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

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

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

Reference named "BBC_IslUnivGaza_bombed":

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

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

Image Bias

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

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

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

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

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

Starting point?

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

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

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

700 rockets the day israel attacked

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

NPOV

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

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

Zeitoun incident - needs subheading

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

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

January 10th's last paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

Israel's use of 'white phosphorus' scars Gazans

Human rights groups say Israel is indiscriminately using white phosphorus in Gaza's densely populated areas.

When ignited, the chemical can burn the flesh off of a person, down to the bone.

Israel says the use of white phosphorus is permitted under international law, although it hasn't openly admitted using the chemical.

Ayman Mohyeldin visits the burns ward of a Gaza hospital and finds many Palestinians badly scarred.

       Maybe it's because it isn't true? http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/280740.php