Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Olmert ends the war tonight?

BBC says: "The Israeli cabinet is set to back an end to military activities in the Gaza Strip... a ceasefire at a meeting later on Saturday, after which PM Ehud Olmert will address the nation, sources said."

It also gives 1,200 as the final Palestinian death count (for now...). The Squicks (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Mmm. I should think the article should go onto the main page when this occurs? Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas". This article is far from settled :(. Superpie (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas'Superpie
Could you restrict your manifest partisanship to your edits, and not here? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall never joke or laugh again Nishdani Superpie (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless you are Irish (as I am) or Scythian, you don't joke at funerals. And certainly not those of others, especially of your enemies.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well one out of two isnt bad. Nishdani, lighten up. Failing to find the silliness of it all amusing would kill me inside. I salute your ability to cope without a smile, but I cannot. Superpie (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm, its over. Im going to wait until it actually happens before I go and add it. Superpie (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsection. Soaping in the cliché gallery.

Golda Meir (disputed) Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice how she said "Arabs"... of course, blaiming the victim is what Jewish grandmothers are supposed to excel at. But seriously, I would offer that self-respect is usually built better when others love you, and Golda Meir was rivers of nihilistic hate, to the point of historical, if verbal, genocide:


When you deny a people their very existence as a people, you cannot simply expect them to love their children more than they hate us. It defies all common sense. Even a dog will risk its puppies if it means survival of the pack. I know many of you consider Palestinian sub-human, still..
IDF Lieutenant General and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a warrior, who killed - when called upon the gruesome task by his consience - with his own hands, not like a coward with the pen and the Cabinet meeting, came to realize after years of leading the IDF and being its most important soldier:


His words, are ever so much valid today than when uttered, when he embarked in the only war that would kill him, the "war for peace".
The West Bank doesn't burn tonight in part because Rabin's spirit dwells there. But Gaza? Gaza is all Golda Meir, all the time. Hamas is the flip-side of Golda Meir and a predicatable result of her denial of the Palestinians. Too bad, that in his time, Rabin did her bidding, a loyal soldier of Zion, who lived figthing for his nation's establishment, but died figthing for his nation's peaceful existence, at the hands of an ingrate whose existence as a free person was in large part the doing of Rabin himself. But yeah, you know this already.
I get out of my soapbox, but don't ever quote like that and don't expect a response. Some of us actually know real history, not just the banal plaitudes of the politicians and chickenhawks. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, what a way to slip in "I know many of you consider Palestinian sub-human". Golda Meir's quote doesn't say it, you made the connotation, and then you blame Israelis (I presume) for considering people as sub-humans. This is some nasty propoganda. --Nezek (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Aba Eban used to remark The Palestinians never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity. Hamas effectively put a Veto on Oslo accords, Rabin used to say about Hamas: We will work for peace as if there is no terrorism; and fight terrorism as if there is no peace AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabin didn't say that about Hamas, he said that about the PLO. Hamas were nobodies back then, and pretty much everyone in Palestine and Fatah saw them as an false flag of the Shin Bet. Many in the PLO still do. :D --Cerejota (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You browse 4chan and other *chans, don't you? Haven't you seen the picture of the Hamas leader with the AK-47 who has a Mossad-style star of david tattoo on his chest that's just slightly visible, mostly obscured by his jacket? Is that a photoshop? The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Gallery 0 8 3307.jpg
SHIT BRICKS!!! - Quick before it gets baleted CSD.
I believe the correct term is: I shat bricks. :D That picture also made the rounds in the blogsphere:[2], its in the comments, but I seriously doubt it is real. I think its not shooped, I just think it is JPG artifacts, a visual effect. BTW, I am so oldfag, that I was doing memes when moot was a babyfag, so I don't chan. I just was laughing when 4chan made main page the other day, because it had been speeded deleted as vandalism like a billion times before.--Cerejota (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I remember it differently. Rabin said it after signing Oslo accords with PLO. Hamas rejected it ( as it continues to do now ) and started sending suicide bombers. Veto is a clean word. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was an agingfag, but I got over it. Seriously, there are so many other places to me to get my gay fetish material, places more tolerant and accepting of diverse lifestyle choices. I was sick of the "Yiff in hell" and "enjoy your AIDS" comments. And their resistance only makes my penis harder. The Squicks (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What are you guys talking about?... I'm so out of touch on things, apparently... Rabend (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The Squicks: do not answer, the Rules of the Internet #1 and #2 forbid it. This is Serious Business...--Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


They conclude that "Obama could do worse than consider some simple advice. Don't rush. Take time, take a deep breath, and take stock. Who knows, fresh and more effective policies might even ensue. Now that would be change we could believe in." The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, the line "Still, the Islamist movement cannot, any more than Fatah, claim to represent the Palestinian people or to be empowered to negotiate on their behalf." is flat wrong. They can claim to to represent the Palestinian people more than Fatah. See, there is thing, you might have heard, it is called elections. When one party wins an election, it can claim to, indeed it does, represent the electorate. And I dont want to even respond to that Meir quote, just thinking of the expletives I would start launching has made me exercise my better judgment to keep quiet on that one. Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I really would hope that Fatah would represent more Palestinians than Hamas would, just as much as I would hope that the left wing movements in Israel would represent more Israelis than the right wing ones. Rabend (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are we discussing the infamous quote of the ugly dead hag?...Here is a quote I would like to share about Israeli portraying themselves as victims defending themselves against persecution: “The self-righteousness is a powerful act of self-denial and justification. It explains why the Israeli Jewish society would not be moved by words of wisdom, logical persuasion or diplomatic dialogue.” - Ilan Pappe --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend, I understand why you would hope that, but I think you, as an Israeli who hopes for peace (hope that is not a mischaracterization of you), need to see that you have to make peace with those who do represent the Palestinians, as of the last election at least, who knows what will happen when/if there is another. The biggest problem I have with the Israeli politicians who proclaim they want peace with the Palestinians is that they refuse to even acknowledge much less negotiate with them. It seems that if you truly want peace you negotiate with those who have been chosen to represent the people with whom you are in conflict with. But that has not yet happened. When Hamas won, the whole world, instead of hailing a peaceful, democratic election, in a region that has not seen many, instead demanded that this 'terrorist' organization not be allowed to govern. It didnt matter that more people voted for them then their opponents, it only mattered that people see them as only one thing, 'terrorist'. This has indeed been seen throughout this conflict as well with the bombing of what would normally be considered government and civil structure, which has been presented by the Israeli government as part of Hamas infrastructure. Forget that this is actually Gaza infrastructure, but any type of connection with the government, elected by the people, has been used to label it as 'terrorist'. I think if the Israeli government actually sat down with Hamas, as the elected representative of the Palestinians, you might be able to achieve some sort of lasting peace. Just consider what the 'demands' of Hamas were to extend the original ceasefire. Stop the targeted assassinations, which was a part of the original ceasefire but not respected, and open up the border crossings. In return Hamas guaranteed no more rocket fire from them, and a commitment to stop anybody else who attempted to fire on Israel, and punish those who successfully fired on Israel. Do you really think that any of that was unreasonable? But because Israel will not even sit down with Hamas, it never had a chance. Now obviously Hamas does not represent all Palestinians, and obviously there are some who are disgusted at their tactics, but elections have consequences, and one of the consequences of the last election was that Hamas can now legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. This isn't really the place for this (funny me saying that after this long post) so I'll stop here. Nableezy (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with all you are saying. The only thing is that the view in Israel is that Hamas really intends to do what it can in order to destroy Israel, since this is pretty much its manifest, and due to all the terrorism it initiated. And to see that most of the Palestinians chose a party that is not ashamed to clearly state it wants the destruction of Israel, is kind of discouraging. That's like Meir Kahanah's party getting over 50% of the votes in Israel. And due to Hamas's declared manifest, I, as an Israeli, must be skeptical about how much Israel would really achieve in the long run if it entered a long ceasefire with Hamas. Are they only gonna arm themselves and wait for the right opportunity to come and destroy Israel, like they say? Can you see what I'm saying? Rabend (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I see what you are saying, which is why I understand you would rather Fatah have the support of the people. But there is a long history of militant groups, once becoming a part of the political process, putting down their arms. And it unimaginable to me, even after 100 years, that Hamas would ever possess the technology to destroy Israel, so I really dont think you have to worry about that. Hamas is like a mosquito to the elephant of the IDF, that it could bite Israel to death seems highly unlikely. Nableezy (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, you managed to change my mind a little bit about things. I am still concerned that Hamas is brainwashing children to hate Israel, but I hope it is not affecting too large a part of the population. And I hope that Hamas is indeed capable of shedding its belligerent stance, and that the Israeli elections will result in a strengthened peace core. Rabend (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A huge amount of intelligence, sensitivity, empathy and common sense gets censored, especially here in America, by those who claim to be "protecting" Israel. Their indignant "protection" has all but destroyed Israel, because it has deprived Israel of the ability to see itself and others objectively. Take the statement you just made about Hamas brainwashing children. Common sense tells us that children who see their parents, relatives, friends, and classmates bombed, killed, starved, tortured, abused, etc. don't need to be taught to hate: Hate is the most natural thing in the world, when one has been made to live under occupation for forty years. Common sense tells us this, empathy tells us this, but somehow, it doesn't get through to the occupiers. They think the hatred is all due to a handful of "agitators". So they assassinate the supposed "agitators", creating a new wave of terror in the process.
The Israeli rulers never seem to notice that the killing makes things worse, not better. That leads me to believe that there is a hidden agenda -- that the people who rule Israel do not want to make things better. I believe that they are still trapped in a dead-end ideology. They still believe in "A land without people for a people without land", and if the facts say otherwise, then simply bomb the facts until the land really is "without people". It's madness, but that is what ideology is: a form of madness. What is clear is that Israel's number one enemy is Israel itself: Its course, from the start, has been self-defeating and suicidal. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What you say, Nableezy, is perfectly obvious. If it's obvious to us, then it must be obvious to Israel as well. The Israelis are not stupid. So why does Israel continue to act in such a self-destructive way? What are we missing?
In war, things are rarely as they seem on the surface. The stated reason for a war and the real reason are two very different things. So what is the real reason for the attack on Gaza? Are we allowed to ask this question?
I believe that the real aim is to destroy Iran. The attack on Gaza is meant to pave the way for the creation of a much larger catastrophe. The proponents of the 1996 "Clean Break" plan are still in power. They see Iraq as a "success", and they think they can achieve an even bigger "success" by wiping out Iran. They think they can dig themselves out of the hole by digging the hole deeper. NonZionist (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There will not be Peace because the Palestinians do not want peace. The Palestinians were offered the 'Arab Peace Initiative'. It was a monumental opportunity to end the conflict. Hamas opposed the Initiative whereas Abbas was so supportive that it even ran ads for it in Israeli newspapers. But the Palestinians chose to burn the Saudi-lead olive branch by electing Hamas. In all honestly, I don't personally care how many deaths are necessary to get Hamas out. Because if they are out, then we can finally have the 'Arab Peace Initiative'. And, if accepted, that initiative will create "a sea of peace that begins in Nouakchott and ends in Indonesia". The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As I recall that initiative was met with equal ambivalence among both Hamas and the Israeli government. You selectively read from single sources, there were members of the Hamas government who expressed openness to the deal as well as Israeli ministers who called it unacceptable. That you would say 'I don't personally care how many deaths are necessary' is truly abhorrent to me as a human being, regardless of the intended result. It is precisely those comments that, to selectively use a quote from Rabend, 'brainwashing children to hate Israel'. Just look at that statement again as a human being, look at how many children have been killed, and as abhorrent look at that picture of the baby generating so much discussion. That such a thing could even be allowed to happen honestly makes me cry. That such a thing could be said in response to that, honestly makes me hate. I am a grown man and I am having trouble typing this response, out of the sheer sadness and hate that comment makes me feel. I will not be responding to this thread again. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I respect your beliefs and your decision. I'd just like to clarify that those children's deaths sicken me every little bit as much as it sickens you. It sickens me the same way that the dozens of dead Serbian children killed by Muslim Bosnians and by (mostly American) NATO soldiers sickens me. I cried when I saw the dead Palestinian baby the same way I had cried when I saw those dead Serbians years ago. That sickening feeling does not lead me to call Bill Clinton an imperialist and to wish that NATO had never been involved at all. It does not diminish by feeling that NATO had to do what it did to create the situation for a peace agreement. It did what was necessary for the greater peace in the long run. I hate war. I hate it like sin. War is hell and war is evil, but it is a necessary evil. That doesn't mean I like it. I just accept it as a matter of reality. The Squicks (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"War. There is no solution for it. There is never a conqueror. The winner generates such hatred that he is ultimately defeated." -- Michel Simon, quoted in the New York Times, 17 Mar 1968
Personal feelings -- "I hate war" -- mean little if you then accept war in practice, Squicks. War is just the human race committing suicide: It is an unnecessary evil. War is a racket -- as USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said -- and it is mega-terror, terrorism times a thousand. I too opposed the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, by the way. Don't hate war: Prevent it, avoid it, reject it. We prevent it by treating others as our equals, by listening to their grievances, by seeking justice, and by learning to face the truth about ourselves. NonZionist (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are a pacifist. I understand that and I understand where you are coming from. We just have to agree to disagree. The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a pacifist, since I recognize the right of self-defense, where "defense" is defined to mean just that: defending our borders and resisting aggression. Attacking helpless third-world countries on the other side of the planet is not what I would call "defense". But how do we defend against "terrorists", you ask. The answer is that we treat them like common criminals. Treating terrorism as a pretext for war-making was Hitler's approach -- look it up. How well did that turn out?
To summarize: I distinguish between defense and offense (military aggression). I oppose only the latter. Thanks again for responding. See any common ground yet? How's your "foreign involvement" article coming? NonZionist (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Search for editorial common ground

