Talk:Gaza War/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 40


There is information(paras)in the lead that doesn't seem to belong there and is abundantly covered in appropriate sections.

  • Example 1

"with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza.[52][53]"

This is trivial information that only military buffs would find attractive. Too much details that only those who are actively researching for that stuff would bother to look for.

I propose to move it to the Israeli military section.

  • Example 2

"International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[59][60][61][62]"

We don't need to let the world know that the world have reacted on this matter. Again, details that should be included somewhere else.

I propose to move it to International reactions if it's not already there.

  • Example 3

"Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits.[66][67][68][69]"

This is bound to happen in ANY war. And since both sides react to these calls differently and neither side see an important role(or practical) for the international community to take(otherwise this conflict would have been resolved) this information belongs in the adequate section but not in the lead.

Also, currently information that happened after the ceasefire is mentioned before the ceasefire was announced.

  • New proposal

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict[22], started when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the aim was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members, the police force, and infrastructure.[24] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre.[25]

The time is irrelevant, again only military buffs would find that information valuable. Also fixed the language a bit for it to run smoothly. Removed the Hebrew and Arabic names. Can someone even say why is that notable in this english version?

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[26] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[27][28][29][30][31] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for a purported Israeli raid on a cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4[32], which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[33][34] Israel accuses Hamas of violating the truce citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israel cities.[35]

The Israeli operation begun with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] targeting Hamas bases, police training camps[43], police headquarters and offices.[44][45] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. Israel said many of these buildings stocked weapons.[46] Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod, that weren't previously targeted.[47][48][49][50][51] On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza.[52][53]

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention.[54] It has been difficult to verify casualties figures due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict.[55]

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire.[63][64] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.[65]

In the days following the ceasefire, the BBC reported that more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water.[56] The BBC further reported that 4000 homes had been ruined, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless.[57] An EU official described the situation in Gaza as "abominable" and "indescribable".[58]

Took away Israeli Air force and navy. Also noted that Beersheba and Ashdod were targeted for the first time. reference here

  • New Lead Proposal

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict[22], started when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the aim was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members, the police force, and infrastructure.[24] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre.[25]

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[26] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[27][28][29][30][31] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for a purported Israeli raid on a cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4[32], which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[33][34] Israel accuses Hamas of violating the truce citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israel cities.[35]

The Israeli operation begun with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] targeting Hamas bases, police training camps[43], police headquarters and offices.[44][45] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. Israel said many of these buildings stocked weapons.[46] Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod, that weren't previously targeted.[47][48][49][50][51] On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began.52][53]

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire.[63][64] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.[65]

In the days following the ceasefire, the BBC reported that more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water.[56] The BBC further reported that 4000 homes had been ruined, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless.[57] An EU official described the situation in Gaza as "abominable" and "indescribable".[58]

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention.[54] It has been difficult to verify casualties figures due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict.[55]

Comments? Suggestions? Let them be known. Cryptonio (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ez on the bold? i hear ya. Cryptonio (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Had to take the tanks etc out from the proposal. Cryptonio (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot do a lead like this, we need to break it down paragraph by paragraph. This will get way too complicated way too fast in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And the Hebrew and Arabic names are a must. Look at any article about a war between two non-English speaking people and you will find the chosen names in English and the language of each party. Standard practice. Nableezy (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, it couldn't be more simple(i did break it down) let me tell you.

Para 1 and 2 stay relatively the same. The native names could stay i guess.

New Para 1 and 2

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict[22], started when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the aim was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members, the police force, and infrastructure.[24] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre.[25]

With the Hebrew and Arabic names included.

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[26] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[27][28][29][30][31] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for a purported Israeli raid on a cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4[32], which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[33][34] Israel accuses Hamas of violating the truce citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israel cities.[35]

I don't think i touched Para 2

New Para 3

The Israeli operation begun with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] targeting Hamas bases, police training camps[43], police headquarters and offices.[44][45] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. Israel said many of these buildings stocked weapons.[46] Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod, that weren't previously targeted.[47][48][49][50][51] On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began.52][53]

Took away Israeli Air force and navy. Also noted that Beersheba and Ashdod were targeted for the first time. reference here

New Para 4, 5, 6.

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire.[63][64] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.[65]

In the days following the ceasefire, the BBC reported that more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water.[56] The BBC further reported that 4000 homes had been ruined, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless.[57] An EU official described the situation in Gaza as "abominable" and "indescribable".[58]

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention.[54] It has been difficult to verify casualties figures due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict.[55]

I took away the para about the international reaction and the human rights claim. These were my explanations.

"We don't need to let the world know that the world have reacted on this matter. Again, details that should be included somewhere else."

"This is bound to happen in ANY war. And since both sides react to these calls differently and neither side see an important role(or practical) for the international community to take(otherwise this conflict would have been resolved) this information belongs in the adequate section but not in the lead."

How's it now? let me know. Cryptonio (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead was exceptionally long so as long as the subsection still exist I can see how the removed mini-sections are not necessary in the lead. I also think it is time to go through those sources and remove the extra ones and only keep the most relevant. First impression is good and I am curious to see what others think. Way to tackle one if not the hardest section in the article.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Also this link,7340,L-3647569,00.html covers Beersheba being attacked for the first time. The above source only mentioned Ashdod, just to clarify and to note that it will be included as well. I will tackle sources with both hands as soon as we get consensus on this issue which by having you on board seems plausible. Cryptonio (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I like a lot of your changes/simplifications. I would like to propose an additional one: that we remove the following quote from the lead: "An EU official described the situation in Gaza as "abominable" and "indescribable".[58]" Undoubtedly many EU and other international officials have opinions and descriptions of the situation in Gaza, but does this belong in the lead? Also, the quote provides no 'real' information/facts about the actual situation. If this quote does belong in the article, perhaps it should be moved elsewhere.Kinetochore (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe we could specify which EU official? "EU official" is too vague and either needs to be clarified or removed. I think it is rather impossible to argue that the situation isn't "abominable", but an emotionally charged word(s) coming from a respected organization should be avoided if more neutral statements have been made. I don't know, haven't been involved in that area of the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PROTIP: WP:LEAD. I am all for WP:IAR, but only if it improves the encyclopedia - and the aberration of a lead we have clearly doesn't improve it. If we stuck to the rules maybe we would go somewhere.--Cerejota (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Which rules will we be ignoring? I've read wiki:lead and it seems we will be mostly on point. Notably, we will be over 4 paras still(we could combine a couple of those short paras as well). Can you unlock this mystery for us? I'll get to work on this in the meantime as there are some changes that won't interfere with your objections, as it appears to me. Nableezy could speak up as well in the interim. Cryptonio (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Cerejota's concern(and it's hard for me to play dumb) i held off eliminating those two paragraphs. I did combined them as well as the last two paragraphs since all four seemed to correlate one another. The rest of the changes proposed went rather smoothly. Took care of excess sources, left the native names intact, took out the time when this invasion started. I heard an objection by Wikifan on the removal of "abominable" and well...enough said. Cryptonio (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. I have only two comments. I hate the first sentence which is absolute jibberish and could so easily be fixed to say that the conflict escalated rather than started with the Israeli offensive. The only other point I would make has to do with Israel saying that Hamas stockpiled weapons in mosques, houses and schools. Are there any Gazan or independent sources acknowledging this to be true? If so it should be in there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the UN resolution should be in there, just the first sentence from the resolutions article. And I know Cptnono took out the actual numbers, but I think the numbers from the MoH and the IDF should be in there as well as Israeli numbers for Israeli casualties, once we get independent numbers they can replace that. That the numbers are different is sufficient evidence that they have been subject to dispute, so we wouldnt need the line that the numbers have been subject to ongoing contention. Also dont see the point of naming individual Israeli cities, the wording expanding the range of their attacks or something to that effect, but all the hardcore proIs will start crying if I try to take that out, so whatever. But those are my notes for now. Nableezy (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of the casualty numbers (I just left a message below) I would like the casualty figures in the lead to be very concise. Numbers are fine. I did not know of the best way to put them in without dragging it out too muchCptnono (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New way of objectively subjectively evaluating trying to objectively evaluate the validity of graphic photos

<non-free image and copyright-violating link removed; non-free images can only be used in article spaces with appropriate fair-use rationales; copyright infringing links cannot be inserted on any space in Wikipedia. Please do not restore.>

From -

"According to Al Tompkins from the Poynter Institute in the U.S., when deciding whether a photograph is too graphic for the paper, newsrooms should consider: “What is the real journalistic value of the photographs? What do they prove and why are they news? Do they dispel or affirm information the public had prior to seeing the images?” By looking at the photos in terms of what they add to the news, editors should be able to determine whether publication is appropriate."

I will find further commentary of the use of graphic images. Franly, I watched a documentary where even Al Jazeera's and other Arabic TV news stations would not broadcast these graphic images. Why wikipedia editors insist on doing so beggars belief.

I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise.

And I would be saying the same thing if you were publishing the corpses of Israeli dead - which, I note with some bemusement, you never do.

Betacrucis (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You realize these were broadcast on Al-Jazeera right? That they are stills from a video released by Al-Jazeera. Please stop comparing them to propaganda and And there have been 15 Israeli deaths in this conflict as opposed to 1300+ Palestinians, it is logic, as well as due weight that we show that in its proper proportion. Nableezy (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any images of Israeli casualties? If so, I would be in favor of including them. At the moment, all we have at the moment is a picture of some damage to a wall with a girl sitting in front of it, which frankly, looks a little posed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Obviously is posed (in the sense that the person wasn't there during the attack), but I don't mind it. Its important to give an human angle to war via images. After all, those rockets fall on people, you know? Some call it propaganda, I call it illustrating an encyclopedia. Same as with the AL-Jazeera pictures, which have the added bonus that they are form a reliable source and actually at the moment in the hospital.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should also mention for those who are just joining us that we have had extensive discussions regarding which photographs should be included, with regard to balance, and concerns of "sensationalism". (See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_25#Pix_.28restored.29 and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture) The photographs currently shown were the result of a compromise which has lasted for some time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to revisit this issue, this will end in bans. All am saying: questioning due weight, relevant, reliably sourced, free-licensed inclusion of images is prima facie disruptive. Its two images in casualties of faces and one image for the Zeitoun incident. Opposing this is stepping away from the reasonable, and I will predicatably result in the gallery being restored. Why Betacrucis insists on being disruptive is beyond me.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And Betacrucis, please realize when you say "I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise." you are calling a large number of editors, all the ones who support its inclusion, or are engaging in this practice, propagandists. If that is your intent fine, you are certainly free to feel that way, but if not consider not using that language. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think an editor shouldn't say it, even if they feel that way. It is an accusation of deliberate intent. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
And we could probably get by without accusations of censorship as well. It is the other side of the same coin. Both are unhelpful and only serve to poison the atmosphere. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I secretly enjoy it when somebody calls me a propagandist, but yes we should get away from both, but what should I say when somebody says the pictures are emotional and thus not encyclopedic? A word comes to mind to describe that reasoning, but I just agreed not to use it, so a respectful synonym would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't necessarily agree with it but I think it is a real perspective. We don't all have the same cool logical minds like you and Spock. Some of us are sensitive Western types. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored but if the images are more bloody than necessary just to make a point than it is inappropriate to use them. The images should accompany the information not push certain views. There are more dead kids on one side tha the other so there will not be a balance which is OK. They should also be kept in the correct section. We don't need every picture to be burn victims throughout the entire article.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No doubt that is true, but do you think the pictures that are currently in the article are a problem? I see minor burns on the girl, but nothing like the baby pic, which everybody who was for including accepted that the consensus was against them and refrained from trying to put that one back in. Nableezy (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The two in the casualties section are OK. They are in the correct place and aren't overly offensive to me. It might be better to replace one of the civilians with that of a dead belligerent.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Find a free image of this and we will do it, removing one of the civilians to put a belligerent. Althought, according to the IDF (and some in this talkpage), these are possibly combatants.--Cerejota (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to disagree with your general point Cptnono but I always think it is funny when I hear that Wikipedia isn't censored. Wikipedia is heavily censored. For example, we can't include our own opinions or analysis at all. That sounds like pretty extreme censorship in my opinion. I am of course familiar with the section title in WP:NOT but even that section says that we censor. We just don't guarantee to do it to any particular standard other than for compliance with US and Florida laws. As a statement, "WP is not censored" is untrue. But I agree with your general point. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Cerejota, I originally put down soldier/militant instead of belligerent but was trying to cover the whole spectrum of dudes with guns. If it wasn't for the high byte count we could actually use both civilians and a third dead guy with guns. Agreed, JGGardiner, I was pointing to one of many "policies" that are more or less guidelines by the way they are kind of followedCptnono (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i can't help but acknowledge Nableezy's consistency in replacing estimates/opinion with facts and using them with arguments. Here: :"You realize these were broadcast on Al-Jazeera right? That they are stills from a video released by Al-Jazeera. Please stop comparing them to propaganda and And there have been 15 Israeli deaths in this conflict as opposed to 1300+ Palestinians, it is logic, as well as due weight that we show that in its proper proportion."

