Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The big question is: should the image at right be included in the article?
Infant killed in an explosion in the Zeitoun attack [1]
There have been a couple discussions surrounding this image, so I'll do my best to accurately summarize arguments made by both sides. Note that proponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the first section and opponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the second section:
Those for the image have said:
The picture accurately represents the fact that there were more than 1,000 Palestinian casualties, including more than 300 children killed.
The image is graphic, but removing it on that basis constitutes censorship.
There is little to no distinction between babies and children; the fact that the child pictured is a baby rather than an older child is irrelevant.
No other free images of equal or superior quality or worth are available.
Considering the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths is ~100:1, images of Palestinians killed should outnumber images of Israelis killed.
It is infeasible to create a "typical" image of a Palestinian victim, as the metrics for choosing what's typical can be arbitrary.
Those against the image have said:
The image is gruesome and graphic, and is not central enough to the article to be considered necessary to convey the article's information.
The subject of the image is not a representative victim; it shows the most vulnerable, defenseless victim rather than a typical victim.
The difference between a baby and an older child is significant and/or meaningful.
The use of the image is an attempt to moralize the situation, eliciting sympathy for Palestinians rather than simply illustrating the content of the article.
The source of the image is questionable; it may not be an actual baby and/or the baby may have died in an unrelated event.
(A combination of multiple points here) The images are tabloid-like and sensationalist.
There have also been complaints that some are alleging political bias where there is none.
All comments are welcome (particularly from outside editors). Refinement, clarification, and addition of points are also welcome. -- tariqabjotu23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add one fact, which is relevant and which has not been raised until now. The source of the photo, the International Solidarity Movement, has been previously accused of using deception in presentation of photographs, specifically to support their version of the events surrounding the death of Rachel Corrie. Some of the info is available on the two marked Wikipedia articles. The question whether the accusation was correct may become relevant should the issue eventually boil down to the reliability of the source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal if other image of unquestionably civilian casualties found, if no suitable alternative is found then keep - I am reversing my position although not 180 degrees. Jimbo's argument persuaded me to ponder the "dignity" angle more, and to a lesser extent the propaganda aspect. I find the arguments about moralizing, sensationalism, etc, to have little merit, and to a certain extent disingenious: we have an image in the background section of a ruined house that is not even connected to the events in the article, yet we see no objections from the same people arguing for exclusion: human dignity should be considered for all or not considered at all. We are not required to hide relevant content because it might offend one side of a dispute: we are required to give it a neutral context. I think the encyclopedic quality of this article is improved by having graphic depictions of the consequences of military action, regardless of the side. That said, if other alternatives are present, we can make an editorial desicion to go with those other alternatives to illustrate the article - because there is no argument that a charred baby is a strong statement with emotional implications. --Cerejota (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I further reverse. I assumed the picture was from Al-Jazeera. ISM could be a reliable source, but not in this case. Even if I personally disagree with much of the controversy, the controversy exists and is not a fringe thing. So we should have casualty pictures, but it shouldn't be this baby picture or any other by the ISM subjected to controversy.--Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the background section is, as you said, in the background section. Of course the picture in that section would be from prior to this conflict, as that's when background occurs. It's illustrating part of the casus belli for Israel launching this operation (although one might argue that this might be a better image -- but that's for another discussion). As for another picture to replace the dead baby picture, you may want to peruse some of the images at Commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. -- tariqabjotu01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with you that image belongs in the background section. That was not my point: my point is that the equal argument that it is propaganda could be made - and I find it invalid in both cases. Depicting the devastation and destruction of war is a key encyclopedic responsibility of an encyclopedia that can afford to do so because it is not paper. --Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is inflammatory - I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory, by both the photographer (or artist) and those who would like to see it in the article. In an opinion piece, or a persuasive argument of some other sort, to inflame or encourage a passionate response can be a legitimate goal. This is not an opinion piece, but an encyclopedia article. The purpose of the article is to convey information, and while there is no question that images provide valuable information I find the argument that this image is necessary for this article unconvincing. At the very least, practical concerns should prevent us from using this image. It is the most likely of nearly any image to provoke strong reactions in readers, and therefore the most likely to be a continuing source of dispute and controversy. Rather than put the article and its editors through that, and since the image is not crucial to the article subject, we should refrain from using it. Avruch T 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some doubts as to the origin of the photo, the truth of what it depicts, and whether it would be ethical of us to post this image with a description that takes a position on its origin or veracity (especially, and most importantly, without clear permission of whatever family might be involved). Avruch T 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i've been watching this for a while and i have always sided with inclusion of photos of palestinian civilian casualties, as that is one of the most notorious effects of this war. i also agree that there are many articles on wiki that show horrific photos of victims, both dead and alive, so concerns over the graphic nature of it didn't seem relevant. if, however, the photo isn't verifiable, well thats another story. i dont have much experience with the technical aspects here yet, so i'll leave that to the pros. i definitely agree that npov isn't achieved by presenting each side in a 1 for 1 fashion, as that gives undue weight to a less prominent factor. Untwirl (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photos of palestinian civilian casualties is hard to see but it should be there. It gives the hartbreaking true that war is awfull and civilian have been indirectly (?) massacred in a grusom way. Probably will bring the responsibles jail for warcrimes. The removal is without concensus and should be reverted. If the photo of the dead baby is claimed to be unverifiable it must be presented stronger indications first. Up to now its fair to use. Brunte (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the inclusion — I think it can be agreed on that the graphic nature of this photograph is not a reason to remove it from the article. Images related to the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, and the Rwandan Genocide are also graphic. Unfortunately, the graphic nature of these images is necessary to accurately portray the respective historical events. Since the majority of civilian casualties in this war were Gazan children (according to this article), the image would fit within the context of the casualty section. As for the source, I do wish there was more to work with, but it seems certain to me that the image shows a baby killed in Gaza during this war. Additionally, I also think it is ridiculous to cast a leery eye on to the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). User: Jalapenos do exist previously mentioned that the ISM has used photographs to misrepresent events, but this is totally irrelevant since we are not including the circumstances surrounding the infant’s death other than he or she was killed as a result of Israeli military activity in Gaza, which is a more than reasonable assertion.
I would also like to specifically address Avruch’s concerns. I would question the relevance of the photographer’s intent in taking this picture, since it does not alter what is being portrayed. Furthermore I see nothing that would suggest the image is fraudulent or that the image does not originate from Gaza. Lastly, I do think it is unfortunate that there is no way to ensure that there was family consent, but this too is irrelevant as there is nothing from precluding such images in the official Wikipedia policy. – Zntrip02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another user Tundrabuggy reverted without discussion. What to do. Can someon act? Reverting on ground of non concensus when not building concensus in any direction seems close to vandalism in this situation Brunte (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He and brewcrewer think that there is some sort of discussion on the Al-jazeera photos, who is going to be the one to let them know that the discussions are a figment of their imagination? Not me, I had enough. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to comment on this particular picture this time or discuss ISM or dignity issues (apart from to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is presumably the ultimate guideline here) but I would like to say the following. Are we all sure that the dispute about this image is really about this image ? I wonder what would happen if all of the people who object to this particular image were to give a commitment that including one or more graphic images of Palestinian dead and/or injured is necessary for this article and that they would not object to their inclusion in principal even if the image were a child. It might make a big difference. I'll also add that statements like "I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory" aren't helpful. I'm not going to spell out why they aren't helpful. It should be obvious, unlike people's intentions. Sean.hoyland - talk02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: IMO the image is unnecessarily sensationalistic, i.e. it can be reasonably expected that an average reader will have an unusual reaction to the picture. In principle I'm against removing pictures on the basis of content, but that assumes that the picture's subject matter itself is the only thing being disputed—here the image has more than that, and it smells like that the image is trying to ride the coat-tails of an anti-censorship argument, since the idea that young people are being hurt can be expressed equally well by a different image. Note that I haven't appealed to the actual subject matter this article talks about… 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) PS: It seems that my concern is the same as Avruch's above. Might I add, that even if others have been doing some gymnastics with other pictures, this picture possesses its own "objectionability" (in the sense of "it is able to be described as objectionable") and that objectionability is the only thing that should be discussed. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that a picture like this is seen as requiring a speedy response. That discussion seemed to go on for ever. [Opinion time: I'm all for not doing anything in the case of no consensus but discussions on this subject in particular seem to be poisoned by the idea that one's obligations from their opinion on the issue extend also to Wikipedia articles. If this article was about a non-personal/technical/abstract historical topic then I have a very good feeling that less attention would be paid and the image would probably have been removed a long time ago.] 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point I really don't care what happens with this pic. I should not have uploaded it in the first place since pictures of casualties Palestinian casualties are not accepted. It is strange that in a culture that glorifies killing in horror movies and video games, people find this image offensive and inflammatory. FYI, I find horror movies disturbing and I would never watch them and strangely I grew up in the US with friends and brothers who like this stuff. Maybe it's the culture that contributes to their and others' disconnect. It's what leads people in the cyberworld and in the real world to say that the killing of Gazans is for the greater good because the Israelis are doing the right thing, the Gazans can take it. I guess it would be wrong for us to let these people see an image like this, it might actually persuade them into thinking that this assault is anything other than a game of shooting the bad guys, what's worse is that by seeing this image, they might see that children, who remind them of their own children and siblings, are victims too, 1/3 of the victims to be exact. I guess I will have to end my efforts behind the inclusion of the dead infant image now. But all this is not going to keep me from uploading other pictures to the commons, they can be used in other Wikipedias, as the Wikipedians there are not afraid to show reality. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment In fact, there were several other discussions relating to this image which have not been mentioned, here, here, and here. The third is a discussion especially relevant to the concerns about the photo's origin that lead to the comments made on Jimbo's page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling them up. The third discussion is a good one, and if retention was made on the basis of such arguments I'd accept it. Unlike the other two it makes no reference to the subject matter itself. [I read the wrong discussion. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)] I usually go for historical and mathematics articles where "personal opinion" … um … simply doesn't exist. The reason why I put emphasis on "no personal opinion" is because otherwise edits are coloured by the opinions of the ones making them (this is itself addressed in the discussions too :D), which seems to be the hidden source of the disputes in the other two threads.[reply]
As for the source of the picture itself, IMO it is irrelevant. It could come from major international media, a government, anyone at all. The only reason why source is important is to establish the point of view of the picture's taker. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for alternative picture proposals There's been an argument made that this picture is not "representative" of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza. Now that other images have become available (whereas when this discussion started there were no alternatives to the picture besides erasing it from the page) it would be see some alternative pictures that could be used, especially from those who have advocated removing the picture in the past. I'll go first. How about this picture that Tundrabuggy just erased from the page? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there pictures which don't show faces or skin? Perhaps body bags or tent hospitals or the like, which can still put across the idea of casualties? Showing a face invokes the whole human interaction/arousing sympathy thing, which does nothing to resolve these disputes. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't use body bags at Auschwitz or My Lai and despite that the images are fine for Wiki. Please, we need to get past these touchy-feely issues about blood etc. It's a distraction because it's a non-issue. Sean.hoyland - talk04:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my mentioning blood and skin is merely a consequence of not trying to arouse emotion. I'm not against picturing gross human disfigurement either, since there is a place for that (e.g. articles on what happened in Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 1945), and so I'm not against the pics for Nazis, My Lai, Japan in Asia, nuclear bombs etc etc. My disagreement is that in this topic in particular, the effect of the picture is far greater than just informing people; it serves to shape opinion on current affairs which I am strongly against. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "propaganda argument" which can be use equally by both those who want to include or exclude the photo. ("It's propaganda to include this picture!" "No it's propaganda to exclude it!") Personally, I find the argument to be unconvincing. Also, if you don't want to take part in affecting world opinion through this page, one might suggest that wikipedia is not the project for you. It has been said that "knowledge is power". Thus the absence of knowledge might be said to be powerlessness. This is a project aimed at empowering people by providing them with free, reasonably accurate information. Thus, we provide people with information concerning current events, sometimes through visual depictions of those current events.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd go for including/excluding images on a "case by case" basis. I'd support this image in preference to the "burnt baby" pic (sorry for being a bit too blunt) for sure. But if a different image comes up which may be in turn more strongly preferred than this (how? I don't know) then I'd go for that depending on the arguments in favour of that image.
As far as replacing the burnt baby pic with this one in particular, I support.
