Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Legitamacy of PCHR numbers

The world could be perceived in three states. First of all is unquestioned state. That which a child sees, in which bread is bread and wine is wine. The second state is consensus reality, that set of conventions by which we agree that bread is a meal and wine is camaraderie. The third is examined state, that with which our colleagues in the School of Sorcery deal, the interplay of forces which they hold to be the ultimate reality. Yet let us ask ourselves, what lies beyond them all? What is the true state of what we might call hyperreality? The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

"The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes, said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team."

How can numbers which consider Hamas leaders civilians be considered legitamate? How was that a non-combat situation either? By that logic every military strike by Israel was a "non-combat situation" Drsmoo (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've talked about that before. It's in the archives. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we also agreed about a warning neutral wording for encyclopedia readers which might be confused by such an outstanding PCHR civilian and combat definition. Since then, this article improved a lot: the warning was lost but now we have military rabbis engagement sub-section. Israeli troops clearly wanted to kill as much gentile changelings as possible. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you've been away for a while so I should say that user:Factsontheground added the rabbi section yesterday. If you have a problem with it you're free to deal with it. And welcome back. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome, I missed you too. I guess my point is maybe we should restore the warning regarding PCHR statistics meaning in Disputed Figures section. Does it sound reasonable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your own 'warning' on the reliability of their numbers, you cant just say their numbers are unreliable you need a source to do so. Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important that people know that the PCHR figures consider Hamas leaders to be civilians Drsmoo (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International law considers anybody, including commanders, to be civilians while they are not engaged in hostilities. What you think is important is only important to you. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Being in a war counts as being involved in hostilities. As does launching thousands of rockets. There was alreadya notification in this article previously informing readers of this, and it should return. Drsmoo (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation of international law, one that I am certain that you are not qualified to provide based on the simple fact that you are plain wrong according to those who are qualified to do so. Nableezy (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, combatant status it is disputed by Israel and others. It is also apparently a somewhat arbitrary process.[1] But I think that's an issue that doesn't need to be addressed in the infobox. It can't be a place for dissections like that. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about infobox casualties, our article seems to be wrong about that Ukrainian woman. It says that two foreigners were killed, the woman and her child. But she was married to a local doctor, so the child was Palestinian, as much as he was Ukrainian. Although I don't see why a resident foreigner, married to a local, needs special mention anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Never looked into the Ukrainian myself. Special mention is not needed at all ff child has duel citizenship since it is covered. Someone married to a local (I assume she was residing as well) probably doesn't deserve special inclusion either.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont think special mention is needed at all. Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's PCHRs interpretation that Hamas's general during Cast lead was a civilian. If you think that is legitamate please cite the law that states that a general who is coordinating a war is a civilian. 199.79.168.212 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has generals? The source actually says: "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated" Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And read this for the views of people who are actually qualified to say something, not some random wikipedia editor. They are combatants only while taking 'direct participation in hostilities'. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, noone claims reliability. I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. This is why readers who read the first sentence of civilian Wikipedia article are confused. The CBS quote makes the required clarification and singles those two and mention them by name for confusion clarification reason. CBS probably cares about its readers. I agree with Drsmoo, it is important that people know that the PCHR figures include some armed forces members as civilians. This RS backed clarification provided encyclopedic value to this article. I'm sorry it was lost. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the recent edit for the most part. Hamas members (including those with military ties) are in the count. I don't think we need to go into detail about the general but "The PCHR figures for civilian casualties include "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations"" It is kind of similar to the police thing. Israel considers some "civilians" potential combatants or tied to combatants. It looks like PCHR considers that at least mentionable.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with that. The sources that bring this up are on old numbers, and I have yet to find one raising any supposed criticisms of the final tally. Beyond that, we say that the PCHR says x number of civilians died, we are obviously using their definition of a civilian. Also, the UN has now presented those numbers without qualification as to the source. We say that they said x number combatants died. That excludes noncombatants. It doesnt exclude everybody associated with Hamas, it excludes those not taking part in combat situations. The definition the PCHR used is the same that the ICRC uses, the same that AI uses, the same that B'tselem uses, the same that HRW uses. It is the standard definition in international law. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

per talk AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, but I don't think that edit reflects the consensus on the talk page. I also think that it is not NPOV to say that the PCHR "inflated" the civilian count -- it is just their interpretation. So I'm going to spare Nableezy the effor and revert that. I think you should probably discuss anything specific first. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is this your mean side? First time I have seen it, and I am shocked. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I am playing the good cop. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this fixes NPOV. Please don't arrest me, Mr. officer :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please try to get consensus for edits you know will be disputed? Please? I explained my objections above, could you at least try to answer them instead of just saying the completely meaningless 'per talk'? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we need a consensus. Could you explain your objection to the edit, so I could improve it? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I already did, up above in a comment dated 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC). Nableezy (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can explain Nableezy's objection. He thinks that PCHR's definitions are standard for the field and thus do not require our expansion. I think he would probably further say that, if anything, the IDF is the one with the unusual practice of classifying those figures as combatants. And that's what we should mention, if anything. I have the sense that he might also say something was "retarded" but I'm not 100% on that. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, JGGardiner, I see what you mean. Somehow if PCHR definitions would be standard for the field, we would not see neutral CBS expansion requirement and mentioning civilian names. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you need to stop putting in the same disputed edit over and over. Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I've learned a lot of Wikipedia rules from you. Really appreciate your opinion. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you discuss your changes as much as I do and publish your diffs :). You also need to reach consensous. I know it's a beginning of new day in Chicago, so good morning. Missed you, man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, if you insist on keeping this so called clarification then you cannot argue against further detail on the numbers of the IDF and the criticism of it. Nableezy (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for criticism, though maybe some belong to international law section. I'm not really sure what directly engaged in hostilities means. Does it mean that commanding officers which use communication equipment instead of guns considered civilians? Still Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly would the IDF know this? Wodge (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean how exactly would the IDF know that they were using communications equipment to direct hositilities if that's what they were doing at the time the IDF blew them up? Wodge (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what IDF knew :) I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are not taking part in hostilities they are classed as cilivians. Wodge (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine that commanding officers of armed forces would be idle when enemy offensive is occurring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada the edit you made is nonsense. You cannot determine the innocence of somebody, kindly self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you insist on qualifying the PCHR numbers you have to include both sides, you cannot just say I want to disparage the numbers and thats it. Nableezy (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, innocence is in CBS reliable source, quoted as is, because of my broken English :) Why do you object to this wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it, the source says it includes members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations and that is what the article says now. Nableezy (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you didnt notice, hard to believe because it is in the same sentence, the source also says 'along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes' That should be in there as well if you are going to explicitly mention the names. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors noted in archives that IAF bomb on your head is indeed very non-combat situation. Still neutral CBS quote is The civilians not only included innocent bystanders. And again Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources. I don't want any confusion. Hope you don't object. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I feel kick and ban buttons singing danger danger - high voltage. I don't want to be trigger happy so late at night :) We'll continue this discussion tomorrow. Send my regards to Windy City. Is hockey season over already? AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Whats your point on 'rented' home? And why do you keep saying 'neutral' CBS? And why do you want to keep out 'killed with their relatives in their homes'? It is in the exact same sentence you keep citing. There is no confusion in that sentence. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POVing, probably. I think he wants 'innocent bystanders' so that it contrasts Hamas members who presumably are guilty at all times. Wodge (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wodge, is this your understanding of assume good faith WP:Etiquette rule? It's custom to strike errors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is a fundamental rule of wikipedia. Your use of the word 'innocent' is quite clearly POV. Wodge (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia rules you should assume good faith of other editors. This part needs striking. Please see WP:Etiquette.
• Please read the CBS source, I incorporated in this article direct quote from neutral/secondary reliable source. So no NPOV issue what so ever.

It's human to err. Hope you see what I mean, Wodge. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The sentence you inserted looked like your own wording. So clearly NPOV.

2. Plagiarism is not allowed either. You can't cut and paste stuff without clearly labeling it as a quote.

3. I might have assumed good faith the first you made the change but you attempted to insert it over and over again even though you've been told repeatedly why it's not necessary. Wodge (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand there are two issues here:

• CBS notes civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" and names two leaders.
• PCHR notes "non-combat situations" and "massive bombings of homes"

Could we agree on that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the article already mentions all that. Your additional quotes are not necessary. Wodge (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the CBS article says non-combat situations and killed with their families in massive bombing of their homes. It is the very same sentence as what you keep posting, so I find it hard to AGF that you are innocently overlooking that. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF? Wodge (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand what is the Wikipedia way to reflect the facts in reliable source report. Hoped this is was good enough. AGF? :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the current wording. Wodge, AGF=Assume Good Faith. Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "innocent bystanders" is POV and shouldn't be included even if it from CBS. Wodge (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts of dispute is more clear now both on police officers and Hamas leaders. I still don't like current wording since it's more about accusations and less about facts as-is as brought by reliable sources. Let's be constructive and find some fair compromise for wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain exactly what is wrong with the wording. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the sources and it looks that the Disputed Figures sub-section (and me) is out of date. The name list was published by PCHR and analyzed. Enough of accusations on both sides. Maybe we could trim the Disputed Figures all together, so it will not grow as wild as Laos jungle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specifics. I do think it needs to be trimmed (I dont think the Corriere info needs to be mentioned at all anymore now that we have close to official numbers from each side) but I dont know what it is that you want to remove. Nableezy (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on Corriere in particular. Generally I would trim maybe the whole sub-section branch all together: accusations/legal stuff also (or alternatively move relevant info/quotes to international law). It is silly to dispute when detailed name list of casualties is available. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something there about the difference between the PCHR and IDF figures, though? Wodge (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, something should be up soon enough, as in an a greater authoritative investigation about the figures. That the IDF's figures on Palestinians are included, makes no sense whatsoever, yet no need to take it further at this time, after all, that italian doctor's allegations on figures was so damaging. Cryptonio (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A file picture dated 15 September 2007 shows senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan (L) inspecting Hamas militants as they participate in a training exercise at an undisclosed location in the northern Gaza Strip. Does he look very civilian or "not taking part in hostilities"? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, he has to be taking part in these hostilities Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are links in the archives of reliable sources describing Nizar Rayan as commander of northern Gaza Strip during these hostilities. Go figure it ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to add "such as Nizar Rayan and Said Siam" to PCHR civilian classification. I believe RS backed addition clarifies the dispute and provides encyclopedic value. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add those specific names then also include what the RSs say how they died, namely that they were bombed in their homes with their families. You cant just add the information that you like. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rayan case is shocking, B'Tselem cried about civilian loss.[2]. Other RS (New York Daily News) noted that Rayan had "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home.[3]. Rayan sent his young son to die on a suicide mission back in 2001 - surrounded himself with human shields comprised of members of his own family, most of whom perished when an Israel F-16 dropped a bomb on his home in Jabaliyah.[4]. From other hand Said Seyam was not killed in his home at all. Bottom line both leaders have Wikipedia notability and articles, so mentioning names and wiki-links would be enough. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not enough, if you want to bring up these two specifically, bring up the specifics. Your point about rented vs owned home is irrelevant, it was his home even if he did not own it. And the NY Daily news, please, lets try to keep the tabloids to a minimum. Nableezy (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could describe Rayan using human shields comprised of members of his own family. From other hand Said Seyam was surrounded by body guards, his family home was not bombed. I think this article is bloated as-is, mentioning names and wiki links would provide the information about "non-combat" situation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a judgment you make on 'human shields', one that is not accepted by most sources. The relevant information to the 'non-combat' issue is that they were attacked in their homes. If you want to bring up the example of 2 specifics of what is already said in the article, 'members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations' then provide the specifics as to why they were classified as being in 'non-combat' situations. You cannot just pick and choose the information to use, it leaves an incomplete account that is used to only highlight one side of the issue. If you want to give the specific names of those two, then you need to also include the relevant information as to why they were classified as non-combat. Nableezy (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is Al Jazeera image of Rayan, published during this conflict. I just say, let's mention leaders names and let the reader draw moral conclusions. Let's state the facts as-is. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'facts as-is' are that both men were killed in their homes with their families. It already says 'Hamas members', the point is 'in non-combat situations'. If you want the names, put the situation as well, you can't expand on one point and completely ignore the rest. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

While you continue to argue about circumstances, disregarding Seyam's case, you somehow miss the point why both mentioned together by CBS: the civilian classification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And you missed the point that civilian deaths are defined as those killed while not engaged in hostilities, or non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me disagree with you. Hamas as organization publicly took responsability for rocket love fest. So Hamas security personal/armed forces members did take part in hostilities, no one denies it. Both mentioned persons had some "dudes with guns" under their command. I try to imagine Nizar convert to pacifism night before his home was bombed or Said deserting his role in Executive Force in Gaza when he heard jets overhead. It is still hard to imagine. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep missing the 'while not engaged in hostilities', that they previously were engaged in hostilities does not make engaged in hostilities when they were killed. But that is not the important part. We have a sentence that says the 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to add specifics to the Hamas members part but not include that they were killed in non-combat situations. Even the CBS source you keep bringing up, after mentioning the names, in the very next sentence says they were killed in their homes with their families. You cannot just highlight the information that suits you, you want to expand on that sentence then fine, but you cannot include just one half of the story. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

for interest, I think even Israel’s High Court of Justice in their 'The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Gov’t of Israel et al' ruling declined to recognise 'unlawful combatant' as a third category of person in addition to the standard 'combatant' and 'civilian' categories of international law. Nor did they recognise members of Hamas etc as combatants as they don't meet the legal criteria. Even the HCJ seem to treat 'terrorists' as civilians albeit civilians who lose their immunity from attack while they are engaged in hostilities.

• "The basic approach is thus as follows: a civilian – that is, a person who does not fall into the category of combatant – must refrain from directly participating in hostilities (see FLECK, at p. 210). A civilian who violates that law and commits acts of combat does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy – during that time – the protection granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war. True, his status is that of a civilian, and he does not lose that status while he is directly participating in hostilities. However, he is a civilian performing the function of a combatant. As long as he performs that function, he is subject to the risks which that function entails and ceases to enjoy the protection granted to a civilian from attack".