What, so more Israeli's should die and that would make the war fair? Please leave your SOAPBOXING at the door, we don't know how many civilians have been killed and it is likely it is far less than 900. I like how you don't differentiate between civilian and militant, quite stealthy dare I say. Al-Jazeera while unfortunately is considered an RS, we should be prudent before blasting their b.s in this article. You want logical? Fine, it is owned by Qatar's despot ruler and their Western counterpart just quit on account of bloated corruption and bias. Yes, this is all POV and shouldn't be in the article but I'm just giving facts here. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok (incredibly harsh personal attack removed), what soapboxing? That the photos are from a RS? And that was your bolds. None of what you said matters at all, like almost everything else you have written it was all irrelevant bullshit. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No, soapboxing by continuing to pass off investigated-estimates of casualties in what I see is an attempt to evoke inappropriate emotion to justify the pictures. Sorry for my abrasiveness, but it's become a pattern. My apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
regarding this removal of text if you want to withdraw something strike it out, do not simply remove a comment that another user may take offense to. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) And me citing the Palestinian numbers that have been quoted by the UN, ICRC, . . ., somehow is soapboxing while you saying it will likely end up being less than 900 civilians (and if you can read you will notice I said casualties deaths not civilians) is not? Whatever, we already established how much I care about your opinions so Ill stop now. Nableezy (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You both calm down. The responses are way out of proportion. I suggest we all try to leave the soapboxy comparisons at the door and stick to the RS. And of course, stop arguing Al Jazeera is less reliable. I do not give a fuck about "truth", all I care about is verifiability. You all can take "the truth" and smoke it. Nableezy, stop the crap: you are picking on wikifan, using the codewords guaranteed to make him blow up... Seriously, the last few days it has been nasty watching both of you basically throw the WP:CIVIL rule book out. This. Stops. Nao. --Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I strike something? Just say it? I think I left a summary on the that not enough? Agreed Cerejota. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
uggh, sorry but when somebody has called me an antisemite multiple times without striking those bullshit accusations i have trouble taking that person seriously. and i havent been picking on wikifan, he just has the unfortunate tendency of saying retarded things that i feel the need to correct. Nableezy (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this. Nableezy (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And what codewords? Palestinian? Nableezy (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I'm such a retard. Silly Wikifan12345. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, seriously, please, you have to stop attacking editors and treating this talk page as a place to blog about your views on whatever shiny thing happens to catch your eye. It's so very disruptive. Do it for the sake of the poor people of Qatar cowering in fear from their despotic ruler, the horror. Also, by the way, visit Qatar. It's quite shiny. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I like Qatar. We have two sets of people here: One, the AJ crowd, claim the pictures illustrate a realistic tone of the war and are vehicle for facts, which again are supported by the unfortunate fact that AJ is considered a reliable source. The other crowd believes the pictures are simply propaganda, and including them is a blatant attempt to take sides and evoke unnecessary emotion that distracts from the article. Another claim is that other comparable articles don't have these pictures. Nableezy compared the picture-inclusion to various massacres and I think even the holocaust...yeah, I hope he was joking. Anyways, you know where I stand but hopefully we can come to some compromise. If these pictures remain, and they probably will considering how committed these users are, perhaps we can reduce the # to those which are 100% related and not war-porn? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
See, there is another retarded comment. I specifically said I brought up the Holocaust article, along with the My Lai Massacre article to disprove the idea that Wikipedia does not show pictures of dead people. And they are 100% related; and 'war-porn', well that is also a retarded comment. Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy you used the Holocaust and a massacre to justify the inclusion of this photos. Not did I call you on it, but someone who is less retarded than I am did as well. If you continue to dismiss everything I say is retarded I don't know what to say. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And I patiently explained to both you and that other user that I used the articles to disprove a single point made, that Wikipedia does not show graphic images of dead people. I did not use the Holocaust to justify the pictures inclusion, I used the Holocaust article to show that those who object on the grounds that Wikipedia does not show images of dead people are incorrect. Do you understand it this time or do I have to explain it again? Nableezy (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, I continue to go back to assuming good faith. I have to assume it because otherwise I will go quite mad.

Cdogsimmons, you said you would be in favor of including images of Israeli casualties. There are two problems: first, the Israeli media very rarely take such photos, particularly during the most gruesome attacks like suicide bombings. Secondly, I'd be against their inclusion for the very same reason: it is emotive and it is propagandistic. Wikifan is right to say that it is "war porn". It simply is.

They may have been broadcast on Al Jazeera, but they DO NOT belong in an encyclopaedia. Think for a minute.

I don't have time to look back at other articles' histories (like the 2nd intifada's page) which do not contain any such images, but I am quite certain that in the long run, pictures of dead people not only don't belong on this page, but they won't remain on this page, regardless of my input. They are undeserving of inclusion.

Let me illustrate further: if there was, heaven forbid, a suicide bombing in downtown Jerusalem today, I would oppose the inclusion of images of dead people.

I'll add one other thing: the photos seem to have been added without consensus. But I stress that I consider this a side issue. Betacrucis (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is soooo far from the most gruesome images and you should take a look at the archives if you really want to see what 'consensus' this picture has. A number of editors who opposed the baby picture favored this ones inclusion as one that "accurately depict the subject and content of the article (within obvious reason)." You need to read up on the discussion and you will find that there is a general consensus in wikipedia that an image being emotive is not a reason to exclude it, and your assertion that it is propaganda, well there is a word for that too, but it is one of the ones I said I would try not to use earlier, and it is just that, an assertion of yours. One that a great many of editors have rejected as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Back to a question posed earlier by another editor, are any of the images currently shown a concern? That might be a good place to start so we can get to the core of the argument. Please say which image(s) and explain how it goes too far. Again, I feel that they could overbalance the article but it sounds like that is an easy fix from the discussion above.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Nableezy. As I've said before, the issue is a matter of public perception. When we go to an article like the Holocaust, we expect to see pictures of its victims. When we go to the article on 9/11 we expect to see an image of a plane flying into the world trade center. With the eyes of the world watching this conflict, there is a general expectation that there will be pictures of casualties. An absence of those pictures sends a message just as their inclusion does. I'm not saying we have to have the most gruesome pictures available, or to show all the pictures available, but we should have some pictures available. If you want to rediscuss it I think we should do so. Why don't we spread out all the available pictures of casualties we have and pick the ones that are most appropriate to the article. Despite what Betacrucis says there had been a longstanding consensus on the talk page that images of the casualties should be presented when they became available.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Beta, so much of what you say and the way you say it is inconsistent with WP guidelines. That's okay but I would urge you to re-examine your whole approach to editing in WP. I really think you need to thoughtfully question your approach, identify all of the things that you perhaps hold as self-evidently true e.g.
  • that you can reliably recognise censorship when you see it
  • that your measurement of emotive and propagandistic value is somehow deterministic and has an objective, meaningful value
  • that your moral/ethical values are neutral and globally applicable
  • that you are able to objectively measure the 'validity' of a graphic image when the term 'graphic' is so dependant on local cultural rule sets
and try to look at the things you perhaps hold as self-evidently true through the lens of the WP guidelines. For a simple example, if you think the term 'war porn' is meaningful in the context of war photography and image use in WP then there should probably be systemic bias detection alarm bells going off in your head to alert you to the possibilty that you may be attempting to impose your local value system on what is meant to be a culturally neutral, uncensored global encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
and potentially offend other editors who have objected to the use of such a term in the archives. but that is systematic bias as well so who knows what you should do. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, the one removed prior to this discussion starting, and i would then presume would be the problem, was the dead girl picture from the al-jazeera video, it is in the article now in the casualties section. Nableezy (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And a note, there is exactly one image of a dead Palestinian in the entire article. And exactly one image of a wounded surviving Palestinian. Could that possibly be overbalancing the article? Nableezy (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And amazingly, there is not one picture of a combatant in this article despite the fact that there was a ground incursion. I find that to be a major problem.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
we need free images, but there was one image of police officers dead (and the idf considers them combatants), that was the one free image I have seen about combatants. People also objected to that one as being too gory. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record I'm still strongly in favour of that image being included in this article. It was, in my view, the highest quality free image of casualties that we have at our very limited disposal. It was also the only image where the casualties are shown in-situ and therefore in context. It's a very high value image and entirely encyclopedic just like Ronald Haeberle's My Lai Massacre photos. I would willingly trade both of the AJ casualty images for that one if it comes to that. Yeah, it has blood in it. Shockingly, women bleed every month. It's red and comes out of their bodies even though on TV it's blue and comes from pixies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldnt, civilian casualties should also be represented. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad you guys are having fun. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(ignoring Wikifan) Fair enough and there's a valid argument for providing due weight to representing child casualties. I'm not advocating the trading of images by the way. It shouldn't be necessary if people follow guidelines but whatever other images are in the article I think the police officers image should be here. The apparently ambiguous militant/civilian status of Gaza policeman in some people's minds is another advantage of the photo. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The image of the slaughtered policemen, which was retrieved from the Arabic version, is not free but it is under fair use. This image was subject of an editwar with at least one person saying that he/she would accept only images of 'real victims' - women and children casualties. That's why I placed in the burned infant image, which was then replaced with the dead girl image. Replacing that with the image of the policemen would mean that we are going in circles. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating destabilising the admin ordered temporary ceasefire on images either by the way but if we are going to have a reassessment of which images should be in this article to improve the encyclopedic value of the article then I'll be advocating the inclusion of that one. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I see absolutely no new and persuasive arguments for removing damage and casualty pictures from this article. That said, I would prefer pictures contextualized with the event. So, bodies in rubble etc. instead of a dead girl in a hospital bed. (I realize that sounds callous.) So, if there are possibly more appropriate pictures available I hope editors can post them here for discussion. RomaC (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes but what is perhaps more surprising is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions seems to have been largely forgotten. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't paying too much attention to this dispute, Nab. Was that the "babybq" or whatever the crass wordplay was? I am one of the biggest supporters of removing too much info that only shows the Gaza strip as only full of victims but can admit the pictures as they are now are OK. Second to that, my concerns have always been length issues. If we can get this article to an acceptable length (100b is the max from what I have read and also doesn't bog down machines) there is no reason we can't have plenty of images. There are more pictures of dead or injured Palestinians than Israelis and that is just the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the image I was talking about is the one Falastine was talking about here, but upon hearing we are claiming fair-use, I really do not think that applies. Fair use, as I understand it, cannot apply to using a photo under copyright with the same intention that was used by original publication, here illustrating these deaths. If we were to have an article about the photo itself we can claim fair use, but under these circumstances I do not think we can, so that would rule out the policemen image. The baby pic was another issue that ended with an request for comment and the consensus being that the image should not be displayed. But the policemen image was also removed repeatedly with the same reasoning. But irrelevant now if it is not a free image, at least I think so, but we could ask somebody who knows more about this stuff. Nableezy (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And honestly the fair use rationale on the arabic wiki is pretty weak if you ask me. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I emailed AJ. Let's see what they have to say. I've asked them to comment and whether they would be willing to add the source material to the CC repository as this image predates the first batch. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if you believe anything I have said is "inconsistent with WP guidelines", then point it out, instead of using vaguely threatening language.

I am advocating treating this page the same as every other article on WP. Look at the pages for the First intifada, Second intifada, Operation grapes of wrath, 2006 Lebanon War. Think of any suicide bombing; pick one out of thin air - the Sbarro bombing, for instance, or the Dolphinarium bombing, the Passover massacre - no photos of dead people. None.