Strongly support User:Tariqabjotu. It is frustrating when editors like Tundrabuggy and brewcrewer so hardhaned try to move away all pictures in the discussion about one of them. IP 118.90.104.151, the third picture was a inside of a morgue. Brunte (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...why don't we just put a big white sheet over the whole article with a sign saying "Move long. Nothing to see here" ? Come on, how does this image help the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is mute about the objective reality of the event. It doesn't help a reader understand what happened. Someone wrote a good comment about what we should be doing with images. I'll try to find it in the archives. Sean.hoyland - talk04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must echo Sean.hoyland's concern. This is an image of a sheet, not a body. I suppose we really must ask ourselves in this discussion, why should we have an image of a body, especially a graphic image. The answer I think is that it conveys the stark reality of death that has occurred. But, even more so in this case, that reality of death must be a widely accepted reality. Because if it was not, it makes it appear that we here at wikipedia are pushing one version of "reality" for some political reason. That, I think is perhaps why the inclusion of images of dead, naked Nazi concentration camp victims piled into a grotesque tower don't cause people to bat an eye (in the sense that they belong on the page). We have collectively come to accept that picture as an adequate representation of the millions that died under similar circumstances. There is a problem here with the image of the burned babies in that we have not collectively come to associate this conflict as generally resulting in the burning to death of babies, although that has obviously taken place at least once. I would argue though that if we are forced to pick only one image, I would opt for the picture of the dead girl's face for the following reason. It is evocative of the deaths of civilians (particularly children) during this conflict which has become a major issue in the worldwide press which I have no doubt has effect the course of the way the war was fought and ended. I can't actually tell who's under that sheet in the picture above so it is almost meaningless to me. It could be a Hamas soldier, or a Israeli soldier, an adult or a child.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify my own stance, I see no reason why only one picture of Palestinian casualties must be used on this very long article. I find the picture of the burned baby to be stark and horrible reminder of the terribleness of war - obviously this is opinion - and the need to resort to violent conflict only as a last resort. I do not see many valid reasons for why the picture should be excluded based on policy, but I do see some strong arguments for why it should not succeed based on aesthetic reasons, for example, that there might be more representative pictures. At this point, however, I continue to support inclusion.)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The girl on the picture (even though she is dead), she looks like she could be alive, and I think that would be a picture that people who don't want to see the truth about wars would rather have, I still think the burnt child is a better representation. — CHANDLER#10 — 04:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no matter what image is chosen, at least it will put across the idea of death, and some degree of "real-life-ness" has to be involved. I would be against a generic morgue pic myself; the overfull Palestinian morgue IMO is a good candidate. The only objection is one specific to the picture itself: that face pic is of a face and only a face. If it was like this (My Lai) or this (WWII) then I'll say nothing; to me a dead Palestinian child on the street showing the whole body or something (or even like this (V'nam again)) would be preferred. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sadly YM above didn't read any of this discussion before chiming in, or he would of chose a different word than sensationalistic. The picture gets the article's topic straight to the reader. Wikipedia is not censored. Hooper (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not clear why you would say this. WP:CENSOR says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."if and only ifTundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It's a horrible picture. People come to wikipedia to read the facts, not to be shocked or educated about war - to be made to feel bad. The photographs are inflammatory. The very act of feeling sorry for the Gazan, makes people look to the Israel with hatred. Enough of the world hates Israel already that wiki does not have to help with that project. Israel did what it did in self-defense, after Hamas and some numerous Gazans have spent the last several years participating in making life miserable for Israelis in their communities and homes and synagogues, ie murdering and kidnapping and shooting thousands of rockets and mortar bombs. This fact is woefully absent both from the article and from the photographs. Just perusing the article for photos demonstrates that the editors could care less about Israel's perspective in this conflict. It is all about bad Israel. That is not encyclopedic, but exploitation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's honest. Images of children killed by the IDF using US tax payers money are facts and they need to be in the article. Everything you say about Hamas applies to Israel multiplied by several factors. These are undisputed facts supported by evidence, much of which is actually in the article. If facts are inflammatory it's not Wiki's fault. We aren't meant to be taking sides here. Sean.hoyland - talk05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that you are looking out for the American taxpayers' dollar here? Mighty big of you. However, that is not particularly encyclopedic argument, but it certainly demonstrates your POV. That argument belongs in the American support for Israel article, not here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow what you mean. I'm not implying anything and it's not an "argument". I'm stating a fact consistent with objective reality which is supported by evidence in the public domain. Statements of fact just like images don't have an intrinsic POV. They're just facts, data, call it whatever you want. The POV is in the eye of the beholder and Wiki can't do much about that apart from trying to ensure that readers aren't misled by factually incorrect information, undue weight etc etc, all those rules we struggle with. The very notable fact that US taxpayers paid for this conflict is something that we, wisely in my view, decided to exclude from this article along with very notable information about the Iranian supply chain. Sean.hoyland - talk01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one there, defending Israel for killing children... You don't get the fact that most people who think Israel's actions are wrong don't "hate" Israel just for hating, but because like now they've taken overly disproportionating actions. You're saying Hamas have spend several years making life miserable for Israelis, you don't think that's an reaction to what Israelis have done to them? You seem to be one of these apologists who can't get out of the bubble of "everything Israel does is justified", "everything Palestine does is evil". Both sides are fundamentalists, they believe they've been given that piece of land by "god" and will go to any means to get it, it seems. — CHANDLER#10 — 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You really should be careful how you are characterising others' words. I am not "defending Israel for killing children." I am simply saying that the inclusion of this picture as well as a special "gallery" of dead children, is an attempt to demonise Israel. Virtually every attempt in this article to show Israel's justification for going to war with Hamas has been systematically kept out of the article. This is an ongoing conflict and Hamas is responsible for many deaths of Israeli children as well. Israelis do not put up gruesome pictures of their dead children in order to demonise Hamas. But of course your comment demonstrates your anti-Israel bias better than I could. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument against inclusion that I have heard thus far is, “the picture is sensationalistic”. This is the reality of this war. We need to include images of the victims to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information. And to Tundrabuggy: your comments are not helpful and your credibility is doubtful in light of the unwarranted removal of all images of Palestinian casualties. – Zntrip06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you again that WP:CENSOR requires "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. (my bolds) Many people here consider this photo offensive and profane. Therefore it is up to your side to demonstrate that its omission would cause the article to be less informative or accurate. The actual veracity of the photo is debatable since it comes from the highly partisan group International Solidarity Movement with a link to another partisan blog. It violates NPOV, UNDUE as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other arguments, a particularly strong one is that this image is not representative of the casualties, that we do not have any reason to think a large percentage of the casualties have been babies. Others have gone with with, what I think at least, weaker arguments about whether this image is objectionable, or whether or not it is propaganda to display. But the first argument is certainly valid. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of such an argument rests upon the acceptence of a baby category as distinct from a child category. That categorisation is implicitly derived from assumptions held by objectors. Babies are special therefore... No one has agreed to that. It's just presented as a given. To simply accept it as valid without challenge is to fall into a trap. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. e.g. religeous figures are special therefore insulting religeous figures is especially offensive. Seems reasonable enough at first glance but it is invalid. Sean.hoyland - talk08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I agree with the argument, but it is not on the same level as the cries of propaganda and displaying objectionable material. Nableezy (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I come to this discussion as an outsider who has had no input on these articles and to be honest has no interest in what is going on in the ME; i sit on the fence on who is right or wrong in the event which have just transpired and the historical background.
People will be coming to this article to get facts on what took place not to be disturbed by such an image – does it even represent the majority of casualties that took place? The image is horrific and I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV. One would also think about considering that children etc will also be using this website such photos are clearly not for all ages.
The defence that wars such as Vietnam have equally appalling images is no defence either. For example the Vietnam war article, while containing images of the dead, has nothing as horrific as this – the images on that article one would consider not to be as disturbing as this and could be viewed by all. The second response to this “defence” is that the photos from the Vietnam war, for example the girl running towards the camera after surviving an ARVN napalm strike, are iconic – has this photo achieved that level?
“A cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history.”
This comes from the wikis article on the subject - this photo is none; it is not a readily recognised image of this conflict. Photos of the aerial strikes or the Palestians rescue services etc are.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that link it also notes: "Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly" this image could, and would say can, be see as inappropriate and used for shock value.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you are able to conclude that the image is "inappropriate and used for shock value". I'm not saying that your wrong. Obviously if that is a personal opinion it can't be wrong from your perspective. I'm just saying that I don't understand what process you and others are going through to arrive at that conclusion. To me it's "just" an image of a child killed in the assault on Gaza. In that sense it's clearly appropriate from my perspective. As for shock value, I find it much less shocking than other images in Wiki like bodies piled up in death camps, rice paddies etc etc. Are you seriously suggesting that on a scale of 1 to 10 you would give this image a higher shock score than those images ? It's puzzling to me. I struggle to understand what you and others are seeing that apparently I can't see. Is it because this is a ongoing conflict rather than a historic event ? Does that make a difference to the way you measure shock value ? Having said all that, I agree with you that the image "is not a readily recognised image of this conflict" in the sense that it's encyclopedic value is reduced because it's decontextualized. Sean.hoyland - talk02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV." That would perhaps be considered a claim if the picture was a fake, which there is no evidence at all for, and no reason to believe either. Many people who have been against this picture has quite possibly wanted it removed because it shows Israel in a bad light, that would make it POV to remove it imo, trying to glorify or put any side in a brighter light than it deserves. — CHANDLER#10 — 09:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fake or not the image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - that’s POV pushing if you like it or not. To yourself and the above person who commented regarding not censoring the wiki; i come from the WW2 taskforce, that’s my area of interest - if i was to find the most offensive, brutal, distasteful, bloody photo i could find (and am sure there out there) to use on a WW2 article for a say a hypothetical war crime committed by the Germans would you suggest that it should be included? Would you not step back and ask from a neutral perspective how does it further enhance the article, how does it not push one POV (that being one side is a bunch of murdering *insert expletive here* for killing a baby etc), is it an appropriate image etc etc And if it is of a horrendous event, is it an iconic image that is easily recognised. It’s here where this image fails on all accounts.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic nature of the photo when there is surely other photos of the dead, which can be used to illustrate that yes people have died during this conflict. This conflict had two warring parties and innocents on both sides – is showing one of the most brutal images one could find depicting suffering on one side helping to show a neutral point of view? Is it enhancing the article in any way – would I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?
Its a baby, an innocent of the world - pictures of which usually bring out the compassion within a human the "awww". Here we have something which is showing a cruel, harsh death inflicted upon such a being; how do you think a viewer is going to react to that in place of say an adult death? The latter you can somewhat rationalise - "shit happens" but with an image like this your almost provoking the viewer and twisting there arm into sympathising with one side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to read the article on the jewish holocaust in world war 2, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about the 9/11 attacks in New York, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about any war shouldn't I as a human being be provoked into sympathies with the victims? In this conflict the victims are very one sided, I assure you, I feel sympathy with those on both sides who been draged into this and killed or injured when they wanted peace and co-operations between the both sides. But people on both sides have seemingly wanted war, I heard reports just yesterday that Israel had planned this war for over one year and with both extreme sides it seems wanting to exterminate each other, a child caught in the middle for me, represents this war. — CHANDLER#10 — 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The report is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You also argue the same point if Iran hadn’t supplied weapons or Hammas fired rockets this image would not have been taken? Does a single burned and crushed baby really represent this war? In years to come is this going to be the iconic image of this conflict? I somehow doubt that.
Your counter examples are flawed as they could be perceived as yourself attempting to compare them with this conflict, which would raise issues about your POV on this and why you are supporting for the inclusion of this article; as the examples highlight one sided crimes initiated against a group(s). I.e. the terrorist attack on the trade centre – that was not a conflict were death was occurring on both sides. A more compatible example would be the Anglo-American bombing of Germany and the German bombing of the UK etc
In any of those examples however do you think it is really appropriate to show a burned baby to provide visual reference, while providing a neutral POV?
In the more combatable example presented - do you think there is enough visual material of bombed buildings and mass death to provide visual evidence of what took place than a shock picture to drag the sympathies of the reader more into one camp than another? The most iconic images of the German “blitz” against London that I can think of is of firemen putting out fires, workers rescuing trapped civilians and an aerial view of the city from a German bomber. No crushed, impaled, mutated, burned etc etc babies!
