Talk:Gaza War/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 30

Isn´t it a battle?

I think there is a UN definition what a battle is. Isn´t it a battle rather than a conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the event is most accurately an invasion, like Invasion of Grenada. The title has never been right in my opinion. RomaC (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What about "assault"? "military aggression"? "attack"? To answer this question, transpose to any country other than Israel. Imagine that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, after occupying Kuwait unhindered for forty years, with full U.S. approval, suddenly attacks Kuwait and starts killing Kuwaitis at a 100-to-1 ratio. Would we call it a "conflict"? a "lovefest"? a "liberation"? What? I think we would call it "military aggression". Well, why should Israel be treated differently? If we find that we are treating Israel differently and deliberately using the most euphemistic words we can find to sugarcoat the actions of the aggressor, then that tells us that we are suffering from some sort of systemic political bias. NonZionist (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you think the term "conflict" automatically means the same positive thing as "lovefest". A conflict is a conflict. It is used in dozens upon dozens of wikipedia pages, including our parent article: Gaza–Israel conflict. This is not a matter of pro-Jewish bias on Wikipedia; that's a ludicrous claim. Look at articles like Georgian–Abkhazian conflict-- "conflict" is used in many different places. The Squicks (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I will help you understand. Confining oneself to an overly-generic and literally-misleading terms when many other descriptions are available is questionable. It's not about convincing anyone that the conflict term is technically valid, or that it doesn't have implications as to the morality or correctness of the act (because the same would be said about all the terms this user proposes), but rather about questioning why things usually so straightforward are out of the sudden not as straightforward as they usually are, which is the super simple point that he is making, that you failed to recognize. Adhering to the conflict term in the other articles regarding this issue is no coincidence, since it's nearly the only term that both is valid and meets some hidden criteria. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If the intention of the Israelis was to be taken into consideration, the "conflict" would then be called a genocide because the Israeli's goal is the extermination of members of the political group (Hamas) killing them where ever they are along with their families even in their homes. However, more than half of the victims are civilians as Israelis are targeting civilian residence even though they claim that that is not their intention, but still the term genocide would apply here as well. BUT since Israel is a "democracy", not a communist country nor a theocracy or monarchy, people will argue that this genocide is not really genocide, it is simply a conflict. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Israel's aim is limited to targeting Hamas. In its early years, Hamas was subsidized by Israel -- and was seen by Israel as a way to split Palestinians away from the secular and more respectable PLO -- so Israel's current demonization of Hamas is just propaganda. John J. Mearsheimer, writing in The American Conservative, demonstrates that Israel is once again targeting the entire people:

Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s conduct of the Gaza War. .... A senior Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, explained the logic behind Israel’s expansive target set: “There are many aspects of Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel.” In other words, everyone is a terrorist and everything is a legitimate target[1].

NonZionist (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
100,000 innocent civilians died at the hands of Mother Russia in the First Chechen War (they only lost 5,732 soliders). Does that make it a genocide? No. We don't call it a genocide because we can't put the G7 POV over the Russian government POV. It's the same pattern you can see throughtout Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • sigh* And there we go again with that "NonZionist" propaganda. Seriously, this isn't even funny. He's doing more trolling than actual contribution. Can't something be done about it?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he's trying to be "funny" quoting Mearsheimer or arguing that a demonization of Hamas has affected our perception on the event ergo our name for it. Is this supposed to be funny? Anyway, Nomaed, a "sigh" and an accusation is not much of a contribution either. RomaC (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorus munitions

The white phosphorus munitions (banned munitions) section is worded in a way that could mislead readers. "used against Palestinians", "refugee camps", etc. As stated in the section, use of the munition is not banned in all cases. Should it read more like:

