. Rabend (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

V. Joe, regarding "the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime", can you supply a source to confirm that. I've not heard that before. I assume it's more complicated than that since there are photos of dead people in many articles in wikipedia as others have demonstrated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That claim is untrue, the photography of POW by their captors is a war crime, photography of the dead by journalists is most certainly not. And if there was a photograph of Israeli civilian dead I am near certain it would be included. Some of the people voicing these concerns are objecting to this because it makes 'their side' look bad, for that there isnt much a response, others are rejecting it because it is gory or otherwise objectionable, prior wiki decisions have determined that this is not a valid reason for not including images. If there is a copyright problem, that should end all debate until a free-use image is found, and the image with issue removed. But just because an image is gory, which should not be surprising in a war zone, is not enough reason to exclude it. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Current lack of images

Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.

Wikipedia is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Wikipedia is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No Sir, we'll be "emotinal", "CNN Method Conspiracy Theoretic" and "propagandistic". You want our lovely Wikipedia to aid the terrorist organization Hamas by showing the pictures??!!!! --Darwish07 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first that you were being sarcastic. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images should not be censored at all. This is an article regarding war, any reader will expect images depicting this. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a place where war is a fun game for all and death something like we see in the movies. Removing or censoring these images is very wrong. Superpie (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I agree that the use of the term is somewhat inappropriate, but I think that these sort of images can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only that, putting in graphic pictures in the middle of this war is not appropriate. The pictures' legitimacy has not been established. Just as France 2 recently had to apologize for putting out pictures of an unrelated incident from 2005 and claiming it belongs to this conflict, the pictures MUST be verified before we use them at wiki. Putting up pictures of this nature now is mere propaganda and should be left to news agencies NOT wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No copyvio, no gaming the system

I hate copyright laws with a passion, and the issues here are a clear example of why the system is broken. However, the system exists, and we must respect it. Wikipedia will cease to exist if copyright holders sue us for continuous copyright violations. I understand all the due weight positions, but this is resolved by no putting pictures, it is not resolved by faking copyrights, using ambiguity, and otherwise trying to game the system. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The contentious image does have a copyright, and is on Wikipedia, but it is in Arabic. Can somebody who can read the original licence please transfer it to English Wikipedia, or, alternatively, delete the image if it is a copyright violation? The image on Arabic and English wikipedia are here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza_2008.jpg
• http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-2.jpg

cojoco (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of international law

The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs argues that Hamas violates the Rome statute: "Utilizing the presence of a civilian […] to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations." However, as the Israeli shelling of a school did demonstrate, the presence of a civilian does not appear to render it to be immune from military operations, and thus does not violate the Rome statute. This appears to be an amusing inconsistency. cojoco (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas violates the Rome statutes, then the IDF does. It has taken several years to argue before the Israeli Supreme Court that the persistent use by the IDF of Palestinians as human shields is illegal. The Court at one point agreed it was a violation of international law. The IDF persisted in the practice, even in 2007. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable source alleging the IDF to do so in THIS conflict? For the Hamas we have plenty, which for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Omrim (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite the sources. Who is close enough on the ground to know? It is a generic accusation that Hamas is positioned within civilian areas, as Haganah in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem under siege, was positioned on rooftops and houses in civilian areas, and told to shoot from there. This, as I said elsewhere, is just, as far as I can see, a Hasbara strategem, as repeated in 2006, where it was largely found to be untrue (different kind of battle), to insinuate Hamas are cowards for doing what Israel never does. Well Israel's IDF used human shields for more than a decade, against court orders. If Hamas is proven, as opposed to generic claims, to use shields in this way, by direct observation, then by all means edit that info in, hopefully from a reliable source. The assumption is, of course, that when you are under a siege, the honourable thing to do is to walk down the road, into the fields beyond your town, dig a trench or two under the drone photographing you in real time, so that when your adversary shoots, both you and he will not have ethical problems. No army in the history of the world has ever done that. Well, Leonidas did something similar, but I still ask why the largest mall in Israel, Azrieli shopping centre, is right next to Kirya military headquarters, Israel's defence ministry, not to speak of how ndefence industries are placed in Nazareth. Hypocrisy, in short. But very effective as a propaganda tool, admittedly.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN:Any reliable source alleging the IDF IS DOING so in THIS conflict? I thought not, more baseless allegations by Pro-Hamas/Palestinian editors. For Hamas we have plenty, which seems to be there modus operendi and for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not using the proper header originally. Regardless of all of the above (which is important), do the first two lines of the By Palestinian militants section seem out of place? They come across as a rebuttal.Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes made: /* By Palestinian militants */ International views which should come after participants so moved UN views. Allegations moved before rebuttalCptnono (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre" (again)