With your comments one gains the impression that this image isn’t only being supported to illustrate what has happened, as stated am sure there are less brutal and more appropriate images about, but also as propaganda for one particular side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trade centre attacks spurred the current conflicts the US are involved in, which presumably have killed members of the group that attacked (plus numerous civilians all over). And there are many others who've compared the holocaust to this situation - and if you've read my comments you would notice that I'm not to fuzzed about either side because they're both religious fundamentalists, and in this conflict the Palestinian side has taken more damage so if you didn't feel more sympathy for their side at this moment to me that would show pretty obvious that one would not be neutral to the situation. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection, I have to agree with the person who made the first comment on this part of the thread, and yes I have seen the Vietnam war image, I would like to say that the child/baby image is definately pushing for POV, if we're going to maintain WP:NPOV, we have to dig up a equally appalling image of a israeli child blasted to pieces by a qassam(or remove the first image altogether). Yours Sincerely Gsmgm (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No what would be NPOV of overrepresenting Israeli casualties? There perhaps isn't even a Israeli child who's been killed during this war. NPOV isn't about the same amount of images, it would be to have images that reflect the truth of a 100:1 death count. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say its more POV pushing to try and say Hamas crimes in this war have been equal to Israels crimes, when the civilian death count is 3 on one side and and over 500 on the otherside (now counting Palestinian males?). — CHANDLER#10 — 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The baby picture is not the best one we could use, one reason is context -- I suppose most of the dead didn't make it to the hospital. As pointed out already in this discussion, pics with the contextual element, such as this (from Warszawa), this (My Lai) or this (WWII) would better represent the human cost as related to the event. RomaC (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..and I think it would really help if objectors to the baby photo could indicate that they would have no objections to this in principal should such an image become available from Gaza. Sean.hoyland - talk10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add Bombing of Dresden in World War II (examine, 'a pyre of bodies in the aftermath'). Whether or not this particular pic is included or not, it should be obvious that in a conflict where, to date, half of the victims were civilians, and a third children, images showing this kind of particular devastation are not unrepresentative. The 'sensationalism' lies in the reality. Generally, I think that one does well to survey stable wiki pages on events where cities or towns were bombed, to see what kind of photos have been accepted. Some I've seen are very gruesome. One should not determine what is acceptable or not acceptable, page by page, according to interests (inflammatory (an unfortunate epithet in context) or toning down), but according to wiki usage. What took place was, in tactical terms of combat strategy very similar to the Second Battle of Fallujah. However in that notorious article, the whole focus is on the US army's operation, with several photos of troops, and not a squeak about the extreme physical devastation on Faalluja inhabitants caused by the weaponry used, though photos on this abound. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to step into the middle of all this and express support or opposition just now. But the last bit of discussion has kind of hit upon something that is bothering me. But none of the other articles I've seen mentioned have a similar closeup picture of a corpse, except for My Lai, and that is only in the gallery. And the My Lai pictures at least give some insight into how the killings took place. Most of the others have pictures of mass graves, etc. which again tells us about the specific conflict. I would add the photo of the policemen we had to that category but I know it is not available. Even articles like beheading, corpse (cadaver), murder and suicide (though it kind of comes close) don't have pictures like this even though it would demonstrate those concepts. Budd Dwyer doesn't and that article only exists because he shot himself in the head on tv. And I do hope that nobody decides to illustrate the Colombian necktie article. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel exactly but I've seen thousands of war and conflict articles on WP and I was surprised when I first saw that picture included here. It's unlike anything I've seen on WP before. Just my thoughts. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with JGGardiner there, The image is way to appalling(and appealing to human feelings, thus breaching NPOV: specifically: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. that baby/child image in my honest opinion is just doing that, it is engaging in the conflict by appealing to peoples feelings instead of their consciousness). So unless we find a equally appaling israeli image, the baby image goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmgm (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There do not appear to have been anything like such appalling casualties amongst Israelis, so requiring an equivalent image of an Israeli victim of this conflict seems a trifle unbalanced. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gsmgm, I have a question for you. I'm asking out of interest. If we were to replace this image with a reliably sourced image taken in Gaza similar to this (My Lai) would Wiki be engaging in the conflict ? If yes, how ? If not, why not ? What is it about a particular image that you feel enables you to decide whether it engages in the conflict or not ? I'm not sure I understand how you are making the decision. Sean.hoyland - talk14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion, at least until some other graphic material that actually shows what befell civilians or children is included. The fact that the illustrative pics have been systematically pruned, leaving only a few balanced snaps of skylines with smoke and rockets, in what was an assault of immense savagery when one considers that half of the dead and wounded were civilians, has tilted my position. It is simply not enough to have a bandaged kid on a bed. Personally, I would prefer photos like that one of the old man in a wrecked landscape in today's online Haaretz, or a panoramic shot of the rubbled landscape of the city. These are everywhere in wiki articles dealing with bombings. One cannot sanitise narratives of bombed cities, even when the city was part of enemy territory (Dresden, Falluja).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from your link, Democracy Now isnt a blog, but a TV/radio-show.... And to counter, how can we include any information at all from Israeli sources (especially the government), they if any are highly partisan. You're against ISM because they don't give their full support to Israel, why should we accept comments from a highly partisan user?. there is nothing questionable about the picture, you and others who've removed it have no evidence to support claims that it's not real. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, though I've mostly seen used perhaps in football articles... It's from all I know not a tabloid like the Sun or something. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What POV is being pushed other than the truth? About 200 to 300 children were killed. This is the largest group of civilian casualties and it should be visually illustrated. EnigmaMcmxc previously said, “the image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - that’s POV pushing if you like it or not.” This is probably the most ludicrous comment I have read here. If it is fact it is not POV. Children were killed as a result of Israeli military action. This is an undeniable truth. EnigmaMcmxc, your argument seems centered around the idea that it is advantageous to use less graphic images. I don’t want this encyclopedia to anticipate reader response and water down the truth. Would you propose replacing an image of massacred genocide victims with one of hundreds of burial plots in a cemetery? Either way the readers still understands a lot of people died. You ask the question yourself, “would I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?” The answer is yes. – Zntrip00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If it is fact it is not POV." Uh... no; were it so, you wouldn't see multiple people echoing Enigma's point. I think Enigma's comment is best encapsulated when he says "if i was to find the most offensive, brutal, distasteful, bloody photo i could find (and am sure there out there) to use on a WW2 article for a say a hypothetical war crime committed by the Germans would you suggest that it should be included?" The problem some opponents to this image have is that it's very drastic and not representative of the Palestinian casualties -- i.e. this represents the most extreme of the Palestinian casualties, in an attempt to force readers to feel sympathetic toward Palestinians (as that is the natural reaction to a picture of burned baby). -- tariqabjotu02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This to me is the key issue we need to address directly. Arguments about the baby image seem to be a symptom of something much more disturbing i.e. the notion that by including images that describe the objective reality of the IDF attacks somehow pushes an anti-Israeli POV or somehow means that Wiki has become involved in the conflict or somehow means that Wiki is forcing/encouraging readers to feel sympathy. That's just plain wrong. There is data. It's just data, it doesn't have a POV. 1000+ dead, 1000s injured, 22,000 buildings destroyed, so on and so forth. That is the bulk of our data. We need to describe that for the reader with due weight. That is what an encyclopedia is meant to do. It seems as simple as that to me. The baby image is without doubt not the best way to do this because it's decontexualized but the reality is that if people are presented with the facts some of them will feel sympathy and some of them will be glad that Israel did this. That has nothing to do with us. We can't and shouldn't try to manage that. For example, the events at Abu Gharaib (didn't check spelling) undoubtably served as a recruiting material for various groups and the images are like recruitment posters to many. That hasn't stopped Wiki dealing with the event nor should it. I think I'm quoting you Tariq, "We're not trying to cure cancer". Sean.hoyland - talk02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what was wrong with the dead policemen image we had a while back ? Anyone remember ? Was it an AFP image or something ? That seemed like a good image to me, multiple casualities in the context of where they died, it didn't pull any punchs and people can interpret the people as either combatants or civil servants of an elected gov depending on their POV without us saying anything other than 'policemen'. Sean.hoyland - talk10:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that all the images of dead palestinians be removed from the article, the encyclopedia would still have them in images categories, but not in articles. apart from degnity, in Islam, it is prohipeted to see dead muslims, that's why the dead are covered before being buried so that even the closest relatives do not see their dead bodies -and yes, what hamas do of uncovering the faces of dead muslims in these big funerals they make, is wrong according to Islam-. As i said, the encyclopedia does not have to lose the images, but at least we can remove them from articles sothat muslim readers wont be offended. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVE I support the removal of the "dead baby image", largely because as 118.90.104.151 it has come from an organization (ISM) which is known to commit fraud on behalf of its highly radical viewpoints. It is a relentlessly shrill organization which is involved in numerous "front" activities for various extreme-left and extreme-right groups of great variety including Hamas, Hezbollah and North Korea. There is no guarantee that this image was not doctored, altered or even "stored" as evidence from previous conflicts. I also agree with One last pharaoh, since the images of the dead are as offensive to Muslims as to our common humanity. If we must use images of the dead, may they be respectful, clothed and adult. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of anything in Islam that bans images of the dead. And the need for them to be adult is not represenatative of the casualties, a huge percentage of which were children. And unless somebody has some evidence that this image is either 'doctored, altered or even "stored" as evidence from previous conflicts' I would appreciate that implication no longer be used. If you have issues with the source just say that. Nableezy (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it were against Islamic law to show these images, it certainly should not have any effect on whether the images should be shown in this article. Nableezy (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to Islamic traditions, the image policy on Wikipedia is not directed by religion. And I’m sorry, but V. Joe’s comment that the ISM is some sort of front for various terrorist groups and dictatorships is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, the ISM’s agenda (whatever you may think it is) does not alter what is being portrayed in the image. – Zntrip00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
V. Joe, I haven't seen any reference to ISM ever falsifying photos. Do you have a source backing your accusation against ISM members of committing potential fraudulent activity? (If not, I suggest reading wikipedia's policy against libel at WP:LIBEL and restating your argument.)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TB, I appreciate the hard work. Simmons, Libel laws here in the United States rather protect me from accusations of libel, especially since anything I say about a public organization, is almost by definition not libelous and anything at all I say about dead people isn't libelous either (<sarcasm/>Rachel Corrie was an anti-semitic cunt who liked to eat Jewish babies . Winston Churchill once told Max Aitken that he went to bed with a man to see what it was like, so he once had sex with Adolf Hitler </sarcasm>). Sorry,ADL might have a pro-Israeli viewpoint, but it is still a reliable source. 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually User:Valentinejoesmith (who made the above edit but didn't sign it), libel laws still exist and are enforced in the U.S. (the ones you might be libeling are the individual employees of ISM who you accuse of fraudulently creating photographs and posting them on the internet who are probably still alive). More to the point, libel is against wikipedia policy as pointed about above. So without some kind of evidence that ISM is falsifying pictures, maybe you shouldn't say so affirmatively that they are.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of respected groups as well as individuals who think it more than likely that they in fact they did. In fact if you read about what they do, falsification is a big part of it.
"The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a well-organized movement that spreads anti-Israel propaganda and misinformation and voices support for others who engage in armed resistance against Israel."
And quoting 3 organizations that spread propoganda for Israel accusing another organization of spreading propoganda against Israel is hardly proving your case. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source. It says that the ISM posted the picture but it doesn't say that they made it. Plus it's not irrefutable that the picture was fake. Plus the source is obviously biased. I was expecting something a little more solid than biased speculation that a photograph was faked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are hardly convincing, as they all seem to have an Israeli POV. According to the Wikipedia article on the NGO Monitor, “The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization.” I think the Anti-Defamation League’s status is obvious, and as for Omdurman.org, it is one of the blatant ant-Muslim websites I have seen. It describes itself as “dedicated to preventing Civilization from returning to the sands under the onslaught of Islamic supremacy.” If you don’t think that is radical take a look at this. Tundrabuggy, I feel that you are missing the point: the picture is not affected by the ISM’s bias or political stance because it simply portrays something that happened. – Zntrip04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zntrip, I agree that they are not unbiased sources, but they are also at more reliable and respectable than ISM. We wouldn't quote Code Pink in at article about John McCain or the Georgia Knights of the KKK about Barack Obama, but we might certainly quote Mother Jones or The Nation about either despite certain biases. Just as I have no problem using Al-Jazerra or Jerusalem Post in an article about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. On an unrelated issue, we might also quote Army Times about the activities of the United States Army, or the Navy League in an article about WWI Dreadnoughts. V. Joe (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little bit harsh to translate serving tea into links to terrorism. It made me wonder how many links McDonalds and Starbucks have to terrorism around the world. Of course Google also has links to the Mombai attacks by supplying logistical support via Google Earth. It's possible that each one of us has breathed in a few molecules of air breathed in by terrorists. I'm going to go and waterboard myself just in case. Sean.hoyland - talk04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this discussion is still going on, but for what it's worth as an uninvolved outsider, I support the removal of this image from the article. I agree that it's unnecessarily grotesque and inflammatory, and seems to carry an implicit POV (i.e., 'Israeli soldiers kill babies', essentially). And before anyone accuses me of taking sides, I would say the same about an equivalent image of a baby killed by Palestinian rockets, if such an event had taken place. People come to Wikipedia expecting to be informed, not shocked with unpleasant images - such images should only be included where they are particularly relevant and historically important. Here that does not seem to be the case: there is no good reason to use this image over any number of less provocative ones that show Palestinian civilian casualties just as well, and plenty of good reasons (on aesthetics and NPOV grounds) not to use it. I am glad to see it has been removed. Terraxos (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that there is not consensus for this picture and people are not changing their opinion. Is their any oppoistion to considering this matter closed for the time being? Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is acquiescence. Maybe we can archive this section along with the picture. Or perhaps a request for deletion as an orphaned photo?Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
In conclusion, I'd like to summarize the two major points that have been argued.
(A) The photo is horrific! Please get rid of it because I don't like to look at it.
This argument, repeatedly made against the inclusion of this picture, made a complete mockery of wikipedia's WP:CENSOR policy which says "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." In my understanding, that means that in order to remove an admittedly offensive picture such as this, it must be (1) (a) uninformative, (b) irrelevant to the topic or (c) inaccurate, and (2) no suitable alternatives can be found. Part (2) has been addressed I think through the inclusion of the picture of the dead Palestinian girl. However, (1) has not been fulfilled. This picture makes the article (a) more informative by displaying an actual victim of the conflict and that victim's condition (some argued that the photo was not informative), (b) the picture is relevant to the conflict because, obviously, the picture portrays a victim of the conflict (no one argued it was irrelevant), and (c) the picture accurately portrays yet another one of the many, many children killed in this conflict. Although a serious effort has made to find inaccuracies, no serious problems have thusfar been found regarding the accuracy, source, or copyright of this picture. Arguments that the photo should be excluded because it was created by the International Solidarity Movement do not pass muster under Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Photographs_and_media_files. In conclusion, the argument to censor this picture fails.