To be honest, I see absolutely zero common ground. In the eyes of a Russian nationalist like yourself, the Orthodox Putin's murder of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians in Chechyna and hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Catholic civilians in Gerogia is 100% morally acceptable "self-defense". But Israel's actions doing a similiar thing is "genocide"? Can you not see that whether or not a military cause qualifies is completely and utterly arbitrary? What you call "self-defense", I call imperialist neo-Czar Russian agression against its neighbors. What I call "self-defense", you call colonial Zionist agression. It is in the eye of the beholder. The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new section for your comment, in deference to Nableezy. See my talk page. I notice that you again stereotype me inaccurately -- first, I was a "pacifist" and now I'm a "Russian nationalist". I invite you to join me in moving beyond such stereotypes -- and I hope we will then have fewer edit wars. But let's not clutter the current page with this dialogue: Either open your own talk page, or use mine. NonZionist (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy's request is perfectly reasonable, and I respect their wishes. The Squicks (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free pictures

Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you those pics are FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Stop it!! Go back to the thread that you created and you will find the answers. I am not going to keep posting why those are free. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, Al Jazeera knows of it and approves of it, here is their email response:
"Thanks for letting us know!
We’re very excited about contributing to the “commons” and Wikipedia community." - Mohamed Nanabhay of Al- Jazeera creative commons.
Al Jazeera is so awesome. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the licensing before removal, further removal on licensing grounds will be considered vandalism. Al Jazeera has released these images as Creative Commons linsenced for share-alike, commercial and attribution (ie "by-sa"). We have to includes logos when they are in the material because the license requires it. Otherwise, these are fully lincesed.--Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The logo can be removed from news video snapshots, but it is not necessary. All Wikimedia Commons images can be edited in any way. See the Al Jazeera license: {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. "Share-Alike" refers to the license not the image. All use of an image or its edited derivatives must also be licensed {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, I believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby - Al Jazeera is so awesome...are you kidding? Make a link your trying to POV the article. This ain't Pallywood you know.--98.114.235.212 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you rambling about with your mismatched random phrases, I think you just wanted to say "This ain't Pallywood you know." Thank Allah this ain't Hollywood, American media with your Faux News, Zionist News, and that CAMERA isn't operating here anymore to rewrite history. This article is going to tell other side, something you are not used to, and I hope I am part of that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
These supremacist ideologues have destroyed freedom of the press and freedom of thought here in America. They view this destruction as one of their great successes; I view it as their greatest mistake. Their censorship is intended to harm Israel's victims, but it also harms Israel, for it deprives Israel of the ability to see itself and others objectively. The censors ensure that Israel is surrounded not by genuine friends, but by soulless yes-men. Nobody dares to give Israel honest advice.
Yes, it is refreshing to get more than one side, but it's sad that we Americans have to go all the way to Al Jazeera to find it. (There are many independent web sites that tell the other side, but they are not yet granted RS status.) NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So your true colours now show, do they not Philistine fee Qalby?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything other to do than to throw out melodramatic cliche phrases? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, if you actually did your homework you would know that Hollywood, along with the rest of the American left deplores Israel and all that it stands for, and that, like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Prez of Iran et al, would like to see them wiped off the face of the Earth and wiped out of history and our memories. Which is ironic as Zionism and socialism are pert near the same thing. They just haggle over where the world's capital will be.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Someday, when you do your homework, you will discover that Zionism has been making war on its own shadow, all these years -- with countless innocent people caught in the cross-fire. You will be shocked to find that there is a vast difference between the world created by a supremacist ideology and the world of reality, and you may actually come to prefer reality. NonZionist (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist, I must admit that whenever I'm feeling a little down, I look for your thoughtful reflections on the world. I imagine you in your secluded Wyoming cabin, the Conspiracy Theorist Disgest by the bed, cleaning your gun, and waiting for the Zionists to wage war on Wyoming, which is clearly the next step in their World Conquest 2009 plan. This helps me get on with my day. Rabend (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Imagine" is the operative word, here, Rabend: You would be amazed, if you could see the contrast between the image and the reality! But that is precisely the point I made above, my friend: the more ardent Z's surround themselves with threatening Images and make war on these Images, while reality, ignored and caught in the merciless cross-fire, bleeds to death. Anyway, my friend, I am not the one here who is isolated. One doesn't have to live in Wyoming to believe in freedom, peace, justice, and equal rights for all. (I AGF and welcome your comment as friendly chiding; still, let us keep the NPA rule in mind.) NonZionist (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
NZ, although we have disagred on all points, I must say I admire your response to Rabend's comment... Rabend, that was pretty damn hilarious. V. Joe (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AL Jazeera, the National Inquirer of the Arab world. Horay for Pallywood, that great and glorious Pallywood, yada yada.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't know how silly you sound as you keep repeating a term coined by a conspiracy theorist who dwells on disproving a few certain events meanwhile Israelis are committing even more disturbing events in the hundredfold.... in daylight without ambiguity... and documented by a few news organizations like Al Jazeera and human rights organizations, events not acknowledged by the israelis because they cannot phantom anyone but themselves as the victim. The term Pallywood exemplifies what exists among people like you: the self-righteousness and the denial. It is a lame excuse, a distraction which people across the world see through. The word means nothing, just like the foundation of your beliefs. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civil--Tomtom (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. Wikipedia talk pages are not political discussion forums. So please stop trolling, Tomtom. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually tomtom isn't the one who is trolling. The troll is 98.111.139.133. I just realized Tomtom9041 and tomtom are different accounts, And tomtom created user pages for logicman1966 and bobofett 85. Sock puppetry or just a user who can't stand red links? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Al Jazeera photos are removed from both Tomtom and Tomtom9041 accounts, so the user is committing vandalism using 2 accounts. I am not sure if it is sock puppetry since he is not disguising himself, if he was he would be using two different names, but certainly this is disruptive editing using two (or more) accounts. What do you in this case? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest reporting it to WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I already directly asked the user if it were the same people.--Cerejota (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am my own person and I only edit via Tomtom9041, I have no other accounts/sockpuppets nor do I edit via my IP address. I do not troll.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So you wouldn't mind if I opened a checkuser case to verify that you and tomtom are not the same user? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead, have fun with that.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Israeli army death

Addressing journalists with his face masked by a checkered Arab scarf, he said that only 48 Hamas resistance fighters were martyred in the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Abu Obaida also said that Israel lost "at least 80 soldiers" in the fighting; however the Zionist entity has adopted the media blackout policy concerning its losses there.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=70784&language=en

What about this information on Wikipedia ?

--Ecl0 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. Flayer (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that most conflict articles usually present the claims from both sides. As long as we're clear about what they are, I think that's fine. As long as we feel this guy represents Hamas opinion, I'd include it. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it the consensus that this information should go back in?

... Militants and policemen: 48<small> (HAMAS)</small><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html Hamas declares victory in Gaza claiming it lost only 48 fighters]</ref>, 400-650 ...

NonZionist (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't inherently object to including Hamas figures, but I would rather wait until we can indepently confirm that number with more sources. As well, why don't we use the term "fighters" rather than the term "Militants and policemen"? Hamas has stated that there were "fighters" who made war in their name even though they were not offically recorded members of their party with membership cards and whatnot. The Squicks (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Because only Israel is combining 'militants' with 'policemen'. Hamas has not counted the policemen with the 'fighters' Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Ayman al-Kurd a civilian?

How do we know that Ayman al-Kurd is a civilian? Hamas so far did not claim most of its combats. The second soccer player was claimed to be combat by Islamic Jihad. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know any Israeli casualties are civilians? Perhaps they voted for the current Israeli government? — CHANDLER#10 — 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably you refer to the fact that I'm an Israeli citizen (though did not vote for current government). My point is that on Israeli side school teachers, university students, computer engineers, doctors and probably soccer players get drafted during conflict periods as reservist forces, put on an IDF uniform, take part in fighting and considered combats by all parties. Is there any evidence specifically regarding Ayman al-Kurd? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, however, I think it's fair to assume he did not take part in hostilities or that would have been mentioned by the Reuters source (or whichever one is used in this article). --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing my point, Al Ameer son. I also see what you mean. From other hand Al-Jazeera English name 3 soccer players and claim all were killed in their home [3]. What would happened without Islamic Jihad claim, that one of the soccer players was killed in combat? Hamas has policy for not releasing names of its fighters killed in action. So fog of war remains on this question for some paranoids :). Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The apparent Islamic Jihad member was Wajeh Moshtahe who is mentioned in the Al-Jazeera source. Just to be sure, does the Reuters source say the PIJ claimed he died in combat or if he was just a member/fighter? Anyhow, writing that Hamas does not release the names of its dead fighters in reference to al-Kurd would be OR, because we would basically be saying he was a Hamas member without having the vaguest knowledge on whether he is in fact a member. Al-Jazeera claims he was killed in his home and that he was a top player so that's all we could use when mentioning al-Kurd. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to u being Israeli (which I did not know), but more to point that I've heard comments from Israeli soldiers saying stuff like that different sides may count policemen as Hamas combats in many cases just because they're employed by the Hamas government I'm guessing. And just to give a example, in the USA where (stereotypically) everyone have 5 guns on their person at all time, let's say the USA was invaded by Mexico, or the Texas state government started invading the rest of the USA, who would count civilians shooting back in self defence as non-civilians? — CHANDLER#10 — 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thank you, Chandler, for clarification. Sometimes paranoia chases me :) . Texan gun case is pretty clear to me: if someone is armed with gun provided by some organization and uses the gun against organization targets he is combatant. For instance "Soprano family" used armed combatants in conflict with FBI/rival families. If someone uses his private gun in self defense - he/she is clearly non-combatant. Do you agree? I'm still not sure what is your point though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ayman al-Kurd is notable Gazan killed during this conflict, maybe it worth moving this sentence to Casualties/Gazans sub-section. I agree with you, Al Ameer son, that we have mo idea if Ayman al-Kurd is Hamas fighter. We also have no basis for assuming he is civilian. Both those claims are WP:OR. We just don't know, it's covered by fog of war. Is not it so? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
All we do know for sure is that he was a soccer player for the national Palestinian team. It would be fine just to say that "Ayman al-Kurd, who played for the Palestine national football team, was killed... (however he was killed)" or something like that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you those are the facts. I do no suggest to change wording. Categorizing him as civilian is WP:OR Would you consider move Ayman al-Kurd sentence to Casualties/Gazans sub-section? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the best choice thus far, so yes. Good discussing with you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Good discussion with you too. This is complex choice. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Special restrictions on articles within the Israel-Palestinian conflict

Reproducing a notice that any administrator (which I am not) can give to individuals warning them of restrictions on editing topics within the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied.