You can cite Al Jazeera all you like but Al Jazeera is not Wikipedia. These discussions have been had elsewhere. Why is this article different from all other articles? Betacrucis (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, your intentional stance module is misfiring. Stop using it.
  • Others have already pointed out things for you. Read their comments. Read mine as friendly advice because that's what it is. This statement "I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise" is spectactularly ill-advised given the current sanctions in place if you want an example.
  • I have no reason to vaguely threaten you nor have I. It's surprising that you would even think that. You are a newbie. That's why I said "That's okay but..".
  • Advocating the removal of information from one place on the basis of the absence of information in another place is not sensible in an encyclopedia.
  • AJ is just another reliable source available to us. Nothing more than that. It can help improve the encyclopedic value of the article just like other RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Love the reference to intentional stance, not sure what relevance it has here.
  2. It was an ill-advised comment. Poorly worded. Let me explain. I don't know about any sanctions; all I know is I removed them in the course of a broader edit, (incidentally most of whose content seems set to be included as consensus material in the article). I haven't removed them since. I do feel strongly against the inclusion of the images but I won't edit war over them. They are unprecedentedly graphic and unnecessary (and yes, I know there are far more gory things out there; I oppose their inclusion, too.)
  3. Do you value consistency, Sean?
  4. Agreed. Betacrucis (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Well, for example someone just told me "you cant just take out facts because it makes America look bad. It seems you have a pro american agenda. you can and should only take out facts that are not proven" because I removed some irrelevant information without references from another article. That's a typical example of someone's intentional stance software failing here. They have a model of the intent of an editor, it's the wrong model so the action they take is inappropriate. I guess that's why we have wp:agf.
  2. Everyone editing Israel-Palestine articles needs to be aware of the sanctions (which you can get to via one of the templates at the top of this page). Editors have been banned for fairly minor things in my view. Admins seem to have lost patience.
  3. I value consistency if it's implementation increases the quality and volume of encyclopedic information. I don't think it has an intrinsic positive value by itself and it's open to misuse. It's a bit like consensus except that consensus is a requirement. It's true that there is an abundance of inconsistency between closely related subjects in WP and it doesn't help. On image content guidelines specifically the community can't find consensus. We have the universal declaration of human rights as a foundation, wp:notcensored and a few other things statements/discussions. Just look at all of the discussions/guideline reviews triggered by the images in the Abu Ghraib article. The solution might end up being a software solution to allow an opt out from displaying certain image categories via a gadget in people's preferences. In the meantime we have polarisation rather than consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Perhaps I did not AGF, if that's what you mean. As for the sanctions, I'll have a look at them. I worry that such processes can be used as partisan weapons - I did feel like my "trial" for "sock puppetry" was trigger-happy. Hard to AGF about that...
As for consistency in general. The first issue is article content in general. I feel like these arguments are wheel reinventions. See my section below.
As for consistency with images (the second issue), I do feel like some sort of consensus can be reached. I have a non-Zionist Jewish friend who is vehemently opposed to Israel's current policies, and he told me that he joined a local Muslim internet forum. He found the use of graphic pictures beyond objectionable. The implication, I believe, was that it was a cynical use of gory pictures to illustrate a political point.
I understand that some editors believe that such pictures have inherently legitimate value. If this is the case, then I see two really fair courses of action:
  1. Find pictures of dead Israelis to illustrate every WP article on killings of Israelis. Meaning that all articles on this conflict would contain pictures of dead and wounded people.
  2. Strictly oppose the inclusion of such pictures on a blanket basis unless some compelling reason for their inclusion can be shown to further the goals of creating an encyclopaedia.
I must stress that I do not oppose these images on partisan grounds. I would vehemently oppose the inclusion of such images of any dead or wounded person unless compelling reasons can be shown to include them. Such conditions might include: the emblematic nature of a photo (noteworthiness). The Phan Thị Kim Phúc image and the image of the blood-stained hands during the Ramallah lynching and the image of Mohammed Al-Dura during the Second Intifada spring to mind as such cases.
What do you think? 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Almost anything can be objectionable to almost anyone. It's nearly random. I'm of the view that any conflict related article should include images that try to faithfully describe the objective reality of the event even when those images are very disturbing indeed. Trying to faithfully describe the objective reality of an event is a very compelling reason for me and should be a high priority in a politically/culturally neutral, global encyclopedia. For example, I'm absolutely in favour of showing the carnage caused by suicide attacks/rocket attacks. The images are out there because they're used in pro-Israeli propaganda but they may not be suitable licence-wise. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cultural reasons why there aren't really such pictures out there. But even if there were, I would oppose their inclusion. You have provided your own rationale for inclusion of such images, but I don't think that brings us closer to a more objective way of identifying what deserves inclusion and what doesn't. You are right that "objectionable" is a random term, but "notability" is not. I think an objective way of evaluating the inclusion of images can be (and may already have been) agreed-upon. I seek further dialogue on this. Betacrucis (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I understand that you object to the term "war porn", but can you understand why someone would use it?
If not, can you understand why someone would object to photographs of dead and wounded people being used?
Photographs of suicide attack victims would be objectionable for exactly the same reasons.
I understand your points about the My Lai massacre, and other such events. But My Lai is acknowledged by all parties to have been a massacre, pure and simple - rape, torture, mutilation, the works. Whatever your beliefs about the recent Gaza operation, you have to admit that reliable sources certainly don't generally regard it as a massacre.
I urge you to consider in good faith my suggestion that we edit this article in general conformity with other articles about the conflict.
Betacrucis (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Beta, you have to understand that this article needs to be edited in general conformity with the rest of Wikipedia. The lack of pictures in those other articles is not really of much consequence, and if it is it speaks more to the need to add pictures to those articles rather than remove them from here. Also, those other articles suffer from another problem, that we do not have free images to use. We are fortunate enough to have Israeli's taking pictures and uploading their work, as you can see in each of the rocket attack pictures, as well as having Al-Jazeera providing the world footage under CC, something that as far as I know has never been done by a RS with their copyrighted work. We have available to us images that are not available in those other articles, that they do not contain images is not a good thing and should not be the standard. As far as the 'war-porn', sure I understand it, but we should try to stay away from causing offense to other editors, though I probably am not the best one to speak on this as you can see from a section of this thread. That the articles pictures may offend some is not related to that, back here we are all 'editors of encyclopedia' and we should try to keep that atmosphere, and one of the ways we do that is to try to avoid offending others. Out on the article page, we are all consumers of an encyclopedia, and our discomforts are covered by the general disclaimer on content that all wikipedia articles fall under. This article has pictures that accurately depict what happened, that is what is needed in every article. Objectionable or not, which really only has meaning in a specific locale, is not a criteria for images in this encyclopedia. Images of a war zone are going to make some feel queasy and may make some feel angry, but all they are is a visual representation of the events. Nableezy (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, there are in fact plenty of pictures of Israeli victims of terrorism. Just do a google image search.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy I fully understand your rationale. My sense is that a uniform guideline for the inclusion of such images can be agreed-upon, as I wrote to Sean above. I suspect that the most important criterion will be notability, but there may be others. As it stands it sounds as if you agree with me that as shocking as some images may be, everyone agrees there is a line. My suggestion is that the line ought to be drawn at notability. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if a "graphic" image (as understood in our vernacular) is suggested for inclusion, it ought to be notable. I gave some examples - the al dura image in 2nd intifada, and others - these are notable no matter how graphic they are. (But to give you some idea about the universal application of my principles here, I have serious concerns about the inclusion of Uday Hussein's post-mortem image. I think it is grotesque and not sufficiently notable.)
I get that you wish to provide all images that seem relevant, but I think we run into countervailing interests - of not just some subjective notion of taste (which I have admitted motivates me) - but particularly of notability. I suspect a number of factors ought to be weighed before the inclusion of a "graphic" image (I use the term graphic recognizing its subjectivity).
That is to say, I think that prima facie, grotesque images and images of the dead and wounded ought to be weighed against a selection of agreed-upon criteria before they are included. I think we can achieve this, although perhaps this page is not the place for it.
Is there a broader "Palestinian-Israeli" principles/rule page that I can suggest this to?
By the way, and off-topic - when are you going to add those changes to the casualties section, Nableezy? Your preliminary draft in the talk page looks like it's worthy of putting up because, while it needs refinement, is better than what's currently there.
Betacrucis (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as the casualties section, will wait for a lil while to see if anybody has objections (note: people look here and let me know what you think). As to notability, that would be a requirement if we wanted to make an article about a picture, such as Faris Odeh or other such famous images, here the requirement is that it add relevant value to this article. We can't say we only use images that have reached an iconic status. The most basic point here is that Wikipedia as a whole is illustrated. Some of those illustrations will cause offense, such as the images detailing sexual positions and organs, or the images of the dead, or the images of Muhammad (and trust me I am not equating any of these images to anything else other than that they cause offense to a great many people), but that offense is not reason to remove the images. Where you can take your suggestion, you may want to consider signing up for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and make that suggestion there. But beyond the arbitration sanctions, I think it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a separate set of rules for the I/P articles as opposed to the rest of Wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Not so, there are already a new set of rules for IP conflict based known as "discretionary sanctions," [1]. Further I know that there are admins who are actively discussing issues concerning such contentious areas, in hopes of putting some new guidelines and rules into place in order to make for a better editing environment. Obviously I believe Beta's points are well taken as I was banned from editing the article for my aggressive removal of those photographs based on objections to weight as well as some of their graphic nature. I do not believe that there ever a consensus (rough or otherwise) to include a certain number of photographs (ie balance) or what exactly those photos should illustrate, and how much weight (ie casualty ratio 1000-1 thus many more photos on the 1000 side) is appropriate (ie WP:UNDUE), what constitutes "war porn", what constitutes WP:CENSOR, what constitutes WP:RS in this situation, eg International Solidarity Movement Al-Jazeera or Flickr etc. I actually think that in order to prevent these questions from coming up time and again on this article and other I-P articles, that there should be some kind of dispute resolution on this, with an eye to establishing some WP:guidelines for future articles. Not quite sure how to go about this but if there is a willing admin lurking, perhaps he/she could guide us to the appropriate forum (RfC? RfA? mediation?) to save us from having to repeat ourselves endlessly on talk pages and improve the editing environment on this and other contentious articles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said 'beyond the arbitration sanctions'. But Al-Jazeera is a RS without question. There is no possible way to say that it is not, and again if you want to demand that all pictures be from a RS then you will only see images from Al-Jazeera, as every single image showing any damage in Israel is not from a RS, and Al-Jazeera is the one RS in this world, or at least the only one I am aware of, that has released such images under an acceptable license. The only images in this article that are from a RS are the ones from Al-Jazeera. In this situation, in any situation, Al-Jazeera is undeniably a RS. I swear I just got a concussion banging my head on my desk, people are looking into my office all weirded out by the sound of 'BANG, BANG, BANG'. Now for my own safety, as I do not want exacerbate the concussion I just gave myself, please stop questioning Al-Jazeera's reliability or comparing it to ISM or the images we get from flickr. Nableezy (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No it is not a RS without a question. While it is true that according to polls the Palestinians watch and consider Al-Jazeera the most reliable by far, Israel does not. See this: Israel boycotts Al Jazeera news channel Israel considers Al-Jazeera's "coverage of the incidents is unbalanced and biased towards the Palestinian people." Israel is one side of this conflict. If we can't get reliable photos from a source that one side of the conflict considers unbalanced and biased, perhaps we should leave photos out all together. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) See also this: Israel to place restrictions on Al Jazeera from this month. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This article also demonstrates the "unreliablity" of AJ in connection with Israeli issues. Plus you did not discuss my major issue which is that this should be something the wider community debates in order to set policy for future similar arguments. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. I am already aware of, and think I disagree with, your thinking about AJ. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, maybe I should have made myself clearer. Regardless of what Israel thinks, Al-Jazeera is without question a RS on Wikipedia. No matter what Israel says about Al-Jazeera, Al-Jazeera is a RS here. Nothing you say will change that, there is not even a point to discussing this. Even most of the people who generally agree with you will accept that here on Wikipedia, Al-Jazeera is unquestionably a RS. Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as the "line" goes which we won't cross, it has to do with context with the article, not aversion to seeing distressing images. If we had an article about "Images of dead people used for propaganda purposes", that would be an appropriate article to display really shocking images. There is a concern that filling this page up with pictures of dead people will look like propaganda which is not what this article is about. However, to fail to post any images of casualties, is also playing to a side of the conflict. There's a reason after all that Israel barred the international press from entering Gaza when the operations began. We need to find some common ground. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Beta, also for interest, there are plenty of disturbing images out there showing Israeli victims. The 'cultural reasons' often cited are apparently not supported by the abundant evidence to the contrary. See this slideshow for example. Don't look if you don't want to see this kind of material.
We have some guidelines on images
  • "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" see WP:NOTCENSORED.
  • "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic". see WP:IMAGE
Notability isn't part of the selection process in an article like this one. If it were an article about an artist for example it would be. I'm not even sure I understand what notability means anyway or who defines when a casualty image becomes notable. An image shown on a TV channel watched by millions of people around the world seems pretty notable. The images in the biology related articles showing animals and plants are not notable images. Despite that they provide high bandwidth, pertinent and encyclopedic information about the subjects. That's the same function our images need to perform. I'm all for systematically measuring the pertinence and encyclopedic nature of images using decision procedures that are consistent with our guidelines and an agreed set of parameters. Problem is, it can't be done. I think you arrived after the almost endless 'one of the most densely populated' vs 'some other description' discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"Israel is one side of this conflict. If we can't get reliable photos from a source that one side of the conflict considers unbalanced and biased, perhaps we should leave photos out all together": Tundra, What is this? Why should we even care if Israel bans or does not ban AlJazeera? Wikipedia doesn't require or even need Israel's approval or even opinion for determining what should be used as a reference and what should be not. Let's also remember that those pictures were not from the Arabic channel, but from Aljazeera English. Go dude, open a noticeboard and try to say that Aljazeera English shouldn't be used in the I/P articles cause "Isarael considers it unbalanced"; I guarantee you 100% failure, and you'll even look funny in the process. But hey, you can give it a try ;-) --Darwish (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is, as Jimbo Wales has pointed out, it's a matter of what Al-Jazeera is reliable for. It may well be reliable for many and even most or all other things, but if it is biased against Israel, one should not use it anymore than one would use a source that is biased against Palestinians. Certainly you have objected to many sources being used as being "biased." And why can't you find pictures from some other source that would be acceptable to both sides of the conflict? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is like the 10th time you have misrepresented what Jimbo said. He said if the footage is from one of their reporters that they are standing behind it is fine. If it comes from another source and they are just broadcasting it, then there may be questions. And Al-Jazeera is no more biased than ynet or the JPost, and we use those in abundance. If you want to not use any Arab media then be consistent and argue for the removal of any Israeli media. Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy pretty much sums it up correctly. This misrepresentation of Jimbo, in particular when he elaborated on what he meant, which is what Nableezy said, is not the first, and tundra should stop doing it, or go to Jimbo to "clarify". He made no references to bias (Jimbo is notorious for not giving a fuck about bias), he does reference reliability as generally understood: a clear standard of journalistic transparency. --Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And honestly this is all based off of a bs postulation that all images be from a RS (though again, that doesnt seem to apply to all images). And then when we have pictures from a RS suddenly we get another demand we use a different RS, one can only assume because there is not a single other RS that has released images under an acceptable license. Why not just come out and say you just dont want any type of picture that shows a Palestinian casualty? Why do we have to go through 15 different arguments, the next as invalid as the prior? We all know that you dont want the images, but this constant reinventing the argument to remove them is getting annoying. I really wish wikipedia had some sort of requirement that the first argument you make is the one you have to stand by, and if that is shown to be invalid or rendered moot then sit down. Nableezy (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
You've just started a new kind of argument as a reply to the message that proved that your previous "Israel considers it unbalanced" position is false. This is not a constructive way for a discussion. --Darwish (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you don't read what I write, Nableezy. Now that's OK if you don't want to answer, but if you do answer you should read. I have said (repeatedly) (as have others) that I had a number of objections to the photographs, including balance and undue weight, the question of the reliablity of the sources and WP:NPOV. To insist as you do that my reasoning is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT hardly seems fair or even assuming good faith under the circumstances. As to Jimbo, he said that pictures can be used to push a political agenda, which has also been the contention of a number of us here. I am not misrepresenting him in the slightest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresnting him when you say what AJ is being used for without actually looking at what he said he meant by that, not what type of story or who it is about, but is at an AJ report that they are standing behind or is it footage they are re-airing from somebody else. The former is completely fine, the latter may raise some questions. These pics represent the former. Nableezy (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of these photos have set a heavy precedent. What separates this war from every other in Israel? I've searching through lebanon, six day, yum, arab/israel, etc...and while all probably have images from RS, we don't include them. I know there was an excellent rationalization for this above, but the question is...shall we go through those articles and start adding photos? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy, if the argument against is weight there was mention above of replacing one of the images with that of a combatant. This would balance it out slightly. Unfortunately, more people in Gaza died than in Israel so there will not be a perfect balance. However, we do not need only dead or hurt civilians in the section since it might lead the reader.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, "shall we go through those articles and start adding photos?"...yes. Look at 2006 Lebanon War for example. It has a nice, colourful picture of a guy putting out a forest fire in N.Israel caused by something, maybe a rocket, who knows. The lack of photos showing what really happened in that conflict is a clear failure on WP's part. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
One single photo that does not involve murder, death, injured, etc. It's describing a scene that couldn't be considered a vehicle for propaganda. Again, it's the only REAL photo in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
and remember, over 1,000 civilians were killed, this isn't disputed by the IDF or any other organization as far as I know. Where are the horrific photos? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like they weren't able to reach a consensus on inclusion and the arguments that available pictures of casualties were "sensationalist" won the day. [2] Maybe it's time to start looking for a consensus over there too.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Tundra, Wiki, and Darwish, settle down.
I think the arguments put in favor of the pictures are understandable. The argument over AJ being a RS is an unnecessary one. Let's assume for a moment that the pics are from a RS and that they are copyleft. Then I think we get to the question of what value these pictures add to the article? I don't think these pictures can be taken out of the cultural context in which they are being used today - generally, as propaganda. Yes, it is true that there have been photos taken at suicide bombings (there was a very short time during Intifada 2 when I believe it became official IL policy to broadcast them) but they are generally not used in the same way.
Cdogsimmons made a very interesting point: "There is a concern that filling this page up with pictures of dead people will look like propaganda which is not what this article is about. However, to fail to post any images of casualties, is also playing to a side of the conflict. There's a reason after all that Israel barred the international press from entering Gaza when the operations began. We need to find some common ground."
I think this shows crucial insight. And I really believe there is some common ground between, on the one hand, posting images of corpses and wounded children, and, on the other hand, not posting any images at all. Surely we can locate images that illustrate this conflict that we can agree on? Betacrucis (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, I would like to and should extend utmost respect to you. My concern is, that in this issue, we have been down this road before. I ask you? what pictures would you like to post? Of the people who survived this conflict? of houses that weren't destroyed? of mosques that weren't attacked? Objectionability obliges us to post these pictures. It is why we continue to ask pro-Israelis editors to take command of their side on this issue. The objection to this has been, that Israel does not release these pictures and on a personal note you have said you wouldn't accept that even if you had those pictures. We are not going to debate who has better morals on this issue. Consensus in my opinion must be reach from the pro-Israeli camp and is independent from the pictures that have been posted of Palestinian casualties. Wiki rules does not commend us for it, but almost it seems as if they encourage us. Cryptonio (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cryptonio. I'm not totally sure I understand what you're arguing for. Would you clarify? Betacrucis (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You have the freedom to post pictures that show how this conflict affected Israelis. Maybe even F-16s flying sorties. Be bold. Cryptonio (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheap shot. I might just as well say, "Feel free to post pictures that show how this conflict affected Palestinians. Maybe even Hamas gunmen firing rocket launchers. Be bold."
I have consistently said that there should be no gratuitous pictures of casualties from either side. I remain committed to that view and note with disappointment that there remains no consensus on this issue. Betacrucis (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that pictures should be in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored as far as I know so it's expected we put in some photos illustrate the context. But, we are obviously aren't being as prudent as we should be. The argument has become a this or that fight and I don't have faith in any compromise simply because we don't need one. A consensus is unlikely from my perspective and people are still committed to including the pictures regardless of how absurd it is, IMO. We already had a dispute resolution awhile back if I recall and that went nowhere. Too many people support the inclusion, so any argument, even if it is beyond accommodating won't matter. I'm trying to emphasize Beta so you don't continue this fight and expect a result. Eventually the pictures will be removed or reduced significantly, I am almost certain of that, but for now we should focus on areas that have potential for change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheap shot? have you seen the page 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict? is full of Israeli tanks. I kid you not. go see here As consensus, in this case Wikifan is telling you that consensus is overrated. his words. Nah, seriously it was no cheap shot. Cryptonio (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And don't believe Wikifan, the 2006 article has 6 pictures, this one has 6 as well. and more people read the Torah over there than in here so(they got it like a stronghold). i feel like arming myself with a Citation Needed gun and do a drive-by. Cryptonio (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, 6 pictures with wounded Israeli soldiers or injured civilians? Nobody is disputing the inclusion of pictures, but what the pictures are displaying. This should have been assumed lol. Don't see how tanks are politically/socially charged...they're tanks. Are you inferring this whole debate is simply to one-up the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict? Is this some sort of war to override any perceived imbalance/balance of israeli/pal bias? Christ man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I bet you meant to say "they're tanks" so nonchalantly. Israelis are used to seeing pictures of tanks. Palestinians are used to seeing pictures of dead people. This whole debate is to write an article. Mostly influenced by the fact that years go by and there was yet no article named 2008-2009 and so it was needed and here it is. This is no war. I wouldn't compare the pissing that goes on here as war. Cryptonio (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not the discussion that we should be having. This is not about what the other articles have or dont, and Cryptonio your concerns about the other article belong on that articles talk page. If anybody wants to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of a photo, any photo, based on policies then please feel free. If you want to do something else, then do it somewhere else. We are bound by certain things here, those being the policies of Wikipedia on what content to host and how that content should be presented. We are not bound by anybody's personal opinions on what is objectionable, what constitutes pornography, or what is really the truth. If that is what you want to talk about get a blog, where I am sure you will draw many more crazy people to read your words. Now to address Betacrucis, I disagree with how Cryptonio put it, what I think you should be looking for are representative images of the destruction to Israel during this conflict. To the issue of weight, due weight is determined by the sources. Rightly or wrongly, the sources have largely focused on the destruction to Gaza, specifically the casualties. So I would like to ask you specifically, do you think the images of the casualties, which are 1 girl killed and 1 woman injured, show an accurate portrayal of the events in Gaza? I would be willing to change the picture of the wounded woman with the image of the dead police if we can get it under an acceptable license, would that balance any weight concerns on the question of representative images of the casualties? Or is this just about being opposed to any image of any casualty? If it is, you will find that the policies do not back your convictions. But the weight of the pictures is proper, speaking of balance is correct, the images should be presented to reflect the balance of the damage. Balance does not mean that each image individually must be equal to an opposite, that a casualty on one side must be equaled by a casualty on the other side, this was an unbalanced war in terms of the damage caused to each side and that balance has to be preserved. I personally do not like looking at the image, and while it does not offend me I completely understand why it may offend some. But again, offense is not reason to remove an image. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted your comment, Cryptonio; it does sound like you are trying to get back at another article which I am not familiar with. Nableezy, I understand your point about offense being no reason to remove an image; I will have to read through WP policy but prima facie it appears that an argument could be made for both inclusion and exclusion. Not so much exclusion as replacement. I appreciate that your view is in favor of inclusion of the images and that you feel that they are appropriate and informative; I think they are gratuitous and unnecessary.
Take a massacre that has nothing to do with this conflict - the Virginia Tech massacre, for example. Not a single picture of dead or injured people. I think you will find that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, images of dead people are widely considered gratuitous unless there is some sort of overriding reason for their inclusion - such as notability or iconic status.
I think Wikifan is right that their inclusion is far from guaranteed in the long-run. As I've said, my strong sense is that these images cannot be removed from the context of the pro-Palestinian tendency to use such images for propaganda purposes. I think anybody reasonable, even a pro-Palestinian editor, recognizes the reality of this context.
Certainly there are shocking images that occasionally deserve inclusion. I can't recall if I've mentioned this already, but I note the images of Mohammed al-Dura in the Second Intifada article, and the bloodied hands image from the Ramallah lynching. These are notable and iconic. But in general I cannot see a reason for the inclusion of such images, especially for a recent conflict in which emotions are high on both sides. We should be able to see this in its historic context and avoid using information or images that will no longer seem salient in a few years time.
I am eager to hear your thoughts on how these images add to the article.
Consensus may be overrated but as I understand it, it is policy. I have not removed the images because I've been warned that there are special sanctions in place, but I cannot see why the default position in the absence of consensus ought to be their inclusion.
By the way, I also cannot see the need for the current chart, whose figures are now well and truly outdated. But that's another topic.
By the way, Nableezy, check it out - I'm using "br"! Betacrucis (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta the "context of the pro-Palestinian tendency to use such images for propaganda purposes" has nothing to do with our decision procedures just like the context of the weapons sales people to use pictures of tanks for marketing purposes has nothing to do with us. We aren't producing pro-Palestinian propaganda anymore than we're trying to sell tanks. Images are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Both the presence and absence of a certain image can be seen as propaganda depnding on your perspective. We have to get past the propaganda angle because it's out of scope for us. We can't control/second guess the minds of readers and how they interpret facts. We're just producing an encyclopedia. (By the way, if you are interested in propaganda I highly recommend looking at Chinese poster propaganda because it's outstandingly good at what it does including the stuff they are producing nowadays. Sadly WP's coverage of it is very poor indeed...) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For example, after months of work the Ant article got to FA status. Within minutes it was attacked by intelligent design supporters who said there was no proof that ants evolved millions of years ago blah blah, just a theory etc etc. They saw the article as pro-Evolution propaganda. It's inevitable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, I do resent the comparison to creationists. Or even the hint of a comparison. The relevance of Chinese propaganda posters or intelligent design "theory" to the appropriateness of gratuitous images on this page really does escape me completely. This question is one of policy and consensus. I'd like you to address my points, please. I made valid ones and they are being pivoted around rather than responded to. Betacrucis (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering the number of times we have had this argument, and considering that all sorts of people have made the same argument ie that the pictures represent a POV-pushing, I believe that this go to some kind of arbitration. The pictures are kept in the article by the wall of individuals who insist on keeping them in. We should be making policy decisions here not arguing over each photo. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That may work but I think the best suggestion i've seen was another editor mentioning that we should be bold. I don't even know where to begin looking for free images but think if a few not associated with civilians were in showing Israeli stuff it could begin balancing out the pics.Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on what the requirements that we place for an images inclusion. If we have to use a RS then the only one that I know of that has released images under an acceptable license is Al-Jazeera and you can take a look at their Creative Commons Repository. If not, the easiest search is Flickr, you can narrow it down by type of license. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Beta, I wasn't comparing you personally to creationists (and don't get me wrong, I love those guys from the entertainment perspective and they ask questions I would never think of which help us improve various articles). I am explictly equating the argument you are using to theirs though so feel free to continue resenting it. :) You state that these images are gratuitous and propagandistic like they state that evolution is a lie. The beliefs are axioms. If someone thinks something is propaganda or gratuitous or offensive etc even though it is a verifiable fact that comes from an accepted RS included to illustrate/illuminate the subject matter of an article as per guidelines there is nothing we can do about that. Seriously, if someone says "this image is propaganda for X" how are we even supposed to respond to that ? We can say "No it isn't. It's required because it's pertinent, encyclopedic and consistent with the guidelines. Read the guidelines." but that line of argument can't touch an axiom. What if I added a line to the article that said something like "Al-Jazeera broadcast extensive coverage of the effects of the IDF operation on people and property throughout the conflict" ? What happens to your argument then ? Are the AJ images still gratuitous ? As for "images of dead people are widely considered gratuitous", I see them all the time over here in the S.E.Asian media as I've said before so be aware of what "widely" means. People's attitude to death comes from their culture and that's local but "our culture", the WP culture is global, culturally neutral and comes with a content disclaimer on every single page. Without wishing to be rude, to me, the word "gratuitous" in practice is very often a code word for "I don't like it and I want it censored because it offends my values. If someone disagrees with me it just shows their immorality/agenda". I'm not saying that is how you think but that is how I see that word. The word "gratuitous" and censorship go hand in hand in my experience. Also, "notable" and "iconic" are meaningless for this article and there's no policy for that in this context. Maybe when the fug of wart has lifted there will be some iconic images around which we probably won't be able to include for licence reasons anyway. The article requires images and we don't have to wait for the peoples policy committee for the promotion of notable and iconic imagery to authorise images from an RS.
The Chinese propaganda stuff was off-topic by the way. I love that stuff so much I'll use even the slighest opportunity to promote it to anyone who uses the word propaganda. Chinese poster propaganda is on my WP to do list if I can persuade a Dutch collector to upload his awesome collection to commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And I know people are going to cry about this line, at least some have in the past, but seriously, how cool is Al-Jazeera? What other organization gives away content for free like that? Sickest channel. Nableezy (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha well it's the Emir of Qatar's personal pet project, so it can afford to give away its product for free! Personally I do like sources that use free licensing, but Al Jazeera is about as reliable a source as Fox News. That is, totally unreliable :) Betacrucis (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really in my opinion, but we even treat Faux News as a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Beta, I wonder if you saw a report by AJ last year when they went to interview kids in an Israeli school under frequent rocket attack/warning and asked them what it was like and what they would like to say to the people firing the rockets ? It was an outstandingly good piece and quite moving. Anyway, doesn't matter because AJ is an RS. Having said that, they haven't replied to my email about the policemen image nor have they added the footage from 27 Dec to the CC archive. Bastards. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove every picture with the AJ logo on it out of spite. Nableezy (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Last time I removed an image Tundrabuggy got banned for a month so I won't be doing that again. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What the IDF thinks about the deaths