This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English wikipedia not al jezeera et al.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should not represent the Arab name? What kind of argument is that? Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Not what I said or meant, what I meant was: Wikipedia is NPOV and that the title should also be NPOV. However, I have nothing against the how it is known in the Arab world being in the lead along with Operation cast Lead. I believe that there is plenty of precedent for that in wikipedia. I also remember Black Saturday Massacre being in the lead for awhile.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And having just checked, it still is.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[28] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]"--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because it was reverted after tundrabuggy put this in (multiple times). And I agree with you the title needs to be NPOV, that is why the title of the article is 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. No one is suggesting to use the arab name as the title, just having the arab name along with the israeli name. Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians

Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk)

I would agree if we had 'civilian' totals, but all the sources say explicitly that the counts only include 'women and children.' That potential includes any women or children who are 'militants' and discounts any men who are 'civilians.' As it is, I think it would be incorrect to substitute the wording the sources use in relation to the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. In this kind of fighting it may be impossible to distinguish fighters from civilians, so that "women and children" are the best proxy for "civilians" which we have. The effect on neutrality may be hard to judge, as this may under-estimate the number of civilians. cojoco (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent but since the numbers are primarily estimates a few (at least percentage wise) off is not a concern. The deaths of women and children have historically been held in a different regard then those of men. I believe the consistent use of those terms impacts neutrality but still needs to be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.88.215 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009

But we have no idea how much off the numbers of 'women and children' would be with total civilian. Up to 100% of the women and children could conceivably be 'militants' and up to 100% of the men could be 'civilians.' If we can find a source for civilian then we should put that in its place, but we dont have any sources that give a 'civilian' casualty count. I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that. Reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceivable yes but not probable. All fun debate aside I don't think anyone truly believes the scenarios you laid out. Sources need to be used but turning an eye to what is reality while allowing an article to become increasingly less neutral is more of a concern than what exact term is used. Women and children are not the focus of this article. Women and children have a greater impact on the reader. There will be a proper place when we are not dealing with estimates and preliminary numbers. It should be there but not at such an extent. Also, is the breakdown of women and children often used in the casualty tables of other military conflicts? (not trying to be contradictory or snide with that last bit) Edit: "I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that." Totally reasonable by the way but I think we will start running into more encompassing numbers pretty soon. Sounds OK for now.

I dont even believe that the scenario is true, just trying to show that we cant say that 'women and children' == 'civilians.' I would ask anybody else with an opinion to either concur or object to the idea me and person above me agreed to, namely: 'a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that' Nableezy (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And once we have some sources that report the 'civilian' count, I'm all for having that as the standard without qualification. Nableezy (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The UN said that civilian casualties, defined only as women and children, were 62..." Was that you Nableezy? Are smiley faces bad form in discussion pages? In all seriousness, the article is getting updated with recent events but this section (along with several others) are running the risk of getting jumbled since the previous day's news isn't being integrated correctly/removed.67.170.88.215 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me like 2 weeks ago, I assume that has been updated with more recent stats. That line came from the first few days. Nableezy (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And looking at the current article, that line looks fine, it is clearly preface by 'On December 31' in the opening of the paragraph. But this seciont is seriously dated and needs more recent info, it as if everything that is in writing about civilian casualties stopped on Dec 31, so the reader looking at the graphs next to it would see this 62 number without any further follow up and assume that it represent the present numbers. This should certainly be remedied by adding more up to date information, or just replacing most of the info with up to date info. I dont think we need to know that as of Dec 31 62 were dead, and as of Jan 5 100 (i dont know the numbers just an example), we should just state that as of (most recent date were numbers are available) this many of these people were killed. Nableezy (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that line before the women and children discussion came up recently so I got a kick out of it when I did finally notice. I assume a section devoted to civilians will have to be worked on or tied in a little cleaner after the dust settles.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think someone who isnt coming up on 3rr should try to update and rework it now, with the beginning referencing how civilian is defined for each side and using the term civilian then on. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun Casualties figures