If editors are unable to focus discussion on improving only the article, and unable to refrain from insulting other editors, they may be blocked and/or banned from editing some or all articles within this topic area. Avruch T 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you notice, there is a tag on the top of the page warning users about this. --Cerejota (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, but it seems like some people haven't noticed. I was hoping that where they skipped over the infobox, they might actually read this one. Avruch T 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd missed it. Thanks; looks useful. Hopefully it won't be needed William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket attacks into Israel

I've changed "Hamas" to "Palestinians" and "militants", since the sources so attribute, and since Fatah, a Hamas rival, has announced that it fired 102 of the rockets and 35 of the mortar shells. Note that the Fatah statement casts further doubt upon the Israeli depiction of "Operation Cast Lead" as a war against Hamas. NonZionist (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a second problem with the section, however. It uses WP:UNDUE photographs and statistics to falsely insinuate that the Qassem rockets are a major menace and that the harm done by the Qassems is comparable to the harm done by Israel in the Gaza Strip. The section uses the same tactics employed by the IDF -- focus on the range and number of the rockets and keep the number of casualties buried.

I've been searching for an hour and I can't find the number of Israelis killed by Qassems since 2008. Few pro-Israel sources want to publish the information: The number is so low, it makes the victimology promoted by Israeli propaganda look ridiculous. Prior to 2008, the total number of Israelis killed was 13, according to the BBC -- less than the number of Palestinians killed in an average Israeli bombing raid. Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Centre has described these homemade Qassem rockets as "very primitive missiles" whose "main effect ... is psychological" [1]. "It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27"[2]. Shouldn't this information be included to keep the section balanced?

True, the rockets are the Israeli pretext for "Operation Cast Lead". But it's not our job to parrot or support Israeli war-propaganda. Just the opposite: We are obligated to present both the propaganda and the statements of reliable sources who reject the propaganda. Here is one such statement from a RS:

The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. .... If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamas’s thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s conduct of the Gaza War[2].

David Bromwich, writing in The Huffington Post, explains why the issue of proportionality matters:

Such are the tracks in which the United States and Israel are trapped together when we think about Gaza. The world doesn't understand (or so we think) how wrong is the idea of proportionality. It is true, fewer Israelis have been killed by Hamas missiles than by other Israelis in friendly fire. .... [Israel] is assuring that the Palestianians (in the words of Moshe Yaalon, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in 2002) "are made to understand, in the deepest recesses of their consciousness, that they are a defeated people." The more relentless the assault, and indeed the more civilians you legitimately kill, the deeper the recesses of consciousness that you are able to penetrate.[3]

NonZionist (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel". BBC. 2008-01-21. Retrieved 2009-01-20.
  2. ^ a b John J. Mearsheimer (2009-01-26). "Another War, Another Defeat: The Gaza offensive has succeeded in punishing the Palestinians but not in making Israel more secure". The American Conservative. Retrieved 2009-01-20.
  3. ^ David Bromwich (2009-01-16). "Self-Deception and the Assault on Gaza". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-01-20.

Thanks for the Mearsheimer analysis, non-Zionist. He only gets one thing wrong: the second-last paragraph, which is woolly-eyed. I've copied it for editors on the Background page, where it should be read and cited. This is scholarly, and not a matter of telling stories from op-ed blather.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, enough of the "there's a big conspiracy of Wikipedia editors out to get me" talk. The reason that the casualty figures are not in the article is because that information was transferred to 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, where it is displayed prominently. There is no secret conspiracy of users here out to get you. If you want to add information to the 'cease-fire' article, than you are more than welcome to do it. The Squicks (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The American Conservative is indeed an RS, but it is also ideologically biased. Take, for example, this article:

The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences... The general results, however, are predictable on the basis of the ethnography: heterosexual marriage will be weakened; the birth rate will decline; the status of women as mothers will further erode; and young boys will be a much greater target of erotic attention by older males.

I have no problem with citing it, but it must be recognized as an ideologically biased, factually suspect source the same way statements by the IDF are ideologically biased, factually suspect. Something like "The American Conservative stated on January 26 that". The Squicks (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Executions of Palestinians

No reliable source is provided to substantiate the heading, and the two reliable sources that are provided contradict the heading. The heading, moveover, goes even further than the one unreliable source provided, inasmuch as it shifts the emphasis from "collaborators" to all "Palestinians". The attempt, perhaps, is to insinuate that Hamas is making war on "Palestinians".

The body of the section charges Hamas with executing Fatah members. Perhaps this is a hasbara attempt to sow strife between Hamas and Fatah. We now know that Fatah was fighting alongside Hamas[1] This casts further doubt on the charge made in this section. Should the entire section be removed, or should we present both the IDF charge and the source that tends to refute it? NonZionist (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Khaled Abu Toameh (2009-01-19). "Al-Aksa Brigades: We also fought IDF in Gaza". JPost.com (Jerusalem Post). Retrieved 2009-01-20. Fatah confirmed that its members had been fighting alongside Hamas during the war.
I have no idea what NonZionist is talking about. In the sources, "Executions of suspected collaborators" is the Hamas POV and "Killings of Fatah activists" is the Fatah and Israeli security service POV. The media are very careful not to give a label, except for the very vague "bloodletting" and "shooting" in the New York Times article. "Executions of Palestinians" is a sensible title as it is true and it avoids endorsing any side's claims. So that sparse sourcing won't cause further confusion on this matter, I restored an earlier, more fully sourced version of the subsection. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was also stated in the infobox too :"and 40-80 people executed by Hamas.[1] " which has unreliable sources: the says obtaining it's information from : "A political activist who says he supports neither Hamas nor Fatah, Independent sources, An independent source" and I could not find a reliable source for the info by googling the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordpezhman (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

As we are trying to cut back the length some, I want to ask editors about Attacks from outside Gaza section. I see here two news reports sourceed IDF that say shots were fired by an unknown gunman or gunmen from the other side of the borders with Syria and Jordan, no injuries. Do these belong here? If so, propose combining them with the Lebanon rockets information, because as it is the three incidents each have their own sections. RomaC (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Syria/Jordan sections are short enough that they can safely be combined with the Lebanon attacks into a single "Attacks on Israel from outside Gaza" section. Blackeagle (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, with no content removed. RomaC (talk)

Cease Fire

This section was cleaned up. Thank you for the sources and clarified info.Cptnono (talk)

please add Israeli troops complete Gaza withdrawal it was a part of the ceasefire agrement so it would be good to mention that the have compleated on their part full artical about the withdarwal on cnn [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DIME

I had a lot of trouble with this paragraph:

Norwegian doctor and controversial political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using Dense Inert Metal Explosive in the conflict.[331] These explosives have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. Criticism of the weapons has focused on their biological and carcinogenic effects.[344][5] The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict.[345]

I did a bit of editing by dropping some material that is not clear in the article, ie the accusation regarding the Italian group, which is not at all clear that they are talking about Israel and this conflict. More importantly however is the sentence "Criticism of the weapons has focused on their biological and carcinogenic effects." Following the reference leads us to a page entitled: Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metal–tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects This report of a scientific study does not seem to me to be "criticism of the weapons" but rather a study. The article says (among other things) (my bolds):

Like the heavy metal depleted uranium (DU), the use of HMTAs in military munitions could result in their internalization in humans. Limited data exist, however, regarding the long-term health effects of internalized HMTAs in humans
This is the first report showing that HMTA mixtures of W, Ni and Co or Fe cause human cell transformation to the neoplastic phenotype. While additional studies are needed to determine if protracted HMTA exposure produces tumors in vivo, the implication from these in vitro results is that the risk of cancer induction from internalized HMTAs exposure may be comparable with the risk from other biologically reactive and insoluble carcinogenic heavy metal compounds (e.g. nickel subsulfide and nickel oxide).

This sentence regarding the carcinogenic effects of DIME in our article is followed by an Iranian government accusation. Of course we are all well aware that Iran has no axe to grind in this "conflict." I would like to scrap this business about criticism re carcinogens. As another editor has pointed out, the whole section hardly seems germaine to this article until and unless some real evidence is found, not just some speculation by one activist doctor. Perhaps we can scrap the whole section? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the many ripped of limbs and horrendious wounds that was the main problem here. But the longterm effect of exposing to toxic substances should be mentioned. Brunte (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I like to remove 'controversial' from 'Norwegian doctor and controversial political activist Mads Gilbert' as it is a weasly accusation. Brunte (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy, what is your problem with Criticism of the weapons has focused on their biological and carcinogenic effects. That is why DIME has been criticised, if you complaint is that the biological and carcinogenic effects of DIME have not been proved as much as say Global warming and evolution then you are correct. The scientific journal from Oxford University (not Iranian TV) says there is more than enough evidence of these heavy metal causing birth defects when they are from other sources. The Scientist who say this are;

Alexandra C. Miller3, Steve Mog1, LuAnn McKinney1, Lei Luo2, Jennifer Allen, Jiaquan Xu and Natalie Page2

Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department and 1 Veterinary Sciences Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603 and 2 Molecular Oncology Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA

If you look, many of these scientists are from the same american military research facility that designed DIME not Iran. This most RS possible says there is more than enough evidence to think these munitions could produce long term health effects and that more research is needed to prove that. (Hypnosadist) 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I used the sourced alredy there to give a non povish version. Brunte (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested version:

Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using Dense Inert Metal Explosive in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [331] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten that enter the body forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation. These explosives is packed with tungsten dust and have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects.[344] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict.[345] Brunte (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That is fine by me Brunte. (Hypnosadist) 07:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This is how it become: Brunte (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The DIME, Dense Inert Metal Explosive, have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using DIME in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [2] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[2] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that these explosives is packed with tungsten dust and the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation that enter the body. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects.[3] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[2]

The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict.[4]

Great except the claimed in "The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January" should be changed to said to be more NPOV. (Hypnosadist) 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
yes, I feel unsure about that and if it fit in this section at all. Feel free to do something with it or remove it. It dosnt sound logic. DU is antiarmor stuff and the problem is to be exposed to the stuff anyhow after it been ust and burnt. Not nessessary in wounds. And the stuff stays on ground long if not cleaned up. Brunte (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that the rounds for the machine guns on attack hellicopters are often DU to make up for a smaller caliber, but it don't matter what we think we just report who said what. (Hypnosadist) 11:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just changed claimed to said. (Hypnosadist) 10:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap, somone have edit it down without discussion. Its impossible to do editing when ppl do larg edits witout using this side. As they ar sourced it cant be according to policy to remove text without discussion. I put it back untill it is discussed. Hopfully concensus style. lookat it/fix it later Brunte (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have condensed the DIME/WP/int.law section according to WP:UNDUE. All parties who made similar claims/allegations are now grouped. It is not suitable for this article to have each suspicion explained in detail and in chronological order. If the international court accepts some/all of the suits (that still have to be drafted), it should be mentioned, and if the court rules out anything we should include this as well. I have my doubts that the informations as they are now even satisfy WP:UNDUE, maybe the section needs to be tightened further. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

suggestion to add to ceasefire section

"On Tuesday morning, Israeli bulldozers backed by tanks entered the central Gaza Strip and bulldozed agricultural lands. Meanwhile, Israeli warships shelled open areas in the north west of Gaza City. No casualties were reported."