They claim that 1,338 died, nearly all of which they could explictly identify, and around 1/3 are non-combatants-- which would be around 450 deaths, not 1200 deaths with 250 non-combatant deaths as the article currently says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talkcontribs) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The casualties section has this. though we only say they say they have identified 1200 of which 300 were women, children under 18 and men over 65 (as that source says, in fact we use that source). Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we use the UN/AJ/BBC/whatever source, which comes straight from Hamas/Gaza. IDF disputes this, but unfortunately because the major media/org chose Hamas numbers over Israel, which is kind of Israel's fault anyways for not releasing any official figures sooner, but a sad fact anyways. I like to think it was for ethical concerns, but hey...Hamas could be right. They're so honest after all and have no motivation to exaggerate. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
wtf was the point of that? just to be annoying or was there something you wanted to add to the article? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if disputes are annoying. My sincere apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Did your comment have anything at all to do with changing the article? If yes say why because I didnt see it, if no then say it so I can stop paying attention again. Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm..ok. Well, I was simply alluding to my disappointment with our emphasis on clearly biased statistics that will eventually be exposed once investigation-time nears. Get it? Chill man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Then I would kindly ask that you keep your personal opinion on whether one set of numbers is more clearly biased then another to yourself. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There are Palestinian sources giving different statistics and only one Israeli. It sucks but we can't really give better numbers until more reliable and complete independent investigations are done. In reaching consensus (which is essentially compromise at times since things do need to get fixed) I was forced to drop a line like " least 1,200" which doesn't hurt my feelings. I hope the reader sees the numbers (which are damn close total wise) and figures it out. Hopefully we'll have a good set of numbers to work with over the next few months. If not, we can always revisit it.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"The several Palestinian" statistics are all Hamas as far as I know. I know Fatah doesn't have any authority in Gaza, and definitely not to an extent where they could drop off numbers to the press. It make sense considering the UNRWA relationship with Hamas. The disputes will hopefully be resolved soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The PCHR is a non-governmental organization, and you should know they have criticized Hamas as they were one of the sources in your beloved 'Internal Violence' section. Nableezy (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole point is we can't do a thing until better numbers come out.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference tag errors...