Most media outlets (CNN[6], NYT [7] just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?--Omrim (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? The "Jenin Massacre" story all over again... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If these are the updated figures then go ahead and update the article. Rabend (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 11, 2007 New York Times says 93 Palestinian women dead

Israeli Troops Push Into Gaza City in Day of Fierce Fighting. By Steven Erlanger and Ethan Bronner. Jan. 11, 2009. New York Times.

The number is in the notes section of the infobox until more recent numbers from well-known media or wire services are found. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Raid Gaza!

Placed the section here since it is awkwardly located n in the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. The makers don't represent a international entity so it shouldn't be there but should it be here?--23prootie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Raid Gaza! is of such little notability that it should not be included in the (already long) article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But where should it be placed?--23prootie (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF on dead. "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas

We should use the on-the-record number in the infobox not the 550 number in my opinion.

In a closed-door briefing a high-ranking army officer said Israeli troops had killed more than 550 Palestinian fighters since the operation began, a senior military official told AFP.

Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal declined to confirm the number but said "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas, had been killed since Israel launched its offensive on December 27.

Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

The multi-use wikicode for the ref is <ref name=afp2009jan10/>

Publicly, the IDF is saying "several hundred." In my opinion that is the number we should ascribe to them since that is the number they stand by publicly. Otherwise this 550 number sounds like original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All these figures are rubbery. We have 879 death, composed of more than 550 Hamas fighters (IDF) and 444 civilians (MoH), which of course means we have 879 deaths, or 994 deaths somehow, i.e, a disparity of more than 115. The MoH one is quite specific, the IDF one is a round figure, based on principles that do not discriminate between Hamas administrative people (police cadets) and militants.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is probably why publicly the IDF is no longer claiming that only one quarter of the Palestinian dead are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok at this point it is clear that IDF shouldn't be quoted since the numbers simply don't add up. The IDF's numbers are also unclear (do they include policemen?). I'm removing the IDF claim from the infobox.VR _talk 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

MoH gives no number for total number of civilian dead

I don't think we should put a total number like 444+ in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilian dead. MoH has not made an estimate for the total number in awhile. That 444+ number came from a Wikipedia editor totaling up numbers for children, women, elderly, aid workers, etc.. that the MoH has given.

That total number is original research on our part. Plus that total does not include civilian men who were killed. Also, there is some unavoidable duplication between the numbers for women and elderly.

Readers can follow the references and decide. We let the readers decide what to believe. By the way, linked below is an article about the MoH source, and this article puts all these numbers in perspective:

The macabre count of a doctor in Gaza. Jan. 11, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

I think it should just say "see notes" or "several hundred" in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilians.

I think using total numbers for fighters or civilians puts words in the mouth of IDF and MoH spokespeople. See the previous talk section.

That is original research on our part. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but let's wait to hear what others have say as this is a very controversial issue.--Omrim (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for addressing tensions over imagery

I have reviewed the most recent discussion over the inclusion of graphic imagery into the article from Gaza. I also weighed in with my opinion at one point, arguing essentially that images are used as documentary records and importantly as tools for "imagining."

By that I mean they are used to help viewers come to approach and understanding of events that are difficult to comprehend because of their extreme nature. I drew from the example of the WWII Holocaust because this is easily the most obvious example. The enormity of suffering during that period is incomprehensible to those who were not present. In an attempt to render it intelligible photographic representations have routinely been included in nearly all accounts of that moment in history. (One need only pause and reflect on how much of our collective "imagination" of the suffering during the Holocaust has been formed by graphical representations and semi-fictionalized film accounts to see the important role these media have played in conveying the weight of the Holocaust).

