Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Rocket attacks

If RS do not draw a link shuld we imply one? Yes the attacks declined but there may have been reasons for this unrelated to the conflict.????

Lead

Israel's stated goal was to stop rocket fire into Israel: Not found in source Reuters (describes only part of the timeline).

and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip: Not found in sources.

I propose to replace the sentence by:
"Israel's stated goal was to stop attacks from Gaza on Israel. It argued that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. An argument rejected by the UN Fact Finding Mission, who investigate alleged violations of international law during the Gaza War."<ref name="guardian.co.uk">
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose your proposal. Firstly I'm not sure why you are changing "rocket fire" to attacks." The weapons smuggling was sourced but now the link is dead. A new source must be found and it should be not difficult. Your essay-like proposal for the second sentence is wholly inappropriate for a second sentence of a WP:LEAD let alone for any part of the article. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem at all to keep "rocket fire" instead of the more compact "attacks". The Guardian perfectly cites the Israeli key arguments, so I also propose to add to the source the quote: "The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. Instead, it found the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".". Rejecting the source by calling it essay-like is very cheap arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To include such "inquiry" in the lead (furthermore with those words, which are not mainstream opinion... the objective was to "humiliate, terrorize"?? are you kidding me or what?) is blatant and obvious POV-pushing. Take a time to read weight, label, lead and NPOV more carefully. This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal blog.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First, a quote in the ref does not appear in the lead. Further no one says it is a mainstream opinion; it is a quote from a RS. Third, "humiliate, terrorize" are not my words, but only short-sighted minds see them as a joke. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Operation Protective Edge be added to the top with Operation Pillar of Defense in the "For..." section? - Galatz (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation name

Aviados, you seem not to get the point about the name Operation Cast Lead. It is not about the etymology of the word. It is about the cynical use of it, refering to the "lead" casted out over the Gazan population. Making an innocent reference to a celebration makes it still more cynical and hypocritical. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, I'm afraid it is you who does not get the point about the name. *Of course* the name may have several aspects, some of which you may call "cynical", or in any case a word play. However, its basic meaning should undoubtedly be explained (which, much to my surprise, was not the case until now).

I shall quote from the English-language source I have given (which is nothing if not critical):

The war-normalizing name Operation Cast Lead [...] carried several connotations to Jewish culture with the key overall connotation being the holiday of Hanukkah. It is important to note that most of these connotations are lost in the English name, thus a detailed discussion of the Hebrew name may be useful for the non-Hebrew speaker. (Gavriely-Nuri, Dalia (2013). “Operation Cast Lead.” The Normalization of War in Israeli Discourse, 1967-2008. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. pp. 42–43)

The authour – a senior lecturer and a research fellow in the Department of Politics and Communication at Hadassah Academic College and at the Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, respectively, and whose main research area is Peace and War Discourse – goes on to explain it in detail. If you wish to add information to it, based on sources like this study, you are welcome. However, objecting the mere explaining of the operation's name is an absurdity. Aviados (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

This photo of a stack of scrap from an unreliable source could have been made anytime, anywhere. Found in a mosque? It clearly are not weapons. This violates WP:SOURCE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we usually consider military spokesperson units unreliable sources? Are all government spokespersons unreliable, in your opinion?

And what is the basis for the claim that Qassam rockets "are not weapons"? Aviados (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, military spokespersons in general are pathological liars. They are not government spokespersons, although these usually also lie. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This photo shows at best remains of what once were Qassam rockets. Unknown where and when found. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting approach, determining that information provided by official spokespersons is probably a lie. Is it grounded in any guidelines, or is it just your personal point of view?