If you look at 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#References, there are about four reference tag errors. Can someone fix this as I do not want to get involved editing this very sensitive article. kilbad (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Am always on it, but the kids my fellow editors refuse to follow the rules, or at least get the refTools, like every other editor does, and then use them. I mean, they are what, the fourth item in the "Gadgets" tab in the "my preferences" link on the top right of the screen. It obviously requires 1337 hax0r level understanding to activate.
Also, dudes and dudettes, if you remove a source, please verify it is not referenced somewhere else. You know, that ultra-inappropiate NPR piece might be actually appropiate somewhere else in the article. I am just sayin' that all the POV fights in the world can be tolerated as long as the cesspool is pretty and properly smelly. There are few things more desconcerting that specting to smell manure and then come upon rotten eggs...--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done 3 of those where for outright ref repeats (including the name= option). Remember, a reference is only included once, any subsequent use goes by <ref name=XYZ /> no need to put the whole information. However, when removing named ref tags with sources, pleas emake sure they are not being referenced elsewhere, and if you are fully removing the source, to remove all instances. Part of being considered disruptive is precisely reverting refs without taking the precautions, as it shows thoughlessness and haste.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way. I made an error fixing a few. I put what I thought was a valid reference and had an error. I had to get out of the office (it has been a slow week) real quick so I left on of them as a straight ref to a web page. Apologies if someone had to cleanup after me.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not bothering fixing semi-completes, the sources are too fluid to really bother. I only fix dupes and broken refs. Sometimes I'll do a cite if there are other things broken besides.--Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled into a few "site name here" and the original was removed and had to look them up based on the cite title alone. I'll keep a better eye out on my end when vetting sources since there is at least a chance if it was me who removed the original full on source(s). I'm going to say I'm too busy to go through the history and find who is to blame but realistically I don't want to admit it too much if I screwed up : )Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"However, when removing named ref tags with sources, pleas emake sure they are not being referenced elsewhere. And how do you do this? i mean do you have to look at the entire article, is there a code or something? Cryptonio (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Images on this discussion page

Offensive? Only probably when sour. Although even sour grapes can make good Brandy.

There were a good number of images in use on this talk page, many of which were, either by themselves, or as a result of the caption underneath them, likely to increase rather than decrease tension here. Some served no purpose except to inflame the discussion. In the interests of editorial harmony and acting as an uninvolved administrator, I have removed them all. CIreland (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I hardly think the images here were likely to offend. For example the sock puppet oneJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yah, unless there is an specific instance of someone being offended. I mean, there are plenty of chances fo runinvolved admins to get involved, but they show up over the one good thing here? Jezz. So I am reverting.--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, You may not be aware of the whole situation. Please see the discussion here . Also, please note the administrator's comment, "In the interests of editorial harmony and acting as an uninvolved administrator, I have removed them all."    
Please observe WP:AGF. This administrator really deserves it for the time spent and work done for the sake of the Wikipedia.
Perhaps now that you know the whole story, and you recognize that the administrator acted in good faith, would you please restore the administrator's edits?
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was not aware of the whole story: you failed to notify anyone in this talk page about it until now. All I can say is that no, we will continue to do this as it is generally see as a way to reduce tensions and not take ourselves too seriously, even when we are. Of course, I will take care not to do it to your posts, as you are offended. I call on others to also respect your wish to not be bothered by our infantile antics.
As to reverting the actions of an admin: those where unilateral desicions, using editing tool, with no admin authority, he is just another editor, with all due respect. We can revert even Jimbo Wales if we feel that we are right and with the consensus. This is different from enforcement of conduct issues via blocks etc. In no way should by reversion be interpreted, as it seems you do, as me not assuming good faith. I think "CIreland" acted in good faith, but perhaps he was not aware this was a common practice in this talk page, and perhaps he acted unilaterally. As I have said, one can be both wrong and in good faith. In fact, most of the time people are wrong is in good faith. One can also be 100% right and be a total bad faith dick. One thing is completely separate from the other.
In the future, in the interest of not having misunderstandings, I suggest that before you go to WP:DRAMA or any noticeboard, you at a minimum try to engage your fellow editors in the article talk page. Quite frankly, running for WP:DRAMA for something like this and behind the backs of everyone is pretty high in my list of the Stuff You Thou Shalt Not Do If You Really Want Shite To Be Civil. Also, please see WP:LAME, we all are lame at some point (hell, I got me a block for being lame - an from an arbcom clerk, no less). Its good to know and learn how not to do it too often.--Cerejota (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But surely the editors who use this page know best the atmosphere in which we work. And apart from you, no-one has objected to any images. In fact we have been posting such images for over a month, then you swan in and try and change it all. If you can't handle a few pictures, how can you handle editing an article of this importance and controversiality.
Cerejota is like our administrator. He is doing a good job of peacemaking, and people on this page respect him and generally accept his judgments. So we don't need external administrators, however glorious their record, coming and changing things when no one except you and him, who havn't been regular users, has any objections. So please leave the pictures, and leave the running of this page to those who have been involved since the start. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews23jandrews23, Could you please explain this behavior of yours which I posted here on the administrators' noticeboard :
  • The first instance of this problem was when the editor modified one of my messages by putting the image in my message unsigned. I deleted it and left a message on his talk page.
  • Then he put it unsigned elsewhere in the section. I used the unsigned template to sign it for the editor.
  • Then he removed the unsigned template and his message is now unsigned again.
JJ, You didn't seem to want to take credit for the unsigned posting discussed in the above remarks. Why is that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
When I first added the image, I didn't intend it to be in the middle of your post. When I replaced it, I made sure it wasn't anymore. I didn't sign it because it is a picture, not a comment, and in any case most of the caption was added by someone else, who I won't name as I don't want to drag them into this argument. Given that explanation, can you accept that we are adults here, if someone really finds any image offensive they will complain and we will remove. So perhaps we can leave the images, with the support of most editors, and move on. Let's get back to discussing and editing the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Signing your contributions to this or any other talk page in the Wikipedia is normal practice that responsible editors follow. That's so other editors know that you are the editor that put it in the talk page, and not someone else. Your response is not adequate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Bob, chill! He just told you why he didn't sign. There is a history tab. And Image doesn't have to be signed, unless that is the intention (as I did with my Duck image). As Jandrews said, lets go back to the Real Important Stuff.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Although I want to stick to the article for the most part I did want to mention that the images were not grossly offensive. I assume they were meant to be humorous and at times to make a point. Maybe there were too many of them but they were not exactly trolling or overly offensive as indicated by the discussion on the noticeboard. Sounds like it was taken too far.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is lame. For what it's worth, there's absolutely no way whatsoever that I'll comply with a no images on the talk page policy unless it comes from a consensus of the editors here. The role of the images is obvious. And Bob, I added text to JJ's image and I didn't sign it. Why would I sign it? To show how fantastically witty I am ? Not going to happen. If you have a problem with that take it up with me. I'll just ignore you though unless you get consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the images were innocuous enough and cool, but the one that was reported was not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to blow it out of proportion. Most images haven't hurt anyone's feelings so lets address it as they come up if need. I hate the images but at the same time get a kick out of them.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is only one image that is unacceptable, and that is only because of its disgraceful caption. Whoever is doing it, you know who you are and you know you wouldn't accept a caption that indicated that the other side's suffering was posed for the camera (which it frequently has been shown to be). DESIST. Betacrucis (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You really don't have much of an argument when you yourself engage in more offensive conduct A parent and his child being shot at is not comparable to the gloomy girl sitting under a destroyed wall. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What I find best about this whole thing is that nobody has objected to fact that the "Palestinian discusses when would be a convenient time for his house to be bombed" image is an image of a clearly gay, proudly gay, gay guy standing in New Orleans, probably somewhere near Bourbon street after a long night partying. This is a great step forward for gay rights, the right to be ignored/misrepresented just like everyone else. Brings a tear to my eye, I'm filling up. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel

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.
Rslt s n cnsensus--Cerejota (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Phonemic representation ʕ
Position in alphabet 16
Numerical value 70
Alphabetic derivatives of the Phoenician

I know that we all have different opinions about what ought to make this article better. But I have a question for you: is there an article on this conflict that is reasonably acceptable to all of us (or at least almost all of us)?

I am still learning the ropes here, but it seems to me that more current articles tend to be highly unreliable, while some of the older articles are the result of greater consensus. I wonder whether we can't edit to a template? Much of the stuff we are talking about it well-worn territory, so to speak.

Your thoughts? Betacrucis (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is better done as we are doing than to a template. A couple of weeks ago the article was very good, but then some very large amounts of detail were added that gave undue weight to Israel's suffering when in reality, Gaza suffered more.

I think over time, the article will improve, particularly as the war becomes part of history and slowly (and sadly) is forgotten.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's remove all the vowels. It will shorten it while maintaining readability. Let's be honest, sensible languages don't bother writing out all of the short vowels. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Spprt Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Spprt Betacrucis (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sensible languages which don't bother writing out some of vowels require letters to represent vowels from time to time. For instance first letter in word Gaza is vowel ع. Purely from linguistics point of view. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually غ and not really a vowel, but nice. Nableezy (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Betacrucis (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think we should be like Wheel of Fortune and only use R S T L N & E 's instead. Actually, we have cut tons over the last couple days hopefully without removing too much from any particular section. Also, at first glance the article doesn't seem very intuitive for the reader.Cptnono (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This is mostly due to the complexity of relations between the Is and the Ps. As "will i am" read this, i can't help but notice how messed up the Middle East is. Knee jerking over here, not respecting the Sabbath over there. At the end, albeit very detailed and informative, the article reads like a Noam Chomsky article(a lot of information per para). Of that, we could be proud of though, even if it will never be quoted as Noam Chomsky is ignored world wide. A few more days and I'm ready to move on. I heard the Russians are coming again. Cryptonio (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, You make me love you more and more with each of you new comments. Some people do love sensible jokes very much. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This all started....

Sorry guys but I have to do this again. The first sentence reads: "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict[22], started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[23] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip." Now while it is true that the the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is part of the ongoing I-P conflict, it did not start when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. It has been ongoing for the entire year. Why was there a "truce" -that was not honored- if there was no conflict going on? A truce for no reason? This wordage suggests that nothing happened prior to Israel's military campaign, which clearly is not so. It also works to frame the debate in a certain way, ie what is relevant to this conflict and what is not. It has been suggested for instance that issues surrounding Shalit's kidnapping and/or release are not relevant to this conflict because Israel did not specifically say she was launching Op CL in order to capture Shalit. It ignores comments in June of 2008 from Hamas that Shalit would not "see the light of day" unless Israel acceded to all of its demands. In fact, arbitrarily choosing a "start-date" of December 27th for this conflict is not neutral. The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict started January 1, 2008. It escalated on December 27, 2008. If we can't get the first sentence right, nothing will fall into place. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the first argument. It is true Hamas/Israel has been playing a tit for tat kind of game preceeding this war and obviously the war was simply an eruption of such tactics, but I can't see how we could possibly crafted such complexities into the lead without major war. Also, in terms of notability, the topic is about this conflict. Not past conflicts. Maybe we can rewrite the history section (background) to incorporate these facts...but I doubt a consensus is obtainable solely based on how POV and opinionated the conflict is. I do agree that the date should be changed to when the war was actually initiated, not during the "escalation." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Tundra, I'm curious why you are taking this position given that it expands the opportunity for editors to describe events in Gaza prior to the commencement of Cast Lead which will certainly not put Israel in a good light. Maybe you don't care which would be great. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't nice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Really ? It's a genuine question. No offence meant. Tundra has always been very open about his POV which is a good thing in my book. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hooray, I can agree with you on the Background section being the place for the info before the primary operations. That does feel better than giving you a hard time, Wikifan.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, please checkout this diff, in which you argue the contrary position - and in the context of that article, I would have agreed with you 100%. I think we should be clear that this article covers the topics that began with Operation Cast Least. The background links copiously and provides a general overview to the articles that cover the events before Operation Cast Lead. We all know this began with the Big Bang, the question is if we ar egoing to use the hyperlinked nature of a wiki to keep articles within discrete topics, or we are going to have unproductive edit wars because we feel the justifications for one side are not sufficiently covered. I know what my vote is. Fleas have little Fleas.--Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli assault on Gaza, which began on Dec 27, is certainly a notable event. This article is about that event. I fail to see the point to this talk section. RomaC (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, please re-read, it is not the same issue. To others, if you want to call this Operation Cast Lead that is one thing. That Operation did indeed start Dec 27. No one is addressing my point here. Firstly, I don't believe that the events prior to CL "put Israel in a bad light." Israel restrained and restrained itself. Hamas was well aware when it kidnapped Shalit that Israel considered such events as tantamount to a declaration of war. See 2006 Lebanon War. They took that chance. When Israel did not immediately respond they rocketed her, putting Israel communities under seige. @Wikifan. The best way to do that is to change "started" to "escalated" "flared" or some such (as was in the lead for some time) thus demonstrating the article is going to be about the military campaign and not the 2008-2009 conflict, which began 1/1/08. There is already an article 2007 conflict, 2006, and this should be a continuation of that. When we talk about the background, we can refer to those other articles. This article is trying to frame itself around Op Cast Lead, and restrict the relevant information only to this campaign. If you are going to do that either rename the article or include the relevant issues for the whole year. I am having a really hard time understanding why this isn't sinking in. I must not be expressing myself well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring that 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict exists already and that there was consensus to merge into 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict (btw, near unanimous consensus for the merger). I hear what you are saying, but re-read what I am saying: there are other articles to which alls this information belongs, but this is not that article. In particular, ignoring 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict leaves me confused, as it is the natural place for all this information. This article covers the Gaza war, not the events before - even if we should provide a fair amount of background, as we already do. --Cerejota (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is clear consensus this article should be renamed. What we have unable to achieve is consensus on to what. You should be aware of this, as you have participated in all the straw polls around this. This is the Gaza war, and this is about the only thing the Israeli and Palestinian press agree on about this war.--Cerejota (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I heard in a report on the radio that it was called "The Gaza War" in the region. I am not there and don't speak the language so if anyone is let us know since that could be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure they are many informal references. Is there actually an official formal name for the war besides OCL for Israel and Gaza massacre for the Arab/Muslim/not Israel neighbors? Eh, that's another discussion prefer not to derail this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "Gaza War" did not start with Israel's Op Cast Lead. Maybe we can get consensus on that? You don't have "truces" unless you have violence. This article is claiming that the Gaza War started with Israeli initiation of hostilities. What exactly is the difference between earlier airstrikes and Israeli incursions and Hamas rocket strikes and killing and kidnapping of soldiers pre 12/27/08 & post? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find me a single press, non-partisan source that said so, it will go a long way in convincing me. You see, pretty much every source disagrees with this view, they all clearly make a difference between pre OCL and after OCL. Primary sources, including the IDF also speak of "began". Tundra, this goes beyond any percieved or real POV you have, and into the realm of the logical: if everyone is saying the sky is blue, insisting it is green, alone in your soapbox, won't make it green. I already pointed to several articles that cover the events leading up to Operation Cast Lead, which started this war. This is what the article covers. --Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No Cerejota, it is you who are mistaken here. All of the sources (including the IDF you linked to) say "Operation Cast Lead started", "military ops started", "Israel offensive started" etc. Not ONE of them say that the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict started on that date, as this article says. I don't care if the whole world insists the sky is blue, if it ain't, all the consensus in the world isn't gonna make it blue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop moving the goal posts and playing nomic: I already linked to the appropriate articles that cover the events between January 2008 and the begining of Operation Cast Lead: If you didn't poison the well with circular, unproductive, and ever changing "debate", this article would be named Gaza war. The overwhelming majority of the editors who want the name changed. You yourself suggest renaming as a possibility. You have been told this in this thread. Stop being unproductive.--Cerejota (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But all the consensus in the world will make it so Wikipedia says it is blue. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. The notable conflict that this article addresses began on 27th with the launch of Israel's military operation. I doubt any reader will be confused. It was of higher scale than any military sortie during the time period and we note that it is part of the ongoing general conflict. If we need to change the title we could try but I highly doubt there will be any consensus since there are a handful of valid titles other editors will push. Readability wise it is OK and the facts are fine unless you start twisting them to meet a certain argument.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Address to UN President/council