Have a look [5]. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for interesting reading material, still somehow I'm not sure it is relevant to this particular discussion. Do you say those two persons took part in hostilities before this conflict, but resigned as Israel started offensive? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted it because I found it very surprising indeed...to such an extent that I can hardly believe what I read i.e. even when taking a direct part in hostilities a Hamas person has the legal status of civilian according to Israel’s High Court of Justice. I guess my point was that if that is what the HCJ think then maybe it's not so surprising or controversial that parties like PCHR count Hamas people as civilians when they aren't taking a direct part in hostilities at the time they were killed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

..maybe this is why B'Tselem record the statistics the way they do i.e. "Palestinians employing potentially lethal force (guns, rockets, explosives, Molotov cocktails) are listed as having participated in hostilities at the time they were killed" and refute CAMERA's militants aren't civilians statements...see B'tselem#Critical_commentary_and_response.....maybe it's all beginning to make sense...seems unlikely. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be frank with you: I do not have enough background to grasp all the legal technicalities. Do you say that HCJ would rule that all Hamas members were civilians? Had Hamas government took direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. They seem to have ruled (let's use Hamas as an example) that

• they aren't "combatants" from a legal perspective at any time.
• they are "civilians" at all times from a legal perspective even when taking direct part in hostilities
• while taking part in hostilities they lose their right to protection as civilians (but keep their legal status as civilians) and can be attacked (although they seem to have ruled that the actual legality of a 'targeted killing' depends on the specific circumstances..blah blah blah..).

So yes, it seems that the HCJ ruled that all Hamas members are civilians at all times. Amazing. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, this is really interesting. I read the sources carefully. HCJ takes an important role in balancing government and army policy in questions like torture, human shields, targeted killing and collective punishment. To tell you the truth I've learned about CAMERA from you, though, can not say they play an important and notable role in this conflict. The HCJ ruling in question is from 2005, back then Hamas boycotted Palestinian democratic process, since than many things had changed. Democratically elected Hamas government kind of rules in Gaza and kind of imports factory made weapon and kind of fires rockets. Do you think PCHR believes that current Hamas government did not take direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there has been another HCJ ruling since then, I don't know (seems unlikely). I don't know what the PCHR actually believes but what I do see now is that there is consistency between the HCJ ruling on 2 kinds of civilian (protected vs unprotected), B'Tselem's classification of 2 kinds of Palestinian casualty (civilian vs 'participating in hostilities at the time') and the PCHR classifying militants as civilians when they are killed while not taking a direct part in hostilities. All 3 seem to be using the same (or at least very similar) classifications, standard civilian vs someone physically engaged in hostilities at the time (i.e. actually firing a rocket etc). It seems to me that the PCHR's classification of a Hamas guy killed at home as a civilian who is not physically engaged in hostilities is the same classification that both B'Tselem and the HCJ would assign simply because he wasn't actually engaged in hostilities/commiting acts of combat at that precise time. It seems counter-intuitive because he could be sending messages to direct operations from home...I assume 'directly participating in hostilities' is defined legally somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I think I understand what you're saying. Still, B'Tselem does not refer to Nizar Rayan as civilian in their press release, it looks that you discuss those who are not part of armed forces and yet take weapon and commit acts of violence. Do you say that members of armed forces could be considered civilians? Do Hamas has armed forces at all? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth reading the whole HCJ ruling. Yes, members of irregular armed forces (not armies with uniforms etc) are considered as civilians (legally). There are combatants and civilians under international law (and Israeli law). Both of those kinds of people have protection under the law. If you call a Hamas guy a combatant he would have the legal privileges/protection that combatants are entitled to without having any of the legal responsibilities that go with being a combatant. If you call him a civilian he has the legal privileges/protection that civilians are entitled to but while he is engaged in hostilities he can be attacked as a military target. And 'engaged in hostilities' is defined in the report amd it doesn't include sitting at home. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't grasp this concrete ruling in full, still it looks pretty regular and outdated to me. There is a question of "non-state actor", still I personally would not call security minister as "irregular". In the context of "War on Hamas" Israeli legal sources clearly classify mentioned leaders as combatants, there are sources in the article. Still charity wing Hamas members were not considered combatants. Do you object "such as ..." addition based on neutral CBS to clarify the dispute? Maybe alternatively we could say "with military ties". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Toys with small pieces, such as these Lego elements are required by law to have warnings about choking hazards in some countries.

Agada, you keep missing the point. Sean gave an explanation as to the actual real world issue, which though it may be enlightening is not the point. In the article, we have a line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to expand on the Hamas members part of the line by adding specific members. If you want to do that, also expand on the 'killed in non-combat situations', which as the CBS source you keep bringing says, in the very next sentence, 'killed in massive bombings in their homes with their families.' You cannot just tell one side of the story. If you want to expand further you need to explain both parts of the story, the individual names and the individual circumstances. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. There is a dispute about such Israeli attacks legality and legitimacy.

• One reliable NGO says: Israeli security sources reported that the house was also used as an arms cache, a communications headquarters and concealed a tunnel opening. Prior to striking Rayyan's house the IDF warned his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so hopping that the underground shelter (loaded with arms and ammunitions) would eventually protect them. Prior to the attack the Israeli army held deliberations regarding the legality of striking homes used as weapons storages when sufficient warning is given to the residents. It has been decided that this falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate. [6]
• Another reliable NGO says: Even if the army spokesperson's statement is accurate, the large toll of civilian lives renders the attack a grave breach of international humanitarian law. In the current situation in the Gaza Strip, it is hard to think of a definite military advantage that could have been achieved by bombing the house and killing Rayan, that can justify the killing of 13 women and children. [7]

This is not the point of my argument. The point is PCHR classification of "military ties" leaders. I'm not really sure why we can not add "such as ...", following neutral CBS. Charity wing Hamas members were not disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, no, there is no question of 'non-state actors', 'bad guys', 'terrorists' etc there are just 'civilians' and 'combatants'. 'Civilians' may or may not be engaged in hostilities. The line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations' makes it clear how the PCHR classified the casualties. An RS might call someone like Said Siam a combatant for political/bad reporting reasons but that does not make them a combatant (legally) anymore than calling someone a terrorist makes them a terrorist. It would need to be attributed to the source. I don't understand what purpose is served/value is added by naming specific people because the controling factor seems to be whether the person was actually firing a rocket etc at the time of their death. Whether or not they were a senior Hamas member or a gardener is irrelevant. It's what the were doing at the time that matters. Perhaps it is the 'non-combat situations' that is causing trouble. Would it help to change that wording or clarify what a non-combat/combat situation is or mention that the civilian count included 'targeted killings of people not engaged on hostilities at the time' or something along those lines assuming there's an RS somewhere that uses that language ? I agree with Nableezy here. If you want to include names then it's better to include the context for those people i.e. targeted killing. Maybe there is a basic misunderstanding here that counting senior Hamas people as civilians when they're killed via targeted killing while not engaged in hostilities in someway de-values the PCHR figures. It doesn't. It might be confusing but it's what the ICRC etc would do. What is unusual, non-standard and notable is that some Israeli sources use classifications that are inconsistent everyone else's including with their own HCJ.

Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' so 'military ties' wouldn't make sense. If there were a Palestinian military those guys would be 'combatants'. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sean, Nableezy. My mistakes, the infoboxes should burn in hell!!! This is not a military conflict, after all. Those rockets are toys and really fun. The "strength" of 20.000, according to this article are not a real army, they are actually civilians, pretty much like rest 1.5 million. So what difference does it make that Rayan was playing with guns while dressed in a "toy military" uniform, no question of classification at all. Sean, I still seriously I do not agree on "allowed", there was UN ruling from November 1947. Palestinians do have a right! It is so amazing, I did not believe it myself initially, maybe both of you should read it carefully. Palestinians are real after all, no IOF backed by F-16 could change it! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean Agada. Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' i.e. army/airforce/navy It's covered by the interim accords See article 14 for example and the details in annex 1. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is that back when in the area of Big Bang (UN ruling) there were no "interim accords" or IOF F-16s and these days Hamas government is not obliged legally by "interim accords" and import factory made weapon from abroad and manufacture some domestically. Accords are important, but not really relevant. Do you object "such as ..." addition? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to it. I just don't understand what purpose it serves. I'm not a big fan of information without context or purpose. Regarding your comment above "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. Attributing the non-combat situation assessment like in the CBS article sounds sensible. If you wanted to put all of the information from the CBS source in the article (slightly reworded) I wouldn't object. I mean this stuff "such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan..->...PCHR's research team". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. Unless you include the specific circumstances dont include the specific names. If you want to include both then I am fine with that. But not just one side of a story. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot keep adding language like 'However, CBS noted that PCHR civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" but also Hamas members such as Nizar Rayan and Said Seyam. According to PCHR research team head, top leaders were "assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes", thus in "non-combat situations".' For one thing, the 'however' is you making an assumption that CBS uses this information to dispute the figures. Also, 'CBS noted' that they were killed in massive bombings of their homes, not just the 'PCHR research team'. And even if 'innocent bystanders' is directly taken from the source, it is not needed in the article. We already say that 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' We do not make judgments on anybody's innocence. If you want to expand on the sentence, the way I would find acceptable would be something like this: 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes.' Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I hoped I followed the agreement lines and told both sides of the story. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of the CBS source is that "non-combat situations" attributed to PCHR research team head. From explanations in this discussion, the situation is a part of the reasons for classification. Do you want to propose alternative wording? Let's be constructive and move on. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I just gave an 'alternate wording' Nableezy (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I can not say I love proposed by you wording since it mixes opinions and facts. Opinions should be clearly quoted and attributed. Let me demonstrate how the same event could be described:

• PCHR: "massive bombing of homes with families"
• IDF: "pin point attacks on military infrastructure, taking all measures to warn civilians"

Both are opinions and I personally can not fully agree or disagree with either of them. I could live without opinions at all and propose factually NPOV: PCHR civilian count included officials with military ties. I hope you do agree on "military conflict" framework of this article. Could you live with that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, bombings of their homes is not an opinion, and again what you want to put in is only one side of the story. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

break

The nature of yin-yang:
(*) Yin-yang are opposing
(*) Yin-yang are rooted together
(*) Yin yang transform each other
(*) Yin-yang are balanced

I think Agada has highlighted the root cause of this issue which is the ambiguity of the terms. Or rather it's the ambiguity of whether someone is taking 'a direct part in the hostilities'. Even if you attribute terms to PCHR via something like 'killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' it will still be ambiguous and people may want to expand the sentence, challenge it etc etc. Under Israeli law+their novel interpretation of IHL it seems that civilians who willingly choose to be 'human shields' to protect people taking a direct part in the hostilities are also taking a direct part and can be attacked. Similarly a guy driving a truck delivering ammunition to the place where it will be used in hostilities is taking a direct part and can be attacked. The truck itself with the ammunition is an uncontroversial military target though.

...and the scope for spin, ambiguous or context-free media reporting, confusion over casualty counts and terminology is endless. So, maybe it would be better to say something like

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes. (cite) The IDF regard those particular incidents as attacks against military infrastructure and stated that they had advised residents to evacuate prior to the attacks. (cite)

Having said that, I still don't understand why we are singling out these 2 guys/incidents though. Just because CBS has doesn't mean we should. They're special cases and don't effect the statistics much unlike the policemen part later on. What is the objective here ? Surely we just need to point out that the PCHR and the IDF count casualties differently, briefly say why and describe the norm ? How about something like below....or just delete the whole article apart from the picture of the old lady.

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians and regards "anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas" as "a valid target" according to a Israeli Defence Forces spokesman. Israel's definition of a combatant is broader than any other Western democracy according to Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London. Under international law, combatants include only those "directly engaged in hostilities" although there are differences in the interpretation of "directly engaged in hostilities".[205] (cite the HCJ ruling..hmmm..primary source).

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is already explained in the article in the intl law section. And I also see no point to singling out these two. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see that. The reason I suggested putting it here is because we've already got "Under international law, combatants include only those directly engaged in hostilities.[205]". If that stays we need to say how the IDF perspective differs from that. So perhaps the solution is simply to say

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians. (see International law section for details) removing the 'Under international law,..' part or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, on 'assessment'. Indeed 'Under international law,..' looks kind of silly in Hamas members context. It's still valid for civil police classification dispute, so the source definitely stays, couple of sentences later. Not sure we need 'Israel does not count ...' addition, looks kind of obvious and redundant. If nobody objects I'm going to implement those yin-yang accords, maybe tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The police issue is another issue, the 'under international law ...' was specifically about counting Hamas members not engaged in hostilities at the time of their killing. So I object to the removal of that sentence in that context. Nableezy (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I clearly respect you minority (on this question) opinion. To me this sentence looks like WP:SYNTH, which is in context of civil police and kind of tries to argue Hamas direct engaging in hostilities, which is WP:UNDUE. Kind of against "don't edit WP just to make your point" rule. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The source brought by Sceptic clearly quotes that PCHR disputes civilian police as "not directly engaged" and not Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the 'Under international law,..', because of reasons above, maybe tomorrow. Seems like rough consensus on this one. Let me know if anyone still objects. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no synth in that sentence, no conclusion that any one source does not draw is made. And the PCHR also included these people, they included them in 'not directly engaged'. Nableezy (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean PCHR included Hamas leaders in "not directly engaged". In which source? If we combine PCHR and BBC then we get Hamas leaders not directly engaged, This is synth, since none of the sources draws this conclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't combining anything. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No source for making "International law ..." relevant in Hamas context. If we ain't combining (coupling), let's remove this sentence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the issue is pretty clear, if politicians or public services could be considered 'combatants' then why in a state of war would not every civlian which contributes to their country be considered a 'combatant'. Etither every civilian in Gasa is a combatant or only armed militatns are- there is no logic in going half way. If Knesset members were killed at home by rockets they would be considered civilians casualties- if members of the US senate died in a bomb attack they would be considered civilian casualties- why then is it not the same for unarmed politicians or members of public services?86.140.120.102 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Anon

Hey anon. Thank you for joining this discussion. Generally I think it would improve discussion if you register to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it's NPOV to say that all 1.5 millions living in Gaza are civilians or all 1.5 millions are combatants. Personally I would not think we would like to get there. Do you propose a change or just want a chat? Keep well in any way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UN Human Rights report and human shields allegations

So this is a new subsection now. I know some editors have already stated that this section is fine but I think it is laid out poorly. I think changing this subsection to to "Human Shields Allegations" and breaking the other allegations into subsections might be a fix ("Weapons" "Human Shields" "Disproportionate force"}. I think the section could be fixed without it but if we are breaking it up according to allegations now we might as well do it for everything. I would still prefer more concise paragraphs. Sorry for beating the hell out of this dead herd of horses, guys, but it is still so poor style/grammar wise (look at the first sentence alone) and that doesn't even address potential weight or validity issues. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are some problems with the war crimes sections but I think it will be difficult to break up into sections as in many parts, all of the allegations are discussed together (eg. the first sentence on ISrael about Falks allegations, or the mention of people protesting against these violations.) Perhaps the best solution is just to merge the section in question back into the main part. Or, you could have a fairly detailed and general part, followed by a bulleted list of the specific violations? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only reason the first paragraph is so weird is because an editor through in the Falk stuff and it wasn't updated properly when other sources came out. I still think it needs to be broken down like this (in no particular order):