The current conflict has been characterized by the high number of deaths of civilians, especially women and children. During this conflict there have been instances where entire families have been wiped out with only one or two members remaining. Hundreds of children have been killed. The gravity of these incidents deserve a multimedia account to help render them in our minds. An accurate presentation of these events would not exclude that in my opinion and I am unmoved by arguments to exclude such representations based on their "graphic" or "distasteful" nature alone.

I am more concerned with issues of licensing, authenticity of images and the unqieu difficulties of assembling and formatting images in a slightly disorganized article of an ongoing conflict. Therefore my current proposal for addressing our contentions is the following:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).

This proposal resolves the issues of licensing and authenticity since the cited source would be responsible for determing both. Please discuss this proposal as a possible (temporary) resolution to our disagreement over image inclusions.

(PS. I noticed someone removed the pictures I included from the wiki Holocaust page. I want to emphasize again that I'm not trying to draw direct, general, parallels to the Holocaust nor am I trying to accuse Israel of a systematic, intentional genocide as was carried out in the Holocaust. as I noted above I've drawn a limited comparison to the Holocaust because of the notable use of multi-media approaches to developing an account of that period and the traditional inclusion of images into nearly all accounts of the Holocaust.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).

I have seen this done in Wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Superb idea. This approach will also make it possible to put a disclaimer above the link, allowing readers to make the choice whether or not to look at images truly representative of the massacre.

How about the "Gaza Kill and Maim" series at cryptome.org?--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps of some use

'This is one of the reasons the air attack was carried out as a surprise. The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded. . . It is not clear, for example, what advantage or military gain stems from the intentional killing of a hundred or more Palestinian policemen standing on parade. Reuven Pedatzur, 'The mistakes of Cast Lead,‘, Haaretz 08/01/2009

They are classified as terrorists and militants by the IDF's Hamas kill sheet. In fact they were part of the civilian administrative infrastructure's personnel. Police forces, anywhere, are not counted as part of the military. These were then civilians hit without warning, despite the frequent rhetoric about Israel's purity of arms, and the distinction between civilians and militants.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are incorrect Nishidani, in many countries, Burma, India, and Indonesia to name a few, the police are part and parcel of the military. Even to the point of being part of the Ministry of Defense. Then there is the fact that no countries police are exactly alike. For instance the police in the UK do not regularly carry firearms while the Carabinieri are heavily armed. Many police forces are in reality paramilitary forces, see Constabulary, gendarmerie and national guard. Plus many of the paramilitary forces operating in the Middle East and the world may maintain their own military police when the organizations themselves are considered terrorist organizations in the countries that they operate. The real question is are the "police" maintained by Hamas actually police or an extension of their paramilitary. Was this a way to legalise the continuous existence of armed Hamas combatants?--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me that the early 'neutral' wiki did have in it the fact that the minute choswen for the attack coincided with the precise time for children to be released from schools in Gaza, and one report said something of the order of 200,000 were in the streets at that time. This has been elided of course.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can prove intention in this case. And I hope you're not suggesting that Israel planned the attack so that as many school kids as possible will be killed. Rabend (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Pedatzur said mass killing of policfe cadets who were civil service people, not militants, was intentional. Many sources noted that the timing coincided with the time children left school and were on their way home. Whatever the intention, the effect was that of creating a very large street audience to admire the precision bombing of 100 targets in 4 minutes. Stuff pour encourager les autres. I'll try to find the BBC reports I read on this tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Palestinian children attend school on saturdays. Rabend (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Palestinians are not Americans and Europeans, they probably go to school from Sat to Wed (take Thurs and Fri off) like other people do in some Muslim countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rabend (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article is illogical

Israel is a political entity, a country; Gaza is a geographic name and denotes neither a country nor political entity. More accurate would be 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas conflict or 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas war. David Shankbone 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See /Requested Move 4 January 2009. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a name for a geographical entity listed as such everywhere, a place which, under US sponsorship and auspices, held elections. In the elections, duly approved as properly conducted, a political entity, Hamas, won, and took over the administration of this geographical entity. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Gaza is a city and the 'geographical entity' is The Gaza Strip. The various issues with the title and introduction to this article are currently being thrashed out on their own talk page. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your title suggests that Israelis are at war with Hamas, which is highly inaccurate. It should be called Israeli assault on Gaza as it is an invasion and assault on an entire city of people whereby non-Hamas members are slaughtered in large numbers. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Falastine... I don't think so. Rabend (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal views and soap boxing aside, Gaza has been more commonly used to refer to this conflict than Hamas.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current name is more accepted. Rabend (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Please stop all the indenting, the paragraphs are only 5 inches wide on my browser.