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&Do=&ID=35135 Untwirl (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

total death toll according to cnn is 1,300

source [6] quote from cnn.com

"More than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, the Web site of the Palestinian Authority's Central Bureau of Statistics said Monday."

I would like to see that mentioned in the artical

Kind regards --79.31.132.105 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)V

"According to preliminary and provisional estimates, by January 20, 2009 the death toll reached 1,315 and more than 5,400 people were wounded, including 400 people in serious condition" There is no mention at PCBS of how many of the victims were children. Where did CNN get that information? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the source provided, CNN attributes it directly to John Ging, who I'm sure you know is head of the UNRWA: "Among the dead were 159 children, two of whom died in an UNRWA school that was shelled Saturday, Ging said." --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but it is not consistent with UN reports: "The three weeks of violence claimed over 1,300 lives, 412 of them children, and wounded more than 5,300, 1,855 of them children, as well as causing widespread destruction and suffering." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where cnn get its inoframtion and i wasent even saying that its 100% corect i just feel it deserves mentioning in the artical --79.31.132.105 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V

No, it does depend where CNN gets its numbers and they claim the numbers are from John Ging. CNN's reporting seems to be faulty or deceptive however way you would like to look at it. The UN quotes John Ging as saying

"But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,” Gaza Director of Operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) John Ging to journalists in New York by video link, adding that two of those children died in an UNRWA school that was shelled on Saturday.

“Another terrible tragedy, two little boys, two brothers, five and seven, indisputably innocent, but also now dead,” he added. “What we have now is people back out, trying to come to terms with what has happened.”

According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire.

- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29587&Cr=gaza&Cr1= --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I sent CNN a correction notice, let's see if they fix their mistake. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that in Xinhua when I was looking for corroboration and I was wondering if perhaps they took the "159 in total" figure to mean total children killed during the conflict rather than total number of people killed over the weekend. That's the problem with WP:V of course -- some people think it should just be enough for us that the source exists.
Incidentally, while I was looking to find more sources on that I came across another quote from Ging where he says that most children injured in Gaza are from shrapnel.[7] Maybe that belongs in the article? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this detail is relevant to the article as with any information describing the causes of the deaths. The Israelis have used a variety of weapons and it would be educational for the audience to know which weapons were used in the killings. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby you wrote

But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,”

isnot the same because according to cnn out of 1,300 dead 159 are childern 2 died at the school what you quote say isthat of 159 people dead 42 this are two difrent things --79.31.132.105 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V

CNN claimed that Ging said 159 children were killed in total during the entire duration of the offensive.
On the contrary, UN claimed Ging said 159 people, 42 of which were children, were killed during the weekend (from the 16th to the date of the article, the 19th) and that the total of children killed during the entire duration of the offensive is 460 not 159 as CNN reports. Both the UN article and CNN article were submitted the same day and both mentioned the same speech made by Ging. Ging works for the UN that has the statistics and the information. CNN is just reporting on information available from the UN. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the CNN writer misunderstood what Ging meant by "total" like I said above. I think it is a mistake on their part. Strangely enough the Gulf Daily News makes the same mistake, although they cite "Gaza emergency services" for the 159 number.[8] But Xinhua also took it to mean out of 159 "total people" (over the weekend).[9] Every other source I see just gives the whole quote. I still think it is mistake though and Ging meant 42 children died over the weekend out of 159 total people during that period. It is a problem for us that a lot of RS's are so lazy. I noticed the same thing during the start of the war when they use "F-16" as a lazy shorthand for "fighter jet" even when they obviously had no idea what type of plane it was. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gulf News article is from Jan 7 so it is referring to a different comment made by Ging, I think. CNN, The most trusted name in news....Umm no. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

why would two nes agencys make he same mistake? i think thats what he said and they are quoting him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who made the mistake there, as Falastine pointed out. When I went searching for articles I accidentally pulled up an old Gulf News article that just happened to have the same 159 figure but from an earlier point in the conflict. I just didn't check it closely. But CNN does seem to be in error with that one story. But here's an earlier CNN story[10] that quotes Ann Veneman of UNICEF as saying 320 children had been killed at that point. So I think the error is just contained in that one story. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Story from around an hour ago According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 894 civilians died out of the 1,284 total. The hamas controlled Health Ministry's total is 1,324. The Squicks (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Suspected use of new weapons" section

Does this section really belong in the article? The stuff about suspected DIME usage doesn't really seem that notable as part of the conflict as a whole. It probably belongs on the DIME page, but here? Similarly, one allegation about the use of DU shells doesn't really seem notable at all. Can we just axe the whole section? Blackeagle (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weapons are germane to fighting, and "Qassam" is mentioned repeatedly. If we have RS that one side has been accused of using controversial weapons (DU, WP, DIME), that is relevant to the article. RomaC (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP stuff should stay, but that's not in this section. DIME and DU weapons don't really rise to the same level of controversy. Blackeagle (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If good sources are found, this is very relevant to the article. The use of new weapons in conflicts is notable (WWII and nukes).Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Before we discuss relevancy, let;s discuss neutrality. The title of the section seems to have a specific POV, especially the word "suspected." How about "Allegations of DIME and Phospherous?"Dovid (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RS are reporting on the 'suspected' use of these weapons. Nableezy (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not so. There are three cites. One is a technical paper predating the events. One is Iranian Press TV, which is disputed as a RS. The third, CSM, is a good RS, but it uses language closer to mine -- and I would say, it does so specifically to maintain neutral POV, as I'm pointing out we too should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Im not happy with your way of using sources language either [11]. I like all your changes to be presented here before you edit in article as you clearly push pov. Brunte (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
DU is very controversial, the munitions have been redesigned once to reduce the long term effects and are still getting much criticism from groups like CND. (Hypnosadist) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Section has disappeared? RomaC (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone has moved it to the Israel subesction of the International Law section. Perhaps that's appropriate for the discussion of WP, but there's no real consensus about DIME or DU being violations of international law. DIME weapons in particular have been developed to help comply with obligations under international law to minimize collateral damage. Blackeagle (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The legal opinions are moving against DU on the grounds that it is an indiscriminent weapon ie children are being born with birth defects or getting cancer 10 years after the shooting stops then that counts as indiscriminent casualties IMHO and many other people includeing RS's. DIME is a brand new weapon and there is no legal opinions and this conflict will be the start of the formation of those opinions. The micro-shrapnel effect of DIME was one that was not predicted (if medical reports are acurate). The article also mentions why DIME was created. (Hypnosadist) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dovid (talk) has been making bold edits today, to the lead and throughout. I generally support bold edits but in the case of controversial articles it is better to look at archives and participate in Talk discussions. I don't want to get into multiple reverts so it would be good if other editors could get involved. Specifically in question is whether adding controversial content requires consensus first; or if controversial edits can be made first and the requirement for consensus passes to the undo. RomaC (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His statement is biased opinion, there is no way he is going to get consensus for that. He is going to violate 3rr soon btw. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: 3rr's: typically violations ascribed to the first undoer, which wasn't me. I have no problems reaching consensus, but let's let it play out first. And, please note the good intentions -- I did not delete or substantially change anyone else's material; as I stated in Talk, the intention was primarily to improve structure (detail in the right place, summary in the right place, long sections should have summaries) ...
The only "bold" things I've done so far are these three: 1) to summarize the back and forth of the legal section, so that the lead-in gives a decent picture of what is to come; 2) to move "detail level content" from the summary to a proper section, in conformity with the existing instructions for the summary lead-in, and 3) to move the date of the conflict to the end of the truce (we want this article to be about the overall conflict, not primarily the Israeli operation, right?). On #1, I may have not done the wording with enough finesse. ...
Finally, I apologize if y'all think I'm violating any existing consensus, or creating where consensus should be gained first. I've learned these two things about WP in the four or so years I've been on it: Talk sections are usually ignored if there is no article content to be found with them, and old talk discussions/archives are obscure unless you've already been through them. So please bear with me as I catch up.

Dovid (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dovid, suggest controversial changes here before edit them in article. It is specialy important for the first section. Await positive reactions and concencus. Then no editwar. Brunte (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where that makes sense, yes. Where not, no. I believe amost everyone in this talk who has done any editing has done some without first obtaining consensus, let's not try to pick me out just because you don't always agree with me. Dovid (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You were picked out because you made radical changes to the very first sentence that has been argued over the past 3 weeks. Just coming in and inserting whatever you feel like will cause a certain reaction. Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hysteria or physical or mental trauma

I dispute this edit [12] . Guess it is originally a way for a waring part to ballance up the numbers of injured and dead. If physical or mental trauma is presented for only one part its nonsence. And it is not written acording to its source '80 Percent of Sderot Residents Suffer from a Form of Hysteria' "and some may suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) for the rest of their lives, but to date Baruch Hashem, the number of people who fall into this category appears low" I would like to speculate that far more ppl in Gaza suffer severe PTSD. As the edit is not in that context I suggest a remove. Brunte (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed unless we add info on Gaza trauma. RomaC (talk)
See Jonathan Cook (2009-01-17). "Israeli Assault Injures 1.5 Million Gazans". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-21.. If we were to count Palestinian casualties using the same method used to count Israeli casualties, we would have 1.5 million "injured". NonZionist (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave this link a few days ago (I think) which has a Jerusalem Post story with the final Israeli casualties, counting shock seperately. [13] It counts four killed, 68 wounded and 295 treated for shock. I'd exclude shock victims from the usual counts of injured, like we now do in the infobox for example. But I think that there should be a mention of mental trauma. It is a real problem and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Here's an article that I posted here a while ago that talks about some of the effects on children on both sides.[14] I'm sure there's more out there. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

i think this page is long enough without including mental trauma or shock for either side, thats an npov and undue weight argument waiting to happen. :>) Untwirl (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be. But the same could be said about the whole article. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
true enough. :) Untwirl (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep it in. Helps explain why Israelis consider a little shelling such a big deal. Dovid (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead discussions ...

... will now continue at the ordinary talk page (here). Reasons:

  • The huge size/high traffic during the conflict making the split necessary will be reduced as the conflict is over.
  • Lead discussions happened here as well as on the separate page (forking)
  • No unsolved issues left on lead talk page.