Qassam rockets are seen in the images. You *suggest* that these aren't but "remains of what once were Qassam rockets". That's an original research. Aviados (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

An exposition of old metal, yet not weapons, and a soldier posing for the picture. This image is not added for information, but merely for mood making. So, I remove it again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have explained why you are wrong and objected your edit. I reverted your edit yet again. Please do not remove the image again without achieving an agreement in the talk page. Aviados (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The hollow phrase of Brewcrewer, I do not regard as an explanation. Instead, your suggestion that Qassam rockets are shown is original research. You failed to adress any of my objections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's less of an original research than to claim that what is shown is "a stack of scrap" or "an exposition of old metal". But of course, we should avoid original research, on either side; that means we are to stick to the source, according to which what is shown in the image are weapons. Aviados (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You gave some arguments, all of which were then refuted.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by saying that "the image itself proves it is an unreliable source". Aviados (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Only silly Israelis and Americans believe that the IDF as a fighting party is a reliable source. Apparently, there are editors among those believers here. The image is clearly for propaganda, both on Flickr and in the article. WP:SOURCE is enough for deletion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

there are images in there from the ISM, which is not neutral, not a reliable source. Why are you not removing those? This kind of one-sided editing is disruptive. at leats 4 editors have reverted you yon this issue - stop edit warring over it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF is reliable source for thier own images.Please don't remove it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: IDF image

This request is about the question isued above (the use of an IDF image).
The IDF image, in my view, is placed in the article for propaganda only. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. My theses are:

1. The image is used for propaganda and does not serve explanation of the article
2. Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
3. The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source on the subject, including statements about targets, and casualties among the other party
   

Wickey-nl (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

History

• 4 July 2014‎ [1] Wickey-nl's first removal
• 4 July 2014‎ [2] reverted by User:Shezor Sajur, almost certain a sock, edit accepted by Brewcrewer
• 6 July 2014‎ [3] Wickey-nl's first revert, to force discussion on talkpage
• 6 July 2014 [4]‎ reverted by Aviados
• 7 July 2014‎ [5] Wickey-nl's second revert, to force discussion on talkpage
• 7 July 2014‎ [6] reverted by Aviados

Until Wickey-nl's third revert on 10 July 2014‎, there was no response on the talkpage but by Brewcrewer, with a reaction that was not to the point, and from Aviados, who ignored Wickey-nl's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickey-nl (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this description cannot be less accurate. First, Wickey-nl neglected to mention the fact that the discussion had indeed begun, with both his argument and my response, on 5 July. Second, I couldn't have ignored Wickey-nl's final "arguments", since his kind remark about the silliness of Israelis and Americans does not constitute an argument (but if anything, merely reflects his "neutral" POV). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Please, start your comment with a * and your sign (~~~~)

1 The image is used for propaganda

• The image, showing weapons found in a mosque, demonstrates Hamas's notorious usage of public, civilan facilities – including, as in this case, mosques – for military purposes, and thus effectively turning the civil population in Gaza into a human shield. This is a matter of fact, known to be true and confirmed by numerous non-Israeli sources (including, interestingly enough, Hamas's own speakers, who apparently do not believe there is anything wrong with this practice). To present the readers with this image, then, is no more of a "propaganda" than to present them with images depicting the actions of the other side (i.e., Israel), namely explosions, damaged buildings etc. (which, to be sure, appear in the article in their numbers). To show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by only one of the two fighting parties, while erasing all trace of the ones inflicted by the other, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, the image is used for propaganda/PR. That is the only reason to take the photo and publish the photo. But including propaganda in Wikipedia articles is fine as long the source is clearly identified and what it purportedly shows is attributed to the source of the propaganda. And Aviados, we are not here to show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by anyone. It's an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The image may have been taken by the IDF for PR purposes, but in this article it is being used to illustrate some of the arguments. There's nothing wrong with that so long as the overall article adheres to WP:NPOV - by including arguments and images from the other side. On that note, I might be more sympathetic to the OP's argument here if he also suggested that the propaganda photos originating with the International Solidarity Movement also be removed - but as the OP hypocritically supports retaining those photos while advocating the removal of IDF ones, we can safely dismiss this argument as disingenuous. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Obviously, but as long as the caption clearly states where photo comes from and as long as photos from similar Palestinian sources are not rejected, it's useable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• The question is not only if the image is used for propaganda purposes, which is obvious, but more importantly why it is used in a WP article. What does the picture add? Does it say that mosques are legitimate military targets, like homes, press offices, schools and hospitals? And if so, should WP support this. If this is indeed the case, it should be mentioned in the capture; not simply "weapons found in a mosque", which is meaningless. Questioning the presence of pictures that damage Israel's image is legitimate. But, unlike the photo about we are talking now, there are published plenty pictures of the damage, by plenty independent sources, and they were verifiable by everyone. The presence of other images does not legitimate the presence of an improper one. Every one should be judged separately. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The most disturbing use of a non-sense argument is, that propaganda from an unreliable source may be used for balance and NPOV. No source or image from a Palestinian battle group has been used in the whole article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• The image gives an example of case where Palestinians have used a mosque as a weapon warehouse; nothing particularly new. You may think this to be "meaningless", but that seems like nothing more than yet another reflection of your clearly non-NPOV attitude here. It is a crucial aspect of this warfare, which should certainly not be disregarded. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