2. The title should remain "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". we need to wait until the dust settles,which it will, and then we can d-i-s-c-u-s-s this like the rational people that WE ALL are.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - 1) it's a bit useless to ask people to structure their responses to satisfy your particular monitor settings; and 2) I thought the discussion above was quite rational. --David Shankbone 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The trouble with elections and democracies in general is that you can only vote for those who run or are allowed to run." Lyndon Larouche--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo copyright

Description from Arabic Wikipedia as translated by Google Translate: Copyrighted

هذا العمل له حقوق محفوظة و غير مرخص. و لكنه يندرج تحت أحد بنود الاستعمال العادل استعمال عادل للصور أو استعمال عادل للملفات الصوتية. على أية حال، الشخص الذي أضاف هذه البطاقة يصرح أن استعمال هذا العملِ في المقالة "مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008" هو لتوضيح العمل في المقالة في صفحات الويكيبيديا العربية، المستضافة على خادمات في الولايات المتّحدة. مؤسسة ويكيميديا اللاربحية، ويتأهل تحت بند استعمال عادل تحت قانون حقوق النشر الأمريكي. أيّ استعمالات أخرى لهذه الصورة، قد يشكل خرقا لحقوق النشر. انظر en:Wikipedia:Fair use و en:Wikipedia:Copyrights.

للشخص الذي أضاف هذا القالب، الرجاء وضع تعليق تشرح به سبب احتمال خضوع هذه الصورة للاستعمال العادل.

[عدل] أسباب الاستخدام العادل

أسباب الاستخدام العادل

  1. عدم وجود نسخة حرة من معارك تاريخها اليوم 27 ديسمبر 2008
  2. رفعت الصور بدقة منخفضة
  3. معظم من في الصورة متوفون في المعارك
  4. حدث تاريخي تصفه كثير من الأطراف بجريمة حرب وهي أكبر عملية قتال ضد الفلسطينيين منذ عام 1967
  5. ستستخدم الصورة كوسيلة توثيقية معلوماتية لدعم رواية الحدث.

تاريخ الملف

اضغط إحدى وصلات تاريخ/وقت لترى الملف كما كان في هذا الوقت.

opyrighted

This work has rights reserved and non-licensed. , But it falls under one of the items on the fair use of the fair use of images or just use the audio file. In any case, the person who said this card says that the use of this work in the article "Gaza massacre in December 2008" is to explain in the article in the pages of Arab Aloueckebedea, hosted on maids in the United States. Profit Wikimedia Foundation, and qualify under fair use under U.S. copyright law. Any other uses of this image, may constitute a breach of copyright. See en: Wikipedia: Fair use and en: Wikipedia: Copyrights.

The person who added this template, please explain the reason for the suspension of the possibility that such use of the image to the fair.

Employment, equitable

   1. The absence of a free copy of the history of battles today December 27, 2008
   2. The pictures accurately low
   3. Most of the dead in the picture in the fighting
   4. It describes a historic event, many of the parties, the biggest war crime of the process of fighting against Palestinians since 1967
   5. Will be used as a photo documentary information to support the version of the event.

History file

Click one of the links to the date / time to view the file as it was at this time.

[Changed] the causes of fair use --23prootie (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reservists

Earlier in the conflict Israel had sent 10,000 soldiers on ground.[8] Now Israel has sent an unknown number of reservists,[9] so the 10,000 figure doesn't seem appropriate anymore. It is also unclear if the 150 soldiers wounded are still in battle or not. Therefore I've listed just the total number, as we have the Hamas total number of combatants.VR _talk 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)