(B) The photo is "sensationalistic", or it presents too strong a POV.
This is the "Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, let's class up the joint!" argument. It bypasses issues with censorship because it appeals to wikipedia's policy of balance, that the article should not look like an opinion piece pushing one side or another. It is the strongest argument against inclusion of the photograph and I believe is the reason the photo is being excluded. It may take several years for us to realize what really happened in the last month, for the reality of this conflict to become part of the public consciousness to the point where people are able to look at this picture and say, "Yes that happened. Wikipedia's just reporting the facts." I am confident that that will transpire, eventually. But not today. This page is still part of the war. If every editor to this page hasn't had the thought, "Hey, I bet that there are members/agents/sympathizers of Hamas/the Israeli military editing this page to suit their point of view" I would be shocked by your naivete. But someday, this page will be just another part of history. And that picture of a dead girl won't be seen as a weapon anymore, at least to the majority of readers, anymore than the other horrific pictures of victims of other wars.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of the young girl was from Aljazeera, and this discussion was about the picture of the baby at the top. I would want a whole different discussion on the picture of the young girl, as some of these arguments clearly are not an issue for that picture. Nableezy (talk)
I would like to thank Cdogsimmons's apt servery of the arguments posed thus far. I see no point in continuing this discussion. The picture that is currently included in the article is sufficient for now and the other picture isn't going anywhere. – Zntrip08:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "assault"? "military aggression"? "attack"? To answer this question, transpose to any country other than Israel. Imagine that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, after occupying Kuwait unhindered for forty years, with full U.S. approval, suddenly attacks Kuwait and starts killing Kuwaitis at a 100-to-1 ratio. Would we call it a "conflict"? a "lovefest"? a "liberation"? What? I think we would call it "military aggression". Well, why should Israel be treated differently? If we find that we are treating Israel differently and deliberately using the most euphemistic words we can find to sugarcoat the actions of the aggressor, then that tells us that we are suffering from some sort of systemic political bias. NonZionist (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why you think the term "conflict" automatically means the same positive thing as "lovefest". A conflict is a conflict. It is used in dozens upon dozens of wikipedia pages, including our parent article: Gaza–Israel conflict. This is not a matter of pro-Jewish bias on Wikipedia; that's a ludicrous claim. Look at articles like Georgian–Abkhazian conflict-- "conflict" is used in many different places. The Squicks (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention of the Israelis was to be taken into consideration, the "conflict" would then be called a genocide because the Israeli's goal is the extermination of members of the political group (Hamas) killing them where ever they are along with their families even in their homes. However, more than half of the victims are civilians as Israelis are targeting civilian residence even though they claim that that is not their intention, but still the term genocide would apply here as well. BUT since Israel is a "democracy", not a communist country nor a theocracy or monarchy, people will argue that this genocide is not really genocide, it is simply a conflict. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Israel's aim is limited to targeting Hamas. In its early years, Hamas was subsidized by Israel -- and was seen by Israel as a way to split Palestinians away from the secular and more respectable PLO -- so Israel's current demonization of Hamas is just propaganda. John J. Mearsheimer, writing in The American Conservative, demonstrates that Israel is once again targeting the entire people:
Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s conduct of the Gaza War. .... A senior Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, explained the logic behind Israel’s expansive target set: “There are many aspects of Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel.” In other words, everyone is a terrorist and everything is a legitimate target[1].
100,000 innocent civilians died at the hands of Mother Russia in the First Chechen War (they only lost 5,732 soliders). Does that make it a genocide? No. We don't call it a genocide because we can't put the G7 POV over the Russian government POV. It's the same pattern you can see throughtout Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sigh* And there we go again with that "NonZionist" propaganda. Seriously, this isn't even funny. He's doing more trolling than actual contribution. Can't something be done about it?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's trying to be "funny" quoting Mearsheimer or arguing that a demonization of Hamas has affected our perception on the event ergo our name for it. Is this supposed to be funny? Anyway, Nomaed, a "sigh" and an accusation is not much of a contribution either. RomaC (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
child casualty and total death toll
child casulties have been estimated to 159 according to cnn.com
"More than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, the Web site of the
Palestinian Authority's Central Bureau of Statistics
said Monday."
"According to preliminary and provisional estimates, by January 20, 2009 the death toll reached 1,315 and more than 5,400 people were wounded, including 400 people in serious condition" There is no mention at PCBS of how many of the victims were children. Where did CNN get that information? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source provided, CNN attributes it directly to John Ging, who I'm sure you know is head of the UNRWA: "Among the dead were 159 children, two of whom died in an UNRWA school that was shelled Saturday, Ging said." --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where cnn get its inoframtion
and i wasent even saying that its 100% corect
i just feel it deserves mentioning in the artical
--79.31.132.105 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V[reply]
No, it does depend where CNN gets its numbers and they claim the numbers are from John Ging. CNN's reporting seems to be faulty or deceptive however way you would like to look at it. The UN quotes John Ging as saying
"But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,” Gaza Director of Operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) John Ging to journalists in New York by video link, adding that two of those children died in an UNRWA school that was shelled on Saturday.
“Another terrible tragedy, two little boys, two brothers, five and seven, indisputably innocent, but also now dead,” he added. “What we have now is people back out, trying to come to terms with what has happened.”
According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire.
Yeah, I had seen that in Xinhua when I was looking for corroboration and I was wondering if perhaps they took the "159 in total" figure to mean total children killed during the conflict rather than total number of people killed over the weekend. That's the problem with WP:V of course -- some people think it should just be enough for us that the source exists.
Incidentally, while I was looking to find more sources on that I came across another quote from Ging where he says that most children injured in Gaza are from shrapnel.[11] Maybe that belongs in the article? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this detail is relevant to the article as with any information describing the causes of the deaths. The Israelis have used a variety of weapons and it would be educational for the audience to know which weapons were used in the killings. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Falastine fee Qalby
you wrote
But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,”
isnot the same because according to cnn out of 1,300 dead 159 are childern 2 died at the school
what you quote say isthat of 159 people dead 42
this are two difrent things
--79.31.132.105 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V[reply]
CNN claimed that Ging said 159 children were killed in total during the entire duration of the offensive.
On the contrary, UN claimed Ging said 159 people, 42 of which were children, were killed during the weekend (from the 16th to the date of the article, the 19th) and that the total of children killed during the entire duration of the offensive is 460 not 159 as CNN reports. Both the UN article and CNN article were submitted the same day and both mentioned the same speech made by Ging. Ging works for the UN that has the statistics and the information. CNN is just reporting on information available from the UN. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CNN writer misunderstood what Ging meant by "total" like I said above. I think it is a mistake on their part. Strangely enough the Gulf Daily News makes the same mistake, although they cite "Gaza emergency services" for the 159 number.[12] But Xinhua also took it to mean out of 159 "total people" (over the weekend).[13] Every other source I see just gives the whole quote. I still think it is mistake though and Ging meant 42 children died over the weekend out of 159 total people during that period. It is a problem for us that a lot of RS's are so lazy. I noticed the same thing during the start of the war when they use "F-16" as a lazy shorthand for "fighter jet" even when they obviously had no idea what type of plane it was. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Gulf News article is from Jan 7 so it is referring to a different comment made by Ging, I think. CNN, The most trusted name in news....Umm no. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk)
Actually I was the one who made the mistake there, as Falastine pointed out. When I went searching for articles I accidentally pulled up an old Gulf News article that just happened to have the same 159 figure but from an earlier point in the conflict. I just didn't check it closely. But CNN does seem to be in error with that one story. But here's an earlier CNN story[14] that quotes Ann Veneman of UNICEF as saying 320 children had been killed at that point. So I think the error is just contained in that one story. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The white phosphorus munitions (banned munitions) section is worded in a way that could mislead readers. "used against Palestinians", "refugee camps", etc. As stated in the section, use of the munition is not banned in all cases. Should it read more like:
"It is alleged that Israel used white phosphorus munitions to make smoke screens. Blah blah Something regarding all of the evidence, and then something regarding the potentially harmful results/why it is a concern under international law blah blah."Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really like your exact wording e.g. "Blah blah Something regarding...". If we were allowed to use wording like that it would be so much easier to write articles. Sean.hoyland - talk01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are not that they have been using it as a smokescreen, the allegations are that they have used it as a weapon 'against the Palestinians'. Nableezy (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rude. Just throwing it out there. I'd rewrite it my way right now but it would get reverted so I thought a discussion would be appropriate. Or how about I write it exactly as I want so we can debate whether an individual word should be left in or out. Watch your tone in discussions because you are coming across like a blaherCptnono (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)(that was supposed to be funny not mean)[reply]
Follow-up: Human Rights Watch is one of the most inflammatory of and they even say it was used as a smoke screen. Changed it a little. Feel free to edit as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cptnono, not sure who your "Don't be rude" was addressed at but just in case it was me, I wasn't being rude. It was a compliment. I genuinely did like your temporary phrasing. It's funny and a good way to work towards consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Sean.holyland: I just told a friend two days ago to not read emails in a cynical tone then I did it! Reread it (with a sarcastic voice in your head) and it comes across mean. Thanks for clarifying.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slight problem with the wording, from the Reuters report on statement of AI allegations WP is intended to be used as a smokescreen: "White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it should never be used on civilian areas," he said. (Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team) But their accusation specifically says weapon: "Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate," Donatella Rovera, a Middle East researcher with Amnesty International, said in a statement. Based on that I should think the accusation should not be worded as accusing them as using it as a smokescreen, everybody acknowledges they have used it in that manner, the question that is being raised is if they have used it as a weapon. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is used as a smokescreen according to most sources. The use as a weapon (falling and burning embers of death) by few (if any) news sources is speculation. Interpretation of the event has no place in a neutral article. It becomes more of a problem when an article is related to an event as contentious as this one. State the facts as laid out by the most reputable sources and let it play out. This page will be updated accordingly.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: "Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate," with a cite should be added it just shouldn't overweight the section or article.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is speculation, but not on the sources, it is speculation on the part of those making the charges, here AI. I think we should accurately report what they are charging with a explicit reference to them as their accusation. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should say something along the lines of this. Israel has said they have used WP as a smoke screen in accordance with international law (whoever said whatever), AI has accused Israel of using it as a weapon in civilian areas (evidence according to who), something regarding the potentially harmful results/why it is a concern under international law blah blah. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. If a reputable news source is reporting viable speculation it isn't our interpretation so it shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't hurt my feelings as long as we don't turn it into the primary focus of the section or give it more credit than it deserves.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to make it clear in the article that, even if this is 100% illegal under law and 100% immoral regardless, Israel did not sign the international agreements and- thus- there's no grounds for a criminal prosecution of Israel. The Squicks (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times has an article with some more specifics about the Israeli investigation: "Haaretz reported that the military was 'investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza. The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza,' the Haaretz report said. 'Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army’s view, in compliance with international law.'"[15] --JGGardiner (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Squicks, that is your opinion. Now I do not know your experience in the field of international law, but there are those who deal with human rights (btselem and AI) that say that Israel is obligated under other treaties that it is a party to that ban the use of weapons that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants. That you think there is no grounds for prosecution is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence may have come across as slightly dickish. So I qualify that your thinking that there is no grounds for prosecution is irrelevant as far as including that information in the article. Nableezy (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody disputes the increase in shelling starting with the end of the "truce," nor that Cast Lead was an immediate response to it, the date of the start of the conflict is most accurately correlated to the beginning of the increase in histilities with the lapse of the truce. I have indicated this in the summary. Any objections? In addition, there is a comment in the summary that it should stick to name/date/parties/location. The explanation (opinion?) about the Gaza Massacre seems lengthy and out of place. It deserves its own heading. I have not deleted it, but I have commented it (hidden), pending a move. Again, any objection? RomaC is concerned about this, but states no specific issue.Dovid (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dovid, please check with the archives and the ongoing lead discussions this has been discussed by several dozen editors, the current lead results from a rough consensus this is all there in the archives. I am concerned about some of your other edits today, this article is about an ongoing and controversial event, unsourced edits declaring something a "non-issue" for example are not constructive. Nor are blogs reliable sources. Thank you. RomaC (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your position on blogs is out of date. That guideline is no longer active. As to summary, the archives are too extensive to follow completely. If you want, please cite the specific section and archive page, I can then decide to either follow the existing consensus, re-open discussion, or decide that you are pulling my leg. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you want to start a new discussion, since I'm concerned that overzealousness in editing here might come from POV. Remember, undo's are supposed to be taken with great caution. Dovid (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dovid. Any moving or removing of the name of the "Gaza Massacre" will be summarily removed by pro-Palestinian editors as "violating consensus" with an demand to discuss it on the talk page. There are now numerous archives of the talk pages and particularly on the issue of the so-called "name" ie "Gaza Massacre" and its position in the lead. It is explained to us who object, that it is a name comparable to Israel calling it "Operation Cast Lead" and thus deserves to be "balanced" in the lead. It has been taken to the "No Original Research Noticeboard" as well, and has been talked about and reverted innumerable times. I do not believe that there is a consensus for it in the lead, except that those who object simply got tired of fighting and said: "What the hell..." as they were being personally attacked, warnings put on their page, reported for edit warring etc. There are many here who do agree however, but it seems to be quixotictilting at windmills to continue to argue it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I propose moving it somewhere reasonable. Let both names be moved into a background section. SOmething that is the subject of controersy does not belong as the lead-in. If there are many who believe the nomenclature must be in the article, that doesn't mean it should jump to the top. Takers? Dovid (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every single conflict or war has the name of both parties in the first paragraph in all of the A/I articles. Many even have multiple names in a given language. So no, I don't think it would be appropriate to move the names further down. That is one of the most basic things about the article, and as such should stay in the first paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see what I mean. Some of the editors here insist that Gaza Massacre is the name of the conflict in the Arab world, despite what others of us see as a case of WP:OR based on their references, which almost invariably refer to "a massacre" or "the massacre in Gaza." But the pro-Arab perspective is that because there are no "capital letters" in Arabic, (or apparently any other way to determine what we in English refer to as a 'proper noun') that we must give the benefit of the doubt to the perspective that it is a name, despite English references not supporting it when they quote Arab speakers themselves. And as another editor here has pointed out, much of the non-Arab world sees the whole conflict as part of the International War on Terror, especially with bin Laden recently calling for Jihad over just this issue. This perspective keeps getting reverted out of the lede as well, giving a false appearance of 'stability' or consensus. In fact some editors here seem to think this article is non-controversial, can you believe it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really cannot believe you are making me do this again but here goes, and this is all directly taken from the archives: There are a plethora of sources that give these names, both english sources that translate statements from Hamas and other arabs (eg SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [16]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [17]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [18]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [19]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC ArabicAl-Jazeera) Is anything unclear? Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I can not believe that I did not make myself clear in the past, but it is clear that you do not have as good a grasp of English as you need to, apparently, to understand the difference in English between proper nouns and common nouns. I do urge you to read it. Please note that in English a proper noun (also known as a proper name) is capitalized, and yet even you in your quotations do not capitalize "massacre," only Gaza since Gaza is indeed the name of a place. The way Gaza is being used here is to describe "massacre" in terms of its location, (eg "the massacre in Gaza") see Adjective#Other_noun_modifiers. If the references you provided had intended to convey the idea that The Gaza Massacre was what was meant by Arab speakers, the word Massacre would have been capitalized. Now I realise that English may not be your first language or even your best subject in school, but those are the facts of the English language. If you still have questions about this please bring them up on my talk page, as I do not want to clog up this page with repetitious lessons in grammar. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proper noun: name of a specific indivdual, place, or object; usually capitalized. Now you can start arguing about the capitalization, but your previous post, no matter how you attempt to mangle the English language that you think yourself a master of, did not focus on the capitalization of Massacre, it focused on the references 'which almost invariably refer to "a massacre" or "the massacre in Gaza."' If you want to bring up the capitalization of Massacre feel free, but do not insult me or my grasp of the English language because you forgot what you wrote. There are methods of determining whether a name is a proper noun in Arabic, and capitalization is not required in a proper noun. I have not argued that it should be capitalized because there are no capital letters in Arabic, my argument that it should be capitalized is because it would be odd to assert that this is the name used, as a proper noun, and not capitalize it. I have been clear in my position on this, I have even expressed a willingness to not capitalize it in the OR noticeboard. But you have consistently said that the sources do not refer to it as 'the gaza massacre' and they clearly do. Now for a basic primer on the word 'the', which you as a master wordsmith would obviously not need but there may be others that could benefit; 'the' is generally used to provide a specification to an otherwise general term. For instance, holocaust, as a word it has a meaning, but when modified by 'the', as in The Holocaust, we are now clearly referring to a specific event. If you want to make an issue of the capitalization then fine, I haven't shown myself to be opposed to changing it. But to now come and say this has been the whole issue and my ability to understand the English language is the reason is dishonest. I would kindly request that you make no more mention of my ability to communicate in the English language, that I also know Arabic does not in any way diminish my knowledge of English. But no it wasn't my best subject in school, I generally got an A- in English. Nableezy (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am pretty sure my earlier post showed that there are numerous translated quotations that use the term 'the gaza massacre'. How they choose to capitalize it is on them. But you cannot argue that it has not been used as the name. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language is sufficiently broad that it satisfies concerns about proper name. Other than weighting, which is always somewhat arbitrary, I don't think there is really a basis to oppose what we have in the lead right now.
But if I could give a little friendly advice TB, I think that you could do yourself a big favour here if you could concede a little for the sake of consensus. And then maybe you could ask the same from other editors in other sections. I'm not saying you should roll over on this. But I think dialgogue would be furthered if we just let things go sometimes. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Suspected use of new weapons" section
Does this section really belong in the article? The stuff about suspected DIME usage doesn't really seem that notable as part of the conflict as a whole. It probably belongs on the DIME page, but here? Similarly, one allegation about the use of DU shells doesn't really seem notable at all. Can we just axe the whole section? Blackeagle (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weapons are germane to fighting, and "Qassam" is mentioned repeatedly. If we have RS that one side has been accused of using controversial weapons (DU, WP, DIME), that is relevant to the article. RomaC (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If good sources are found, this is very relevant to the article. The use of new weapons in conflicts is notable (WWII and nukes).Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before we discuss relevancy, let;s discuss neutrality. The title of the section seems to have a specific POV, especially the word "suspected." How about "Allegations of DIME and Phospherous?"Dovid (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. There are three cites. One is a technical paper predating the events. One is Iranian Press TV, which is disputed as a RS. The third, CSM, is a good RS, but it uses language closer to mine -- and I would say, it does so specifically to maintain neutral POV, as I'm pointing out we too should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not happy with your way of using sources language either [20]. I like all your changes to be presented here before you edit in article as you clearly push pov. Brunte (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DU is very controversial, the munitions have been redesigned once to reduce the long term effects and are still getting much criticism from groups like CND. (Hypnosadist)06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone has moved it to the Israel subesction of the International Law section. Perhaps that's appropriate for the discussion of WP, but there's no real consensus about DIME or DU being violations of international law. DIME weapons in particular have been developed to help comply with obligations under international law to minimize collateral damage. Blackeagle (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The legal opinions are moving against DU on the grounds that it is an indiscriminent weapon ie children are being born with birth defects or getting cancer 10 years after the shooting stops then that counts as indiscriminent casualties IMHO and many other people includeing RS's. DIME is a brand new weapon and there is no legal opinions and this conflict will be the start of the formation of those opinions. The micro-shrapnel effect of DIME was one that was not predicted (if medical reports are acurate). The article also mentions why DIME was created. (Hypnosadist)02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Dovid (talk) has been making bold edits today, to the lead and throughout. I generally support bold edits but in the case of controversial articles it is better to look at archives and participate in Talk discussions. I don't want to get into multiple reverts so it would be good if other editors could get involved. Specifically in question is whether adding controversial content requires consensus first; or if controversial edits can be made first and the requirement for consensus passes to the undo. RomaC (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 3rr's: typically violations ascribed to the first undoer, which wasn't me. I have no problems reaching consensus, but let's let it play out first. And, please note the good intentions -- I did not delete or substantially change anyone else's material; as I stated in Talk, the intention was primarily to improve structure (detail in the right place, summary in the right place, long sections should have summaries) ...
The only "bold" things I've done so far are these three: 1) to summarize the back and forth of the legal section, so that the lead-in gives a decent picture of what is to come; 2) to move "detail level content" from the summary to a proper section, in conformity with the existing instructions for the summary lead-in, and 3) to move the date of the conflict to the end of the truce (we want this article to be about the overall conflict, not primarily the Israeli operation, right?). On #1, I may have not done the wording with enough finesse. ...
Finally, I apologize if y'all think I'm violating any existing consensus, or creating where consensus should be gained first. I've learned these two things about WP in the four or so years I've been on it: Talk sections are usually ignored if there is no article content to be found with them, and old talk discussions/archives are obscure unless you've already been through them. So please bear with me as I catch up.
Dovid, suggest controversial changes here before edit them in article. It is specialy important for the first section. Await positive reactions and concencus. Then no editwar. Brunte (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where that makes sense, yes. Where not, no. I believe amost everyone in this talk who has done any editing has done some without first obtaining consensus, let's not try to pick me out just because you don't always agree with me. Dovid (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were picked out because you made radical changes to the very first sentence that has been argued over the past 3 weeks. Just coming in and inserting whatever you feel like will cause a certain reaction. Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism to Talk Page & Deletion of Active Disputes
Who is the clever editor that set the bot to delete from this page active discussions after only 9 hours of inactivity? That is Vandalism. Some of us do have to sleep. Also, who deleted the POV notice from the article? The notice should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. More importantly, who can restore the deleted talk (those deleted since the 9 hour criteria was set) section back to this talk page? Doright (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the NPOV for "Gaza Massacre" and for the start date? I agree, after having found some talk material, and searched for other talk material that's buried somewhere in 21 pages of archive. I tried to solve the problem by removing massacre to another section, and neutrally descriving the start of conflict as concurrent with the end of the truce, but I'm getting beaten up. Can someone please take the huge summary and simply pair it down to 2-3 short paras, 2-3 sentences each, and any talk about naming can be moved to its own section? This will cover all the disputes, and the big NPOV arguments won't be about anything important at the top.Dovid (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The names both belligerents have given to the conflict are given in the lead, that is the definition of NPOV. Now the lead isnt exactly how I would phrase it, but this phrasing has had the support of the majority of the editors every time this discussion has come up. If you want to start a new discussion feel free. Nableezy (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not talking about just one section. All the sections that have vanished since the bot was set to remove all sections after only 9 hours needs to be restored immediately and the bot frequency needs to be set to a reasonable frequency ... not several times a day . . . that is pure Vandalism. Also, the POV tags need to be restored to the article and not removed until the many disputes are resolved. Doright (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does every mistake or bad edit have to be accused of vandalism? This is a bot. If someone has indeed created a bot that acts in bad faith it deserves to win the Loebner Prize. Anyway, if you have a problem maybe you should leave a message on the user talk page. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bot did not change its own parameters, an editor on this page did it. So who did it? And, who knows how to set it back to the way it was? Also, a bot did not at the same time remove the pov tags from the article page, an editor did. So who did it? Doright (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm just saying that you need to calm down and AGF. Most bad edits are simply bad edits. The vandalism part happens when they are done intentionally to hurt the project. In this case it looks like the bot was set to nine hours after being set for six. User:Hapsala did that. S/he's been doing lots of maintenance around here and in fact got into a heated exchange with User:Skäpperöd who felt archiving was going too slowly and letting the page become too large for low-speed users to use.