Skäpperöd (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a little too much has been deleted, in the paragraph that begins "On the first days of the Israeli operation". The new text continues to mention Israeli towns -- Beersheba and Ashdod -- but Palestinian towns have been deleted. I also think the "100 targets in four minutes" in the old text is notable and deserves to stay. The old text can be seen here:

On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[63][64] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[65][66][67][68][69][70] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[78][79][80] Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[81][82][83][84][85]

NonZionist (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Blockade as act of war

The Background section notes that "a blockade constitutes an act of war under international law. [105]." Can this refer to the Israeli "blockade"? Surely a country has the right to close its borders? Gaza also has no port. This sentance should also be removed. The firing of rockets by Hamas is also an act of war!? Chesdovi (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The waters off Gaza are not Israeli borders, Chesdovi.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A country has a right to close its borders, but it is an act of war to close another territories borders, eg the Gaza coast. The sentence is accurate and well sourced. Nableezy (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that Egypt enforces this blockade as well by closeing its boarder with Gaza. (Hypnosadist) 02:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I havent, Egypt has closed its border, it has not blockaded Gaza's coast. And this isnt from the sources, but I think Egypt is wrong for doing so. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You've managed to fracture a tautology? Dovid (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No I have not. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And Egypt is not the current occupying power, it has no responsibility to allow for proper humanitarian aid through, Israel does. Egypt may, I think does, have a moral obligation to do so, but no legal obligation to do so. Nableezy (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
INAL but i disagree, without Egypts support the Sea blockade would be an irritation to Gazas fishermen, not part of the worst siege since stalingrad, they are totally complicite in any crimes against humanity that happen due to not enough resources like medicine. Its just another example of muslims from outside making the situation worse for the Gazans and ALL the blaim being dumped on Isreal (insted of most). (Hypnosadist) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Gaza has no port ? Not anymore, that's true. It's more of a big pile of rubble now. Not sure if that's what you meant. I imagine the ports lost time incident safety statistics for this year are looking pretty bad so no annual bonus for those guys. Major triping hazards all over the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your not going to get me to defend the practices of Egypt, yes it is complicit in these crimes, but it is not the perpetrator. Legally, the responsibility lies on Israel to provide this aid as its duties as an occupying power. Egypt has not had a single ship participating in the blockade of Gaza's coast. Yes, Egypt has made the situation worse, but what exactly is the point here? Nableezy (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this per WP:NOR. If there are sources stating a scholary consensus regarding (1) that "war" (in law terms) is possible between Israel and the Gaza strip, and (2) that this particular blockade is a part of it, source and reintroduce. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Many see Blockade of the Gaza Strip as Hamas casus belli but some forget that it was imposed by both Egypt and Israel. Egypt though did not get any rocket attacks yet, just gunmen firing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No Sir, it's not only the blockade (as the article gives that impression). Remember Remember that Israel bombed several people in the tunnels, and Haaretz itself said in its article Crushing the tahadiyeh:

was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground

And let's not forget, that the Hamas rockets was a reply to killing its people:

Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel.

Israel began bombing, hamas replied with rockets in a tit for tat fashion. And it's not only the BBC, look at the report by the pro-Israeli far-right Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which said:

Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets

--Darwish07 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Percentage of Gazan population

"...1,314 individuals have been killed (0.089% of the population)" in the casualties paragraph makes a point, but is it OR? Don't see the percentage in the sources. RomaC (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. the percentage may be correct but unless the source says it, it seems like synthesis Untwirl (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It was out of place and OR so I got rid of it. I am a big fan of data. Don't get any reason for it being included unless the editor had something to prove or also really likes numbers (crunch crunch crunch crunch).Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

fired at from civilian buildings

I added that according the IDF, they were fired at from civilian buildings. Why was it reverted?--Ortho (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you include a source? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PT version

Please, check portuguese version: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Chumbo_Fundido —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finoqueto (talk • contribs) 11:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox it is written that "Hamas rockets halted". Is this accurate? It gives the impression that the IDF destroyed Hamas's rockets. As far as I know Hamas fired some rockes on the day of the ceasefire to show that they still had the ability to perform rocket attacks. Perhaps it should be changed to "Hamas ceases rocket attacks" Sherif9282 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it makes much of a difference One last pharaoh (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to throw the data into the article somewhere or are we still waiting while the infobox gets more and more cluttered?Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: Baby picture

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.
Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

See also: There was already a poll on the same issue preceding this RfC.

The big question is: should the image at right be included in the article?

Infant killed in an explosion in the Zeitoun attack [1]

There have been a couple discussions surrounding this image, so I'll do my best to accurately summarize arguments made by both sides. Note that proponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the first section and opponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the second section:

Those for the image have said:

  • The picture accurately represents the fact that there were more than 1,000 Palestinian casualties, including more than 300 children killed.
  • The image is graphic, but removing it on that basis constitutes censorship.
  • There is little to no distinction between babies and children; the fact that the child pictured is a baby rather than an older child is irrelevant.
  • No other free images of equal or superior quality or worth are available.
  • Considering the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths is ~100:1, images of Palestinians killed should outnumber images of Israelis killed.
  • It is infeasible to create a "typical" image of a Palestinian victim, as the metrics for choosing what's typical can be arbitrary.

Those against the image have said:

  • The image is gruesome and graphic, and is not central enough to the article to be considered necessary to convey the article's information.
  • The subject of the image is not a representative victim; it shows the most vulnerable, defenseless victim rather than a typical victim.
    • The difference between a baby and an older child is significant and/or meaningful.
  • The use of the image is an attempt to moralize the situation, eliciting sympathy for Palestinians rather than simply illustrating the content of the article.
  • The source of the image is questionable; it may not be an actual baby and/or the baby may have died in an unrelated event.
  • (A combination of multiple points here) The images are tabloid-like and sensationalist.

There have also been complaints that some are alleging political bias where there is none.

Anyway, to read more about this issue, see /Archive 20#Request permission to upload photo (especially the straw poll section, which has clear-cut positions from individuals), /Archive 20#Images of the dead, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?, and WP:AN#Have I been a jerk?.

All comments are welcome (particularly from outside editors). Refinement, clarification, and addition of points are also welcome. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add one fact, which is relevant and which has not been raised until now. The source of the photo, the International Solidarity Movement, has been previously accused of using deception in presentation of photographs, specifically to support their version of the events surrounding the death of Rachel Corrie. Some of the info is available on the two marked Wikipedia articles. The question whether the accusation was correct may become relevant should the issue eventually boil down to the reliability of the source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait. This picture ain't from Al-Jazeera?--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Click on the image and read the source information. Avruch T 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No one said it was. Al Jazeera is the source for the other photos that tundrabuggy and brewcrewer keep removing without consensus. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal if other image of unquestionably civilian casualties found, if no suitable alternative is found then keep - I am reversing my position although not 180 degrees. Jimbo's argument persuaded me to ponder the "dignity" angle more, and to a lesser extent the propaganda aspect. I find the arguments about moralizing, sensationalism, etc, to have little merit, and to a certain extent disingenious: we have an image in the background section of a ruined house that is not even connected to the events in the article, yet we see no objections from the same people arguing for exclusion: human dignity should be considered for all or not considered at all. We are not required to hide relevant content because it might offend one side of a dispute: we are required to give it a neutral context. I think the encyclopedic quality of this article is improved by having graphic depictions of the consequences of military action, regardless of the side. That said, if other alternatives are present, we can make an editorial desicion to go with those other alternatives to illustrate the article - because there is no argument that a charred baby is a strong statement with emotional implications. --Cerejota (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I further reverse. I assumed the picture was from Al-Jazeera. ISM could be a reliable source, but not in this case. Even if I personally disagree with much of the controversy, the controversy exists and is not a fringe thing. So we should have casualty pictures, but it shouldn't be this baby picture or any other by the ISM subjected to controversy.--Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The image in the background section is, as you said, in the background section. Of course the picture in that section would be from prior to this conflict, as that's when background occurs. It's illustrating part of the casus belli for Israel launching this operation (although one might argue that this might be a better image -- but that's for another discussion). As for another picture to replace the dead baby picture, you may want to peruse some of the images at Commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree completely with you that image belongs in the background section. That was not my point: my point is that the equal argument that it is propaganda could be made - and I find it invalid in both cases. Depicting the devastation and destruction of war is a key encyclopedic responsibility of an encyclopedia that can afford to do so because it is not paper. --Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The image is inflammatory - I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory, by both the photographer (or artist) and those who would like to see it in the article. In an opinion piece, or a persuasive argument of some other sort, to inflame or encourage a passionate response can be a legitimate goal. This is not an opinion piece, but an encyclopedia article. The purpose of the article is to convey information, and while there is no question that images provide valuable information I find the argument that this image is necessary for this article unconvincing. At the very least, practical concerns should prevent us from using this image. It is the most likely of nearly any image to provoke strong reactions in readers, and therefore the most likely to be a continuing source of dispute and controversy. Rather than put the article and its editors through that, and since the image is not crucial to the article subject, we should refrain from using it. Avruch T 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I also have some doubts as to the origin of the photo, the truth of what it depicts, and whether it would be ethical of us to post this image with a description that takes a position on its origin or veracity (especially, and most importantly, without clear permission of whatever family might be involved). Avruch T 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the debate is revolving around this picture only, why is user:brewcrewer removing all the photos of the casualities??? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