• Disproportionate response/collective punishment
• Infrastructure/Dead police
• Civilian homes
• Medics not getting in
• Human shields
• Controversial use of weapons (mainly WP)
• Unlikely prosecution/legal mumbo jumbo
• Self defense/occupation/other legal arguments

After properly stylized paragraphs are started some might even be merged (like the infrastructure police one currently or self defense argument in with prosecution). I also think we should work in the random commentary from sources into these individual paragraphs or scrap them since every quote that receives a headline seems to be making it in which bloats it even more. It has gotten worse since it was last brought up.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a strong improvement. The Squicks (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Haq paper "Operation Cast Lead and the Distortion of International Law - A Legal Analysis of Israel’s Claim to Self-Defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter" with a free cut and paste cite if anyone is interested. <ref name="AlHaq-OCL">{{cite web|url=http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/OperationCastLeadandtheDistortionofInternationalLaw.pdf|title=Operation Cast Lead and the Distortion of International Law|date=2009-04-06|publisher=Al Haq|language=English|accessdate=2009-04-12}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to tackle this yet?Cptnono (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Report on Israeli White Phosphorus Use

Rain of Fire
Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
March 25, 2009

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

• Related Materials Legacy Links:
• Satellite Maps
• Photo Slideshow
• Download report with cover (PDF, 6.08 MB)[8][9]

• Table of Contents
• Rain of Fire
• I. Summary
• II. Recommendations
• III. What is White Phosphorus?
• IV. White Phosphorus Attacks in Populated Areas
• V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus
• VI. Legal Standards
• Acknowledgements
• Appendices

New evidence on Israeli White Phosphorus Use. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense meant to you or to HRW, but this issue is pretty thoughoutly covered by the sources that we already have. The Squicks (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip.[266] The IDF repeatedly denied using white phosphorus munitions but acknowledged use after the conflict. Israel claims the use was in compliance with international law. The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[267] or as a smoke screen. The weapon has a potential to cause particularly severe and painful burns or death.[268]

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

No offense to you, but all I could find in the article about White Phosphorus usage is a single paragraph, and yet it lacks any evidence, but only contains some claims from the 2 parties. Do your understanding of "pretty much covered" is limited to above paragraph. Because it does not cover the issue at all, in comparison to HRW report. Even the summary and Table of Contents of the HRW report is much more detailed. This should be added as external and internal reference. Kasaalan (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is short since it is only one allegation (not its use but potentially criminal use is alleged) out of many in a single section of an article containing tons of information. It had to be reduced in size for a variety of reasons. If you want to go into greater detail I recommend putting it in the White Phosphorus article, the Incidents article regarding this conflict, or using the report as a source without overdoing it. It comes across like you are concerned with lack of detail but realistically how much detail does this actually deserve? We also rely on sources for evidence. If we went into every detail of the report and 1000 reports and news articles the page would be too long and unbalanced. I have a concern with it in the external link section when its use as a source is sufficient and believe the external link should be removed. Inclusion of the information can be done in a variety of ways. If we start linking every report the external link section will be a massive list.Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

HRW reports are credible worldwide, so it is not just any report. Second the paragraph is only concerned about if it is illegal to use white phosphorus or not. But not even mention if israel did it and was there any evidence. This is the best report I came up with about the white phosphorus usage on Gaza. But if you claim you have a better report go ahead and post it. But untill you came up with a better report this is the best one we have, and either as external reference or internal reference the report should be mentioned, at least for 1-2 sentences. This is obligatory, not a personal preference. There is no space limitation exist for ignoring a special HRW report about the case. Yet until I can read the report myself, I delay the editing to the main article. And don't forget "The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government." Which are always, far more convincing than verbally denying claims of the IDF. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Israel has admitted use of the munition. There is no argument that it was used. Better report or not, why is it appropriate as an external link as opposed to a cite? WIkipedia isn't google.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where you put evidence and proof and credible reports, not just some arguments and claims. Wikipedia isn't google, right, but also not a radio, so if you still don't see the point why don't you bother reading IV. White Phosphorus Attacks in Populated Areas Attacks on Urban Areas before you objecting. The proof and evidence on the affects over civilians with proofs and testimonies.

The widespread use of white phosphorus in the area caused many injuries from smoke inhalation, residents and local human rights activists said. This was confirmed by Dr. Yusuf Abu Rish, the director of Nasser Hospital in nearby Khan Yunis, where many of the wounded were taken. He told Human Rights Watch that the hospital received more than 150 patients on January 13, and most of them were suffering from smoke inhalation. "Even the ambulance bringing the victims was full of a foul odor," he said. "Many of the victims suffered from a shortness of breath, hysteria and muscle spasms."[64] Twelve patients arrived at the hospital dead that day, Dr. Abu Rish said, but that was from all attacks in the Khan Yunis area and not just from white phosphorus.

Dr. says the hospital received more than 150 patients in 1 day.

"Human Rights Watch reviewed the hospital's records and found that on January 13 doctors there had treated 13 persons for what the hospital called chemical burns. Two of these patients required transfer to Egypt for treatment. Dr. Abu Rish also showed Human Rights Watch seven samples of white phosphorus in glass jars, which he said a resident of Khuza'a had collected on January 13."

So over a dozen people treated for chemical burns.

Acknowledgements

This report was researched and written by Human Rights Watch staff Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst, Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher, Bill van Esveld, researcher, Fares Akram, research consultant, and Darryl Li, consultant to Human Rights Watch. It was edited by Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division, James Ross, legal and policy director, and Iain Levine, program director.

Human Rights Watch thanks all the victims and witnesses of white phosphorus attacks who took the time to relate their experiences. Thanks also to the human rights organizations who provided assistance, in particular: the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.

This is important because it is against international military code to use this kind of weapons over civilians. Israel claims just to smokescreen yet people suffocated and intoxicated by the white smoke and chemically burn by the weapons. Very important report by very important and internationally credible source, you cannot ignore it by any means according to any encyclopedia standard. Kasaalan (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also this report is supporting the current paragraph in the article with sound and detailed proofs. Try reading V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus and VI. Legal Standards and HRW letter to the IDF IDF response to HRW. Even the titles is enough to understand the report is important. Kasaalan (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan, I think you might be missing the points people are making. I don't think anyone is denying the value of this report as an information source it's just a question of how to use it and due weight for this issue within the article. The normal approach is to use it as a reference next to the relevant information in the article rather than as an external link. There are other reports that I personally regard as far more important than this one e.g. UNHRC statement about war crimes but even that is not an external link. This is just one aspect of the IDF operations. There are so many, many, many more issues like this of equal if not more weight that we are forced to keep things a bit brief in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all in my opinion the report should be added both as a reference and an external reference. The content about white phosphorus usage is below any standard right now. So you say you have page length issue therefore best solution mentioning the context of the report 1-2 sentences in the paragraph. Referencing it. And keeping it in external references or further reading section. And if you have a good UN report why don't you post its link here so we can discuss it further. Moreover let me remind you UN even hosts HRW reports in their own site and servers because HRW reports are credible internationally.

Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Also the page has some more evidence in it. Israel/Gaza: Satellite Imagery of White Phosphorus Use and Israel/Gaza: Photographs of White Phosphorus Use which are also important and missing for the article currently.

I don't think anyone here is questioning the validity of the HRW report. You don't need to keep defending their credibility. Yes, I've read it and a very good source for the White Phosphorus article. Yes, it's important from the potential war crimes perspective because it's an indiscriminate weapons system like flechettes but as HRW acknowledge "White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire". That to me shows how it is just one aspect of the many ways people were injured and killed by the IDF. How many out of the 1417 people were killed by it for example ? The UN stuff isn't an external link because 'link farming' is discouraged. The reports are available via the references cited. I don't mind whether this report is or isn't an external link but there are so many reports. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most possible you don't know much about the situation and what the white phosphorus can lead. White phosphorus bombs did not used for killing civilians, it wouldn't kill much people even if they target civilians, because its main purpose is not that. White phosphorus means suffering for the most part, not death, if not directly touched to the skin. Yet its smoke is hazardous while breathing. I don't know if you have ever been in a position like Gaza or watched an interview about it. While the bombing was on in winter, since all the bombs fell over Gaza, all the residents obliged to open all their windows. Why, because if they don't open their windows', they would shatter in an instant with shock waves caused by the explosions. So if you use a chemical smoke that suffocates people, over a city in which all of its windows open, that means physical harm to any civilian, especially children. People not died true, but how many people suffocated and treated at the hospital, and how many more didn't even get reported. Think about that and think again for a better understanding what white phosphorus leads. Try to understand my point. Harm is not limited to killing. Kasaalan (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no one is questioning the validity and I doubt anyone questions the concerns regarding use of the munition. The problem is potential overloading the external links section. I agree that "...information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as .... amount of detail" makes inclusion somewhat appropriate. However, 'link farming' is also a reason to not use the source there. We could put dozens of external links in that section regarding various aspects of the conflict. We need to use discretion since this article has had a tendency to get bloated. WP but it is not the primary reason this article exists and doesn't deserve more weight than military tactics, casualties, background, and all of the other topics covered.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it until consensus was reached and also because the report title was used which is an allegation not fact. Cryptonio reverted so lets see if we can come to consensus. in regards to the revert edit summary, HRW is not the UN. Also, I would prefer to not counter external links with more external links.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also remain unconvinced that this merits it's own external link and would prefer to not counter external links with more external links...which is difficult anyway since HRW haven't written a detailed (half) report about rocket attacks since 2007. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..it is a 'fact' though that HRW published a report titled 'Rain of Fire Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza'. I don't see a problem with the title if it's attributed to HRW. It's no different than "Israel strikes back against Hamas terror infrastructure in Gaza" from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If this report will be excluded from both external links section and from the white phosphorus usage paragraph, that is not about the link farming, but more about censorship. You cannot leave out one of the world's leading Human Rights group out of the context without even mentioning 1 or 2 sentences. I don't know what you have in mind, but the report is full of 1st party testimonies with proper sourcing, so best report available on the issue, unless you can put a link to a better report, which you talked about yet not proved by putting a proper link for it. White phosphorus usage is illegal, dangerous, important and should be mentioned better. The paragraph currently is just some verbosity, but has no evidence in it. Your reference for the paragraph also is not any way near as high quality as HRW report. Also the report contains the lacking photographic proof in the paragraph. I don't know what you want more from a report. HRW report is better than any other newspaper article, but Human Right organizations are 3rd party and better sources for the conflicting situations than Hamas or IDF, yet also they are better source than most of the newspapers because they work on the mentioned areas as first party. Kasaalan (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel Accused of 'War Crimes' for Phosphorus Shells In Gaza, even the Red Cross accepts that the intention is probably to use WP to create smoke rather than to deliberately injure; the Associated Press quotes the ICRC's Peter Herby as saying: "It's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." WP smoke rounds are not classed as an incendiary weapon either. This is because the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Incendiary Weapons specifically does not cover "Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems." … the case put forward by Human Rights Watch and others is not that WP is an incendiary, but that its use "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life." This looks like a reference to a different treaty, the 1949 Geneva Protocol, which has a section on "General protection against effects of hostilities". http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/white-phosphoru.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

HRW and AI both acknowledge that WP can be used legally as a smoke screen or for illumination. They both have said that there is evidence that Israel has used it as a weapon, which they argue is against international law. That Israel has been accused of using it as a weapon, which in the opinion of high quality sources like AI or HRW constitutes a 'war crime', should be in the article. (The argument that use as a weapon is illegal is that it is a weapon that is indiscriminate in its effects, ie that it cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants) Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no problem with 'according to HRW report, WP was used as a weapon' or whatever you want to phrase it. However, I intend to insert in the article a counterweight cited in the JPost, saying that 'The International Red Cross said on January 13 2009, that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.' Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit, told The Associated Press that it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way.' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both should go in. Nableezy (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we should add all leading Human Rights Organization's conclusions as summary 1-2 sentences, pro or con for a conflicting case like this. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, try not to assume the worse and jump to conclusions about censorship. As long as the paragraph does not become bloated and is balanced there is no problem with adding information. The report looks like a good source (haven't gone through it completely myself yet) so please cite it. I also recommend using it as a source in other articles related to this conflict and the munition.Cptnono (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the sources needed for the case.

The Israeli military has denied the allegations that it has improperly used white phosphorous shells, saying only that it uses munitions in accordance with international law.

But Abrahams refutes the claim. "We saw it (white phosphorous) bursting over Gaza ourselves. It has a distinguishable appearance - which is a155 mm artillery fired shell that explodes in the air, sending down about 100 burning wafers, which leave smoking trails. We saw them detonate over the Gaza City/Jabaliya area,” he wrote.

White phosphorous with its distinct garlic smell is under international law permissible to use as an "obscurant" to mask troop movements particularly in open areas or to illuminate targets at night, but its use is controversial as it can cause severe chemical burns to people.

The usage of white phosphorous against civilians is prohibited under international law.

In a recent press release, Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that the use of white phosphorous in Gaza "violated the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life."

Abrahams voiced strong concern over the usage of white phosphorous in an area like Gaza that not only is highly populated but also lacks the necessary water resources to put out the gas shells whose fire can be difficult to extinguish.

White phosphorous is "highly problematic when used in populated areas, such as Jabaliya. It rains down 116 burning wafers over an area the size of a football field, and those wafers can set civilian structures on fire. They can also burn people. The fire is very hard to put out – you must cut off all the oxygen, such as by emerging it in water, which today in Gaza is in short supply," Abrahams told MENASSAT.

Photographic evidence

The International Red Cross said today that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip. But it says it has no evidence to suggest that the shells are being used improperly or illegally.

But, The Times of London claims to have obtained photographic evidence that proves Israel has indeed been using the notorious white gas in populated areas of the Gaza Strip.

The Times also claims to have "identified stockpiles of white phosphorous shells" from photos taken by Israeli troops on the Israeli-Gaza border this week.

The paper mentions the same type of shell "…155mm rounds clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition," that was shown to a reporter by a Gaza resident a few days ago-and which HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco identified as white phosphorous.

Abrahams added that HRW had also obtained photographic evidence, telling MENASSAT, "We saw photos of the fused artillery shells taken inside Israel, and the markings on those photos are of white phosphorous. You don’t fuse a shell unless it’s being prepared for use."