2 Content not verifiable

• This is not a separate issue, but merely an aspect of no. 3 (see bellow). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is true of just about every photograph on Wikipedia - , and is a byproduct of copyright laws. verifiable images - from reputable news agencies - are copyrighted and can't normally be used. (and as an aside, even reputable news media have been caught publishing fake photos). We rely on user generated content for most photographic material. Specifically, it applies to all the ISM photos in the article, which the OP has no problem with. Again, an insincere appeal to policy, properly described as WP:WIKILAWYERING Brad Dyer (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• As Sean.hoyland pointed out, propaganda may be included in Wikipedia articles under certain conditions. This does not mean that misleading info may be presented just because it is correctly attributed. The content on the discussed photo is dubious and not verified by a RS. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• As others have already stated, the image gives no "misleading info", and only someone who applies a double standard would consider it "dubious" while unquestionably accepting the validity of the ones taken by the ISM. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am fine with this photo as long as "according to IDF" is there in the caption. It does illustrate Israel's claim of weapons being hidden in a mosque (without saying anything about whether that claim is true). If someone wants to jump from this allegation to the conclusion that it is ok to bomb mosques, that is their problem. I do however note that there is no equivalence between the photos from ISM and this photo, because nobody disputes the damage as shown in the ISM photos. While here, there is obviously a charged claim that Palestinian militant groups used mosques as weapons storage. As far as I understand it, the ISM photos are used mainly due to them being without copyright restrictions. Kingsindian (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, the Palestinian use civilian infrastructure for military purposes in the current warfare as well. There are plenty of sources referring to both now and then (for instance: 1, 2; 3; 4). Aviados (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure what this has to do with the above topic, but if you wish to discuss it, sure. I was indeed aware of the rockets found in the UNRWA school a few days ago, which is being investigated. All the sources you mention (except for the Israeli intelligence source, which I will not treat as independently credible) refer to the 2014 war, and just this single incident. There are no other sources for the 2008 war which you list. So your phrase "both now and then" seems wrong. I am quite willing to believe the allegation that mosques were sometimes used for storage (indeed, it would be surprising if it were not true), but you haven't given me any evidence for it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It was just a casual remark, so I didn't try very hard. Also, quite naturally, I'm more occupied with current news. I don't know how good your German is, but the Die Zeit article refers to another (2014) incident, where Hamas used a German-funded civilian facility. Now, I looked it up, and there are indeed numerous sources – apart from military intelligence researches – discussing this issue. To give a few examples: "Hamas Independent reports give detailed evidence that Hamas used hospitals, school, homes, and mosques to hide weapons and soldiers during the Gaza War [...] Hamas hid IEDs in and around civilian homes and hospitals[.]" (Marie-Helen Maras‏, ‘Hamas,’ The CRC Press Terrorism Reader, 2014 , p. 287); "[Hamas and other Palestinian operatives] fired rockets from residential neighbourhoods and engaged Israeli forces from or near houses, hospitals, mosques, schools and UN compounds." (Richard D. Rosen, ‘The Protection of Civilians During the Israeli-Hamas Conflict: The Goldstone Report,’ in: David W. Lovell & Igor Primoratz (eds.), Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict (2012)); "Hamas uses its civilian infrastructure as meeting places; it hides fugitives in the homes of its dawa activists and supporters, and has buried caches of arms and explosives under its own kindergarten playgrounds." (Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, 2006, p. 97 (see also p. 36); a general claim, followed by an example from 2000). Aviados (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • (Still off topic) I spent a bit of time tracking down the sources. My previous conviction remains as it is. I can't read German, so I have no idea about the Die Zeit article. Source 1: It just says: "Independent sources" without giving any details. It mentions a) The UN report and b) Israeli intelligence. I will leave aside Israeli intelligence. The UN Goldstone report found no instances of mosques being used as caches or for storage or to use as launching pads, though it did not investigate this thoroughly. The only incidents where it investigated, mosques or hospitals, it concluded that there was no evidence for the Israeli claims of using mosques or hospitals as weapons caches or to fire rockets. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf page 117). It says " Israeli Government has produced no visual or other evidence to support its allegation that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements". It discusses some other sources and conclude that if there was mingling, it was mostly due to the very small area of Gaza, and definitely not done deliberately. Source 2: The source for the second is an article by Steve Erlanger in the NYT. His source is Israeli military and intelligence. Source 3: This seems plausible, the source is a Palestinian security chief. But this is from 2000, it does not pertain to 2008. Kingsindian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I appreciate the challenge. German: not my problem; you can either rely on me, use machine translation or go ask a German speaker (although one may find similar articles in English as well, I presume). You seem too quick to dismiss Israeli intelligence, forgeting they enjoy high global prestige they do have to maintain. This is not less so in regard to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The above-mentioned article, "The use of mosques in the Gaza Strip for military purposes by Hamas and other terrorist organizations: the case of the Al-Farouq Mosque", is rich in images (among which, I found, is the photo that started this debate (p. 8).