i've been watching this for a while and i have always sided with inclusion of photos of palestinian civilian casualties, as that is one of the most notorious effects of this war. i also agree that there are many articles on wiki that show horrific photos of victims, both dead and alive, so concerns over the graphic nature of it didn't seem relevant. if, however, the photo isn't verifiable, well thats another story. i dont have much experience with the technical aspects here yet, so i'll leave that to the pros. i definitely agree that npov isn't achieved by presenting each side in a 1 for 1 fashion, as that gives undue weight to a less prominent factor. Untwirl (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The photos of palestinian civilian casualties is hard to see but it should be there. It gives the hartbreaking true that war is awfull and civilian have been indirectly (?) massacred in a grusom way. Probably will bring the responsibles jail for warcrimes. The removal is without concensus and should be reverted. If the photo of the dead baby is claimed to be unverifiable it must be presented stronger indications first. Up to now its fair to use. Brunte (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support the inclusion — I think it can be agreed on that the graphic nature of this photograph is not a reason to remove it from the article. Images related to the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, and the Rwandan Genocide are also graphic. Unfortunately, the graphic nature of these images is necessary to accurately portray the respective historical events. Since the majority of civilian casualties in this war were Gazan children (according to this article), the image would fit within the context of the casualty section. As for the source, I do wish there was more to work with, but it seems certain to me that the image shows a baby killed in Gaza during this war. Additionally, I also think it is ridiculous to cast a leery eye on to the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). User: Jalapenos do exist previously mentioned that the ISM has used photographs to misrepresent events, but this is totally irrelevant since we are not including the circumstances surrounding the infant’s death other than he or she was killed as a result of Israeli military activity in Gaza, which is a more than reasonable assertion.
I would also like to specifically address Avruch’s concerns. I would question the relevance of the photographer’s intent in taking this picture, since it does not alter what is being portrayed. Furthermore I see nothing that would suggest the image is fraudulent or that the image does not originate from Gaza. Lastly, I do think it is unfortunate that there is no way to ensure that there was family consent, but this too is irrelevant as there is nothing from precluding such images in the official Wikipedia policy. – Zntrip 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I added two of the dead civilians. The baby still under discussion though I Support the inclusion Brunte (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another user Tundrabuggy reverted without discussion. What to do. Can someon act? Reverting on ground of non concensus when not building concensus in any direction seems close to vandalism in this situation Brunte (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
He and brewcrewer think that there is some sort of discussion on the Al-jazeera photos, who is going to be the one to let them know that the discussions are a figment of their imagination? Not me, I had enough. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not going to comment on this particular picture this time or discuss ISM or dignity issues (apart from to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is presumably the ultimate guideline here) but I would like to say the following. Are we all sure that the dispute about this image is really about this image ? I wonder what would happen if all of the people who object to this particular image were to give a commitment that including one or more graphic images of Palestinian dead and/or injured is necessary for this article and that they would not object to their inclusion in principal even if the image were a child. It might make a big difference. I'll also add that statements like "I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory" aren't helpful. I'm not going to spell out why they aren't helpful. It should be obvious, unlike people's intentions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove: IMO the image is unnecessarily sensationalistic, i.e. it can be reasonably expected that an average reader will have an unusual reaction to the picture. In principle I'm against removing pictures on the basis of content, but that assumes that the picture's subject matter itself is the only thing being disputed—here the image has more than that, and it smells like that the image is trying to ride the coat-tails of an anti-censorship argument, since the idea that young people are being hurt can be expressed equally well by a different image. Note that I haven't appealed to the actual subject matter this article talks about… 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) PS: It seems that my concern is the same as Avruch's above. Might I add, that even if others have been doing some gymnastics with other pictures, this picture possesses its own "objectionability" (in the sense of "it is able to be described as objectionable") and that objectionability is the only thing that should be discussed. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know why the last discussion was closed so fast. The discussion was less than two days old and no consensus had been reached. What's up?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    I have a feeling that a picture like this is seen as requiring a speedy response. That discussion seemed to go on for ever. [Opinion time: I'm all for not doing anything in the case of no consensus but discussions on this subject in particular seem to be poisoned by the idea that one's obligations from their opinion on the issue extend also to Wikipedia articles. If this article was about a non-personal/technical/abstract historical topic then I have a very good feeling that less attention would be paid and the image would probably have been removed a long time ago.] 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - At this point I really don't care what happens with this pic. I should not have uploaded it in the first place since pictures of casualties Palestinian casualties are not accepted. It is strange that in a culture that glorifies killing in horror movies and video games, people find this image offensive and inflammatory. FYI, I find horror movies disturbing and I would never watch them and strangely I grew up in the US with friends and brothers who like this stuff. Maybe it's the culture that contributes to their and others' disconnect. It's what leads people in the cyberworld and in the real world to say that the killing of Gazans is for the greater good because the Israelis are doing the right thing, the Gazans can take it. I guess it would be wrong for us to let these people see an image like this, it might actually persuade them into thinking that this assault is anything other than a game of shooting the bad guys, what's worse is that by seeing this image, they might see that children, who remind them of their own children and siblings, are victims too, 1/3 of the victims to be exact. I guess I will have to end my efforts behind the inclusion of the dead infant image now. But all this is not going to keep me from uploading other pictures to the commons, they can be used in other Wikipedias, as the Wikipedians there are not afraid to show reality. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Comment In fact, there were several other discussions relating to this image which have not been mentioned, here, here, and here. The third is a discussion especially relevant to the concerns about the photo's origin that lead to the comments made on Jimbo's page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for pulling them up. The third discussion is a good one, and if retention was made on the basis of such arguments I'd accept it. Unlike the other two it makes no reference to the subject matter itself. [I read the wrong discussion. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)] I usually go for historical and mathematics articles where "personal opinion" … um … simply doesn't exist. The reason why I put emphasis on "no personal opinion" is because otherwise edits are coloured by the opinions of the ones making them (this is itself addressed in the discussions too :D), which seems to be the hidden source of the disputes in the other two threads.
    As for the source of the picture itself, IMO it is irrelevant. It could come from major international media, a government, anyone at all. The only reason why source is important is to establish the point of view of the picture's taker. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Request for alternative picture proposals There's been an argument made that this picture is not "representative" of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza. Now that other images have become available (whereas when this discussion started there were no alternatives to the picture besides erasing it from the page) it would be see some alternative pictures that could be used, especially from those who have advocated removing the picture in the past. I'll go first. How about this picture that Tundrabuggy just erased from the page? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    Are there pictures which don't show faces or skin? Perhaps body bags or tent hospitals or the like, which can still put across the idea of casualties? Showing a face invokes the whole human interaction/arousing sympathy thing, which does nothing to resolve these disputes. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
They didn't use body bags at Auschwitz or My Lai and despite that the images are fine for Wiki. Please, we need to get past these touchy-feely issues about blood etc. It's a distraction because it's a non-issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, my mentioning blood and skin is merely a consequence of not trying to arouse emotion. I'm not against picturing gross human disfigurement either, since there is a place for that (e.g. articles on what happened in Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 1945), and so I'm not against the pics for Nazis, My Lai, Japan in Asia, nuclear bombs etc etc. My disagreement is that in this topic in particular, the effect of the picture is far greater than just informing people; it serves to shape opinion on current affairs which I am strongly against. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please visit Viet Nam and Japan. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the "propaganda argument" which can be use equally by both those who want to include or exclude the photo. ("It's propaganda to include this picture!" "No it's propaganda to exclude it!") Personally, I find the argument to be unconvincing. Also, if you don't want to take part in affecting world opinion through this page, one might suggest that wikipedia is not the project for you. It has been said that "knowledge is power". Thus the absence of knowledge might be said to be powerlessness. This is a project aimed at empowering people by providing them with free, reasonably accurate information. Thus, we provide people with information concerning current events, sometimes through visual depictions of those current events.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'd have to see what exact picture you're talking about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd go for including/excluding images on a "case by case" basis. I'd support this image in preference to the "burnt baby" pic (sorry for being a bit too blunt) for sure. But if a different image comes up which may be in turn more strongly preferred than this (how? I don't know) then I'd go for that depending on the arguments in favour of that image.
As far as replacing the burnt baby pic with this one in particular, I support.

118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongly support User:Tariqabjotu. It is frustrating when editors like Tundrabuggy and brewcrewer so hardhaned try to move away all pictures in the discussion about one of them. IP 118.90.104.151, the third picture was a inside of a morgue. Brunte (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Bodies at a morgue.
    Bodies at a morgue.

Actually, that's a good one. I support. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These two pics was exactly the ones I put in [15] [16] but got reverted by Tundrabuggy Brunte (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...why don't we just put a big white sheet over the whole article with a sign saying "Move long. Nothing to see here" ? Come on, how does this image help the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more explicit? Brunte (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow. We have a short war with a warcrime amount of killed civilians and these pictures say more than thousend word. Brunte (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This picture is mute about the objective reality of the event. It doesn't help a reader understand what happened. Someone wrote a good comment about what we should be doing with images. I'll try to find it in the archives. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I must echo Sean.hoyland's concern. This is an image of a sheet, not a body. I suppose we really must ask ourselves in this discussion, why should we have an image of a body, especially a graphic image. The answer I think is that it conveys the stark reality of death that has occurred. But, even more so in this case, that reality of death must be a widely accepted reality. Because if it was not, it makes it appear that we here at wikipedia are pushing one version of "reality" for some political reason. That, I think is perhaps why the inclusion of images of dead, naked Nazi concentration camp victims piled into a grotesque tower don't cause people to bat an eye (in the sense that they belong on the page). We have collectively come to accept that picture as an adequate representation of the millions that died under similar circumstances. There is a problem here with the image of the burned babies in that we have not collectively come to associate this conflict as generally resulting in the burning to death of babies, although that has obviously taken place at least once. I would argue though that if we are forced to pick only one image, I would opt for the picture of the dead girl's face for the following reason. It is evocative of the deaths of civilians (particularly children) during this conflict which has become a major issue in the worldwide press which I have no doubt has effect the course of the way the war was fought and ended. I can't actually tell who's under that sheet in the picture above so it is almost meaningless to me. It could be a Hamas soldier, or a Israeli soldier, an adult or a child.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some wise words by Thrylos000 describing the role of images Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(To clarify my own stance, I see no reason why only one picture of Palestinian casualties must be used on this very long article. I find the picture of the burned baby to be stark and horrible reminder of the terribleness of war - obviously this is opinion - and the need to resort to violent conflict only as a last resort. I do not see many valid reasons for why the picture should be excluded based on policy, but I do see some strong arguments for why it should not succeed based on aesthetic reasons, for example, that there might be more representative pictures. At this point, however, I continue to support inclusion.)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My first reaction was that the morgue was overfull, speaking for itself. Brunte (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The girl on the picture (even though she is dead), she looks like she could be alive, and I think that would be a picture that people who don't want to see the truth about wars would rather have, I still think the burnt child is a better representation. — CHANDLER#10 — 04:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, no matter what image is chosen, at least it will put across the idea of death, and some degree of "real-life-ness" has to be involved. I would be against a generic morgue pic myself; the overfull Palestinian morgue IMO is a good candidate. The only objection is one specific to the picture itself: that face pic is of a face and only a face. If it was like this (My Lai) or this (WWII) then I'll say nothing; to me a dead Palestinian child on the street showing the whole body or something (or even like this (V'nam again)) would be preferred. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Not clear why you would say this. WP:CENSOR says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." if and only if Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove It's a horrible picture. People come to wikipedia to read the facts, not to be shocked or educated about war - to be made to feel bad. The photographs are inflammatory. The very act of feeling sorry for the Gazan, makes people look to the Israel with hatred. Enough of the world hates Israel already that wiki does not have to help with that project. Israel did what it did in self-defense, after Hamas and some numerous Gazans have spent the last several years participating in making life miserable for Israelis in their communities and homes and synagogues, ie murdering and kidnapping and shooting thousands of rockets and mortar bombs. This fact is woefully absent both from the article and from the photographs. Just perusing the article for photos demonstrates that the editors could care less about Israel's perspective in this conflict. It is all about bad Israel. That is not encyclopedic, but exploitation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! That's honest. Images of children killed by the IDF using US tax payers money are facts and they need to be in the article. Everything you say about Hamas applies to Israel multiplied by several factors. These are undisputed facts supported by evidence, much of which is actually in the article. If facts are inflammatory it's not Wiki's fault. We aren't meant to be taking sides here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that you are looking out for the American taxpayers' dollar here? Mighty big of you. However, that is not particularly encyclopedic argument, but it certainly demonstrates your POV. That argument belongs in the American support for Israel article, not here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow what you mean. I'm not implying anything and it's not an "argument". I'm stating a fact consistent with objective reality which is supported by evidence in the public domain. Statements of fact just like images don't have an intrinsic POV. They're just facts, data, call it whatever you want. The POV is in the eye of the beholder and Wiki can't do much about that apart from trying to ensure that readers aren't misled by factually incorrect information, undue weight etc etc, all those rules we struggle with. The very notable fact that US taxpayers paid for this conflict is something that we, wisely in my view, decided to exclude from this article along with very notable information about the Iranian supply chain. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good one there, defending Israel for killing children... You don't get the fact that most people who think Israel's actions are wrong don't "hate" Israel just for hating, but because like now they've taken overly disproportionating actions. You're saying Hamas have spend several years making life miserable for Israelis, you don't think that's an reaction to what Israelis have done to them? You seem to be one of these apologists who can't get out of the bubble of "everything Israel does is justified", "everything Palestine does is evil". Both sides are fundamentalists, they believe they've been given that piece of land by "god" and will go to any means to get it, it seems. — CHANDLER#10 — 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment You really should be careful how you are characterising others' words. I am not "defending Israel for killing children." I am simply saying that the inclusion of this picture as well as a special "gallery" of dead children, is an attempt to demonise Israel. Virtually every attempt in this article to show Israel's justification for going to war with Hamas has been systematically kept out of the article. This is an ongoing conflict and Hamas is responsible for many deaths of Israeli children as well. Israelis do not put up gruesome pictures of their dead children in order to demonise Hamas. But of course your comment demonstrates your anti-Israel bias better than I could. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this Joe the plumber? If pumping out sh*t through a pipe in Ohio and Israel wasn't enough, he had to come here to do the same. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, please remember WP: WBAD V. Joe (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The only argument against inclusion that I have heard thus far is, “the picture is sensationalistic”. This is the reality of this war. We need to include images of the victims to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information. And to Tundrabuggy: your comments are not helpful and your credibility is doubtful in light of the unwarranted removal of all images of Palestinian casualties. – Zntrip 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you again that WP:CENSOR requires "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. (my bolds) Many people here consider this photo offensive and profane. Therefore it is up to your side to demonstrate that its omission would cause the article to be less informative or accurate. The actual veracity of the photo is debatable since it comes from the highly partisan group International Solidarity Movement with a link to another partisan blog. It violates NPOV, UNDUE as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been other arguments, a particularly strong one is that this image is not representative of the casualties, that we do not have any reason to think a large percentage of the casualties have been babies. Others have gone with with, what I think at least, weaker arguments about whether this image is objectionable, or whether or not it is propaganda to display. But the first argument is certainly valid. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The validity of such an argument rests upon the acceptence of a baby category as distinct from a child category. That categorisation is implicitly derived from assumptions held by objectors. Babies are special therefore...
No one has agreed to that. It's just presented as a given. To simply accept it as valid without challenge is to fall into a trap. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. e.g. religeous figures are special therefore insulting religeous figures is especially offensive. Seems reasonable enough at first glance but it is invalid. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I agree with the argument, but it is not on the same level as the cries of propaganda and displaying objectionable material. Nableezy (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove I come to this discussion as an outsider who has had no input on these articles and to be honest has no interest in what is going on in the ME; i sit on the fence on who is right or wrong in the event which have just transpired and the historical background.
    People will be coming to this article to get facts on what took place not to be disturbed by such an image – does it even represent the majority of casualties that took place? The image is horrific and I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV. One would also think about considering that children etc will also be using this website such photos are clearly not for all ages.
    The defence that wars such as Vietnam have equally appalling images is no defence either. For example the Vietnam war article, while containing images of the dead, has nothing as horrific as this – the images on that article one would consider not to be as disturbing as this and could be viewed by all. The second response to this “defence” is that the photos from the Vietnam war, for example the girl running towards the camera after surviving an ARVN napalm strike, are iconic – has this photo achieved that level?