Influx of burn victims in Gaza hospitals

In addition to the claims made by HRW, an increasing number of Gazans, doctors and aid workers deployed in the Strip are now claiming its evident that Israel has been using the white phosphorous gas in Gaza.

On January 12, the Times of London reported that more than 50 people with burns were taken in for treatment at Nasser Hospital in the southern town of Khan Yunis.

The hospital director, Youssef Abu Al-Reesh, told The Times the influx of burn victims was the result of "a massive case of exposure to white phosphorus."

“We don’t have the medical experience to judge these cases, but we searched the Internet according to the cases we have, and it indeed confirmed that it’s white phosphorus munitions. I have been working in this hospital for ten years and I have never seen anything like this,” said Abu Al-Reesh.

Also on January 12, the New York Times reported on 10-year old Luay Suboh from Beit Lahiya who lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a "fiery substance clung to him" as he was on his way home from a shelter where his family had gathered to pick up clothes.

Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian war surgery specialist who up until recently was providing emergency care at the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza told The Times that he had seen injuries he believed resulted from Israel’s use of a new "dense inert metal explosive" that caused "extreme explosions."

In the summer of 2006, HRW documented Israel's use of white phosphorous during its 34-day long war against Lebanon’s Shia party, Hezbollah. In 2004, the United States used the gas shells during its controversial siege of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004.

http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/5730-illegal-use-white-phosphorous-gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/world/middleeast/13mideast.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911114222894141.html http://www.theworld.org/audio/0112092.mp3

Maybe helps. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to list every incident and proof of the munitions use is not necessary. The Red Cross line is interesting: "But it says it has no evidence to suggest that the shells are being used improperly or illegally." I don't think that is in the article yet.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"It rains down 116 burning wafers over an area the size of a football field, and those wafers can set civilian structures on fire. They can also burn people. The fire is very hard to put out – you must cut off all the oxygen, such as by emerging it in water, which today in Gaza is in short supply" "“We don’t have the medical experience to judge these cases, but we searched the Internet according to the cases we have, and it indeed confirmed that it’s white phosphorus munitions. I have been working in this hospital for ten years and I have never seen anything like this,” said Abu Al-Reesh." "On January 12, the Times of London reported that more than 50 people with burns were taken in for treatment at Nasser Hospital in the southern town of Khan Yunis." "In the summer of 2006, HRW documented Israel's use of white phosphorous during its 34-day long war against Lebanon’s Shia party, Hezbollah." These lines are much more interesting to me. "Internationally Illegal" or not, if "non-targetted" civilians highly affected, it is not a justifiable action. Also white phosphorus shells not only damages civilian health, but also damages their property and homes. Kasaalan (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But again wrong sources might lead you misjudge. So that is why I posted HRW report, try to read it through.

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."[71] Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue [of whether the IDF was using white phosphorus], they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."[72]

On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.[73] Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.[74]

In response to media requests, the ICRC further clarified its position. "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," Peter Herby told the Christian Science Monitor in early February. "The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors."[75]

According to the newspaper, Herby also said: "The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

Red Cross didn't said IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal afterall, they even claimed it is against protocol III of geneva convention. So it might be even more interesting when you found out IDF spokesman just twisting comments to justify their bombing of UN school by previous comments of Red Cross. Kasaalan (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Kasaalan, you are jumping into conclusions that are not sustained by your sources. 'It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors'. Very lukewarm statement. Red Cross didn't say IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal after all? But they didn't say it was illegal either. And further, 'The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.' Does he present evidence WP was used as a weapon? No. Does he say that WP is classed as an incendiary weapon? No, cause it is not. Are military objectives are separated from civilian ones in Gaza? No, and I can produce dozen of evidence for that. Finally, does he say clearly that IDF violated Protocol III? No. He says that IF WP was used in inappropriate manner, this is a violation. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law? If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/weapons-interview-170109 --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you read the "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," or "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," parts. If you butcher a conversation you can jump to any conclusion you like. Kasaalan (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you guys consider whether it may be better to format your discussions in a way that centre around concrete proposed changes/additions to text and references in the article. I suggest you propose text and references and directly address that text in your discussions. This should help matters to remain focused on the task at hand which is the article contents rather than who are the good guys, who are the bad guys and who would win in a violations of international law competition. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Along those lines, I would like to introduce 'and it burns, burns, burns' cited to this investigative report on the effects of WP. Nableezy (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm ring of fire. that reminds me. lunchtime. better start chopping some chillis. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, these are concrete proposals, as a counterweight:

1. According to IDF, 'About 200 such [WP] shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.' In response to the allegations of improper use, IDF officers say that 'the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html 2. Contrary to the claims in the report, the IDF states, smoke shells are not an incendiary weapon. The third protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) [which defines particular limitations on incendiary weapons] makes it clear that weapons intended for screening are not classified as incendiary weapons. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073825.html 3. According to initial IDF probe, 'It is already possible to conclude that the IDF's use of smoke shells was in accordance with international law. These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless. … weapons intended for screening are not classed as incendiary weapons," the IDF said. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/25/israel.white.phosphorus.gaza/ 4. "… the case put forward by Human Rights Watch …is not that WP is an incendiary, but that its use "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life." http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/white-phosphoru.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Haaretz source, you left out two key points of the article. It is an IDF investigation that found concern with a single unit (not the orchard event), and "Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law." It should be included but those lines are necessary or the reader may take it out of context. Also, the writer used the term "at" which contradicts the IDF claim. It was not used as a direct quote so it looks like a mistake or weasel word on Amos Harel's part. Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. 1. The Israel Defense Forces is 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. Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law. According to IDF, 'About 200 such [WP] shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired [by the brigade] at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.' In response to the allegations of improper use, the reserve paratroops brigade officers say that 'the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS unless the person writing the blog are themselves an RS. The WP:NPOV and WP:DUE guidelines help us to make sensible assessments about whether we are appropriately balancing opposing views so that we can avoid giving too much 'air time' to a particular perspective. I suggest we use them here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you were saying. Is this particular one acceptable or not?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Assume by default that a blog is not a reliable source. An exception is when the blogger is widely regarded as a reliable source but only if they are talking about something that they are considered an 'expert' in. Check the RS noticeboard, there's a link via WP:RS. For example, in this case the piece is written by David Hambling. At a quick glance he looks like an RS on weaponry etc because he has written on this subject for sources that are RS e.g. The Guardian and he's a published author of military geek stuff. Since he seems to be well known his piece posted in this blog is very likely to available elsewhere actually in an RS like The Guardian etc. Try to find that material and reference that rather than the blog. It's your responsibility to show that the source you propose using is an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

General policy is clear, however I don't get one thing. In this particular case I could not find the material in other RS. You say that an exception is possible, when the blogger is widely regarded as a reliable source but only if they are talking about something that they are considered an 'expert' in. So, if we agree the blogger is an expert and is widely regarded as a reliable source, could the article be used as a source?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same blog? The wired page is a blog (according to the page address) but it links to sources so just jump over to those.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about David Hambling's piece in Wired's Danger Room blog then I think it should be okay to use the article directly because Wired is itself an RS. So you have a reputable publisher publishing a blog by a blogger who is himself an RS....at least that's what it looks like to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look bloggish but it says blog so I am confused by it. It links to sources in the piece though so it doesn't look like there should be any problems.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is conceivable that there will be a separate article on WP, taking into an account the allegations and the responses from IDF and assertions from other sources. In my opinion this is not the core issue of the Cast Lead. What do you think? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I support a sub-article about white phosphorus usage in Gaza. We may not go in every detail in main article. But the key points should be mentioned in 1 paragraph, since the white phosphorus usage discussions are broadly common and extremely important due to involving civilians. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on the same subject as above

UN reports is what all sides should look after(until these scholar reports come out etc). there is great interest to counter these reports by both sides, so the importance to both sides isn't disputed. how important they are to both sides is a matter of position and not POV. Cryptonio (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to your edit summary and comments in the section already devoted to the external link. "Human Rights Watch Report on Israeli White Phosphorus Use" shown a few sections above. == Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am posting an expert opinion on the WP in Gaza in the appropriate section. To sum things up, usage of weaponry containing WP is legal. The Human Rights Watch are unhappy because in their view not all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life were made. This is unfortunate, but this is war. I guess I will incorporate the following paragraph in the article, if there will be no objections. "In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1231866575577 --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some problem posting, I will post the whole article later.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do they need illumination or smoking. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted an article in the upper section, see what the expert has to say. WP is used both to create smoke and illuminate target. Now pay attention, it is quite obvious even without the HRW report, and the expert points it out, that WP might and actually did result in some serious injuries. Nobody denies that. However, it has nothing to do with alleged war crimes. Back to the JPost link, 'The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.' No war crime here. Finally, see what British soldier of the Intelligence Corps in Iraq has to say on the issue: 'During the course of Israeli operations in Gaza the whole of the media seems to have become expert in the use of white phosphorous. Most commentators either do not know, or have refused to acknowledge, that the use of white phosphorous is not illegal. The Geneva conventions do restrict the use of white phosphorous in certain circumstances, but it is used almost daily by British forces in Afghanistan. White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3286561/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead.thtml Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all some country's usage will never whitewash an illegal usage, bad examples aren't good examples. Second does taliban hide in cities or mountains, that is the question, because using a dangerous bomb over one of the most crowded cities in the world, and using against separated armed men is different. Yet even against Taliban, or anyone burning even a single man alive is inhuman, I don't know if I can make myself clear but even British do or American do or whomever does that, will not change the reality. Yet British army has one of the worst records in the world for Human Rights issues, like American army along with Israel Army. So are you sure you giving the good example here. Did you read the HRW report, only in 1 single hospital, it is reported 150 people come with suffocating because of the White Phosphorus. I stressed earlier that, all the windows in Gaza were open, and the smoke of White Phosphorus is simply hazardous, so if suffocating civilian is not IDF's care, why they bother whitewashing their deliberate attempts against civilians the mouth of an aliased British soldier. If he is so much proud of his legal work, why don't he even uses real name in the first place. "Daniel was a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is writing under a pseudonym." Also if it is not illegal or dangerous to use white phosphorus, why IDF strongly claimed they didn't use or even used empty white phosphorus bomb shells earlier. Kasaalan (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I again suggest that we move this discussion into the seciton above before people get confussed. Also, Kasaalan, stop trying to make a point about how the munitions hurt people and get on topic of what else is needed that will improve the INternational Law section. You are treading dangerously close to WP:SOAP.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I just accept the whitewash of Israeli army's white phosphorus usage right into one of the world's most crowded population in the world, by mouth of the world's one of the worst human rights record army's nameless soldier, in silence, because while invading Afghanistan British army used the same artillery over the Taleban forces, who they had supported and financed for all these years against Soviets along with USA. No I don't think that is any kind of soap, and if you think these are just opinions they can always be proved. Other than that the article interesting and informative if you ask me, but never justifies white phosphorus usage, so by the article you may add some opinions, but don't try to came up with a conclusion, british uses that too, that is legal and justifiable to be used right among Gaza city civilians. Kasaalan (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But again wrong sources might lead you misjudge. Especially POV sources like JerusalemPost. So that is why I posted HRW report, try to read it through.

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."[71] Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue [of whether the IDF was using white phosphorus], they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."[72]

On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.[73] Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.[74]

In response to media requests, the ICRC further clarified its position. "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," Peter Herby told the Christian Science Monitor in early February. "The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors."[75]

According to the newspaper, Herby also said: "The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

The case is very clear. Red Cross didn't said IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal afterall, they even claimed it is against protocol III of geneva convention. IDF spokesman just twisted Red Cross spokesman's past comments to justify their bombing of UN school. Kasaalan (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I am moving to the upper section.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan/Sceptic please can you...

• Remember to indent your comments properly so that discussion threads are easier to read as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. It's easy once you get into the habit.
• Ensure that you carefully read the details of the discretionary sanctions that apply to this page and take them into account when you post comments here.

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

i'll do my bestSceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot always use indent because while using with blockquote the page becomes more crowded and layout corrupts. If you have a proper solution for using indent with blockquote, then I can use it like you suggest. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you paste an example of what you mean on my talk page and i'll have a look ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a solution for the indent issue. Now I can indent. Thanks. But also, time to time it is wise to outdent, because indents leads vertically long paragraphs after a while. Kasaalan (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

About the sanctioning I clearly don't understand why I should be banned by any means. I do research which contributes to the topic highly and more than 1 way, yet constant verbal objections based on weak sources against the high standard sources to a clearly important issue leads the discussion here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only saying that you need to be aware of them because everyone working on Israel-Palestine related articles is expected to be on their best behavior to avoid the conflict spreading to Wikipedia (which happens frequently over almost every issue). I'm not an admin and I haven't seen you do anything that would result in a ban. What I have seen is a bit too much information and advocacy in both directions. As I said somewhere else around here, it's better to make concrete proposals about changes to the text in the article based on your references so that discussion can focus on the proposed changes. It makes it more collaborative. A one state solution is the only option available to us for this article so consensus has to be found somehow. This article is about the whole conflict so I personally don't think a lot of space should be given to this particular weapon, it's effects and Israeli counter-arguments. It should be possible to briefly summarise the key points from HRW etc and the Israeli counter-arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also say that I've always thought that the best way for this article to describe the effects of this weapon is by showing a picture of it's effects on a person in Gaza in this conflict. We had a good picture but many people objected to it so it's not here. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we all stop this section, it is impossible to follow the two fronts. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sections so it might be less confusing.

Kasaalan, stop trying to make a point on the talk page. You're not changing anyone's mind on the munition. You can, however, use the source in the article assuming it is done in a way that does not upset weight while giving facts in a neutral manner. If you want to discuss or blog about it there are other sites.

Also, is there consensus either way on the external link?Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Well I just proved Red Cross did not state opinion on Israel's white phosphorus usage is legal and justifiable very clearly above, so before claiming untrue arguments like Red Cross blessed white phosphorus usage, maybe you should read the HRW report thoroughly. You may ignore my proof and blame me, yet what I do here is research unlike some verbosity. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. You shouldn't be trying to prove anything. You should be attempting to better the article.Cptnono (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No you are simply wrong. I try to prove something because jerusalem post article does not reflect the truth. And before doing any edit to the main page and overcoming possible long reverting process, I share my point with proper sources beforehand. If you have the intention for improving the article, you may always go and edit according to the HRW report I provided before I do. But I don't like to edit before finishing the report so it may take some time. Kasaalan (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One of your original comments said the exact opposite of your "proof" and you provided a source. Although I see your point, don't give me a hard time since you had to change your stance on it. To be perfectly frank, if you go overboard with information in this article as you have on this talk page it will be more than likely be removed. The paragraph can easily be longer but you need to show some discretion with weight and possible neutrality concerns. I agree with an above post you made regarding more information going into a subarticle. this page might need improvement.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties' demographic distribution according to PHCR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

resolved, at least for now. Nableezy (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/rights-group-names-1417-gaza-war-dead-1/ 1. According to PHCR, there are overall 313 minors below 18. This is 22% of total casualties and 34% of 926 civilian casualties. Anyhow, the percent figures are lower than approx. 50% of 0-18 demography in Gaza. 2. According to PHRC, total of 116 women were killed. This is 8% of total casualties and 13% of 926 civilian casualties. This is considerably lower than approx. 50% population in Gaza. 3. According to PHCR, there is total number of 497 civilian males over 18. This constitutes 54% out of 916 uninvolved. This is much higher than approx. 25% of males over 18 in Gaza.