            The Goldstone report did not enjoy the cooperation of the Israeli government, which suspected – quite justifiably, one might add in retrospect – that this UNHRC appointed mission is aimed as another anti-Israeli means, courtesy of this shamelessly biased council, rather than as a sincere attempt at "finding facts". However, had Israel presented its arsenal of evidence before the Goldstone team, it would in all probability have included findings found in the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center comparative report "Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip: The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings". You may, of course, choose to ignore everything in it. In any case, it is worth mentioning, in regard to the image under discussion, showing IEDs seized in a mosque in Al-Atatra, the following: "An operational sketch of Al-Atatra in the northern Gaza Strip was seized during Operation Cast Lead. It showed that the mosques were integrated into the combat system, and that IEDs, anti-tank and emergency squads were placed nearby." (p. 147); "On January 14, 2009, IDF forces found large quantities of weapons in one of the mosques in Al-Atatra. Some of them were hidden in a storeroom built under the imam’s pulpit" (p. 152, accompanied by several photographs from p. 152 ff). To be sure, this section of the report, titled "Hamas’ military use of public and administrative institutions and facilities during Operation Cast Lead", refers to numerous instances where mosques were being used by Hamas for military purposes.
            You may, again, dismiss the report and the photographs, just like you may dismiss this video. In that case, I refer you to Iraq War veteran Colonel Tim Collins. Collins, examining the ruins of one of the mosques destroyed by the IDF in Rafah, stated that "down in the cellar of the mosque, there was clear evidence of secondary explosions. It's my opinion that the only thing that could have caused this was explosives that have been stored here." (Celebrated Iraq war veteran's view of the Gaza conflict, BBC News, 19 January 2010, 6:16–6:58 segment). Aviados (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
            • 1. I am fine with Israeli claims to such things. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, I am fine with the picture as long as "according to IDF" is there. All the other sources you mention are Israeli military or intelligence sources (including the Die Zeit article, as far as I can make out using Google Translate). 2. My point is not to dismiss Israeli sources (they are valid, but they must be treated as in a separate category as a potentially biased source from one party in the conflict). My point was that the other sources you cited just base themselves purely on Israeli intelligence or military sources, with no independent verification. 3. The source you mentioned earlier is the one which cited the UN report. I was just reiterating its conclusions which pertained to our discussion here: namely using mosques or hospitals as weapons storage or human shielding etc. Leaving aside the merits of the report, citing the UN report obviously does not help to support the claim. 4. I watched the Tim Collins report and it does seem to be at least an independent examination of the claim in one particular case (al-Maqadmah mosque), which is fine. However, it is just one man's opinion (he claims there were secondary explosions, but no evidence is shown), which directly contradicts the Goldstone report's investigation of this particular case. Desmond Travers, in an interview where he was asked about this, has stood by his original claims. I have no competence to judge the merit of the conflicting claims and this does not change my priors. 6. As to the pictures, surely you can imagine that from the viewpoint of a skeptical observer, pictures of ammunition or weapons allegedly in a mosque (which seem to be the pictures in the first pdf), is not good evidence. They could easily have been planted there. I am not saying they were, indeed, planted there. Just that this is not good evidence. Kingsindian (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Although Aviados' spinning is irrelevant for the discussion about the contested picture, it is not surprising at all if in the advanced stage of a ground offensive weapons and ammunition are found hidden in houses, hospitals, mosques, schools or whatever. It does not say anything about where they were before the invasion. Consequently, such founds are not of any value for justifying the Israeli massacres and warcrimes. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
                • It's merely a side discussion, as noted several times. There's no need for spin, since most of the commentators in the discussion have opposed your bias-motivated or non-NPOV suggestion to remove the image.
                  The findings are just what they are; no one said anything about what they might or might not justify. But since you decided to bring it up: using a civilian facility for military, offensive purposes is in itself a very real war crime. So is the massive use of civilians as human shields. Both of these criminal acts inevitably bring about considerable civilian casualties. Aviados (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
              • You have a point. Well, I'd settle for that source based on Palestinian security chief (pertaining to 2000); the 2010 opinion of the British Colonel (2008-09); and the UNRWA reporting that weapons have been found in their school (2014). To establish the claim further would require more work. Aviados (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