“A cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history.”

  • This comes from the wikis article on the subject - this photo is none; it is not a readily recognised image of this conflict. Photos of the aerial strikes or the Palestians rescue services etc are.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:"One would also think about considering that children etc will also be using this website such photos are clearly not for all ages."...No, that is irrelevant. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If you read that link it also notes: "Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly" this image could, and would say can, be see as inappropriate and used for shock value.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how you are able to conclude that the image is "inappropriate and used for shock value". I'm not saying that your wrong. Obviously if that is a personal opinion it can't be wrong from your perspective. I'm just saying that I don't understand what process you and others are going through to arrive at that conclusion. To me it's "just" an image of a child killed in the assault on Gaza. In that sense it's clearly appropriate from my perspective. As for shock value, I find it much less shocking than other images in Wiki like bodies piled up in death camps, rice paddies etc etc. Are you seriously suggesting that on a scale of 1 to 10 you would give this image a higher shock score than those images ? It's puzzling to me. I struggle to understand what you and others are seeing that apparently I can't see. Is it because this is a ongoing conflict rather than a historic event ? Does that make a difference to the way you measure shock value ? Having said all that, I agree with you that the image "is not a readily recognised image of this conflict" in the sense that it's encyclopedic value is reduced because it's decontextualized. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV." That would perhaps be considered a claim if the picture was a fake, which there is no evidence at all for, and no reason to believe either. Many people who have been against this picture has quite possibly wanted it removed because it shows Israel in a bad light, that would make it POV to remove it imo, trying to glorify or put any side in a brighter light than it deserves. — CHANDLER#10 — 09:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fake or not the image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - that’s POV pushing if you like it or not. To yourself and the above person who commented regarding not censoring the wiki; i come from the WW2 taskforce, that’s my area of interest - if i was to find the most offensive, brutal, distasteful, bloody photo i could find (and am sure there out there) to use on a WW2 article for a say a hypothetical war crime committed by the Germans would you suggest that it should be included? Would you not step back and ask from a neutral perspective how does it further enhance the article, how does it not push one POV (that being one side is a bunch of murdering *insert expletive here* for killing a baby etc), is it an appropriate image etc etc And if it is of a horrendous event, is it an iconic image that is easily recognised. It’s here where this image fails on all accounts.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I still fail to see how showing the truth of the situation is POV pusing, perhaps its this darn reality that has a bias? — CHANDLER#10 — 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The graphic nature of the photo when there is surely other photos of the dead, which can be used to illustrate that yes people have died during this conflict. This conflict had two warring parties and innocents on both sides – is showing one of the most brutal images one could find depicting suffering on one side helping to show a neutral point of view? Is it enhancing the article in any way – would I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?
Its a baby, an innocent of the world - pictures of which usually bring out the compassion within a human the "awww". Here we have something which is showing a cruel, harsh death inflicted upon such a being; how do you think a viewer is going to react to that in place of say an adult death? The latter you can somewhat rationalise - "shit happens" but with an image like this your almost provoking the viewer and twisting there arm into sympathising with one side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If I were to read the article on the jewish holocaust in world war 2, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about the 9/11 attacks in New York, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about any war shouldn't I as a human being be provoked into sympathies with the victims? In this conflict the victims are very one sided, I assure you, I feel sympathy with those on both sides who been draged into this and killed or injured when they wanted peace and co-operations between the both sides. But people on both sides have seemingly wanted war, I heard reports just yesterday that Israel had planned this war for over one year and with both extreme sides it seems wanting to exterminate each other, a child caught in the middle for me, represents this war. — CHANDLER#10 — 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The report is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You also argue the same point if Iran hadn’t supplied weapons or Hammas fired rockets this image would not have been taken? Does a single burned and crushed baby really represent this war? In years to come is this going to be the iconic image of this conflict? I somehow doubt that.
Your counter examples are flawed as they could be perceived as yourself attempting to compare them with this conflict, which would raise issues about your POV on this and why you are supporting for the inclusion of this article; as the examples highlight one sided crimes initiated against a group(s). I.e. the terrorist attack on the trade centre – that was not a conflict were death was occurring on both sides. A more compatible example would be the Anglo-American bombing of Germany and the German bombing of the UK etc
In any of those examples however do you think it is really appropriate to show a burned baby to provide visual reference, while providing a neutral POV?
In the more combatable example presented - do you think there is enough visual material of bombed buildings and mass death to provide visual evidence of what took place than a shock picture to drag the sympathies of the reader more into one camp than another? The most iconic images of the German “blitz” against London that I can think of is of firemen putting out fires, workers rescuing trapped civilians and an aerial view of the city from a German bomber. No crushed, impaled, mutated, burned etc etc babies!
With your comments one gains the impression that this image isn’t only being supported to illustrate what has happened, as stated am sure there are less brutal and more appropriate images about, but also as propaganda for one particular side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The trade centre attacks spurred the current conflicts the US are involved in, which presumably have killed members of the group that attacked (plus numerous civilians all over). And there are many others who've compared the holocaust to this situation - and if you've read my comments you would notice that I'm not to fuzzed about either side because they're both religious fundamentalists, and in this conflict the Palestinian side has taken more damage so if you didn't feel more sympathy for their side at this moment to me that would show pretty obvious that one would not be neutral to the situation. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Objection, I have to agree with the person who made the first comment on this part of the thread, and yes I have seen the Vietnam war image, I would like to say that the child/baby image is definately pushing for POV, if we're going to maintain WP:NPOV, we have to dig up a equally appalling image of a israeli child blasted to pieces by a qassam(or remove the first image altogether). Yours Sincerely Gsmgm (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No what would be NPOV of overrepresenting Israeli casualties? There perhaps isn't even a Israeli child who's been killed during this war. NPOV isn't about the same amount of images, it would be to have images that reflect the truth of a 100:1 death count. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldnt it POV pushing to not include something simlar or are Hammas etc not capable of such events?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC):::
I would say its more POV pushing to try and say Hamas crimes in this war have been equal to Israels crimes, when the civilian death count is 3 on one side and and over 500 on the otherside (now counting Palestinian males?). — CHANDLER#10 — 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fully agree. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
..and I think it would really help if objectors to the baby photo could indicate that they would have no objections to this in principal should such an image become available from Gaza. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Like these pictures [17][18][19][20]? Those are AP pictures, it is almost impossible to find free images similar to these. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Add Bombing of Dresden in World War II (examine, 'a pyre of bodies in the aftermath'). Whether or not this particular pic is included or not, it should be obvious that in a conflict where, to date, half of the victims were civilians, and a third children, images showing this kind of particular devastation are not unrepresentative. The 'sensationalism' lies in the reality. Generally, I think that one does well to survey stable wiki pages on events where cities or towns were bombed, to see what kind of photos have been accepted. Some I've seen are very gruesome. One should not determine what is acceptable or not acceptable, page by page, according to interests (inflammatory (an unfortunate epithet in context) or toning down), but according to wiki usage. What took place was, in tactical terms of combat strategy very similar to the Second Battle of Fallujah. However in that notorious article, the whole focus is on the US army's operation, with several photos of troops, and not a squeak about the extreme physical devastation on Faalluja inhabitants caused by the weaponry used, though photos on this abound. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to step into the middle of all this and express support or opposition just now. But the last bit of discussion has kind of hit upon something that is bothering me. But none of the other articles I've seen mentioned have a similar closeup picture of a corpse, except for My Lai, and that is only in the gallery. And the My Lai pictures at least give some insight into how the killings took place. Most of the others have pictures of mass graves, etc. which again tells us about the specific conflict. I would add the photo of the policemen we had to that category but I know it is not available. Even articles like beheading, corpse (cadaver), murder and suicide (though it kind of comes close) don't have pictures like this even though it would demonstrate those concepts. Budd Dwyer doesn't and that article only exists because he shot himself in the head on tv. And I do hope that nobody decides to illustrate the Colombian necktie article. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel exactly but I've seen thousands of war and conflict articles on WP and I was surprised when I first saw that picture included here. It's unlike anything I've seen on WP before. Just my thoughts. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with JGGardiner there, The image is way to appalling(and appealing to human feelings, thus breaching NPOV: specifically: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. that baby/child image in my honest opinion is just doing that, it is engaging in the conflict by appealing to peoples feelings instead of their consciousness). So unless we find a equally appaling israeli image, the baby image goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmgm (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign in the heat Gsmgm (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There do not appear to have been anything like such appalling casualties amongst Israelis, so requiring an equivalent image of an Israeli victim of this conflict seems a trifle unbalanced. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Gsmgm, I have a question for you. I'm asking out of interest. If we were to replace this image with a reliably sourced image taken in Gaza similar to this (My Lai) would Wiki be engaging in the conflict ? If yes, how ? If not, why not ? What is it about a particular image that you feel enables you to decide whether it engages in the conflict or not ? I'm not sure I understand how you are making the decision. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion, at least until some other graphic material that actually shows what befell civilians or children is included. The fact that the illustrative pics have been systematically pruned, leaving only a few balanced snaps of skylines with smoke and rockets, in what was an assault of immense savagery when one considers that half of the dead and wounded were civilians, has tilted my position. It is simply not enough to have a bandaged kid on a bed. Personally, I would prefer photos like that one of the old man in a wrecked landscape in today's online Haaretz, or a panoramic shot of the rubbled landscape of the city. These are everywhere in wiki articles dealing with bombings. One cannot sanitise narratives of bombed cities, even when the city was part of enemy territory (Dresden, Falluja).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