The following source is an address by a UN official to the council/president: I am curious as to the nature of this address- can we say that it reflects the UN, or just this official? And can we say that it is fact, or just opinion? I am actually asking here, I don't know and would like an answer.

Also, I disagree with the quotations used from the document. Quotations such as "on good days" and "endless haggling" are emotionally charged, and misrepresent the actual situation (since it would appear from these quotes that Israel withholds aid/supplies for no reason, not taking into account rocket attacks, etc)). It is doubtful that reliable sources have used these quotes to describe the situation, as they are ambiguous and open to interpretation (i.e. what is a good day? What constitutes endless haggling? etc)Kinetochore (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can check this Xinhua report. --Darwish (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not say that it reflects the UN's official stance. There may be some follow-up documentation I am not aware of but it is simply his report to the UN according to that cite alone. Even reliable sources use commentary some times. I see no reason not to summarize the statement without quotes if their is glaring bias in the wording or potential to unbalance the section. This may not be inline with our guidelines so hopefully another editor will no more. .
Follow-up: The other link above gives it a little more weight but I still think we should attribute it to this particular guys report. He is an important guy so we should give him credit where due. After reading the lines a little closer it looks like the paraphrasing is appropriate as is. I did just edit out where it said "UN" since the source and line were related to the previous sentence where it stated the complete diept name. It hits hard but it is being taken from the report. We could reduce the lines from the UN and IRC if we have any weight issues but i don't think that is necessary at this time.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with that. It does reflect the official stance of the UN, Mr. Holmes was appointed as an Under-Secretary General and as the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN. This was a report to the SC about what he, in that role, found. I dont think it can presented as fact, but I think it can be presented as the opinion of the UN as an institution. An comparative example would be the US Secretary of State reporting to the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. What she says to them is the position of the US government, not just her personal opinion. My 2 cents. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A report from a subordinate does not equal an official stance. He certainly can speak for his department I would think. It looks pretty clean on the page last time I checked, too. The Secretary of State scenario is slightly different but it disregards all sorts of ins n outs of setting US policy and the different branches and blah blah blah.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
He isnt a subordinate of the SC. He is reporting to the SC on behalf of the UN, as Under-Secretary General, and as the Emergency Relief Coordinator. Yes, I remember civics class and all that nonsense about separation of powers, but pretend for a second that the executive is the 'government of the US', or rather lets just use another country like the UK. If the Foreign Secretary says something to the House of Commons in a report, he is speaking on behalf of the government, and what he says is the position of the government. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, the UN isn't a bureaucracy. Comparing the typical hierarchy of a democratic republic is IMO a false analysis. After reading through the sources I do find it rather suspicious that we as editors chose the most emotional/powerful words for quotations, when there were obviously more cordial/formal tones used. The UN-secretary general has plenty of appointees with varying opinions, so it is slightly incorrect to assume every statement by x official is the opinion of the United Nations. Of course, I'm not disputing their actual opinion, they've been awarding Israel with "condemnations" for years unabated, so this totally makes sense and is not the least bit surprising. But, I think we should avoid any errors (no matter how small) in this particular situation considering how influential the UN name is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I would not be entirely opposed saying Under-Secretary General and Emergency Relief Coordinator for the United Nations said such and such as opposed to the United Nations said such and such. But when a UN spokesperson says something the UN is saying it if they are speaking in that capacity. I think this report qualifies, but I wouldnt be opposed to explicitly citing it to him as that. Nableezy (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is he an official spokesperson? the UN does have official speakers such as Chris Guinness who speak literally on behalf of x official, typically word-for-word or something similar. I doubt this person is simply an additional appendage for secretary general or whoever is representing this viewpoint. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
When an official representative of an organization or government speaks in his official capacity then he is speaking on behalf of that organization or government, but I just said I would be fine attributing it to his official position, is that fine with you? Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No he is not. He is speaking on behalf of himself and behalf on whatever committee/specific organization represents. Do you have any idea how many "official" members are in the United Nations? It definitely has a singular agenda on many subjects, but to cherry-pick a controversial statement from an individual member of the UN and basically say "this is the opinion of the United Nations", well...that is most definitely a mistake from a factual perspective. Again, if he isn't an official speaker, or isn't appointed to speak on behalf of the organization in that particular situation, any comment made by him is simply a reflection of his views and/or the views of his constituents. How far up was this guy on the food-chain? I'm willing to bet I can find an alternative view from another "official" member of the UN if given the time just to prove what I'm saying. I'm not an expert on this subject but this can't be too complicated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I didnt say 'official member' or that would include every member of the UN, I said official representative of the UN, not official representative to the UN. When that representative of the UN says something the UN is saying it. Likewise if the US ambassador to the UN says something to the UN SC, the US is saying it. Colin Powell didnt just talk about WMDs to the SC, the United States did. Nableezy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And what about 'Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN' makes it so he isnt appointed to speak on behalf of the organization, this isnt some guy in an office. He represents the UN in that capacity. And what about when I said I would be willing to cite the comments to 'the Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN' was not clear, does that not quiet your objections? Or do you want to continue arguing points I didnt make? Nableezy (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, take a look at it if you haven't had the chance in awhile. I think it meets your criteria from a few comments up. The guy was speaking on behalf of his department not the complete UN in this instance. Also, I was not about to patronize you by debating your hypothetical above so no worries. If we want to run around about general politics it will need to be archived a dozen times!Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I said I was cool with that wording, and ill stop now. I just dont like seeing my words twisted around to support an argument I did not make. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I lost that in the discussion above. I'm happy that wasn't too painful in regards to the wording in the actual article. I'll stop now too, just wanted to get the last word in.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Folks, it doesn't matter anyway, attribute it to john holmes. In the second paragraph, his statement is already attributed. So, just move the attribution above one level and it's enough. --Darwish (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done. --Darwish (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, John Holmes is the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It's a very high level position in the UN. OCHA isn't just related to the "Question of Palestine" as some editors here misleadingly have that impression, it gives humanitarian reports from all around the world including Somalia, Russia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ... and others. --Darwish (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not so much concerned with the attribution of these quotations as with the use of them in this article. As I said above, I disagree with the the use of the quotes 'on "good days"' and 'after "endless haggling"'. They are vague, confusing, and very abstract (i.e. what is a good day? What constitutes endless haggling?). They mean to the reader whatever the reader wants them to mean (i.e. a good day is when the Israeli prime minister buys a new hat, endless haggling lasts exactly 6 hours, except on wednesdays when it lasts 8). They do not add anything to the article, and their removal would actually provide the reader with a greater understanding of the situation (an understanding that is not bogged down with unclear metaphors)Kinetochore (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge others statements, we just report it. That's like when the UN said the MoH figures aren't "seriously challenged". People said "define seriously" and such weird stuff. All of those arguments does not fit here at all, and it doesn't matter. We only seek verifiability, not truth. --Darwish (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason why these particular quotes must remain in the article, Holmes is an important man, and said a lot in his report, but these quotes do nothing to enhance or improve this article (see proposed edit below)Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, It's clear that the statement means that on the best days 120 trucks pass per day, otherwise smaller numbers pass. Nothing is irregular or ambiguous about the statement. It is quoted as-is and also reported in the linked Xinhua report. And I'll say it again, it's not our job to judge notable people statements, wordings or logic. --Darwish (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You've fallen back into the loop. I would have the same issue with 'the best days' as I do with 'good days'. Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposed edit:The Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations has stated that after the end of the Israeli operation, at best, only 120 truckloads get into Gaza, instead of the normal daily requirement, including commercial traffic, of 500 trucks at minimum. It is also reported in his statement and other UN humanitarian office reports that essential items such as construction materials, water pipes, electrical wires, and transformers continue to be effectively banned, or only allowed infrequently.[207][228][221][229]

I changed "on good days" quote to "at best", and removed the "endless haggling" quote. Meaning has not been changed, and clarity has improved. Do you object to these changes? Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Folks, you are right, it's much more readable now. Thanks. --Darwish (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Internal violence consensus

New section?

Per Wikifan below: "It is my strong opinion that this occurrence needs its own section, titled "Internal violence"

Per Nableezy below: "I wouldnt object to it being in a separate section, I only disputed it did not belong in the military activity section"
Per me: "I would not object to a separate section for this that is not under casualties and not under military activity section."Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I just made a separate section, and changed some content, see below. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't have been that in sync. I beat you to the punch but screwed up my edit the first time. Victory is (kind of) mine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talkcontribs) 08:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant I changed it in the article. Nableezy (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw. Feeble attempt at humor. I'd jump into the content discussion but it sounds like you two might have it under control.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
doubtful. Nableezy (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Can we clarify who supports/opposes the current section:

Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights stated on January 31 that "it had credible reports that Hamas operatives killed six members of Fatah" and that "35 were shot in the knees or beaten." The Hamas government in Gaza endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of the rival Fatah faction during the conflict. A Hamas spokesman responded to these charges by saying "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law... if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out."


diff 1

The very original was more or less the same in terms of message and it included far less details. This is weird considering the summary argument offered by some...

Awhile back we had a discussion, here: not so productive

I personally think the current one is all right, except for this sentence: Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.[219] Grammar is rather off, we know how many have died and the wounded from the original article.

The current argument, per "consensus", was actually a response to someone totally removing the information, retitling it "other casualties", and putting it in the casualty sections without referring to talk. I didn't think a new consensus was appropriate simply because there were less than 4 people in the discussion (really 3 actually), and the particularly, dare I say "uncivil" reasoning: Your BIAS did not allowed you to see that both Cptnono and Nableezy were on different sides on this issue and they were able to form a compromise. It is your ineptness that does not allow you to see through these things. Did Israel killed those people? no. Did Israel killed the border guard? yes. was the guard Palestinian? no. should it then go into Casualties? no. Did Fatah and Hamas started their struggle this year? no. Is it useful to even mention what happens between them? no. Can we afford them a couple of lines? yes. and so we did. You are trying to make this Fatah-Hamas battle as earth shattering, like as if capable of replacing everything else that goes on between Israel and Palestine. You are the least capable person that should make a judgment call on this issue. For you won't be able to see past the dump truck in your eyes. realize this, please.

I personally could not care less about the name calling because I can empathize (I mean, I'm the one who has to live with the ineptness), but seriously...I did involve myself and attempted to be as reasonable as I could but I think a new section was necessary just so everyone gets a voice and we all understand what's going on.