I guess nothing would be done with this figures, because Wiki does not deal with speculations. However, perhaps it would be appropriate to point out that, regardless of PHCR reliability, those figures are inconsistent with demographic distribution of Gaza population.

Sceptic, Ashdod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.92.86 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other discussions on this page about this demographic analysis approach. Not sure if you've seen them. The point of the analysis was to show that the effects of the IDF action were discriminate rather than random. It doesn't address the excessive force issue and it's a bit meaningless without context i.e. that the way the IDF classify combatants (technically unlawful combatants = civilians engaging in hostilities)/civilians at the time of their death/injury and what the PHCR (and the norms of international humanitarian law) classify as a combatants/civilians at the time of their death/injury are different. Have a look at the other discussions here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC).....so my challenge to advocates of this info being added (and there are several) is to consider whether it would increase the encyclopedic value of this article and if so, how ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The appropriate question that is asked is 'to consider whether it would increase the encyclopedic value of this article and if so, how ?' Let's go back to the article. 'Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces.[197] The organization has also posted a list of the victims detailing their names, ages, jobs, place of residence, and time and place of the attacks that killed them.[198]' In my POV, this paragraph implies bias. Figure of 926 causes a lot of empathy. The average unaffiliated reader might interpret 926 out of 1417 figure as indirect evidence that Israel and IDF used unproportionate force and caused much devastation and mass killing of the Gazans. It could be corrected and encyclopedic value of this article would be increased by citing the source further, saying that out of 926 civilians, there are 116 women, 313 minors under 18 and the rest, 497, are civilian males. 2. It should be noted that source 198 implies bias. For example, #412, Nizar Abdul Kader Mohammed Rayan. PCHR states that he is University Professor, civilian. It is true, but only half-true. Regardless of the fact that he was not involved directly with the warfare and is considered civilian casualty, he was, according to Al-Jazeera, one of the most senior Hamas officials. 'Nizar Rayyan is the most senior Hamas official killed since Israel unleashed its massive bombardment on Gaza seven days ago'. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911133527449783.html Not to include this data is, as I said, a half-truth 3. From my POV, description of Rayyan as civilian due to the fact that he was not directly involved in fighting is erroneous. Israel claims to end Gaza occupation in Autumn 2005. However, rockets on Israeli sovereign territory continued throughout late 2005 and further, even before Hamas won the municipal elections. Now if Gaza is sovereign territory, than rocketing of Israel was, and is, an act of war, and targeting of Hamas chief members is legal. If Gaza is occupied, occupation implies effective ground control and ability to arrest Hamas officials by police forces, which is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.92.86 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that we include verifiable information (WP:V) based on reliable, preferably secondary sources (WP:RS) with due care and attention to neutrality issues (WP:NPOV) and due weight (WP:DUE) so that people can make up their own minds. Something is either true or false according to the decision procedure used to make that assessment and Wikipedia doesn't deal with actual 'truth'. As I said, the IDF uses a different decision procedure to the norm e.g. under their schema a militant is a legitimate target = unprotected civilian = unlawful combatant at all times and so is never described as a civilian although under international law (and Israeli law) he is regarded as a protected civilian while not directly engaged in hostilities. So, this issue is a bit problematic. I don't understand your 'source 198 implies bias' comment. Those are the PCHR figures just like the IDF figures are the IDF figures. Wikipedia isn't saying that they're right/wrong/accurate/inaccurate/use the right or wrong decision procedures etc etc. Saying "From my POV, description of Rayyan as civilian due to the fact that he was not directly involved in fighting is erroneous" or trying to anticipate and manage a reader's emotional response to verifiable information doesn't help. It's true that this article needs to make it very clear to the reader that the stats are disputed, different because of different decision procedures, explain those differences a bit and minimise ambiguity. Readers can then at least understand what they mean. How best to do that is being discussed in the Legitamacy of PCHR numbers section so that is probably the best place for your comments. Let's not get into an occupation discussion... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Sean.hoyland, but you either misunderstood or deliberately ignored the core issue of my post. 'Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces.[197] This phrase, based on [197] source, deliveres great empathy towards the victims, because 926 out of 1417 is too much. I am not arguing this figures. The conclusions out of PCHR data are debatable, but I'll agree with you and will argue them later and elsewhere. Right now I am suggesting a very simple thing. Why not add another sentence from [197] source, saying that according to PCHR, [197], out of 926 civilians, there are 116 women, 313 minors under 18 and the rest, 497, are civilian males? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you just want to add a breakdown of the casualties allocated to the civilian category by the PCHR in the Casualties section. I personally don't have a problem with that apart from the "and the rest, 497, are civilian males". You need a source that says that. You can't extrapolate it from the sources because neither the primary source PCHR nor the secondary source Karin Laub at AP says that (which is a broken link by the way although I think this is the same story). I assume they are 18+ men but not necessarily so we can't just assume it. Also it's better to say 'civilians and non-combatants' to be clearer as that is what the PCHR say. Can you find a reliable source that says 497 18+ males ? It shouldn't be difficult to verify if it is correct. Maybe we already have one somewhere in our refs or the PCHR say it elsewhere like their list with names. I don't quite understand "deliveres great empathy towards the victims". It's just says what the source says. How is it different from saying "The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police" which someone could say delivers great antipathy towards the victims ? People will make whatever they want out of the information. We just need to make sure it's sourced and makes sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see washington post story again now so the ref is fine. Thai gov may be messing with the firewalls at the moment... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The definitions you use for 'occupation' are only used by Israel, the world disagrees. The UN, the ICRC, HRW, AI, even the CIA Factbook say the Gaza is currently occupied as Israel controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters (effective military control). Also, the defintion you are using for 'noncombatant' is, once again, only used by Israel (and the Israeli HCJ disagrees with that as well). The standard definition of a noncombatant is anybody who is not engaged in hostilities. You seem to want to introduce an assumption of bias or unreliability on the PCHR numbers that follow standard definitions. I don't care if we say X children, Y adult women, and Z adult men; doesn't bother me at all. Also, the Rayan case specifically has been argued to death over here. If you want to explicitly mention that the PCHR counted him as a civilian (which isn't necessary because we already say that the PCHR civilian numbers include Hamas members killed in noncombat situations) that is fine, but also include why they counted him as such (the sources report that he was killed in a bombing of his home with his family). But the addition you made about just the numbers is cool with me. Nableezy (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Having had a quick look I think it might be more problematic than I expected finding a source that explicitly says 497 civilian+non-combatant adult males because PCHR don't say it themselves. I find it hard to believe that a journalist somewhere wouldn't do the extrapolation given that they're not normally adverse to printing any old rubbish. What to do ? Let people do the math themselves from what's there now ? Is that okay with you Agada+Sceptic Ashdod ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

..and to quote Eyal Benvenisti from his book about the laws of occupation "I was struck by the fact that most contemporary occupants ignored their status"....how ironic. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally love Samba style freedom fighters much better. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the welcome note. Friendly attitude appreciated. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

2. We just need to make sure it's sourced and makes sense - right, however I find important one more thing. To put information in proper context. I for one use Wiki on a daily bases. Frankly, when I first saw that out of 1417 casualties, there are 926 civilians, I felt, eh, uneasy. When, however, I read the [197], and later took a look at the PCHR data, I felt somewhat better. I claim, and I see you have no problem with that, that reader will get a bit different impression over figures when he will learn that out of 916, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. That will suffice for now. All the other problematic issues will be addressed elsewhere. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Don't get me wrong. We the Israelis are neither proud nor happy with every civilian uninvolved casualty on the other side. However, when things are put in the proper context, the whole picture is not that bad. And since the casualty issue is perhaps the most important (this is what people will remember), I intend to make some contribution to the discussion. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Someone named Thevoy put casualties distribution based on PCHR data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2009#19_March_2009

Unfortunately, the figures are simply inconsistent with PCHR data itself. Moreover, the conclusion in the box is completely false. I am going to put some effort to make chart of my own, based on [198]. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

5. There is a section "Disputed Figures". I will place later some peculiar findings from PCHR data [198] observation. I know the general policy does not encourage private research. Maybe someone will help figure out what can be done with them. And yes, Nizar Rayan will be addressed there, but from different perspective. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As these issues have tended to turn into edit wars rather quickly, I would suggest putting whatever changes you wish to introduce to the article here on the talk page first so we can work out any issues others may have. Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, i've seen that frequency distribution graph File:Israel-Gaza_conflict_2008-2009_gazan_casualties_as_reported_by_Palestinian_CHR.JPG and i don't like it because it's WP:OR. the graph itself is fine, it's just a visualisation of the source data. it's the description and the interpretation that needs to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

having said that i now see that ashdod may have spotted actual data errors..do'h! user informed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment there, your remark is fine with me. Did you notice he puts number of female casualties at 217 and not 116? One don't have to be an expert to spot the discrepancy, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It occured to me that I might be wrong here. It is conceivable that 116 is the number of females above 18, whereas 217 is total number of females. Anyway I am going to check the chart thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't follow all the discussion but isn't another reason for women children death rate is unbalanced for the population rate is because Israel even bombed some schools that women and children refugees hiding in. Kasaalan (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to save you time reading, no, it's the other way around. There are less woman and children injured than would be expected from random attacks i.e. you would expect 50% but it's less. This interpretation is used by some people as evidence that the IDF attacks were not random but targeted Hamas people. In fact it only shows that more young men died. It doesn't tell you anymore than that by itself. Some might call it spin. There is a discussion whether this kind of demographic analysis is worth mentioning. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

not evidence, but indirect support. BTW, when we will discuss later the actual distribution, you will see that out of the minor's group, the number of 15-17 aged casualties is unproportionally high. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see someone added the following sentence: According to PCHR, out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. Thanx. Fine with me, it will suffice at this stage. As far as I am concerned, this section can be archived. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointing the casualty tolls according to different reliable sources is enough I assume. Because for commenting on a statistics you should be real experts on the area. For example if the women and children casualty is less then 50 percent which is expected usually, it might has something to do with people aware IDF not choosing particular target so leave women children in safest places, and only men go for shopping or other necessaries. So most people damaged by attacks being man since most of the people on street are men. Also don't forget Gaza ruled by Hamas which believes strict religious rules so it might also have something to do with women not so free in streets like other western countries or as in PLO settlements. I am not expert on the area, this are figurative speeches, what I mean to say is the statistics may lie, so commenting on statistics might be misleading. But as far as I know PCHR is serious on the Human Rights, and have some strict reports against Hamas' Human Right violations, so they are not fanatic Hamas supporters, and most of the time PCHR numbers should be taken seriously. Kasaalan (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Agreed for now that the casualty toll according to different reliable sources is enough.

2. Your possible explanation serves pro-Israeli agenda just fine. This is because it suggests certain areas were safe for civilians and that IDF did not target anything and anywhere without discrimination, except perhaps for some tragic incidents that unfortunately happen in any war. Don't forget also that from the 4th day from the ground invasion, humanitarian break was introduced. Can you recall any other war conflict in which one hostility side would hold its fire for a couple of hours daily so that civilians could 'go shopping'? 3. Frankly, I am not familiar with PCHR record and its relations towards Hamas. However, their previous record is not enough to assume their data on this conflict against IDF would be reliable. Look for example at the link below. They refer to IDF as IOF, O standing for occupation. They do not simply report, but refer to 'crimes committed by IOF'. http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/03-2009.html With all the sympathy to their cause, do you think they can be objective here? Soon I will start posting some major discrepancies in their casualties' report. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashdod, please let's leave the IOF stuff alone please. It's not relevant here. Virtually every major international organisation in the world uses the O for occupied or occupation in all of their official documents and I mean the US gov, the EU, the ICC, the UN, the Red Cross etc etc. There are various reasons why they they have decided that they have to do that but here is not the place to discuss it. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF or IOF?

1. Show me, Sean, any other major international organization, like the US gov, the EU, the ICC, the UN, the Red Cross, apart from Palestinian organizations, that refers to IDF as IOF. Even Norman Finkelstein, prominent and uncompromised Israeli critic, objects this usage: "It is the IDF, and it's also illegally occupying Gaza, it's illegally invading them. But don't use terminology which is going to make it seem as if you're a propagandist. Use the terminology that everybody else uses. [...] You should insist on [the term "occupation."] But I would not use 'IOF.' It's 'IDF.' We don't have to become propagandists because we could just use the mainstream [term] and still succeed." All I am saying, replying to Kasaalan, that the moment PCHR uses this kind of terminology, it switches to propaganda and holds no balanced and objective view over the Palestinian casualties in the war conflict with IDF.