3 IDF is not a reliable source

• To be sure, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has an agenda here. However, the same can be said about other sources for the images used here, including the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, which is highly ideologically-driven and is known to have a clear agenda, ridiculously favoring the Palestine case.

It is Wickey-nl's contention (above) that "military spokespersons in general are pathological liars". Well, we shall respect this point of view, like any other, and since Wickey-nl takes this belief to be a rule of thumb, he may well ignore military spokespersons altogether in his opinion pieces. Here, however, we do rely upon government spokespersons (at least as far as we deal with open societies).

When deemed necessary, we can, and do, precede claims with "according to", as is done in various cases throughout this very article; in fact, that is what Wickey-nl himself suggested. The caption is now "Weapons found in a mosque during Operation Cast Lead, according to the IDF". This should undoubtedly be enough, and there's no justification for removing the image. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The false suggestion is made here, that a Flickr account under the name Israel Defense Forces is a source of the IDF Spokesperson. A Flickr account used for uploading propaganda pictures by soldiers is not an official IDF communication channel. Apart from that, is is very naive to suppose that IDF Spokespersons are reliable. No one can expect that IDF will let prevail truth over military and propaganda objectives. Not the nature of military; you cannot even blaim them for that. Just repeating that IDF is a reliable source does not make it true, even if 1000 editors would do. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1.[7] I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you you insert that strange link here? --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. This RFC is against policy per WP:RFC it should be "be neutral and brief" it doesn't follow those requirements--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment.The inclusion of IDF pictures are necessary per WP:NPOV if remove them we should remove an ISM pictures too. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sderot cinema

I don't see that this is notable on its own, but I think it could be included in Gaza War (2008). Tchaliburton (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It has received plenty of international coverage and the term was coined during the 2014 attacks. // Liftarn (talk)