There's a simple edit for the bot but you should probably talk to Hapsala first. Although the bot only runs once a day anyway, at 00:37 GMT. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JGGardiner, thank you bringing that info to my attention. Vandalism was a poor choice of words. I should have said an incredibly disruptive thing to do and way outside the norms of my experience with wikipedia for ongoing disputes to be removed from the talk page, after only 9 hours of inactivity. So, how do we restore those talk sections? Also, It is WP practice as identified in the how to guide that states, "you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Wikipedia:NPOV dispute The same holds true for an ongoing discussion involving a dispute. On this article both the tag was removed and the discussion was removed. Since the bot cannot evaluate the content and know that the dispute has not been resolved, there is going to be an ongoing problem. Thanks, Doright (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't look into the tags so I don't know who removed them. I wasn't really following that part of the discussion. If you do want to change the settings, I think that you just edit the line that looks like this:|algo = old(9h) But again, you should probably talk to Hapsala first. If you want to resurrect anything from the archives I'd just paste it back here or just bring up the subject again. Everyone here seems happy to talk about the same things over and over. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JGG. Additionally, now I see the separate talk page for the lead that contained other active and unresolved disputes has also been archived creating even more disruption. Yikes! Doright (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above section titled Vandalism to Talk Page & Deletion of Active Disputes for background, and yes, it should have been titled "Removal of Ongoing and Unresolved Disputes from Article and Talkpage." Doright (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot Setting's Removal of Ongoing talk and Unresolved Disputes
Please do not change the bot setting without first reading and responding to the above discussions or providing your reasoning here. Hapsala, please do not revert the bot setting without even providing an edit summary as you did HERE. It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page. You should Briefly describe the changes you have made. I have explained above in detail the reason why removing discussions after only 9 hours is unacceptable, results in a disruption to the project and causes the removal of ongoing disputes from the page.Doright (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If the talk page is getting too long, then sections can be moved to a talk subpage as was done for the discussion of the lead. However, in no case should ongoing disputes be merely removed to an archive. The archives are not the place for unresolved disputes and ongoing discussions.Doright (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hapsala, Please stop reverting the archive bot setting as you did HERE without first addressing the above identified issues associated with such short deletion intervals. And please stop marking the edit as minor. There is nothing minor about removing content, ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes from the talk page. Thank you.Doright (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no reasoning. You say it should be sufficient, but sufficient for what? What part of unresolved disputes should not be removed from the talk page do you not agree with or not understand?Doright (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hysteria or physical or mental trauma
I dispute this edit [21] . Guess it is originally a way for a waring part to ballance up the numbers of injured and dead. If physical or mental trauma is presented for only one part its nonsence. And it is not written acording to its source '80 Percent of Sderot Residents Suffer from a Form of Hysteria' "and some may suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) for the rest of their lives, but to date Baruch Hashem, the number of people who fall into this category appears low"
I would like to speculate that far more ppl in Gaza suffer severe PTSD. As the edit is not in that context I suggest a remove. Brunte (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed unless we add info on Gaza trauma. RomaC (talk)
I gave this link a few days ago (I think) which has a Jerusalem Post story with the final Israeli casualties, counting shock seperately. [22] It counts four killed, 68 wounded and 295 treated for shock. I'd exclude shock victims from the usual counts of injured, like we now do in the infobox for example. But I think that there should be a mention of mental trauma. It is a real problem and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Here's an article that I posted here a while ago that talks about some of the effects on children on both sides.[23] I'm sure there's more out there. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think this page is long enough without including mental trauma or shock for either side, thats an npov and undue weight argument waiting to happen. :>) Untwirl (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There were a few people above who said that this picture would be acceptable. Not sure if it qualifies as consensus though, but the main discussion above was about the one picture of the burnt baby, people objected to that on the grounds that it is not representative of the casualties, inflammatory, distasteful ..., but I do not think there has been much discussion about this besides a few people putting it in and out of the article. Nableezy (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who removed the Israeli-doll pic after reading your post at the edit-warring board. You made a good point. For the killed Gaza infant pic, some people threw every excuse they can find so it can be removed. They claimed that the image is not from a reliable source, it is probably taken from another event/time, it is not educational/not representational, looks fake, it is propaganda, etc. Yet the Israeli pic was from an independent unknown photographer, it was taken almost 2 years ago (May 2007), it is as educational as clipart and only represents a single fact that isn't even significant in the article, looks staged for an artsy pic, and as for its propaganda value, you stated it best [25]. Yet the person who is spearheading the opposition to the Palestinian infant picture, just recently tried to justify the use of the Israeli-doll pic! [26] Can you not see the double standard? I don't know how we are supposed to reach a compromise with people like them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am the one who restored the picture of the dead Palestinian girl after some consensus was reached above that it should have been included on the page. I felt doing so was also appropriate considering that there was never any discussion regarding its original removal before it was removed in the first place. To date I have seen no arguments made on this talk page why it would not be appropriately included (unlike the picture of the dead baby). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now with the exception of a couple of rockets coming into Israel from Gaza (non-emotive), all the pictures refer to destroyed Gazan orphanages, dead and wounded Gazan children, bombed out Gazan buildings etc, bombs over Gaza, accusations of use of illegal weapons against Israel, etc. William M Connolley gave the opinion that the page was "balanced" before those pictures were re-added. I agreed with that, and I think others here did as well. However, with the addition of more photos of dead children it is no longer. I don't believe there was a consensus to add more photos, and respectfully ask Cdogsimmons to remove this photo on grounds that the photos give undue weight to the Palestinian perspectives. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] Impressive finding all of those old (relatively speaking) archives. That sure is a lot of hot air, sure to contribute to global warming. At the same time I urge everyone to read Wikipedia:What is consensus for an understanding of what consensus really is. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, Tundrabuggy, is not attacking a page from left-field, by substantial removals of material, without reading the archives, or having particularly participated in the process of drafting. Indeed, if you check the archives, I predicted that the real damage to the text would occur once the war was over. This is what is happening, and you behaviour has forcedCdogsimmons to employ a great amount of time, in an order of work of justifying the obvious, while your edits bespeak laziness. Do not be disruptive or discourteous in this manner.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I would appreciate it if you would not dog my heels with personal attacks. If you have problems with a particular diff, feel free to provide it and put it up for discussion. Please do not comment on the contributor, but the content. Perhaps you should review WP:CIVIL, as I am beginning to be more than a little annoyed by your constant sniping. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly said your edits, or in other words, content, indicate laziness, not the personal attack that calling you lazy would be. And calling another users edit 'hot air' is surely of the same level as what was just sent your way. Nableezy (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead discussions ...
... will now continue at the ordinary talk page (here). Reasons:
The huge size/high traffic during the conflict making the split necessary will be reduced as the conflict is over.
Lead discussions happened here as well as on the separate page (forking)
I think a little too much has been deleted, in the paragraph that begins "On the first days of the Israeli operation". The new text continues to mention Israeli towns -- Beersheba and Ashdod -- but Palestinian towns have been deleted. I also think the "100 targets in four minutes" in the old text is notable and deserves to stay. The old text can be seen here:
On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[63][64] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[65][66][67][68][69][70] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[78][79][80] Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[81][82][83][84][85]
I think the article should not show the faces of dead people, on either sides. This is for maintaining the privacy/respect of those individuals who were killed. Loss of human lives is unfotunate, but displaying a dead girl's face, from either sides, is not an ethical thing to do here. John Hyams (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ugghh, you cannot seriously say that we should, in effect, cover up the loss of life that this conflict has caused and say we should do it in the name of ethics. Nableezy (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can he not say such a thing? It is a reasonable viewpoint to respect the privacy of the dead (who cannot give consent to being photographed). I think that the picture of the dead girl is acceptable, but I do not think JHs viewpoint is unreasonable, even though I mildly disagree. V. Joe (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to oppose it on ethical grounds. Morals vary from culture to culture, and religion to religion, but ethics in this case means standards of professional conduct. As we are 'editors of an encyclopedia' our ethics should be based on that mission. It cannot be seen as unethical to display these pictures in an encyclopedia. You might think it is immoral, but that also cannot be a valid argument for inclusion or exclusion of material. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy means 'the sphere of life opposed to public life'. One withdraws from public life to enjoy one's life in private. The dead have no privacy in this sense, since they have no life, having had their lives, public and private, denied them. The dead only 'exist' in commemoration, which is, as often as not, public. Were the dead to have natural private rights, the genre of biography would die on its feet, or its practitioners languish in gaol for many a violation of the deceased's ostensible right not to have his private life written.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the point behind displaying images of dead people of any side and in any time. the graveness of destruction can be adressed in numbers, and if doing so through photographs is necessary, images of destroyed houses, hospitals, mosques, bridges, police stations, and so on with the list as further as not to show the images of the dead, and specially the faces. The human being should be respected dead and alive as well, and as dead people cannot tell whether they agree that people see their dead bodies -noting that "people" here means those who live the other way across the globe where they never met before, or virtually any and every one- or not, specially, when that means showing their burned up, sliced, and deformed bodies, and the favorite media coverage of showing the suffering expression on the faces of the dead. Maybe Islam is the only religion that prohibits viewing any part of the body of a dead believer; i do not know, but i really believe that at least the extreme vast majority of cultural view points no matter how different they are, agree on that seeing dead people is not some thing necessary, and should be avoided. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i would argue that we are showing respect for human life by showing the catastrophic loss of life of war - which by its nature holds human life at a lower value than the goals of a conflict.Untwirl (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By stating the catastrophic loss of human life, we show the truth. We might have different view points, by we all agree on telling the truth. This is History, we cannot change history, but we can tell what happened, and hope it wont happen again -and doing any thing we can to avoid it's painfull facts being repeated-.
I also think that the nature of wars is that two armies, or two military forces of any kind fighting each other, not one military power killing civilians, and demolishing cities. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'The human being should be respected dead and alive talk. I commend the ssentiment sir, but the photo is of someone who wasn't sufficiently respected to be allowed to remain alive. The pics have been picked clean to make us read in perfect comfort. If people preferred print, they would not watch the boobtube, which shows such things in any case. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have been to multiple Islamic funerals where the face was not covered. I cannot find anything in Islam that says viewing any part of a dead person is prohibited. Also, whether or not Islam bans this is irrelevant, that cannot be used as an argument, as per WP:CENSOR. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define the term "Islamic funerals". do you mean those made by Hamas after their fire they useless toy rockets on no man's land giving the Israelis an excuse to kill civilians, and further western puplic support? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean funeral services carried out for Muslims in a mosque (Janazah, or you might say Ganazah) and then a burial according to Islamic law. That you blame Hamas for all this doesn't really concern me, in fact it hurts less than a mosquito bite, but your assertion that it is against Islamic law to show any part of a dead body is both factually wrong, as well as completely irrelevant to this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually i did not intend to hurt you, so sorry it hurts less than a mosquito bite would. This is not the place to discuss the the Islamic law, neither where it would come to an effect. Any way, see p.349, part one, "فقه السنة". I am a Muslim living in a Muslim society, and apart from those Hamas and Hamas-like funerals on TV, i never saw the body of a dead person in a funeral. So let's now forget the religious view point, and continue the discussion.One last pharaoh (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok ok you both know alot about islam.:>) i dont, but luckily wiki doesn't follow islamic law so we dont have to worry about that! ;>) regardless, i think we can come to a consensus that dead people are shown on wiki and this section is irrelevant to the article, huh? 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Untwirl (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an ancient Egyptian funeral either, there is no complete wrapping of the face like mummies, at least not to my knowledge. Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, this was a girl at a hospital not a "Hamas funeral" as you cynically put it. Every Arab news station displays the casualties of war, I haven't heard of any outcry against it by Muslim scholars. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like if every thing Arab new agencies do is right according to Islamic law. any way let's forget about that, it does not have any effect. actually the image showing the girl's face was in a hospital like you said, and it is very clear that that was not what i was talking about. For those who wondered what did you mean by Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, I suppose you meant Mr. I am of the people of the Pharaoh which BTW should have been written as Mr.Ana men ahlell-Phar'oon; And yes, i am proudly one of the people of the pharaohs, the people of the black land. Let's not get to which is better Arabs, or Egyptians, because this is not the place for it. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasnt directed specifically at you. And you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion. But even if I shared your religious or cultural misgivings on the display on these images, I might not advocate their display but I certainly would not advocate their removal, because my beliefs should not influence anothers actions. Just my personal thinking. Nableezy (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should not start removing images from wikipedia solely on the basis that they might offend the sensabilities of some readers. That is the essence (practically the definition) of censorship. Wikipedia does not censor.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I agree with eds lastpharoah and John Hyams ... not to mention the families of the dead who have presumably not given permission for them to be used in this venue. A further point in relation to these dead children is the weight of the pictures on the page. As I wrote elsewhere on this page , we now have, with the exception of a (non-emotive pic) of rockets coming into Israel from Gaza , all the pictures refer to destroyed Gazan orphanages, dead and wounded Gazan children, bombed out Gazan buildings etc, bombs over Gaza, accusations of use of illegal weapons against Israel, etc. Some of these pictures are of dubious parentage (ISM) but the collection of them makes for a serious unbalance in the article. The article is better balanced with zero pictures of dead people or children, and we do not run the risk of appearing to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia. All of these pictures make for UNDUE WEIGHT on only one perspective in this "conflict." The other side should put up pictures of Hamas suicide bombings in order to show both perspectives equally. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep expecting that the damage shown be equal, that is not reality. The damage is not balanced, to try to show that it is would be UNDUE WEIGHT. And these images are in the public domain, there is no issue of permission. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? If there is undue weight it is having two pictures of rockets going to Isreal. Undue means we show what happened not give an equal number of pictures to both sides. What happened was Isreal dropped thousands of bombs and missiles and killed 1300+ people while leveling hundreds of buildings, hamas launched tens of rockets killing under 10 people and a few squaddis. The pictures in this article do not show the true amount of devistation or civilian toll, more need to be added, i think there is a need for a gallery of ALL pictures relating to this conflict on this page. (Hypnosadist)04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite serious. This war didn't happen in a vacuum. There were years of Hamas suicide bombings, kidnappings and murders, followed by years of rockets, after Israel left Gaza. You don't go around bombing your neighbor and expect them to sit quietly and do nothing. Then when your neighbor finally gets good and sick of it and retaliates, you claim everyone there was civilian and no one was really doing anything. Good luck! btw, what is a "squaddi"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tundrabuggy.YTou have a serious problem with chronology as well as geography (Samaria is Israel). years of suicide bombings by Hamas did not follow Israel's withdrawal from, and blockade of, Gaza. Israel barred all gazans from entry after the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ha. We have 20-some odd pages of archived talk for something that happened less than a month ago and you claim there is no controversy? There is a war going on and we can't decide what to call it. Pages have been written over whether it is called the Gaza Massacre or a massacre in Gaza. We can't even decide if it started or intensified on the 19th or the 27th. If it's a conflict, if it's a war or what? And you don't think the article is controversial?!? You're joking, right? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think what sean was saying is that there is no controversy over how many people were killed on each side. and it is the proportional weight of these figures that should determine the 'ratio' of photos/text regarding each. Untwirl (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And Gaza Massacre is only a 'controversy' because you cannot accept that people have used it as a name for the conflict, you keep on insisting that it is an accusation that needs some response. We report it as a name of the conflict, now if you refuse to accept reason then you can persist in calling this a controversy. Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Untwirl corrected interpreted my meaning and in future I would like to subcontract all of my edits to Untwirl to save time....well, my time anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk07:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was here where it is said, among other things: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. --my bolds. Fair and accurate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to what some are saying above, we could show, for example, faces of dead people from the September 11th attack. That would be OK by them. I say: No, we should not.John Hyams (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the most haunting images, at least to me, of that event are displayed, specifically the three frames of the plane flying in to the building. Wikipedia shows dead faces all over the place. Nableezy (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, with respect "No, we should not" contains no information about how you arrived at that conclusion and you haven't referred to any Wiki guidelines (By the way I found myself imagining you at the back of an Obama rally shouting that everytime he said "Yes, we can" for my own amusement). I can guess what you mean and why you would draw a parallel i.e. dignity issues, try to transpose the issue to a more familiar context etc but I'm just guessing. Maybe it is useful to discuss this in a context more familiar to some editors. I think we could show the faces of dead people from 9/11 and that would be OK and consistent with Wiki guidelines but I would see little benefit to a 9/11 article in doing that because such images are decontextualized i.e. they contain practically no information about the event. I would argue that the same goes for certain images from Gaza but something is a infinitely better than nothing. When I try to look at the images in the 9/11 Wiki article from the imaginary perspective of a person who knows nothing about the event I think the images don't really provide a very good description of the horrific nature of the event. The whole article (and I have to say the whole US media nowadays) appears to suffer from some form of self-censorship. For example, the iconic images for me are the ones of people who decided to jump rather than burn. Those kind of images show you the context, they aren't sanitised, they show the human element, they don't pull any punchs and viewers are better placed to imagine the true nature of the event and it's consequences for people in the building. In the same sense I would consider images of burned and mangled bodies of people who died in 9/11 as entirely appropriate for that article. Those kind of images are required in the 9/11 article and they're required in this article at least for me but only if they enable the reader to gain a better understanding of the event. The risk of censorship based on 'Yuck it's horrible' or 'I don't want to see that' creeping into Wikipedia is something that I think everyone needs to take very seriously indeed because pretty much every single culture, demographic/religious etc group has something they don't like to look at so Wiki's ability to educate is attacked from all sides. Sean.hoyland - talk02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, then I may need to raise this issue on the talk page one of the guideline pages. I may do so, or perhaps just upload the faces of dead Israelis instead, who suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years, or faces of dead individuals from Sudan, in the relevant articles. If any other editor will object that, I will refer him to what you have said. Anyway, just a question, are there faces of dead individuals on the online Britannica encyclopedia? John Hyams (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to upload graphic photos that show the objective reality of suicide attacks on Israelis to the appropriate articles or pictures of that nature from any other part of the world you are free to do so and I would fully support you if they improve the articles and comply with guidelines. As I say, faces by themselves or indeed decontextualized information of any nature doesn't help much in my view. Regarding "suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years", they are countable not countless and in Wiki we count them along with the statistics for the deaths of Lebanese, Palestinian and other people resulting from Israeli actions so that readers can find the information and draw their own conclusions based on reliably sourced information. As for Britannica, it's not relevant to Wiki but I doubt that they have the same content disclaimer and WP:NOTCENSORED rules as here but yes, I think you probably can see the faces of dead individuals and those about to die in their Library of Congress photos for example in the Holocaust article and elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
npov international law section
every accusation in the israel section is followed by their denial, while the palestinian section has accusation followed by hamas' denial followed by a further refutation of their denial, or just an accusation. each side should be presented in the same fashion; either accusation then denial, or vice versa. Untwirl (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each needs to be considered on its own merits. Similarly, in a court of law, the standard for arguments is argument,rebuttal,counter... but the judge may choose to either cut the counter short (if there is nothing new) or allow an additional rebuttal if new arguments warrant it. Here too, we should strive to simplify the arguments and counterarguments into a single block apiece, but if the nature or scope of the denials and refutations makes more sense in a back-and-forth, then "fairness of style presentation" should lose out to "fairness of logical presentation." That's not to say the cases of "further refytation" shoudl be that way, or that the Palestinian side should be restricted in any special way -- just look at each set of points, and present them in a way that makes sense to the reader, does justice to the points being made, while trying to stay concise. We're a part of an encyclopedia, not a book unto itself. Dovid (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fiddled with that a week or so ago. The Palestinian section was laid out as rebuttal then accusation. Support formatting each side the same way.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object. We cannot simply format two different matters the same way to suggest they were equal. Israel is a state obliged to obey certain international laws, and who can be sued if she violates these laws. Though I find it unusual and WP:undue to make up an "International law" section from feelings and thoughts of several people who are neither experts nor an international court - an international court should be the only one who can rule out if international law was violated or not, innocent until convicted - the accusations concerning Israel are all based on alleged violations of protocols she signed.
In contrast to Israel, the Gaza strip is not a state, and Hamas is already in its statute and actions regarded by many/most/nearly all (?) states illegitimate. Of course they want to be perceived as a state and not as a political cult (or even a destructive one) controlling an area the status of which can at best be ascribed with "uncertain". Regarded as such a wanna-be state, they can of course breach international law meaning the rules of conduct of the international community, and certainly do by the actions listed in the respective section, but circumvent this by denying all legitimacy in Israel's very existance and actions, and thus concluding their actions are in fact self-defense. Although this flaws already with the recognition of Israel by the international community and by international law, and thus is pretty WP:fringe, the self defense argument is already included in length with the cited Hamas response, what more needs to be said? I therefore propose to not further change the format. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a fringe theory or undue weight when major human rights organizations are accusing them of war crimes. I dont see how somebody could argue that the accusations against each side should not be dealt with the same in the article. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dovid - one man's "logical presentation" is another man's "pov statement." no one is asking that any allegations be removed, simply that they be arranged in a similar fashion.
skapp - your argument addresses content, not format. you have not stated a reason why you think the format should not be accusation then denial or vice versa for each side. Untwirl (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(re) In fact I didn't adress content, but the (implicit) argument that apples and oranges should be represented/formatted the same way because WP:NPOV allegedly requires both to look like onions. I have a different understanding of WP:NPOV. We should integrate Hamas views (which is not equal to "Palestinian") very sparingly and treat everything that comes from Hamas according to WP:FRINGE. That is more or less done in the respective section and I do not see a(n) NPOV violation. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blockade as act of war
The Background section notes that "a blockade constitutes an act of war under international law. [105]." Can this refer to the Israeli "blockade"? Surely a country has the right to close its borders? Gaza also has no port. This sentance should also be removed. The firing of rockets by Hamas is also an act of war!? Chesdovi (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A country has a right to close its borders, but it is an act of war to close another territories borders, eg the Gaza coast. The sentence is accurate and well sourced. Nableezy (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I havent, Egypt has closed its border, it has not blockaded Gaza's coast. And this isnt from the sources, but I think Egypt is wrong for doing so. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Egypt is not the current occupying power, it has no responsibility to allow for proper humanitarian aid through, Israel does. Egypt may, I think does, have a moral obligation to do so, but no legal obligation to do so. Nableezy (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
INAL but i disagree, without Egypts support the Sea blockade would be an irritation to Gazas fishermen, not part of the worst siege since stalingrad, they are totally complicite in any crimes against humanity that happen due to not enough resources like medicine. Its just another example of muslims from outside making the situation worse for the Gazans and ALL the blaim being dumped on Isreal (insted of most). (Hypnosadist)04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza has no port ? Not anymore, that's true. It's more of a big pile of rubble now. Not sure if that's what you meant. I imagine the ports lost time incident safety statistics for this year are looking pretty bad so no annual bonus for those guys. Major triping hazards all over the place. Sean.hoyland - talk03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your not going to get me to defend the practices of Egypt, yes it is complicit in these crimes, but it is not the perpetrator. Legally, the responsibility lies on Israel to provide this aid as its duties as an occupying power. Egypt has not had a single ship participating in the blockade of Gaza's coast. Yes, Egypt has made the situation worse, but what exactly is the point here? Nableezy (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this per WP:NOR. If there are sources stating a scholary consensus regarding (1) that "war" (in law terms) is possible between Israel and the Gaza strip, and (2) that this particular blockade is a part of it, source and reintroduce. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Sir, it's not only the blockade (as the article gives that impression). Remember Remember that Israel bombed several people in the tunnels, and Haaretz itself said in its article Crushing the tahadiyeh:
was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground
And let's not forget, that the Hamas rockets was a reply to killing its people:
Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel.
Israel began bombing, hamas replied with rockets in a tit for tat fashion. And it's not only the BBC, look at the report by the pro-Israeli far-right Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which said:
Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets
Unlike, say, Israeli claims, which are automatically substantiated, since they're made by Israelis. (/snark) It's reported by good sources. It's relevant and should be included, subject of course to the usual caveats of due weight, relevance, and proper framing (ie, "according to witness accounts compiled by BBC and B'tselem, XYZ. Israel denies XYZ and there is no verification of XYZ due to Israeli blockade.") <eleland/talkedits> 06:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Percentage of Gazan population
"...1,314 individuals have been killed (0.089% of the population)" in the casualties paragraph makes a point, but is it OR? Don't see the percentage in the sources. RomaC (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was out of place and OR so I got rid of it. I am a big fan of data. Don't get any reason for it being included unless the editor had something to prove or also really likes numbers (crunch crunch crunch crunch).Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The box at the top of this talkpage states: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
NoCal has made five controversial edits without participating in any discussions here. I reverted them, as for example removing information on Gaza's population density with an edit summary of "not even top 10" seems unilateral. RomaC (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, people are being bold alright. this is a bad place to do that, but seeing as they were all in a row lets agf. its brd and now's the time for d. hopefully he will. i have been less than bold, pretty timid actually, but i don't have time to defend myself - just got super busy here in the noncyber world. i just do very minor edits and drop some suggestions and hope someone else puts them in. Untwirl (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were they really controversial? Brunte thinks that's a weasel word. It is when used as a label having little substance behind it. What's the substantive problem here? Dovid (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support dropping the box since it is simply impossible for anyone to go read all those archives to determine whether or not to make an edit. That really defeats the BE BOLD part of wiki. Just let people edit and if there really is a differing consensus somewhere, let the other editor revert with a point to the discussion or consensus he is drawing on. There is precious little of that going on. I would guess the majority of reverts don't even include an edit summary, while those that claim consensus in their edit summary, don't feel compelled to point to the discussion. This is very off-putting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the way i understood it, you don't have to " point to the discussion or consensus (you are) drawing on" when you revert. it's b-r-d, meaning you revert back to the prior state and then discuss why you think a change is needed to come to consensus. isn't that true? (i'm not being facetious there, i'll admit i'm not well studied in the rules) Untwirl (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus (let's say for the lead) and someone changes it, then others are right to revert, and simply point to TALK. However when there are an infinity of TALK pages, (in itself an indication that there is very little actual consensus around) it isn't really fair to expect people to go look for the consensus. If one is reverting because there is a consensus, it seems only fair under the circumstances to point to it (ie proof that your revert is based on something valid). If there is no consensus, you should not revert. You can change the edit to better reflect the facts, to read better, to be less POV, etc but not simply revert to some non-consensus version. There is nothing wrong with someone being bold and trying a new tact anywhere in any article. Deal with the new edit if there has been no consensus established for it and if you don't like it, take it to talk. That's my reading... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee if I tried doing the same stuff here and tried these same arguments in an article, say like Jerusalem, about, lets say moving the footnote about how the whole world does not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel to the very first sentence, these same users would be yelling all sorts of policy violations. How about trying to not let your understanding of policies be determined by what side you are arguing? Nableezy (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power" - 1st sentence???
the first line of the lead was changed from,
"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[38]
to
"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power [2][3], began on ..."