2. Unlikely, though conceivable cause you are from Thailand, that you do not know Ashdod is the city in Israel, the 5th largest. And no, there is no need to remind that before 1948 it was Arab's town Isdud and according to 1947 UN Partition Plan recommendation was supposed to be part of the Arab state in Palestine. So, if you are referring to me, Sceptic or Sceptic from Ashdod will be nice. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

the issue of the use of the terms 'occupation', 'occupying', 'occupied' etc isn't relevant to this article. it is relevant in other articles though. have a look around. we have aerial drones circling over this article at all times looking for cases where people drift into soapboxing and despatching missiles accordingly. everyone here has failed to resist the urge to soapbox at one time or another but we're doing quite well to keep it to a minimum. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not saying this issue is relevant to the article or trying to sneak it in. We were simply discussing some aspects of PCHR credibility in this conflict, weren't we? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PCHR credibility isn't a function of the language they use to describe the legal status of the Israeli military from their perspective nor is it our place to judge their credibility based on our own views. We can attribute contentious language to sources when necessary and we have some guidelines in dealing with issues like that to avoid statements being expressed using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..and to be clear on your IDF vs IOF 'Show me' question, I was referring to the use of various 'occupied'-based terminology such as 'oPt' etc etc by international bodies when referring to Palestinian territories they have assessed as being 'occupied' in one form or another. I actually don't know if international bodies have ever used IOF, I've never looked into it but it's hardly surprising that a Palestinian organisation would prefer not to use the D for defense and prefer an O just like Israeli sources prefer to use 'terrorist' rather than other terms. It's just a point of view rather than a metric of credibility. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1.I realize Wiki is not the place where you prove something to anyone. However, I am entitled to present verifiable evidences, questioning their reliability, am I not? 2.Sean, you are falling into sophistry here. No one except for Palestinians call the IDF 'Occupation Forces'. Not just Israeli sources but almost all the Western world, including EU, Australia, Canada and the US, call Hamas or its military wing as a terrorist organization. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp, http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument. This is not merely POV, but a question of generally accepted policies. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What we care is if their numbers are correct, calling IDF as IOF is not my care, yet you leave some points out for this case. First personally I call them IDF because that is how they call themselves, like I call Hamas as Hamas simple as that. Yet PCHR lives under occupation of IDF, so how they call Israeli Forces is their preference. Also since Israel calls his forces as defense does not whitewash their offensive attacks and civilian harm during the bombardments. IDF uses the defense term as in "the best defense is to attack" terms. So if calling IOF is being sided calling IDF is also sided you should just call Israel Army or Israel Military Forces to be neutral if you care that part ultimately. And as a side note "PCHR has submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national. PCHR asserts that the State of Israel should be aware that where it fails in its specific legal obligations to conduct full and fair investigations into human rights violations, and bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international law, victims of Israeli war crimes may seek alternative judicial remedies abroad, including under the principle of universal jurisdiction." [10] and that is the number till year 2003. Kasaalan (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're entitled to present reliable sources that question their reliability and make a case for the information being added to the article. You should also read about the WP:BRD process. No one owns this article. Sophistry ? Well, I'll ignore that. I don't understand your objective. You seem to be trying to convince me of something about the real world and right and wrong rather than about the article. That's a waste of your time. As for words, if Palestinians want to call the Israeli military the IOF and the Western world want to call Hamas a terrorist organisation that's up to them. It doesn't mean that we use those terms here without attributing them to their sources. Read WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. As you say we aren't propagandists. We aren't censors either. We call them the IDF because that is their common name and we have guidelines about naming. We describe Hamas using neutral terms that are not defined by the Western world's opinion of what they are or what they think they are. We have a bunch of guidelines and we just need to stick to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to stay on topic here? I haven't read this section in a couple of days and now I cannot tell what part of the article is being discussed and what to change. I am not sure, but it sounds like Sceptic agreed to use 'IOF' and Sean agreed to use the 'terrorist organization Hamas'. I for one dont agree to either, but can we try to relate the discussion to the article? Nableezy (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but nevermind. I agree, the current discussion is pointless. I go backwards to what I said already. I see someone added the following sentence: According to PCHR, out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. Fine with me, it will suffice at this stage. As far as I am concerned, this section can be archived. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mess with casualties' figures according to IDF

There is a mess there, I would like to correct. Figures according to IDF are divided, for reasons I cannot comprehend between two paragraphs. 1. According to first paragraph: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinians as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Third sentence is incorrect citing the source. [10] says that According to the IDF, 162 additional names of men killed during the operation "have not been yet attributed to any organization." (Emphasis by me, Sceptic). I suggest the third sentence is corrected as following: The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] This correction is consistent with previous preliminary casualties' report, published on Feb. 15, 2009, in JPost: The 320 names yet to be classified are all men; the IDF has yet complete its identification work in these cases, but estimates that two-thirds of them were terror operatives. (Emphasis by me, Sceptic) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 2. Second paragraph reads that The IDF stated that they have identified 91 women, 189 were children under the age of 15, 21 elderly men, six UNRWA workers, and two medical workers.[10] This is a mistake. [10] does not say this. This sentence is taken from Haaretz, published on March 25, 2009: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073770.html It is important to notice that Haaretz made this publication day before an official statement from IDF spokesperson. I have no idea where did Haaretz get their figures from and I suggest this sentence will be removed. 3. Instead the latter, I recommend going back to [10], which is consistent with the official statement from IDF spokesperson from March 26, 2009: A total of 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women [10]. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Moreover, I strongly suggest merging this sentence with the three from first paragraph. The entire section should be like this: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] According to IDF, out of 295 Palestinian non-combatants, there are 89 under the age of 16 and 49 women [10]. The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one reacts, I guess i will incorporate my suggestion in the article during the weekend. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good suggestion, go for it is my reaction.--KMA "HF" N (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Unless anyone has anything to add, this section can be archived. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. There is another piece of information I want to include.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Women count included at least two women who tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Feb 15, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, are you proposing adding that to the article ? i.e. that according to someone, I assume it's the IDF via the CLA, the IDF killed 2 female suicide bombers who the PCHR counted as civilians ? That seems like an extraordinary claim. Has it been reported in non-Israeli press ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess you misunderstood a bit. IDF (via the CLA, nevermind) say that in the IDF count of 49 Palestinian women fatalities, 2 terrorist females included. There is no way to check it, cause IDF did not make the list public. We cannot check if those females were included in the PCHR report either, cause no names are provided by IDF. The fact that there were female suicide bombers is documented in the IDF spokesperson site and is reported indirectly here: In an unrelated investigation, it was found that in a similar incident, a woman suspected of being a suicide bomber approached IDF troops, who opened fired at her after repeatedly trying to stop her from advancing. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238409229712&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull The latter was reprinted btw by other sources including this one. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/69413/-idf-damning-cast-lead-accounts-false.html. To sum it up, all I am saying, and I suggest to include it, is that according to IDF, its list of 49 women killed include 2 terrorist females. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no further objections, so I'm making an editing in the article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this belongs to the disputed figures subsection:

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done. The group's Hamdi Shaqoura told Reuters the centre took a long time and employed great efforts to research the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed. He further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite some suggestions. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This section can be archived.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbas blaming Hamas for this conflict

Isn't that information included in the article? if it isn't it should be included. Than the information from Israeli human right organizations should be reinserted as well. we should look into this. counter reactions from different positions from within both territories should be of some value to the article. now, that should be countered with 'main' responses from elected officials etc. Cryptonio (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if this is relevant and to what extent does the following comply with Wiki policies (which I intend to study). Anyway, Cryptonio must be referring to this:

“I say in all honesty, we made contact with leaders in Hamas in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly, and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non-Arab side... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said: 'We beg of you, we hope that you won't break [the ceasefire.] As the [Egyptian foreign] Minister said: 'Don't break the ceasefire, the ceasefire must continue and not stop.' In order to avoid [violence] that has happened. If only we had avoided it.” PA President Mahmoud Abbas [Palestinian Authority TV, Dec. 28, 2008] http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Feb2009.htm BTW, if the transcript provided by PMW is inaccurate, Arab-speaking participants are welcomed to point out the mistakes. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My only comment here is that it's probably better not to use Palestinian Media Watch as a source because it's status as a 'reliable source' is debatable. Everything they publish should easily be available from more mainstream sources that won't be challenged as reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Sean. You say that their status as reliable source is debatable. Even if you are right, in this particular case they present the footage from the PA TV, showing Abbas in person. Can it be more authentic? You can argue PMW is unbalanced pro-Israeli source. True. However, in what way does it diminish the reliability and verifiability of this report? The only other source I found was in the link below, section 'Who gets the blame?'. However, I am pretty sure they simply quote PMW.

http://www.kbrm.org.nz/Posts/2009/Jan_7.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more authentic and more suitable for WP as a source is possible. Firstly we can use uncontroversial reliable sources (RS) that deal with the same issue. If it is notable it will be covered by RS. Secondly we can avoid potential contributary copywrite infringements that often arise from self-published sites and their use of video etc by sticking to reliable sources. PMW supply material to many sources that WP regards as reliable so this should not be a problem in principal. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this: According to Reuters News Agency, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blamed the rival Hamas group on Sunday for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state.

http://www.france24.com/en/20081228-abbas-says-he-tried-continue-truce-avoid-violence-gaza-israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...although I suppose he's probably made more statements since then but yes looks good. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, in the article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. This section can be archived.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New source, more input

-> Here

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. I am collecting now some fine examples of the discrepancies in the PCHR report. In the course of the following days they will be presented to the forum. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything inherently objectionable to it. Although, of course, if we cite it we should correctly attribute that it is the opinion of an Israeli think tank. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

drive by shootings and reprisal kneecappings

Agada keeps tagging the article for neutrality/factual accuracy/weasel word problems probably for good reason and Cryptonio keeps reverting because driveby tagging without going to talk isn't allowed. They are likely to both be right. What to do ? Do we need the tag ? If so we need to spell out what they are. Okay, I'll start us off by simply making something up. hmmmm....the article is
a) clearly biased towards Israel because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was obviously designed to cause maximum civilian casualties/terror
and also b) clearly biased towards Hamas because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was designed to ensure that civilians had the best opportunity to see what was happening so that they could avoid getting injured while Israel targeted their oppressors.
Carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing inherently wrong with incessant tagging. The point is to draw attention to things so that they can be talked about, and, well, here we are- aren't we? The Squicks (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Tagging without talk is not allowed. Doing so on a page with discretionary sanctions in place is unwise. From NPOV Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Missed you all dudes, especially Cryptonio :) There is definite improvement but frankly this article is not FA quality yet. We Shall Overcome, eventually, for sure. I still think that we should encourage editors to improve this article. Let me know if you disagree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this section is here now and you have added a comment I think you automatically evade WP:DRIVEBY. That's what happens when you're civil. I'm in favour of the tag being there too for the time being as there clearly are issues e.g. Dorit Beinisch hasn't got people to change international law and counting casualties yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually remove them for aestheticism reasons, pivoting off Agada's 'we should not be denied' dementia. But surely I wouldn't revert Sean. Cryptonio (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean is kind of modern avatar of Titan who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals. And poor me, I had to look up meaning of dementia word. This fact kind of proves your point, Cryptonio ;) Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drones

We don't seem to have any mention of the unmanned drones/UAV that were (and are) used extensively in Gaza in the article anymore. They seem notable enough for a brief mention given that they account for quite a lot of the casualties including the cadets (e.g. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/garlasco_li which is also on the HRW site because the authors consult for them). Anyone fancy adding something ? After all apparently "No weapon better symbolizes Israel's indirect occupation of the Gaza Strip"...okay, just kidding...it's from HRW not me. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't even need to be in casualties. It is a notable weapon with increased use. If I recall correctly, Israel having drones with rockets wasn't officially verified until this conflict or something interesting like that.Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have link to IDF Youtube site with some drone footages. I and I just bought a huge LCD TV, great disappointment, drone footage not available in HD resolution. And sound - not even stereo. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is valuable to the article unless you provide a new section that details weapons and methods of warfare from both sides. BTW, a side remark, for the sake of discussion and not for the sake of article: HRW expert say that "The Israeli blockade of Gaza, tightened in mid-2007 after Hamas took over Palestinian Authority institutions, has created immense hardships on Gaza's civilian population. And just as Israel's control of Gaza's borders allows it to dictate from a safe distance what Gazans can eat, whether they can turn on their lights and what kinds of medical treatment are available to them, drones give Israel the ability to carry out targeted attacks without having to risk "boots on the ground." However, he fails to mention certain things that put this in the proper context. First, Israeli control of Gaza's waters and airspace is accordingly with agreements reached in Oslo accords. Even if Gaza became an independent sovereign state, it is still bound to its prior agreements with Israel respecting Israeli security control, until such agreements revisited. Furthermore, following the disengagement, Israel signed the Crossings Agreement with PA. After the takeover, Hamas announced that it is not committed to any of the agreements between Israel and PA including the latter. Second, Gaza has been unstoppably attacking Israel with rockets, before and after the withdrawal in 2005, before and after the Hamas takeover. The rocketings are acts of war, giving Israel the right to engage in acts of war as self defense. The blockade is a legitimate means of warfare, so long as it abides by the general humanitarian rules of blockades.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is really relevant to anything. It seems like a small tidbit or factoid rather than real notable information. And where is the news coverage of the issue? (Not that I have anything at all against the users for bringing it up). The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think a weaponry section would be fantastic. Although some people looks at this conflict as a horrible injustice to human rights (I actually do understand and agree to some extent) this article is also covering a military conflict and should be treated as so when appropriate. Unfortunately, those evil bastards in the media (kidding) have only written about how the weapons kill kids.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Can you pick up the glove? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant and valuable to the article in the same way that the weapons used by Palestinians are relevant and valuable to the article isn't it ? The article deals quite extensively with the weapons used by armed Palestinian groups, rockets and mortars. If the Palestinians were using drones would they be relevant and valuable to the article ? Drones were (and are) one of the key components in this conflict both in terms of surveillance/target selection and for the attacks themselves in some cases. JPost noted just before the conflict "It plays a vital role in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip". They've been used in attacks on civilian and humanitarian/medical targets according to several reports. They play a key role in propaganda/hasbara efforts. They appear quite frequently in media reports outside Israel. They're used in targeted killing which is one of the reasons cited by armed Palestinian groups to justify rocket and mortar attacks. Here's some refs.

• Quite a nice overview of IDF tactics in Gaza which may be useful in general. Cptnono may like it.
• Guardian article
• The Nation/HRW article already mentioned
• The IDF talking about their central role in operations
• Here's a BBC piece about the weapon
• Here's a BBC piece about it's post-ceasefire use. This caught my interest by the way because it's an example of where the IDF would probably count the casualties as combatants where others would count them as non-combatants.

I realise that military censorship prevents the Israeli media from talking about attacks by drones but it seems rather odd not to even mention them in this article given their important role and the consequences that follow from their use. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Drunky opens his mouth and you guys ask me to put it where my money is? :) Wanted to mention that Aviation Week has some great info but it will come up with some of the disputes we have with some human rights sources (RS enough but still needs to be used with caution). A really good source to work from and find googlable terms, though, so great find. Are there any bullet points that really jump out? If so, is there a way to work it into sections already in the template we currently have or is a new section better?Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the bullet point is 'drones are good' or 'drones are bad'...one of those 2. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drones are drones just like tank shells are tank shells. Realistically it is a tool in a war and is designed to kill. Any ethical concerns regarding that aside, any badness or goodness is at the discretion of the operator. I prefer poop as a munition.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed figures subsection

Boy Genuis promised me that after this noone will care that I dodged my six month service obligation...