General Question How is it that we can bring in a picture from a highly partisan group (International Solidarity Movement) which includes a link to a blog Democracy Now? Just wondering. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from your link, Democracy Now isnt a blog, but a TV/radio-show.... And to counter, how can we include any information at all from Israeli sources (especially the government), they if any are highly partisan. You're against ISM because they don't give their full support to Israel, why should we accept comments from a highly partisan user?. there is nothing questionable about the picture, you and others who've removed it have no evidence to support claims that it's not real. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Because wikipedia allows us to. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Photographs_and_media_files.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

question is Guardian.co.uk a reliable source? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, though I've mostly seen used perhaps in football articles... It's from all I know not a tabloid like the Sun or something. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I do think that Guardian.co.uk is considered as a reliable news sources, it is used in Wikipedia articles including this article. The Guardian.co.uk reporters must consider ISM reliable enough to be cited since they are using their materials and they are not hesitant to acknowledge the unreliability of other sources. On a side note, I do plan to upload ISM images related to the video report featured at guardian.co.uk. They are now available at ISM photo stream under an accepted license and they are relevant to the section on white phosphorus. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian is as reliable as it gets in the media world whatever that means. It's as reliable as the BBC. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What POV is being pushed other than the truth? About 200 to 300 children were killed. This is the largest group of civilian casualties and it should be visually illustrated. EnigmaMcmxc previously said, “the image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - that’s POV pushing if you like it or not.” This is probably the most ludicrous comment I have read here. If it is fact it is not POV. Children were killed as a result of Israeli military action. This is an undeniable truth. EnigmaMcmxc, your argument seems centered around the idea that it is advantageous to use less graphic images. I don’t want this encyclopedia to anticipate reader response and water down the truth. Would you propose replacing an image of massacred genocide victims with one of hundreds of burial plots in a cemetery? Either way the readers still understands a lot of people died. You ask the question yourself, “would I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?” The answer is yes. – Zntrip 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"If it is fact it is not POV." Uh... no; were it so, you wouldn't see multiple people echoing Enigma's point. I think Enigma's comment is best encapsulated when he says "if i was to find the most offensive, brutal, distasteful, bloody photo i could find (and am sure there out there) to use on a WW2 article for a say a hypothetical war crime committed by the Germans would you suggest that it should be included?" The problem some opponents to this image have is that it's very drastic and not representative of the Palestinian casualties -- i.e. this represents the most extreme of the Palestinian casualties, in an attempt to force readers to feel sympathetic toward Palestinians (as that is the natural reaction to a picture of burned baby). -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This to me is the key issue we need to address directly. Arguments about the baby image seem to be a symptom of something much more disturbing i.e. the notion that by including images that describe the objective reality of the IDF attacks somehow pushes an anti-Israeli POV or somehow means that Wiki has become involved in the conflict or somehow means that Wiki is forcing/encouraging readers to feel sympathy. That's just plain wrong. There is data. It's just data, it doesn't have a POV. 1000+ dead, 1000s injured, 22,000 buildings destroyed, so on and so forth. That is the bulk of our data. We need to describe that for the reader with due weight. That is what an encyclopedia is meant to do. It seems as simple as that to me. The baby image is without doubt not the best way to do this because it's decontexualized but the reality is that if people are presented with the facts some of them will feel sympathy and some of them will be glad that Israel did this. That has nothing to do with us. We can't and shouldn't try to manage that. For example, the events at Abu Gharaib (didn't check spelling) undoubtably served as a recruiting material for various groups and the images are like recruitment posters to many. That hasn't stopped Wiki dealing with the event nor should it. I think I'm quoting you Tariq, "We're not trying to cure cancer". Sean.hoyland - talk 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what was wrong with the dead policemen image we had a while back ? Anyone remember ? Was it an AFP image or something ? That seemed like a good image to me, multiple casualities in the context of where they died, it didn't pull any punchs and people can interpret the people as either combatants or civil servants of an elected gov depending on their POV without us saying anything other than 'policemen'. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I wish that all the images of dead palestinians be removed from the article, the encyclopedia would still have them in images categories, but not in articles. apart from degnity, in Islam, it is prohipeted to see dead muslims, that's why the dead are covered before being buried so that even the closest relatives do not see their dead bodies -and yes, what hamas do of uncovering the faces of dead muslims in these big funerals they make, is wrong according to Islam-. As i said, the encyclopedia does not have to lose the images, but at least we can remove them from articles sothat muslim readers wont be offended. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
REMOVE I support the removal of the "dead baby image", largely because as 118.90.104.151 it has come from an organization (ISM) which is known to commit fraud on behalf of its highly radical viewpoints. It is a relentlessly shrill organization which is involved in numerous "front" activities for various extreme-left and extreme-right groups of great variety including Hamas, Hezbollah and North Korea. There is no guarantee that this image was not doctored, altered or even "stored" as evidence from previous conflicts. I also agree with One last pharaoh, since the images of the dead are as offensive to Muslims as to our common humanity. If we must use images of the dead, may they be respectful, clothed and adult. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not know of anything in Islam that bans images of the dead. And the need for them to be adult is not represenatative of the casualties, a huge percentage of which were children. And unless somebody has some evidence that this image is either 'doctored, altered or even "stored" as evidence from previous conflicts' I would appreciate that implication no longer be used. If you have issues with the source just say that. Nableezy (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And even if it were against Islamic law to show these images, it certainly should not have any effect on whether the images should be shown in this article. Nableezy (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
جسد الميت عورة right ? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why would you even write that? Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do not you figure it out your self and tell me what do you think ! One last pharaoh (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
With all respect to Islamic traditions, the image policy on Wikipedia is not directed by religion. And I’m sorry, but V. Joe’s comment that the ISM is some sort of front for various terrorist groups and dictatorships is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, the ISM’s agenda (whatever you may think it is) does not alter what is being portrayed in the image. – Zntrip 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
V. Joe, I haven't seen any reference to ISM ever falsifying photos. Do you have a source backing your accusation against ISM members of committing potential fraudulent activity? (If not, I suggest reading wikipedia's policy against libel at WP:LIBEL and restating your argument.)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, TB, I appreciate the hard work. Simmons, Libel laws here in the United States rather protect me from accusations of libel, especially since anything I say about a public organization, is almost by definition not libelous and anything at all I say about dead people isn't libelous either (<sarcasm/>Rachel Corrie was an anti-semitic cunt who liked to eat Jewish babies . Winston Churchill once told Max Aitken that he went to bed with a man to see what it was like, so he once had sex with Adolf Hitler </sarcasm>). Sorry,ADL might have a pro-Israeli viewpoint, but it is still a reliable source. 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually User:Valentinejoesmith (who made the above edit but didn't sign it), libel laws still exist and are enforced in the U.S. (the ones you might be libeling are the individual employees of ISM who you accuse of fraudulently creating photographs and posting them on the internet who are probably still alive). More to the point, libel is against wikipedia policy as pointed about above. So without some kind of evidence that ISM is falsifying pictures, maybe you shouldn't say so affirmatively that they are.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of respected groups as well as individuals who think it more than likely that they in fact they did. In fact if you read about what they do, falsification is a big part of it.

The respected Anti-Defamation League [21] says of them:

  • "The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a well-organized movement that spreads anti-Israel propaganda and misinformation and voices support for others who engage in armed resistance against Israel."

Discover the Networks#Programs, a conservative "Guide to the Political Left" describes them thus:

  • Radical, anti-Israel organization that recruits westerners to travel to Israel to obstruct Israeli security operations
  • Justifies Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians

NGO Monitor says of them that

Here you will find the story of the manipulation of photographs in relation to Rachel Corrie. Perhaps ISM totally innocent of falisification of photos; since they have not been convicted of it in a court of law; but they are hardly what one would call a neutral party. Anything taken from them would have to be considered potential propaganda. Hardly fit for WP. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is hardly fit, no it is wholly unfit, for WP. Nableezy (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And quoting 3 organizations that spread propoganda for Israel accusing another organization of spreading propoganda against Israel is hardly proving your case. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. It says that the ISM posted the picture but it doesn't say that they made it. Plus it's not irrefutable that the picture was fake. Plus the source is obviously biased. I was expecting something a little more solid than biased speculation that a photograph was faked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your sources are hardly convincing, as they all seem to have an Israeli POV. According to the Wikipedia article on the NGO Monitor, “The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization.” I think the Anti-Defamation League’s status is obvious, and as for Omdurman.org, it is one of the blatant ant-Muslim websites I have seen. It describes itself as “dedicated to preventing Civilization from returning to the sands under the onslaught of Islamic supremacy.” If you don’t think that is radical take a look at this. Tundrabuggy, I feel that you are missing the point: the picture is not affected by the ISM’s bias or political stance because it simply portrays something that happened. – Zntrip 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Zntrip, I agree that they are not unbiased sources, but they are also at more reliable and respectable than ISM. We wouldn't quote Code Pink in at article about John McCain or the Georgia Knights of the KKK about Barack Obama, but we might certainly quote Mother Jones or The Nation about either despite certain biases. Just as I have no problem using Al-Jazerra or Jerusalem Post in an article about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. On an unrelated issue, we might also quote Army Times about the activities of the United States Army, or the Navy League in an article about WWI Dreadnoughts. V. Joe (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems a little bit harsh to translate serving tea into links to terrorism. It made me wonder how many links McDonalds and Starbucks have to terrorism around the world. Of course Google also has links to the Mombai attacks by supplying logistical support via Google Earth. It's possible that each one of us has breathed in a few molecules of air breathed in by terrorists. I'm going to go and waterboard myself just in case. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this discussion is still going on, but for what it's worth as an uninvolved outsider, I support the removal of this image from the article. I agree that it's unnecessarily grotesque and inflammatory, and seems to carry an implicit POV (i.e., 'Israeli soldiers kill babies', essentially). And before anyone accuses me of taking sides, I would say the same about an equivalent image of a baby killed by Palestinian rockets, if such an event had taken place. People come to Wikipedia expecting to be informed, not shocked with unpleasant images - such images should only be included where they are particularly relevant and historically important. Here that does not seem to be the case: there is no good reason to use this image over any number of less provocative ones that show Palestinian civilian casualties just as well, and plenty of good reasons (on aesthetics and NPOV grounds) not to use it. I am glad to see it has been removed. Terraxos (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ISM- Sorry, but I
... says User:Valentinejoesmith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is not consensus for this picture and people are not changing their opinion. Is their any oppoistion to considering this matter closed for the time being? Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence is acquiescence. Maybe we can archive this section along with the picture. Or perhaps a request for deletion as an orphaned photo?Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless anybody objects in the next 12 hours I think we can consider this closed as no consensus to include the photo. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary In conclusion, I'd like to summarize the two major points that have been argued.

(A) The photo is horrific! Please get rid of it because I don't like to look at it.
This argument, repeatedly made against the inclusion of this picture, made a complete mockery of wikipedia's WP:CENSOR policy which says "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." In my understanding, that means that in order to remove an admittedly offensive picture such as this, it must be (1) (a) uninformative, (b) irrelevant to the topic or (c) inaccurate, and (2) no suitable alternatives can be found. Part (2) has been addressed I think through the inclusion of the picture of the dead Palestinian girl. However, (1) has not been fulfilled. This picture makes the article (a) more informative by displaying an actual victim of the conflict and that victim's condition (some argued that the photo was not informative), (b) the picture is relevant to the conflict because, obviously, the picture portrays a victim of the conflict (no one argued it was irrelevant), and (c) the picture accurately portrays yet another one of the many, many children killed in this conflict. Although a serious effort has made to find inaccuracies, no serious problems have thusfar been found regarding the accuracy, source, or copyright of this picture. Arguments that the photo should be excluded because it was created by the International Solidarity Movement do not pass muster under Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Photographs_and_media_files. In conclusion, the argument to censor this picture fails.
(B) The photo is "sensationalistic", or it presents too strong a POV.
This is the "Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, let's class up the joint!" argument. It bypasses issues with censorship because it appeals to wikipedia's policy of balance, that the article should not look like an opinion piece pushing one side or another. It is the strongest argument against inclusion of the photograph and I believe is the reason the photo is being excluded. It may take several years for us to realize what really happened in the last month, for the reality of this conflict to become part of the public consciousness to the point where people are able to look at this picture and say, "Yes that happened. Wikipedia's just reporting the facts." I am confident that that will transpire, eventually. But not today. This page is still part of the war. If every editor to this page hasn't had the thought, "Hey, I bet that there are members/agents/sympathizers of Hamas/the Israeli military editing this page to suit their point of view" I would be shocked by your naivete. But someday, this page will be just another part of history. And that picture of a dead girl won't be seen as a weapon anymore, at least to the majority of readers, anymore than the other horrific pictures of victims of other wars.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The photo of the young girl was from Aljazeera, and this discussion was about the picture of the baby at the top. I would want a whole different discussion on the picture of the young girl, as some of these arguments clearly are not an issue for that picture. Nableezy (talk)
I would like to thank Cdogsimmons's apt servery of the arguments posed thus far. I see no point in continuing this discussion. The picture that is currently included in the article is sufficient for now and the other picture isn't going anywhere. – Zntrip 08:00, 23 January 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.
  1. ^ Amira Hass, "Hamas executes collaborators and restricts Fatah movement", Ha'aretz 10-01-2009
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference fire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metal–tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects". Carcinogenesis, Vol. 22, No. 1, 115-125, January 2001
  4. ^ "Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims", January 4, 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_24&oldid=1090407372"