with the edit summ : "views on conflict - see talk"
i didn't see a section on that so i reverted it and i'm starting one. here ya go. sadly, i have to go to bed now and you'll all have to uke it out without me. night. Untwirl (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i meant duke (obviously). although it would be cute if yall all had little ukeleles and played devil went down to georgia against each other . . . Untwirl (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you don't see it is because editors on this page insist on removing to archives unresolved disputes and ongoing conversations. However, if someone changes the bot again to remove discussions after a mere 9 hours, there is a good chance this talk section will be gone before you wake up. Doright (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in that section he is so concerned about he was arguing by himself that some PhD involved in forgery should have his personal views in the first section. You want that line, then include this one: "The assault on Gaza is also being carried out to help Kadima and Labour defeat Likud and its leader Binyamin Netanyahu, who is currently ahead in the polls." [33]. Neither should be in the first sentence, something Doright refuses to understand. Nableezy (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, your misleading comment is not helpful. The edits include citations from the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Israel, high level government advisers, noted academics, etc. Of course, you already know that but choose to ignore it. And, as you have already been shown many times, that person you characterize as "some PhD" is a trusted adviser to the highest levels of the government of the Unites States that no doubt require a security clearance including the National Security Council, the Secretaty of State (I'm not going to list them all again as I have already done so many times before) and is the author of numerous books and articles and holds some of the most prestigious positions in what is among the most prominent think-tanks in the USA. In light of this your comment can hardly be taken seriously. Doright (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ledeen once was a trusted adviser to the Government of the United States, in such things as WMD in Iraq, Nigeria nuclear material in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and all the other crap. None of it true.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The archived section did not include anything from the former (thankfully) President of the United States. And your Israel PM quote was taken from a speech with 2,452 words (English translation as posted by the Israeli MFA) in which the word Iran appeared a total of 4 times in 2 adjacent sentences near the middle of the speech. That you think this somehow means that the sentiment expressed should then be included in the very first sentence of the article shows how ridiculous this conversation is. Now, for what I hope will be the last time, if you want to add this into the lead, get consensus. I do not see what is so difficult to understand about this. Your repeated insistence in bringing editorials and opinions into the lead of this article, and then claim that you are doing so in the name of NPOV shows your bias clearly. Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as misleading, I would encourage others to look at this about Michael Leeden's interest in Iran. A cofounder of 'The Coalition for Democracy in Iran', which is oddly enough a democracy and whose President he is so agitated about democratically elected, which has as its aims 'regime change' in Iran, cannot be used as a source to claim this conflict is connected to Iranian goals to become a regional power. You could also check out the NY Times review of his book 'The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction': "Ledeen’s effort to lay virtually every attack by Muslims against Americans at Tehran’s feet takes him into rather bizarre territory. He says the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ‘were in large part Iranian operations,’ which would come as news to the 9/11 Commission, which attributed them solely to Al Qaeda. He says Shiite Iran was largely behind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man famous for his genocidal hatred of Shiites. He claims that ‘most’ Iraqi insurgents are ‘under Iranian guidance and/or control,’ not just Shiite warlords like Moktada al-Sadr, but Sunni militants as well—the very people who say they are fighting to prevent Iranian domination. In Ledeen’s view, in fact, Sunni-Shiite conflict—the very thing that most observers think is tearing Iraq apart—is largely a mirage, because Iran controls both sides. And Al Qaeda is a mirage too, a mere front for the regime in Tehran. ‘When you hear “Al Qaeda,”’ Ledeen writes, ‘it’s probably wise to think “Iran.”’ Not surprisingly, he thinks the mullahs were probably behind 9/11." And you want us to put as fact his assertion that this conflict should also be laid at the feet of, surprise surprise, Iran. That he convinced George Bush and you that he is right says more about George Bush and yourself then it does about the many editors refusal to allow such fringe views to be prominently displayed. Nableezy (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] Your attacks on Ledeen are in their own ways red herrings. The broader question the edit raises is supported by all sorts of knowledgeable people and RS. In fact the thesis is quite mainstream. Here are a few more making that point as well. Iran's Quest for Superpower Status[34]; Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States Triti Parsi, Yale University PRess; Hudson Institute: The Iran-Hamas Alliance[35]; A Recipe For Defeat Tashbih Sayyed from Muslim World Today [36]; Jerusalem Post [37]Iran is "chief beneficiary of the war on terror" George Conger How many acceptable references will you require to allow that thesis to be aired in this article? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Iran should defend Islamic world: top cleric[38] etcTundrabuggy (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red herrings? They clearly demonstrate the man cannot be trusted is completely biased. Your Foreign Affairs Journal article is from 1987. The second source is from 2007. The last two are from 2006. Googling only gets what you are looking for, and here it has given you irrelevant nonsense, which you in turn brought here. Nableezy (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you need to look at the sentence we are discussing again. It says: ""The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power [2][3], began on ..." "part of a conflict with Iran's quest, etc ...." Iran's quest for power did not begin in 2008. It has been fomenting trouble in the region for quite a long time. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And they were not 'my attacks' the first was a fact, the second was a direct quote from the New York Times review of one of his books. The review was by Peter Beinart who is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tundra - this looks like some serious synthesis and mischaracterization. the jpost article you cited refutes your position - i haven't read the others yet -
"Even though Iran is frequently depicted as a manipulator and instigator of violence in the broader Middle East," the report argued, "the Iranian regime is wary of provoking generalized chaos in the region, because it is essentially conservative and seeks to maintain the status quo."
Untwirl (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read superficially you are correct. But the very fact of the "argument" (ie "Iran is frequently depicted") actually proves the point of the original edit, ie "viewed by some as ... and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power..." The report acknowledges the viewpoint of the "others" even as it disagrees with them. Article acknowledges the viewpoint, no? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tundrabuggy, you say that their quest for regional domination does not begin in 2008 so a source from 1987 is acceptable to try to tie this conflict with this supposed quest. I am sorry that does not make any sense. That this conflict is part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at Palestinians and Israelis in armed conflict. If you want to start an article on Iranian influence in the Middle East, by all means go make that article, a source from 1987, or 2006, or 2007, may actually be relevant there. Here, however, it is not. Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can just jump in here, I'd like to say that we don't need every section to degenerate into a debate about our political views. It doesn't just get side-tracked but it hurts our already fragile dialogue in general.
So I think everyone would agree there is a place for mentioning Iran somewhere but I think most of us can agree that it is not in the first sentence. Or disagree if you want but try and limit it to that issue please. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user doright reverted lead addition (see above)
he said (see talk) but he hasn't posted here for hours..
Update -- I reverted doright's first-sentence edit that blamed Iran for all this, and now he's warned me for "harming the encyclopedia." hehehe RomaC (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the sentence was regarding gunmen firing at IDF patrol from Gaza into Israel and firing mortar shells from Gaza into Gaza and into Israel on January 20. Somehow the first violation of cease-fire got transformed into killing of "Palestinian farmer" which took place while Palestinian factions continued to fire rockets into Israel and before Hamas announced ceasefire at Sunday afternoon January 18. Well has history re-written itself somehow? Does it still reflect reality? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says the farmer death was the first after the ceasefire and it did precede the patrol incident. I don't see why it has to be removed. JVent (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gazan Casualties number disputed
[[39]]
Gazan doctor says death toll inflated. Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper regarding number of dead in Israeli offensive "The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THE CASUALTIES NUMBERS SHOULD STARTED TO BE CORRECTED, or at least mentioned that informations are not quite sure: A recent article based on the testimony of a Gazan physician says that there were "only" around 500-600 casaulties with MOST of them armed young Hamas fighters.
Gazan doctor says death toll inflated
Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper number of dead in Israeli offensive 'stands at no more than 500 or 600, most of them youths recruited to Hamas' ranks'
[...] A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."
Identify the Italian Newspaper, and read to the bottom of the article:
These new figures must be treated with caution especially in light of the fact that various official sources in the Gaza Strip, including United Nations and Red Cross officials, have reported that more than 1,300 people were killed and some 5,000 wounded during the three weeks of fighting in the coastal strip. Palestinian sources claim that three-quarters of the dead were unarmed civilians
Nishidani, I see what you mean. Numbers flow around bigger - better. I think that quoted "at least 940 civilians" PCHR statistics about are questionable. [[40]] Here two examples of civilians: Nizar Rayan ( forced his four wives and kids with him in his into grave ) and Said Siam. Is this balanced and neutral? Some say Israel target is killing as much Gaza civilians as Israel can. It is so easy to believe. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe explain yourself in complete English sentences? I don't know what you're contributing here other than a vague sense that "they asked for it." There's one contrarian report, quickly flashed around the world by the IDF media machine. The numbers you think are questionable are the best ones available and the most widely cited. Nobody's saying the one report should be suppressed, just that it can't be taken as The Truth because some people like it for political reasons. <eleland/talkedits> 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
In the infobox it is written that "Hamas rockets halted". Is this accurate? It gives the impression that the IDF destroyed Hamas's rockets. As far as I know Hamas fired some rockes on the day of the ceasefire to show that they still had the ability to perform rocket attacks. Perhaps it should be changed to "Hamas ceases rocket attacks" Sherif9282 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to throw the data into the article somewhere or are we still waiting while the infobox gets more and more cluttered?Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally relevent as reflected in the high number of RS noting that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. This is the context in which the war is being waged, why would we omit that information? RomaC (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would omit it for the same reason we omit the fact that the Negev desert contains unique geological formations such as makhteshim, or the reason the we omit the fact that Gaza has he world's highest unemployment. These facts are not relevant background - they did not cause the conflict, and were in no way a factor contributing to it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant considering so many sources have brought up the high population density in relation to the high number of civilian casualties. Nableezy (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we should definitely add that most of the Hamas rockets land in the Negev desert potentially harming the unique geological formations such as makhteshim. Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, I'm not sure whether it helps but I can tell you with some professional confidence based of a great deal of rocks vs people safety training that people and rocks don't have the same status with respect to safety/injury-risk issues. Unfair perhaps from the perspective of rocks that have to suffer the indignity of the geologists hammer but a reality nevertheless. e.g. hammering rocks = okay, hammering collegues heads even while wearing a hard hat = generally frowned upon in industry circles. Sean.hoyland - talk05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, if there is significant coverage of the event that treats topography or employment figures as germane, please provide RS and perhaps we can add this information to the article. For the time being, we should stick with what is being said, which is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. As Nabeezy points out, this probably relates more directly to the air, sea and ground assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Haaretz and Ynet are reliable sources. Moreover, both the Italians (for the 500–600 figure) and the Australian source currently used for the 1,330 cite Palestinian medical staff, so maybe you should be asking why should we trust Palestinian medical staff? -- Ynhockey(Talk)19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm because Palestinian medical staff are the ones collecting the bodies? That should be obvious. As for the Italian figure, they are quoting a lone Gazan doctor. The majority of Palestinian medical sources which the UN have called reliable say the figures around 1300. There is an attempt by people to deflate the numbers by capitalizing on a minority opinion (a single source exploited by Israeli news). Is there another source other than that single doctor that corroborates the claim? Or do you just want to give undue weight to that one doctor? Use common sense please. CNN is also considered a reliable source, but even they report very wrong information. [[42]]--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hamas' claim of 100 dead militants isn't in this section, but an unnamed physician's claim is? how is a single doctor's claim of how many died notable? is he involved with counting somehow? if not, his opinion is conjecture and not notable. i think it should be removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a claim of one doctor can not contend with the claim both by the UN, Palestinian authority and the IDF that more than 1,300 were killed.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everybody (UN,BBC,IDF) do arithmetic based on numbers provided by Hamas controlled sources. The fact is Hamas government refused to release names for most of Gazans killed (187 were released so far?). This gives a lot of room for speculations about innocent civilians murdered by IDF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel seizes on claims Gaza death toll has been exaggerated"
I understand what you say, whoever there are no solid facts in this case. Gaza Hamas government is not completely transparent on casualties issue to say the least. I do not understand how this hearsay better than that hearsay. Many forget how "medical sources" claimed "hundreds of martyrs" in Battle of Jenin case and credible sources like UN/BBC/whoever initially repeated and "confirmed". It is natural for Israel to preform massacre :( I think it is only fair to say that casualties numbers are being disputed. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MoH numbers are not hearsay, they have collected the information. If that information later is proven to be false then fine, but right now an individual doctor has not ability to estimate loses across Gaza. And you cannot say they have not been transparent, reporters have not been allowed in to independently verify the figures. AI and other human rights organizations say they are reliable enough to quote and they provide the source of the numbers until an independent verification can take place. Nableezy (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas (MoH) government of Gaza can not release list of casualties because of brutal Israeli occupation. PCHR (human rights experts) "research group" is reliable enough to count Said Siam and Nizar Rayan as civilians. And those Italian reporters clearly hired by Shin Bet while doing too much LSD. Fair and Balanced. :) Is not it fair to say that Hamas numbers are being disputed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the quote 'Israel has not, however, formally disputed the widely published total' shows they are not currently disputed even by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has not, however, formally disputed the widely published total (from the article) Until it does, this article shouldn't include specuations. We can wait. The Squicks (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth the 500-600 number does come from one doctor. But the doctor's quote is preceded by comments from the author. He says, in his own voice, that as he visits clinics, hostpitals and victim's families the truth is coming to light. And he says that the true number appears to be much lower than what Hamas has reported and was repeated by the UN and Red Cross. Then he introduces the quote from the doctor to give a more exact figure. The article also says, in its own voice, that the hospitals of Gaza are mostly empty and lists a few by name. I wouldn't suggest that we include any of this. I just noticed that the article has much more than just the one doctor even though that's what comes up most in the Israeli papers.
And this from the Jeremy Bowen at the BBC.[46] It talks about the tunnel use, rebuilding and includes the Hamas claim that 30% of the tunnels were destroyed during the fighting. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article only shows very graphical pictures of Palestinian dead/wounded. I believe these pictures are completely out of place (with absolutely no relation to Palestinian/Israeli civilians, simply because of the pictures' highly graphical nature). Some of you would say- "that represents reality". That's not correct. Although there have been many times more Palestinian civilians hurt than Israelis, Israel does not have a goal of deliberately targeting innocent civilians as the Hamas has, therefore these pictures are COMPLETELY out of place. Please make things right.
.jpg)
Bodies at a morgue.
![[4]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/aa.98.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/20060408-180512-5.30.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/aaaa.59.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/aaa.96.jpg){kind=link}