There are several additions I think appropriate to the Disputed figures subsection. §1 Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas. In the official statement, IDF made clear that Israel regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009. Israeli Institute for National Security Studies adds further that the civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police are part of the military establishment, as it is under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target. http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 "noncombatant" police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009

§2 IDF claimed that nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. One of the medics is Anas Naim, the nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim (#519 in PCHR list), reported to have been killed on January 4 in the Gaza City. The IDF, however, produced photograph of Naim posing with a Kalashnikov assault rifle that had been posted on a Hamas Web site. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

§3 The PCHR's representative Hamdi Shaqoura reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done in researching the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed; he further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite suggestions from some Israeli security organizations. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Posing with a weapon doesnt mean much, for us here in the states we remember George W in fighter pilot garb announcing that the Iraq War was over. The first part, we should say that Israel considers the police to be legitimate targets (for some reason I thought we did say that), but the from all that I have read most nearly everybody else question the designation. But if there is info missing on the IDF perspective that should certainly be added, but it should not take precedence over what outside observers have said. I think we need to segregate what the Palestinians say, what the Israelis say, and then separately what outside experts say. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The police thing is a perfect example of the problems with this article. News sources have covered humnaitarian issues more than military tactics and reasoning. Attacking the police could be in several other sections of this article since the IDF did consider it a valid target. Like everything else, it has been turned into another way Gazans were the victims. I would love to blame other editors but realistically we are going off RS and more news sources cover what sells (dead babies). Also, too many multiple mentions of anything annoys me due to bloating the article so I guess I am just venting.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, we will leave Anas Naim alone. Still, it is important to note that IDF claims nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' This implies btw that classifying them as civilians is deceitful, but we will leave the conclusions to the readers. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That report is also based off the MoH numbers, will place that with women combatants in a sec. Nableezy (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

women combatants

Among Classical Greeks, amazon was given a popular etymology as from a-mazos (Ἀ-μαζός), "without breast", connected with an etiological tradition that Amazons had their right breast cut off or burnt out, so they would be able to use a bow more freely and throw spears without the physical limitation and obstruction. There is no indication of such a practice in works of art, in which the Amazons are always represented with both breasts, although the right is frequently covered.

I made a change here that was challenged so I restored the prior wording. But I do have concerns about the wording. I do not see the need to make specific mention of these two women, 'included women combatants' seems to be enough. If the issue is the attempted suicide bombings we can work out better wording then combatants, but I really see no need to make specific mention of 2 unnamed women. Nableezy (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) actually, I am not even sure about the inclusion of the line, it is from old numbers that the IDF later revised. The newest numbers I have seen, and the ones used elsewhere in the article, specifically says 295 combatants, among them 49 women. Beyond the the specific mention of these two women, I am not sure that the numbers that the IDF used include those women which is how the article stands right now. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it into the disputed figures section, and cited it explicitly to the CLA. Also removed specific mention, just said includes "female terrorists" used as a direct quote. Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff doesnt look all that good as I also cleaned up a ref that was taking too much space; the relevant change was removing the line from where it was and including this in the disputed section:

The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi said that of the names the PMoH had released, 580 had been identified as members of a militant group. The CLA also reported that among the women the PMoH had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists."
Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should be deleted, since 580 was merely the preliminary count. We know now that the final figure of those who IDF identified as members of a militant groups is 709. The second sentence is a misunderstanding. It should go like this: The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi reported that among the women the IDF had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists". Placing it in the disputed figures subsection is fine with me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about that, the cite says the CLA was basing their identification off of the PMoH names, not off of the numbers the IDF later gave. Will remove first sentence though. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

'said Col. Moshe Levi, the head of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), which compiled the IDF figures.' Basing its work on the official Palestinian death toll of 1,338, Levi said the CLA had now identified more than 1,200 of the Palestinian fatalities. Its 200-page report lists their names, their official Palestinian Authority identity numbers, the circumstances in which they were killed and, where appropriate, the terrorist group with which they were affiliated. You see, your mistake here might serve pro-Israel side even better, but for the sake of fairness this is not the case. Levi refers to the list he compiled.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. 'Combatant' has a connotation of a legitimate fighter. 'Terrorist' or 'suicide bomber' has a different connotation. CLA claim there were females who tried to blow themselves near the forces. So please be accurate with the wording here. Terrorists is the least I can accept here. Combatant is misleading.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, if you can't understand why 'terrorist' is no more or less misleading than 'combatant' then you shouldn't be working on this article because you have a conflict of interest. You should be familiar with WP:WTA by now and so I would urge you to think about why you think "Terrorists is the least I can accept here" and whether that is consistent with our policies and guidelines ? What is the objective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My point in where the names come from is that the IDF final tally is different from the PMoH final tally. The IDF has given a number for total killed, the PMoH has given a different number. The CLA report was analyzing the PMoH report, saying that of the names on that list, we have verified that these people have died and some of the circumstances. The reports that the IDF issued as its numbers says specifically 49 noncombatant women. I find it extremely hard to believe that the IDF would themselves classify women they believed to have been killed in an attempted suicide bombing as noncombatant. As far as the use of the word 'terrorist', the source says they "tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades"; I am sorry, but even a lose definition of the word terrorist does not include attacks on military personnel during an armed conflict. Also, "militant" is the generally preferred NPOV word around here. I would prefer using the word militant, but as long as we specifically cite the "female terrorist" I can deal with it. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the attacks by these females occurred during the conflict, they were combatants in the sense that since Hamas is not a 'standing army' even its 'regulars' can't be called soldiers. This of course by the nature of 'insurgency', to put it mildly in this context of ours. Terrorist and the hope of its inclusion is the main word that receives minimal attention. Cryptonio (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)One thing we need to try to stop doing somehow is perpetuating the opaque talking-at-cross-purposes in the article e.g. X says "there were 20 civilians and non-combatants". Y says, "No because 10 of those people were terrorists/members of Hamas" etc etc. It's nonsense. It's like X saying there were 20 people sleeping and Y saying "No because 10 of those people belong to a fitness club". X and Y are talking about completely different things. We're not helping readers by allowing this lack of clarity to spread into our article. We need to fix it...somehow. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

..another thing we need to stop doing is mixing up 'hasbara' and 'neutral encyclopedic information' because they're not quite the same thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that 'PMoH had counted as noncombatants were female terrorists' is hasbara. Saying that 'The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Moshe Levi said that among the women there were "female terrorists." is encyclopedic information.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias distinguish between 2 kinds of thing, information (which is supported by evidence) and disinformation. They tend to exclude the latter where possible. In this example it's difficult to tell whether this is information or disinformation. The risk of it being disinformation is 50% for our practical purposes so we should treat it with the respect and weight it deserves which is not much. How do we draw a line that separates neutral encyclopedic information from participating in the disemination of what could be disinformation ? What would help greatly I think and make me feel better about this being included would be if this had been reported on in multiple reliable sources not written by Yaakov Lappin, if the IDF had named the women and provided evidence so that PHCR could respond to the statement which we could then include. As it stands we have no way to balance this statement. Attributing it doesn't really help with that. If there is consensus to include a mention of these 2 women then it's probably wise to also mention that the IDF provided no evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence was added (and not by me btw) and I find it appropriate. You might want to add another sentence in this subsection: The Israeli military did not provide list of names to reporters. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanna leave PMoH? Fine, so be it. I suggest this discussion is resolved.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced POV 'female terrorist' with actual alleged actions by these two females. Cryptonio (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'terrorism' is referred to actions taken. To include that perspective would be POV, instead we can include the actions and let readers decide what to label them. An encyclopedia shouldn't be a repository of views and 'labels', it is a place of facts and information. Nothing is set on stone to use a quote that clearly is bent on providing a POV. Two women are counted as non-combatants and their actions were to blow themselves up. Even a passive reader, would take from that, that if it is true, the actions of the women constitutes act of aggression or involvement in hostilities, and perhaps, by the narrative, shouldn't be counted as civilian casualties. What should be added then, and not the 'terrorist' moniker, is the reason given by the PMOH as to why include those two females in their civilian count. I am reverting this for the last time. Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the issue here is "body count", a simple sentence that these two females death are disputed is more than enough. If something else is added a balancing act is more than called for then. Travesty. Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't disputed. Who are they ? To include anything is POV because it's unverifiable until the CLA publish their list of casualties. Professional journalists from reliable secondary sources that we rely on to fact-check for us can't verify this information until details are published. The PMoH or the PCHR or anyone else can't respond. No evidence has been presented that shows that these woman were suicide bombers and that the PCHR classified them as civilians. That to me is a far bigger problem for an encyclopedia than using the attributed term "female terrorist". The CLA may as well have said that a UFO landed. If we are going to lower the bar for inclusion in this article to this extent then why not just let the IDF and Hamas write it themselves ? It would save time. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On point. Cryptonio (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point was to not include specific information on these two? Why these two? What makes them special? There is no encyclopedic value in including the details of 2 casualties. I would ask that you self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I think it is fair to include criticisms that each side has made of the others numbers. We have the PCHR criticizing the inclusion of police in the IDF militant count, we have the IDF criticizing the PMoH numbers for including people they feel are combatants in the civilian count. I think it is both fair an reasonable to present the information that these numbers are disputed and why. We dont say who is right. Crypt, I reverted you again, please do not include the details on two deaths, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in doing so. Nableezy (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Nableezy in that it's completely valid to mention criticism of the PCHR about women but it's unneeded infocreep to go into detail about the women. The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's fair to include criticisms that each side have made of the others numbers. The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere. Female suicide bombers in Gaza sounds like something journalists might be interested in. I'd like to think it's because journalists try not to publish something unless they can verify it We already say that the IDF's position is that terrorists were counted as civilians. What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere. If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman that said that 2 women in the civilian casualty count were raped and shot by an IDF soldier but the spokesman/story didn't supply any names or evidence that the IDF could use to investigate the claim and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a good point. But we do specify how many females per each source and (i think) classify them as non-combatant. Nableezy (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere.

Could you be more specific about what you're getting it here? I'm lost...

Sorry Squicks, what I mean is that we need to have sensible criteria to decide when to include information and how specific we get. It needs to be verifiable. We can feel more confident about including something reported by 10 RS than we can about something reported by 1 RS. This story only appears to have been reported by 1 Israeli journalist. Maybe it has been reported in other RS by different journalists. If not why not ? See WP:REDFLAG. I don't know but to me Sceptic should make the effort to demonstrate that this information is reliable as a prerequisite to it's inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere.

Yes, exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman... and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ?

Isn't this almost exactly the same as the situation that just happened? Haaretz reported some hearsay about some atrocity stories about the IDF that are largely without evidence? The Squicks (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I would apply the same criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, seems like you simply overlook the initial intent of the piece of info I entered here. It is true that the IDF claim that Palestinian sources count militants as civilians is mentioned in the article. But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. Now someone had edited the sentence again, in a unreadable way. Finally, why don't you distinguish between 'to engage in hostility' and 'try to explode'? I fail to understand. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jan 14, 2004 - Four Israelis - three soldiers and one civilian - were killed and 10 wounded when a female suicide bomber detonated a bomb at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed joint responsibility for the attack. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm?DisplayMode=print would you call this woman as 'engaged in hostilities' against zionist entity?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

cmon, nobody said 'zionist entity', no need for the perceived hostility. An attack on a military location during an armed conflict can hardly be called a terrorist act. I said I was fine with the direct qoute "female terrorist" others objected. I also think that the proper word to use is militant, that is the generally preferred word representing a neutral medium between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"/"martyr" (and if need be I can probably find a source describing the women as a martyr). Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, 'hostilities' is just a standard term like 'civilian' or 'combatant' from the Geneva Conventions. Could you explain this a bit more ? I don't follow you.

But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I actually was the one who read the source differently, and had meant to ask somebody else to read it and let us know what they make of it, but got sidetracked by the above. The source is here. I read it as the CLA issuing a report based off the PMoH names released and made the noted observations. The IDF later issued a final tally and made a specific mention of 49 "female non-combatants" here. My contention is the CLA info is saying the PMoH numbers included these "female terrorists", not the numbers released by the IDF. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

Vent may refer to: Volcano, an opening in the Earth's surface which allows molten rock, ash and gases to escape.

Reopening this discussion due to recent IP edit. Am concerned about RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that (so and so said it was a massacre while speaking to blah blah). Not a huge deal but it comes up here and ther and want to see if anyone has any thoughts. Would prefer this not turn into a hurricane of shit (100 other things deserve more attention) and just wanted to have a discussion available.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, with all due respect, I've been messing around other I/P articles, and the word massacre is used sparingly as lives in a cat. This usage is all for show and title names. That it is used here, at the expense of RS, should be ignored, IMO. In other words, there is conflicting reports, on how many people must die in order for the killing to compromise a massacre, it doesn't even take into account HOW they died, since violence it's always involved in these matters. This is due to the 80's approach to sensationalism etc. Well anyways, thought I would 'vent', a la coors d'light. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to survey I made among other language Wikipedia articles describing this conflict my feeling is that the word massacre is not used as frequently as a skilled predator like Felis catus might think. We could make a pie chart maybe (according to language) to observe this point :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic. If you do a Google search of "Gaza Massacre 2009" today, there are 1.38 million results. Contrarily, searching "Gaza Crisis 2009" comes up with 12.1 million results. "Gaza War 2009" returns 42.6 million results. It is clear that "Gaza Massacre" is the outlier. Most times I have seen the term used it is used in quotes, citing only what Hamas has tried to brand the Israeli operation. (Operation Cast Lead 2009, by the way, comes up with 136 million results). "Gaza Massacre" is not what "the Arab world" calls the events in Gaza; it is merely what some in the Arab world have used to refer to those events. It should thus be included under the section on "international reactions." Major international news sources--including the most mainstream Arab media, Al-Jazeera--refer to it as the Gaza Crisis. The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre." thedefenestrator 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

I agree that it should perhaps be in quotes too. However, even if Palestinian militant groups were the only ones to use this term I think it should still be in the lead and attributed to them because it's the name they gave to this event. I would hope that the name provided by one belligerent is given the same weight as the name provided by the other belligerent. We aren't talking about article naming here or the actual name of the event according to Wiki guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be in quotes anymore than Cast Lead needs to be in quotes. Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre, it doesnt matter if anybody thinks they shouldnt call it that, but one of the sides uses a name, and like the name the other side uses it should be included. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And as before, I am not opposed to just saying "Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza massacre". Nableezy (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with said attitude is that one belligerent is purposefully promoting blood libels and antisemitism and their naming modus-operandi should be neutralized by the other POV about the value of said title. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blood libel? Antisemitism? By using a name that contains the word massacre? I'll let that go, dont want to get into a pissing match. We dont make judgments here, we inform the reader. The government of Israel has called this conflict Operation Cast Lead (and a number of people have voiced displeasure of naming this after a childrens song), the government of Gaza has called this the Gaza massacre. Wikipedia needs to treat these two the same. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not even a remote way of comparing the use of terminology of Israel with that of Hamas and yes, I whole-heartedly (and with the backup of reliable sources) stand behind saying that Hamas is antisemitic. If we were to merely use each side's terminology, that is the same as using "Iran calls it a hoax" in the lead of the Holocaust article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas being antisemitic isnt the point, how is the use of the term Gaza massacre antisemitic? The answer doesnt even matter though, even if it were antisemitic, and its not, that would be wikipedia making a judgement, which again is something we dont do. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nabliezy,