While Sderot cinema (as a new stub) is a small article, merging its references into the 2008/09 Gaza massacre would further expand the latter one substantially. I would encourage, though, adding a small paragraph with link to the article about this perversion in Gaza War#Reactions in Israel. No pictures of such (ob)scenes? I also note that such happenings are being repeated in the current massacre Operation Protective Edge. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Regardless of the discussion itself) Pertaining to your poor choice of words: Clearly you're having a hard time maintaining NPOV. You are, nevertheless, expected to keep some minimal appearance of it and avoid using charged, offensive words such as "obscene" as well as plainly false ones like "massacre" in regard to the current warefare in Gaza. This kind of wording may suit your blog or Facebook posts, but it's inappropriate to use it in Wikipedia talk pages. Aviados (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Mezan centre figures

Zaid almasri (talk) included figures from Al Mezan Centre for Human rights into the section "Civilians vs Combatants". The subject is a complex one and there are varying interpretations of what counts as civilians or combatant. This is discussed in detail in the main article "Casualties of the Gaza War" already. The discussion on this page is supposed to be no more than a summary. Including the Al Mezan Centre figures by themselves and no others in this summary will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV, as Shrike (talk) already did. In addition it is verbatim posting of the BBC article which might be violating copyright (I am not sure about whether just a short passage quoted really violates copyright, but it is arguable).

I had put the Al Mezan figures in context of the figures compiled by other human rights orgs in the preceding section, which is where I think they should be. But Wickey-nl (talk) has reverted this with unclear justification. Perhaps someone can tell me what is happenning.

I think there is a decent case for the inclusion of those figures somewhere in the article, since they claim to have checked each individual case. Naturally, I think the place where I put them is best. But edit as it currently stands is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The move of the figures is not the point (they should move). You deleted part of the discussion about the ratio, including the source. Of course the figures are irrelevant if there are more recent ones. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken about me deleting the source. The source is already present in the previous paragraph. See the last sentence of the first paragraph (ending with "...Israel's strict blockade of the borders before, during, and after the conflict") where the source is cited. The whole paragraph of the Al Mezan centre comes from that source. The paragraph is the issue at stake here, and it still remains in the current edit, which is unacceptable to me. Kingsindian (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The huge amount of sources makes it difficult to keep track of. Apart from the figures, what is not unacceptable to you? I think it is preferrable to keep figures of the ratio in the separate section. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already mentioned what is unacceptable in the first comment. The section "Combatants and civilians" should not have just one data point (the Al Mezan centre) about what is combatant and what is civilian. The matter is complicated and there is already a separate article "Casualties of the Gaza war" about just this very topic. In this article there should just be a reference to that article, and a short summary. Including just the Al Mezan figures in this section will clearly be seen as violating NPOV. To repeat, my suggestion is what I did before: the whole paragraph should be removed, and the figures from Al Mezan included in the previous section, along with B'Tselem and others. Kingsindian (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

<----The main section just gives the naked figures, not the ratio's. I will copyedit and move back the figures, except the ratio. Other ratio's can be added later. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the numbers are in one section and the ratio in another section. The Al Mezan number is expressed as a ratio (85%) because the source says so. They did not give the exact number. I have moved the ratio to the previous section. The second problem is again, the whole paragraph starting with "B'Tselem investigates" in very unsatisfactory. It does not give the methodology of classifying civilian and combatant deaths. B'Tselem says it followed ICRC guidelines. Al Mezan says it classified it in a different way. PCHR does it in a different way. Israel disagrees with all of them and gives its own reasons. This is not a trivial matter and cannot be addressed in such a casual way. This is why there is a whole article devoted to these claims. If we include all those arguments into this section it will make it very long and this article is already too long, in my view. I have rewrote the paragraph in a summary way. Kingsindian (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem when you try to write about things you do not understand. Al the organisations that follow international law have exactly the same method, ICRC, B'Tselem, Al Mezan and PCHR. Assassinated persons are not combatants, but extrajudicially killed persons. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)