It is my strong opinion that this occurrence needs its own section, titled "Internal violence" (NOT other casualties), removed out of the casualty section, and placed somewhere else. Ok, I'm extremely tired right now so my plan was doing this before I went to sleep and then responding to questions later. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah what a cheap shot(to borrow the expression). Caught me in a moment of blindness and rage. Sleep well. Cryptonio (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheap shot? Lol ok, You didn't break any rules as far as I can tell so don't worry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at how small the casualties section is, something that is covering over 1300 casualties, without discussing individual details as to where they were killed, how they died, how many suffered from WP burns, and any other number of details that could be mentioned? Have you noticed things that have gotten a thousand times more press coverage, like Zeitoun, or the schools, or any number of other events have barely anything mentioned about them in this article, that they are detailed in a separate article Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as is this in a separate article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? I wouldnt object to it being in a separate section, I only disputed it did not belong in the military activity section, but the amount of detail you are going into is ridiculous. Nableezy (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
the original gave less detail than the new one currently does. again, the content is a secondary issue, we already had a general idea (it's less than a paragraph last time I checked), but my main concern is with the sudden reversal and weird "consensus." I seriously don't want to have a repeat dispute till I know for sure this is going to be a "real" consensus, kind of wasted an easy an hour of time responding to the previous section and several days discussing the one beforehand. Point is, it's a notable happening, Hamas is (or has) killed off a significant # of fatah/palestinians who alleged-spied/collaborated with Israel during the war. This campaign has been on-going since they ceased control of Gaza, but the notable aspect is solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel. I haven't messed with the detail for more than a week since I didn't think I had to, it was already down to the bare minimum. And as I said, the current one contains more words and details. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not object to a separate section for this that is not under casualties and not under military activity section.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This: "Gaza residents say Hamas is using schools and other public buildings in Gaza City, and the towns of Khan Yunis and Rafah, as detention centers to interrogate members of Fatah. They said three men have been blinded during questioning and over 60 of them shot in the legs as punishment.[1] The Palestinian Center for Human Rights has provided supporting evidence for these claims.[2] " is less detail? I think we can take out the end of the quote right now and just leave "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law", it says the same thing as the end, but the paragraph is as it should be, accusation followed by response. Nableezy (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And I seriously dont understand why you think this is so shocking that those who commit treason are executed. If it is notable 'solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel' then it isnt notable at all. Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just made it a separate section, I also changed the first sentence from: "Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75."
to:"Hamas has been accused of executing several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel."
because the source says no such thing as the original. I also removed the end of the Hamas quote. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it shocking that Hamas is executing people suspected of collaborating with Israel? Geez. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, again I dispute the deletion/removal/allegation because Hamas ADMITS to executing Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaboration, but again my main argument has to do with the absurd switching and traveling sections that make no sense whatsoever. In the event that is taken care of, then we can move on to crafting a paragraph that we can hopefully all agree on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you not see the quote where they say they did not execute members of Fatah? Do you see anywhere in the source provided that Hamas 'publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating'. I can not see such a statement in the source. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources you probably removed from the previous versions, this is straight from the sourced article: Abbas accuses Hamas - A top aide of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, accused Hamas yesterday of killing, arresting and torturing Fatah fighters in Gaza, as well as "obstructing" efforts to reconcile the warring Palestinian political factions, by raising "new conditions." - Hamas confesses to "arresting" but doesn't specify who: Ihab Ghissin, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza, confirmed his men had arrested scores of "collaborators" with Israel during and after the war. However, he refused to say whether the detainees were members of Fatah and denied the detainees were being tortured.

Hamas admits to killing collaborators - Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, said: "Maybe some of them were were killed because they were acting against the population, against the resistance."

Hamas tortures Fatah members - One of the victims is Abdul Karim, who asked for his safety not to be identified by his complete name. The 30-year-old, who used to help run Fatah youth camps, said Hamas operatives beat him with sticks and a length of hose for two hours in a basement next to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

described how masked men with ID cards showing they were members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas armed wing, shot her brother in the legs. The family had fled the house but returned on 18 January, the first day of the Israeli ceasefire. At 8pm several gunmen appeared at the gate asking for her brother, a 36-year-old Fatah military intelligence officer who had not been working since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007. He was then shot in the right leg and again in the left. "They were holding us back and we were watching him bleeding," she said. The victim is now in a Cairo hospital after two operations on his legs. If you are disputing whether Hamas actually killed Fatah members, you are sadly mistaken. Hamas has admitted to arresting and "killing" collaborators, most of whom were clearly Fatah-related. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Nableezy disputes it personally, if an up to date well verified source does it should at the very least say that Hamas denies it. (This time I'm really going to bed. Good luck gentlemen)Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that says Hamas has publicly executed members of Fatah in this conflict? One that does not say so and so said Hamas did this? Maybe I should go over to the 'sourced article' and see if there is anything in there that is presented inaccurately as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we can safely say that it is at least alleged: "In the West Bank, Fatah officials said at least 19 of its members have been executed and many more brutally tortured." (bolding for ease of reading and not mean emphasis)Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been reported by mainstream media that Hamas has executed Fatah members and Fatah supporters. Whether Hamas had admitted it killing Fatah members specifically is at this point entirely irrelevant IMO. I'm gonna go check out the section, I'll add suggestions in a sec. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking good. Just rephrased some sentences and fixed a few statements, one said 40-60 Palestinians were executed when only 19 members of Fatah have been reported in addition to 35 Palestinian. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the Main article for this section is Title 2009 Hamas Reprisal Attacks. We should either change the main article to Internal Violence in Gaza or change the section in this article to Reprisal Attacks(in gaza). Cryptonio (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Waaay too much detail, we dont need to know some had their hands broken. There is no way this should have more detail than the casualties section. The former member of Btselem line is also not needed, that is just counted as some of the other non-Fatah Palestinians executed. And the last Hamas quote is not needed, restoring old, but keeping "Fatah officials in Ramallah reported Hamas of executing at least 19 party members and more than 35 Palestinians". Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that much detail. It's less than a paragraph, I don't see how mentioning a secondary quotation and a former member of an Israeli-based charity being executed is over-doing it. Readded till consensus is made. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The charity worker was sentenced to death 6 years ago, or did you not read the article? Will remove again. We are not going into individual details on the other casualties, why should we here. Nableezy (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And again, the new paragraph crafted by you or who else mis-attributed several facts from the sources. I found another source from the Reprisal article and used it to support the accused/reported executions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go into this type of detail then you should also want to go into this kind of detail on the 1300+ Palestinian casualties that Hamas did not kill. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh? this has nothing to do with the overall casualties, this has to do with the internal violence section and I am honestly uncomfortable with your constant need to bring it up as if it has any relevance. We might as well delete the rest of the sections and bold the entire article with "1300 palestinians killed." : ) I kid, but seriously, let's stay on task here. First, even with my addition the "details" included fall well below the other sections, such as reaction, timeline, previous conflict, etc. Second, this is beyond "other casualties", in fact even if nobody was killed it still wouldn't matter. We need to look beyond dead bodies and focus on the acts themselves, that is where the relevance exists. It is true the charity worker was sentenced 6 years ago, but he was executed for collaborating with Israel in this specific incident. the charity ranks among AI, and works with the UN, so the notability is right there. I'm not going to re-add them cause I know it will turn into an edit war which I'll most likely lose, so I urge you to consider these facts so we can avoid a week-long discussion that will probably lead to more frustration for both of us. I agree that the broke hands thing should go, but the 2-3 sentences added aren't a lot of details to justify a deletion. The version I edited was less than 7 sentences. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The specific incident he was executed for took place Nov. 22nd 2000. He was not executed for collaborating with Israel in relation to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is also a 5 page Amnesty International Report on this. Surely it deserves a place here. Here's a CNN report on it: [3] & here is the report itself from AI entitled Palestinian Authority: Hamas’ deadly campaign in the shadow of the war in Gaza]. This is all part of the war. It belongs here in some detail. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If you guys want to expand this further then the casualties section will likewise be expanded to include every single report from AI, from HRW from whoever. We will talk about percentage suffering major burns, and all sorts of details that we can find and source. Keep walking down this road, if you want to cover this with a microscope the casualties section will be dealt with in the same manner. I am cool with an AI quote in the section from that report. Nableezy (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Get real, 10% of the sources already are AI, HRW, UN, etc and up til now my guess is that 99% of that 10% was pointing fingers at Israel. That's alright then. So you will insist on including every single report that damns Israel if we use one that damns Hamas? Not exactly my idea at working toward consensus. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I get the point. Essentially, if we are going to go into each individuals detail in the reprisals there is no reason not to with the casualties. To me that is the worst idea ever so how about we figure out what general info is needed and from there we can find the sources to edit or maybe even leave it. The way I see it::::
  • Hamas imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed both collaborators and members of Fatah.
  • Hamas has something to say about it (basically they don't feel bad since traitors get what's coming but have specifically denied targeting Fatah)
Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to do that with the casualties, i spent a decent amount of time chopping it down with you and Betacrucis. But this insistnce we highlight these actions that have received exponentially less attention than the casualties with such detail is ridiculous. And the way you see it is pretty much how it is in the article right now. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why Nableezy? Unlike the war, wiki isn't a tit-for-tat game. We're trying to compromise here but you seem infatuated with this whole casualty thing (which is perfectly fine I have no argument with that), but it's conflicting with my and apparently Tundra's reasonable suggestions. again, it's only 7 sentences. And again, casualties aren't the important part. Not sure if this matters, but there has been suggestions that Fatah was planning to over-take Hamas in Gaza following the war and Hamas' execution/bullying could simply be a tactic to prevent that. It's hard to determine if all these people were executed for spying, or even if they were actual Fatah members. It's basically a he-said-she-said deal, and like the casualty figures, extremely difficult to calculate without error. Back to my point, these aren't a significant amount of details considering the notability of the event. It is my preference that we expand on the section or merge the reprisal attacks article into this section, but reducing it to 4 sentences is IMO very lame. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In regards to Nableezy's statement, I swear I will jump off my roof if we have to move this section again so toying with it in the casualties section is not at all what I want. I don't mind the section as is. If Wikifan wants to throw some stuff in here I hope it meets one of those two bullets since that is really what is important to THIS article. On a side note I have no problem with the specific article having tons of data that makes Hamas sad (bad wiki form but a laughy face should go here)Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I didnt mean moving this back to the casualties, I am fine with a separate section. I meant I dont want to make that a monstrosity of a section it would be if we go into that type of detail. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It isnt about tit-for-tat, but if you want the detail of this section, which has not been given anywhere near the weight the casualties have in the world press, to be so expansive you should also want the casualties section to be covered in such depth. Such a position would be called being consistent in your interpretation of policies. And if you demand that this section be covered so in depth, then the casualties section will be treated the same. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You know I'll have no problem getting banned for edit warring either of you for putting in too many events (well a little sad about it maybe). Keep the events in the specific article and make this summary good enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
[EC]That sounds exactly like tit-for-tat. There is already a huge section of "Incidents" (or was last I looked). "Such depth" is not exactly how I would describe half a dozen sentences in this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Look again, they have been moved out to Incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The casualty section is over 6 paragraphs long while the internal violence is less than one, even with the few "details" added. You're overstating the controversy of these details Nab. I couldn't care less about the casualty section, I'm totally ignorant regarding the specifics aside from the general opinion of Hamas and Israel. Feel free to make a section and I'll gladly lend my support if it is needed, assuming the details are reasonable and aren't particularly POV. Frick I hate edit conflicts, 3rd time already. Am I just a slow typer lol? Cptnono I'm not editing war, in fact I encouraged Nableezy to hold off on the editing before consensus because that's what started this mess to begin with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on the Palestinian casualties is narrowly focused on each sides numbers. That is it. Nothing else is in there, nothing about WP burns, nothing about how many had their heads blown off by a dime weapon, nothing of the sort. The detail in the casualties section is at a minimum, both to avoid any 'POV-pushing' and also to try to keep the article at a manageable size. That is how all such sections should be. There were more stories just on the Zeitoun attack than there are on this, that isnt even mentioned here, it is in the timeline article. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything specifically POV about the inclusions? Is a secondary quote from Hamas truly overkill? I think you're making this more of a deal than it needs to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
For a reference, here is a diff of the two versions: [4]. "At least 75 were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken" is unnecessary detail, which I think you agreed was not necessary earlier. The last quote is not POV, it just is not needed at all. Unnecessary detail. Such detail is not needed, put it in the main article if you want that quote so much. We dont need multiple quotes answering the accusations, one is sufficient. And I think I am making as big a deal of it as you are. Nableezy (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And I think I demonstrated why the Btselem worker info is not needed here as well from this edit. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan: As I asked Nableezy once I'm asking you: Are you arguing just to argue? I honestly don't think you are. I think you hate the injustice that was done to the members of Fatah and perceived collaborators like I do. Go ahead and balance the section out. Make sure that it states that people think Hamas fucked up. While doing that other editors are going to put in what sources they find that are counter argument. Go along with the process and while doing it please go into further detail in the appropriate article. This article has to be summaries in certain sections since every subsection is so long. It is what we have to do to make a readable article.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The only difference in 'balance' between the two is the part Wikifan agreed wasnt necessary, the shot in the legs part, the part I said was irrelevant, somebody being executed after being convicted 6 yrs ago for an act 8+ yrs ago, and the extra quote. This comes down to the former Btselem worker being dealt with individually when it isnt even related, and the extra Hamas quote saying it is Fatah propaganda. If you both feel the extra Hamas quote adds anything at all to the article go ahead and put it in, I wont take it out. But the Btselem worker bit is wholly irrelevant, and the way people were hurt is way too detailed. Those two things do not belong in the section. Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on the charity worker issue per reasoning above, but also the description of wounded. Hamas systematically shot Fatah/opposition/whatever in the legs and obviously tortured a few others. They weren't simply "woundeD" as a result of attack, their pain was intentional and precise. That needs to be clarified, "wounded" is much to vague and a simple half-sentence will (or has) clarified the difference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I like "tortured" or "assaulted" but that may be a concern and if we say specifics it is not inline witht he article. I'm happy to see what Wikifan wants to come up with but worse comes to worse I'll look up some sources tommorow (off to game and drink too much right now) and see if there are up to date and relevent sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me how somebody who was convicted by PA judges six years ago when Fatah controlled the PA for collaborating in the deaths of 4 Fatah members by the IDF, now being executed has anything at all to do with this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I will wonder later why would I even bother engaging you in an intelligent manner. But you must explain this.
"but the notable aspect is solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel." wikifan
How does that relation contributes to the article at all? Is there any ulterior reason besides the fact that they were targeted because they "sided" with Israel? Are you saying that their 'democratic rights' were taken away? their liberty to side with Israel?
Wikifan, i know very well why i took the high road(rogue way) with you. you embolden yourself with your opinions in a way that describes you as blind. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That you think you are hot stuff, is your right, but that someone does not soften the landing for you is also your fault. Why is it that, when Israel comes in contact with the rest of the world, differences is the only topic? Cryptonio (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You are an hypocrite, a condescending charlatan. Not once in here have you shown ANY remorse for the innocent civilians dead at the hands of Israeli soldiers. Not once have you come out of your shell to even question one single motive, that per Israel reasoning, puts the fault in their own hands. Not once have stood up for anything on the other side. Have you suffered? Well many also have suffered by the hands of Israelis. You are a scum. I pity the womb that carried you. Now, all of the sudden Hamas kills Palestinians who 'sided' with Israel(what did Israel showed to them?, the Torah? the light? did Israel wiped them clean off their sins???? ) and your hogh ideals and morals come trumping trough. I pity the weak hands that someday will carry your casket. Have you send money to those Palestinians' families? Have you even prayed for them? Cryptonio (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you strike the personal attacks. He doesnt have to show any remorse, whatever he thinks is up to him. This is not the place for this. Nableezy (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, chill out guys. According to this jpost article here, proxy error though, guessing site is overloaded so just wait a few hours he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel. I already know about the previous conviction, but he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel? Here, I'll say it again just so we all understand and Nableezy doesn't confuse himself: Haidar Ghanem, a Palestinian journalist who was a former employee for the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, was accused of "collaborating with Israel" during Operation Cast Lead and was executed by Hamas on January 7. Comprende? Again, I could live without the charity person if you guys care that much, but everything else looks fine. The wounded elaboration, sentence improvement, and second quote by Hamas (which is far more verifying than the current one IMO). Cryptonic as much as I find your analysis amusing, please hold off on the judgments. I've provided mountains of evidence for my rationale and suggestions, responding (and repeating again and again), so don't twist this into some juvenile "wikifan hears no evil, sees no evil" (like seriously, wtf?) personal angst. I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can, I truly am, but I don't understand what you guys actually have a problem with. What is wrong, specifically, with my version? It's only a sentence or 2 longer, provides clarity (which I justified quite bluntly), and no where near the "explosive unmerited details" as accused by Nableezy for the past day. So, in clear, civil terms, what...and I mean quote the paragraph in its specific form, is wrong. bold it, italicize it, whatever...just so we don't continue this rather tearful argument. ; ) I simply want a solution here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, please refer to wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda/opinions/blah. Ok, thanks. lol. I'm actually laughing right now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Like seriously, don't question something as juvenile, when you say things like WTF. Like, seriously. Paris Hilton clone. Cryptonio (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, you would also be wise to follow your own advice. And yes he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel. What you dont seem to understand is that the collaboration that he was executed for took place 8 years prior to the start of Operation Cast Lead, and was found guilty of collaboration 6 years prior to the start of Operation Cast Lead. And that the collaboration was in relation to the killing of Fatah members. Unless this article is about the death penalty in Gaza, this is not related at all to the topic of this article. Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And nowhere in that source does it say he was accused of "collaborating with Israel" during Operation Cast Lead. Nowhere, stop making shit up. Nableezy (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What it says is: 'was among dozens of suspected "collaborators" who were executed by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.' Bit of a difference. Nobody is disputing that the day he was executed was in OpCastLead. But he was not executed for collaboration that occurred during Cast Lead. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm washing my hands off this. Cryptonio (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