I'm well aware of wikipedia policies and everything I'm saying here is backed by sources. The "massacre" charges have indeed been charged as antisemitic and there's been notable criticism on the rhetoric as a whole as well. I'm in full support of adding the "Massacre" descriptive to the lead though, if it is combined with assessments that "The Gaza war triggered many expressions of antisemitism (i.e., statements against Jews at large) in the Arab and Muslim world, both by Arab leaders and politicians and by columnists. In their statements, they evoked antisemitic motifs taken from both traditional Islamic sources and from European ones. Cartoons featuring similar motifs were published in the Arab media."[11]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for that, Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and we cover it in this article as well. But it does not belong in the lead. If you have sources saying that the very name is antisemitic bring them and we can add them to the article, but the lead is not the place for arguments between the sides. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review my previous example about the Holocaust article and respond to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran wasnt a 'side' of the Holocaust, and that the present President of Iran has denied that the Holocaust killed the number of Jews that scholars say were killed isnt all that relevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair and unbiased to use the wording "Hamas, the government of Gaza (or perhaps, 'Hamas, the party in power in Gaza'), has named the conflict the Gaza massacre" in the lead paragraph. thedefenestrator 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

I also am in favour of Nableezy's recently proposed/added qualifier. It is more specific and perhaps more accurate than the 'in much of the Arab world' qualifier.Kinetochore (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing recent: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing that the Arab world described the fighting as a massacre in Gaza. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, I think the way we had it was fine and accurate, but the names that matter are the ones used by each side. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arab world is not a side in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I am suggesting that this was a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The main sides here were Gaza and Israel. The names the governments of those two sides use are the ones that matter. If you want to return it to say the Arab world has called it the Gaza massacre that is fine with me, I changed it because other users had problems with the wording and I think that there isnt a problem by specifying that Hamas has called it this. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, your additions do not belong in the lead, and now another user who has not made any attempt to discuss the issue has readded them. Lovely, I was taking bets on when this article would again descend into a POV battle from its very beginning. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Off course they do belong but I've got no objection to returning to a version which does not include the "massacre" blood-libel terminology while we discuss this further. To be frank, it seems as though you are quick to dismiss Israeli perspectives while giving undue credence and notability to those of the militant organization involved. Anyways, I'd like to start with the issue of the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian" conflict text which I've changed. This original phrasing is both incorrect and is also not supported by the source. Give it a look (the source) and let me know if we're at conflict on this issue. We'll move on to the other issues after this one which can be resolved quickly, I'm sure.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please stop with the rhetoric about blood libel? We include the name each side uses, no commentary on it. That you think the name is bad or wrong is irrelevant. There was no source for 'part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', I will get one if you insist. But an armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is most certainly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. That you want to add something unrelated to 'balance' massacre, is not even worth considering. What does antisemitic acts have to do with what the arab world calls the war?

That Hamas controls Gaza comes from the AP, Hamas governs Gaza.

That Iran has ties to another an arab population is not surprising, what is surprising and, you know, dumb is to try to put Iran in the lead. Iran doesn't even belong in the article period.

That these things only make sense in your mind, is not notable. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you should take a step back here from the language you're using. Please comment on content and not on fellow editors. If you have content concerns that something doesn't belong in the article, please make sure to be specific and to elaborate on your perspective.

Thanks and Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He didnt call you dumb, he called the edit dumb, which is also something he shouldnt have done, but lets not clutter up this page for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the resolution of this dispute represents everything that is awesome and revolutionary about Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who participated with good intentions. thedefenestrator 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

Too bad it aint over, I have a feeling we will see the opposite side of wikipedia in the coming weeks. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, didn't even look at this discussion until now. Sorry, gents. Saw an editor remove it and it get reverted so thought a place to discuss would be OK. Doesn't look like anyone's feelings were too hurt but sorry for the extra back and forth. $5 says 2 months until the next round!Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of issues

Section started per the following diff: [12] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of

• I've made a few changes to the lead which were all reverted.[13] It feels as though a tag-team mentality is ruling this page since no one has bothered, best I'm aware, to give a look to my explanation that (at least) the first section about "part of the ongoing [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]" is (a) false, and (b) unsupported by the source (pg.5). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Government of

• Also, Hamas is not really "the" the government of Gaza. This mukawama organization entered politics and won a majority vote. After very few agreed to speak to it, including the Fatah, they occupied the strip by force and are now ethnically cleansing anyone who has a semblance of belonging to Fatah. Basically, it's still just an unrecognized mukawama organization who carved up "Hamastan", a place of Islamist rulership, for themselves. Obviously, we're not supposed to go into detail on this in the lead, but we should note that they are first and foremost a mukawama organization. I'm sure even al-Azhar and Henniyeh would agree here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Massacre and propaganda victory

• This seems to be the only real point of contest between us and it might need external perspectives if we can't compromise. Sources calling the event a "massacre" come from the Arab world who is a direct and notable party in the current war - the propaganda one - where naming conventions repeatedly evoke antisemitic motifs both from the christian and Islamic world.[14] Among other mukawama motifs, is the declaration of "Allah inspired victory" and this is as notable (if not more than) as all the "massacre" blood-libel hypocrisy (that's what it is) as it takes a huge volume of the post-event discussions. Since the "Massacre" naming in highly controversial for its antisemitic allusion and abuse (usually the word is added with the combination of "killing children"), we cannot merely keep it as is since "that's how they call it". They also called it "Gaza victory" and I'm fairly certain there would be an objection in adding that title 'as is'. This is an emotional topic, I'm aware, as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza. In short, I'm open to adding the "massacre" blood libel rhetoric if it's noted that it's seen as such. Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox rethink ?

How about changing the infobox casualties and losses info from

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR),[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10]
Militants and policemen:
491* (PCHR),[9] 709 (IDF)[10]
Civilians: 926 (PCHR),[9] 295 (IDF)[10]
Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR),[9]

to

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR)[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10]
"Combatants" 236 (PCHR)[9] "Hamas terror operatives" 709 (IDF)[10]
"Civilians and non-combatants": 1181 (PCHR)[9] * "Uninvolved Palestinians" 295 (IDF)[10] "Men not attributed to any organization" 162 (IDF)[10]
Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR)[9]

Why ?

• This approach is closer to the sources and the terminology they use which I suggest we put in quotes. I also suggest we cite this IDF primary source in addition to the JPost secondary source as a reference for the IDF figures.
• The classifications used by the PCHR and the IDF are utterly different. The PCHR classification approach is based on International Humanitarian Law. The IDF classification approach is based on whether someone is a "Hamas terror operative" and that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target". We need to make this clearer somehow.
• PCHR classify casualties as either 'civilians' or 'militants' in their named list of casualties. People whose occupation is listed as 'Policemen' are classified as either 'Civilian' or 'Militant' presumably depending on whether they were assessed as non-combatants at the time e.g. #49 a Policeman is classified as a 'Civilian' whereas #50 another Policeman is classified as a 'Militant'. I suggest we follow the same schema for the PCHR figures. Note that I've added the 255 'non-combatant' policemen to the civilian total and note that there are 282 policemen in total (civilian+militant) in the named list. PCHR use the term 'Combatant' in their press release and 'Militant' in their named list to describe the same type of casualty. I suggest we use 'Combatant' because it's less ambiguous (even though it's technically incorrect) or alternatively we could use 'Combatant/Militant'.
• The IDF use different classifications. "Hamas terror operatives" is used to describe casualties who they say were members of militant organizations. They don't say what those people were doing at the time they were attacked so they can't be classifed using a standard combatant/non-combatant approach. They describe civilians as "Uninvolved Palestinians" and then there are the men they haven't classified.

The bottomline for me is that we need to do something to make it clearer to readers that the PCHR and IDF are neither counting or describing casualties the same way. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree 100% with the bottom line, this must be described clearer, putting the categories into quotation marks seems to me to be too unusual for a military history article and I'm not sure about doing it. The Squicks (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Disagree, the infobox is in wiki's neutral voice and should use neutral descriptors, not each sides chosen language. But a bigger concern to me is juxtaposition of the PCHR nos and the IDF nos, the IDF nos are more easily compared with the MoH nos (each sides government nos) whereas the PCHR is an independent (if not neutral) institution. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that we "should use neutral descriptors, not each sides" is dead on. But I don't agree at all about the PCHR verses MoH distinction. PCHR is a pro-Palestinian political action group. It is completely focused on one side. (Iin terms of the exact numbers, they are close to the MoH anyway).

The ideological point/counterpoint application of NPOV here means that the PCHR is a good counter for the IDF. If there was a pro-Israel political activist group that came up with its own count contradicting the IDF, then things would be different. The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I said 'if not neutral', they certainly do focus on Palestinian issues. But they are not associated with the government. I do however think the PCHR nos are more reliable than the MoH nos so it isnt a huge deal to me, just putting an independent organizations nos next to a governments nos seems off. But again, it isnt a huge deal to me. Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One way of making clear that they are counting differently is not having militants and police combined; for the IDF nos have combatants and police, for the PCHR nos have police and non-combatants. Info on why they are counted differently is in the casualties section. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of the MoH point. Good point but I'm not sure it matters as you say. The problem for me is that it just doesn't seem to be possible to use a standard wiki approach with neutral descriptors without lengthy qualification/explanation e.g. a PCHR 'militant/combatant' is not the same thing as an IDF 'combatant/militant', a PCHR 'civilian' is not the same thing as an IDF 'civilian' etc etc. We have to deal with that. It seems to be difficult to avoid introducing ambiguity unless we use the language of the sources or at least terms that unambiguously represent the meaning of the terms in the sources e.g. IDF says "Hamas terror operative", we could say "Member of militant group". I see the neutrality of terminology here as less important than ensuring that the terms we use (and hence the figures) are meaningful and unambiguous. The IDF have been quite careful in their use of language/terminology in their press releases/statements. It's difficult to avoid distorting things and misrepresenting what the IDF have said unless we are equally careful to use language that mirrors the IDF usage i.e. member of Hamas etc/uninvolved/uncategorized. As for the police, neither side treat Policeman as a seperate category so I'm not sure we should either. The PCHR put 255 policemen in the 'civilian+non-combatant' category and 27 policemen in the 'combatant/militant' category and policemen are "Hamas terror operatives" to the IDF. Anyway, my proposal was kind of an extreme starting point position. The key thing to avoid as far as I'm concerned is using the same word to describe different things. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the lengthy qualifications is what the casualties section is for. As long as we say the IDF says x civilians and the PCHR says y civilians I think it is clear that we are their definition of civilian. We can break those definitions down in the casualties section. I dont want to treat policemen as a separate cat, just combine them with militants for the IDF (as they do) and civilians for the PCHR (as they do) and say militants and combatants for the idf nos and militants and non-combatants for the PCHR nos. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree more with Sean here. It should be clear from the infobox that the two groups have different defintions of the same terms.

In the Wikipedia voice, something like 'Member of Militant Group' verses 'Combatant' works well, IMHO. The Squicks (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Im cool with that, but think it should say includes police for where each respective side includes them. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't any reader who sees the term 'Member of Militant Group' automatically think that it includes all members? By definition, wouldn't it include police? The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so, given that the PCHR counts police as civilians. I would typically associate police with civil service, part of the government not the 'military', in this case 'militant group' Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would also associate police with civil service and most and foremost the force that preserves law and order. Like for instance stop dudes which fire rockets not really in accordance with International Law. Local laws might be different and more valid, what's considered illegal, even by international law, might be legal locally. So police for instance might preserve law and order in which dudes could continue firing since it's right and legal thing to do. Welcome to cognitive relativism, Nableezy. And there are plenty of RS reporting about Hamas police catching thieves and burglars. As for armed force part, here is reliable source which describes Hamas police starting laying down law in streets of Gaza, aftermath of event described by this article as 2007 Hamas military victory. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556185/Hamas-police-lay-down-law-in-Gaza.html

Hamas has bolstered the police force with about 400 members of its so-called Executive Force and militants on loan from its armed wing, the Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades.

They (policemen) slammed ammunition magazines into the butts of AK47s and piled into blue police Jeeps, pickup trucks and a battered white van with no side door.

During this conflict, in a matter of days after cease-fire declaration, RS reported Hamas police was back on street in full blue uniform and armed with AK47s.

Prior to this conflict intensification, Hamas declared end of cease-fire, making rocket fire (considered illegal by international law) an official policy. It might be reasonable to consider that Hamas armed forces were providing security infrastructure (law and order) for implementing this governance policy. I'm not an international law expert, but according to civilian article, armed forces members unconditionally excluded. Armed forces term does not include police force unconditionally though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue of legitimacy of attacks on the police

I know everyone is tired of the matter. However, this is the most comprehensive definition issued by HRW: Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center present evidences, indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to add the Israeli claim that these police stations are militants. But we do not make the judgment that those claims are true. Can you find a better source (reliable third party), I can in the morning if you dont get to it. Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I think this kind of misses the point. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center doesn't make legal decisions for the IDF so I don't see what this adds to anything. The IDF have their own lawyers who authorise these kind of attacks and can speak for themselves. The IDF have explicitly said that anyone and anything affliated with Hamas is a legitimate target as far as they are concerned. Whether that is formally or informally is of no interest to them. See ref 206. They are complying with their interpretation of international humanitarian law. In fact they believe that if you do something often enough it becomes legal as stated just a few days ago by the head of the Israeli Supreme Court in her campaign to get international law changed. The ILD (IDF's international law division) authorised the attack against the cadets "with no difficulty" because of their "categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals". They were not regarded as police. They were regarded as part of the "enemy's armed force". The ILD approach is that "the way Hamas operates is to use the entire governmental infrastructure for the organization's terrorist purposes". The ILD have all sorts of interesting opinions that determine what the IDF can do e.g. "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting". This is a piece about the ILD and the source of my quotes. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

..so in summary, anyone can be categorized as part of a resistance force if necessary and then killed legally from the IDF perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)