"Fatah officials in Ramallah claimed that many of the alleged collaborators were in fact Fatah members who had been rounded up by Hamas militiamen during the war. They said that Ghanem was executed on January 7 in Rafah." It is easy to conclude that Hamas might have executed Ghanam as a result of this war. I'm just going by what the article says. why would Hamas execute someone who killed members of Fatah? That's an OR question and certainly doesn't apply, but opinions seem to fly back and forth at me without address, and it's quite unsettling. Again, I said the charity worker is secondary to my original claims. you truly are making this more of a deal then it needs to be, we're talking 2-3 more sentences (the original) that clarify the wounded and include another quote by Hamas, or we can delete the previous and use the new one which IMO is far more descriptive of Hamas' attitude. Second, you say "I'm making shit up", well you incorrectly paraphrases/cited the casualty # in the section and didn't explicitly state who were behind the reports (original said Israel/Fatah sources, extremely vague and Israel's opinion isn't even in the article, Fatah is the one complaining while Hamas practically lols at Abbas' face...more or less). I hope you see where I'm coming from. You guys are getting way too emotional from my perspective so take a deep breath mmmkay? Try to remain civil please thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, that wasnt my sentence. And I kept your sentence on the numbers. Second, it may be easy for you to conclude that, but you would be wrong. Do some actual digging and you will find he was convicted 6 yrs ago for a crime that toook place 8 yrs ago, and under pressure from journalist groups Arafat then Abbas did not carry out his sentence. Hamas did, not for anything that took place during this campaign, but for what happened 8 yrs ago. So again, stop making shit up. The source you are using does not say he was collaborating during Cast Lead, it says he was convicted of collaborating 6 yrs ago for collaborating in the deaths of 4 Fatah members and that was what he was executed for. Nableezy (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it wasn't your sentence, it was the sentence from the article. You kept the sentence on the numbers only after I edited your rewrite. Before your editing the previous version contained more precise casualty/wounded listings. Your edit didn't even connect with the source. I'm not making "shit up", I was simply going by what the source says. They published the event in the same article that highlighted the Hamas-reprisal, it was a reasonable conclusion. this isn't OR or POV-pushing, and your accusation of "making shit up" is a blatant Wikipedia:afg violation. But again I will repeat, the charity worker is secondary to my original claims, which you have yet to respond to. I bolded it so there is no confusion. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
like i told you before, agf is not everlasting, if somebody consistently acts in a bad faith manner that assumption flies out the window. but back to the point, anything where you say 'it was a reasonable conclusion' is by definition OR. You are concluding something that is not in the source, which is what OR is. To your other 'points', you earlier said the hands and knees shot was not needed, why is it now, what made you change your mind? We dont cover the type of injuries for the 5000+ injured and 1300+ dead why should we here? And last, none of this paragraph was mine, you still dont understand that, I took this from somebody elses rewrite assuming it was consistent with the original. Last, the extra quote. What point does it server? What does it say that isnt already said? Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Have I acted in bad faith here? Have I accused others of "making shit up"? No, I have not. You cannot continue to bring up the past whilst I do not, though it would be reasonable for me to if this is how the game is being played. It was not OR, I simply quoted what the article said. Did I include my own words? Did I make it up myself? No, I sourced it, stamped it, whatever. But, as I said, SECONDARY claim. You have any idea how much crap has been pumped into this article without such hostile response(s)? Every day there is some guy who adds in a little detail that is clear OR, without a single complaint. I know you don't like me Nab, it's all good...but I'm trying to make this about the article, not personal angst. The secondary quote is more descriptive and clearly necessary. It's not repetive, it doesn't promote a POV, it is simply a factual statement and is Hamas' response to the direct, and is far less vague than: "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law." The secondary quote was far more direct and clear. I also like how the current statements cut off the "if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out." Weird. The quote I inserted is right above in the previous post or one before. Who is this somebody else? Someone rewrote it, I personally didn't care, I simply pointed out and corrected the inaccuracies and included verifiable information that doesn't warrant such aggression. The hands I edited, the knees are important because it was systematic. They weren't casualties of war, so your example of 1300+, 5000+ wounded is totally irrelevant and I truly am bothered why you continue to bring it up as if it is relevance? Am I supposed to feel guilty?? I stated why it was necessary to mention the knee shooting, Hamas went into homes and shot suspects in the knees and tortured them. "Wounded" is not an appropriate reflection, especially when there are dozens of sources to verify my above statements. I've said err...3 times from my count. Feel free to ask again, those this time I might copy/paste cause I'm truly getting tired and am nearing the part where one shouldn't have to agf. But, I believe this whole discussion might be the result of confusion, which is why I'm continuing it. Thanks for your quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

When you repeatedly say the btselem worker was executed for collaboration that occurred during cast lead you are indeed making shit up, both because it is not in the source and because it just is not true. I have no idea who originally edited that section into the casualties section, but it wasnt me so when you keep saying that i removed this and that and other nonsense, you are again making shit up. And regardless how you feel about the systemic nature of the wounds, they are wounds that are being given greater weight than the burns caused by the systemic usage of white phosphorous, or the severed limbs caused by the systemic use of dime weapons, and so on and so on. And thus unnecessary detail, just as it is unnecessary detail in the casualties section. I bring that up because it goes to issues of weight. Those casualties have gotten thousands of times more press coverage (what partly determines weight) but are not discussed in any where near the depth that you want to here. What dont you understand about that? Nableezy (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not making shit up, that's what the source says. He collaborated with Israel and was executed during the raids. The "during OCL" was solely based on the context of the article, I didn't bother looking up his rap sheet. I didn't make "shit up", in the worst case it could be considered I sourced something wrong (such as what you did), but nothing was "made up." I didn't pull it out of thin air. Those kinds of statements are extremely extremely extremely inflammatory and it seems you standby them, fair enough. As far as I know you were the one who totally deleted the Internal violence section, moved it to other casualties, and erased 90% of the info along with their sources. If not, you appeared to be indifferent/critical when I brought it up. IDF did not systematically attack x people with bullet holes to the knees to create fear in suspected-collaborators. It is not UNDUE weight, it is a fact. Wounded is simply inaccurate, they weren't wounded. They were shot in the knees one-by-one, sanctioned by Hamas' internal security and no prejudice was taken. It was a policy developed specifically to tackle these dissidents, they weren't casualties of war. From what I understand IDF did not sanction policies to attack civilians intentionally, that may be your opinion but a consensus has yet to be reached. And by the way, the article has paragraphs of information regarding white phosphorous and illustrative pictures of injured civilians. You're claim of undue weight compared to the mountains of detailed info truly is a wonder in my eyes. Clearly you are more concerned about unrelated casualties not receiving the amount of attention you believe they deserve, than this actual issue. If that is the case, I urge you to make a section and file your complaint there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as I helped bring the casualties section down to its current state. And yes, you made up that the man was killed because of collaboration that occurred during cast lead, your source does not say it, and it is not possible that it is missourced because it is just not true. And yes there are images of wp shells and wounded, not one of somebody wounded by wp, and the number of people who have suffered burns from wp is also not covered. You dont seem to understand this, so aint even a point in trying to explain it. Nableezy (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
After googling it I found many good sources that actually use descriptions and terminology I was initially not sure about. Highlights include the following:
  • The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Independent Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and a senior EU official were critical of reprisal attacks on Gazans. Details of findings very between the groups.
  • Allegations included abductions, extrajudicial killings, torture, unlawful detentions, and threats.
  • Targets included those accused of collaborating with Israel, members of Fatah, opponents and critics.
  • A Fatah spokesman said that 14 Fatah members in Gaza were killed and that more than 160 were shot or beaten.
  • Hamas was criticized for either doing the attacks or not stopping the attacks depending on the source.
  • Hamas has denied any involvement by members of its security services but acknowledges that Hamas fighters targeted suspected informers for Israel.
  • "The government distinguishes between any violation of the law and actions taken by the resistance to protect itself from the danger of spies during wartime," / "The government confirms that it will show no mercy for collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be judged under the law."
There are tons of other details but I think the above are the most important. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Like how my responses get larger while yours seem to shrink, interesting. Glad you lost good faith and clearly didn't understand my post as I proved WHY I didn't "make shit up." Though it is probably concerning for someone to say such a thing and then realize it wasn't true. Either way, I've provided enough factual information to back up what I say and your undue weight claim defines moot. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yours get longer because you need to make more shit up to back up the original shit you made up. What you said was wrong and not sourced, you made it up. Get it through your head, you are wrong. My posts get shorter because I dont want to have to rationalize for the irrational. Like this one. Nableezy (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you fine with how the section is after your latest edit? You see I just cleaned it up, did not remove anything. Nableezy (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Cpt, I like your points and most of the sources in the reprisal attack article will verify them. I do hope in the future we will be able to put more info on the reprisal attacks section, but for now I think this is good enough. Feel free to edit in whatever, but you can deal with the resistance LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Warms my heart. I am also fine with it as this edit, though I would rather not have the shot in the knees part as I think it is unnecessary detail, I am willing to leave it be. Nableezy (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't mess with anything beyond my latest edit. The knee quote is from PCHR and I think it was there before our discussion though I'm not sure. The other knee quote was more descriptive if I recall...I can't remember I'll go look at the diffs. Glad we could compromise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you guys have a compromise which is almost consensus. I wanted to throw this paragraph in to see if it was better. It is longer than I originally intended but hits what looks notable while still being a summary..

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Independent Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and a senior EU official were critical of reprisal attacks on civilians in Gaza during the conflict. Allegations through different reports included abductions, extrajudicial killings, torture, and unlawful detentions. Targets included those accused of collaborating with Israel, opponents, and critics. A Fatah spokesman said that 14 members of the party in Gaza were killed and that more than 160 were shot or beaten. Hamas has denied any involvement by members of its security services but acknowledges that their fighters targeted suspected informers for Israel. A Hamas spokesperson said that the internal security service "was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard." Hamas also said that "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law." Cptnono (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the current version has gone through several drafts and your summary is heavily edited, your inclusion of ICHR and AI are concerning since their criticisms have varied specifically, simply saying all are "critical of reprisal..." is in clearer words cheap considering the wealth of info and sourced available to summarize. Also, your stats are wrong, 19 party members have been killed, not 14, in addition to ~35 more Palestinians according to PCHR. Some people have suggest executions go up into the 100s, and PCHR's relative silence regarding the issue sparked the debate. But at this point we don't have enough verifiable sources to qualify and even if they did it would be a long casualty debate regarding notability blah blah etc. Also, I don't know where you got 160. Please review the discussion above, and previous discussions linked, in addition to previous drafts and most importantly the most recent paragraph before offering entire replacements. I personally think we should leave it alone, there is nothing wrong with it, nothing is POV, and no rules are being violated. Unless there is some truly spectacular addition or new information is available that qualifies, I would encourage it. For now we should keep it to grammar only but that's my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No need to debate it and I did read many sources and the discussion above. I am not terribly attached to it but wanted to see if it was preferred. I'll throw up the sources if you would like for use in the other article. The ICHR and AI wording was a pain since they vary on what actually happened and at what levels but it might work well in a format where it can be explained better.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with you here but many users are insistence on summarizing to the dot, meaning you'll have to fight for every word to get put in. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)