"It is alleged that Israel used white phosphorus munitions to make smoke screens. Blah blah Something regarding all of the evidence, and then something regarding the potentially harmful results/why it is a concern under international law blah blah."Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I really like your exact wording e.g. "Blah blah Something regarding...". If we were allowed to use wording like that it would be so much easier to write articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The allegations are not that they have been using it as a smokescreen, the allegations are that they have used it as a weapon 'against the Palestinians'. Nableezy (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a smokescreen and a weapon! RomaC (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't be rude. Just throwing it out there. I'd rewrite it my way right now but it would get reverted so I thought a discussion would be appropriate. Or how about I write it exactly as I want so we can debate whether an individual word should be left in or out. Watch your tone in discussions because you are coming across like a blaherCptnono (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)(that was supposed to be funny not mean)
Follow-up: Human Rights Watch is one of the most inflammatory of and they even say it was used as a smoke screen. Changed it a little. Feel free to edit as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono, not sure who your "Don't be rude" was addressed at but just in case it was me, I wasn't being rude. It was a compliment. I genuinely did like your temporary phrasing. It's funny and a good way to work towards consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Argh! Sean.holyland: I just told a friend two days ago to not read emails in a cynical tone then I did it! Reread it (with a sarcastic voice in your head) and it comes across mean. Thanks for clarifying.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with the wording, from the Reuters report on statement of AI allegations WP is intended to be used as a smokescreen:
"White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it should never be used on civilian areas," he said. (Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team)
But their accusation specifically says weapon:
"Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate," Donatella Rovera, a Middle East researcher with Amnesty International, said in a statement.
Based on that I should think the accusation should not be worded as accusing them as using it as a smokescreen, everybody acknowledges they have used it in that manner, the question that is being raised is if they have used it as a weapon. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It is used as a smokescreen according to most sources. The use as a weapon (falling and burning embers of death) by few (if any) news sources is speculation. Interpretation of the event has no place in a neutral article. It becomes more of a problem when an article is related to an event as contentious as this one. State the facts as laid out by the most reputable sources and let it play out. This page will be updated accordingly.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: "Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate," with a cite should be added it just shouldn't overweight the section or article.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is speculation, but not on the sources, it is speculation on the part of those making the charges, here AI. I think we should accurately report what they are charging with a explicit reference to them as their accusation. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should say something along the lines of this. Israel has said they have used WP as a smoke screen in accordance with international law (whoever said whatever), AI has accused Israel of using it as a weapon in civilian areas (evidence according to who), something regarding the potentially harmful results/why it is a concern under international law blah blah. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good call. If a reputable news source is reporting viable speculation it isn't our interpretation so it shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't hurt my feelings as long as we don't turn it into the primary focus of the section or give it more credit than it deserves.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reporting the use of WP (Hypnosadist) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC) And this story (Hypnosadist) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to make it clear in the article that, even if this is 100% illegal under law and 100% immoral regardless, Israel did not sign the international agreements and- thus- there's no grounds for a criminal prosecution of Israel. The Squicks (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The NY Times has an article with some more specifics about the Israeli investigation: "Haaretz reported that the military was 'investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza. The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza,' the Haaretz report said. 'Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army’s view, in compliance with international law.'"[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Squicks, that is your opinion. Now I do not know your experience in the field of international law, but there are those who deal with human rights (btselem and AI) that say that Israel is obligated under other treaties that it is a party to that ban the use of weapons that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants. That you think there is no grounds for prosecution is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That last sentence may have come across as slightly dickish. So I qualify that your thinking that there is no grounds for prosecution is irrelevant as far as including that information in the article. Nableezy (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If a source states that Israel can be prosecuted it might be a valid addition. Until then it is our interpretation.Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a videoclip that shows that the israelis are use white phosphorus against sivilian in Gaza [2].--Ezzex (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Start of conflict

Since nobody disputes the increase in shelling starting with the end of the "truce," nor that Cast Lead was an immediate response to it, the date of the start of the conflict is most accurately correlated to the beginning of the increase in histilities with the lapse of the truce. I have indicated this in the summary. Any objections? In addition, there is a comment in the summary that it should stick to name/date/parties/location. The explanation (opinion?) about the Gaza Massacre seems lengthy and out of place. It deserves its own heading. I have not deleted it, but I have commented it (hidden), pending a move. Again, any objection? RomaC is concerned about this, but states no specific issue.Dovid (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dovid, please check with the archives and the ongoing lead discussions this has been discussed by several dozen editors, the current lead results from a rough consensus this is all there in the archives. I am concerned about some of your other edits today, this article is about an ongoing and controversial event, unsourced edits declaring something a "non-issue" for example are not constructive. Nor are blogs reliable sources. Thank you. RomaC (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Your position on blogs is out of date. That guideline is no longer active. As to summary, the archives are too extensive to follow completely. If you want, please cite the specific section and archive page, I can then decide to either follow the existing consensus, re-open discussion, or decide that you are pulling my leg. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you want to start a new discussion, since I'm concerned that overzealousness in editing here might come from POV. Remember, undo's are supposed to be taken with great caution. Dovid (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, blogs wont do here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources And your 'summary' is really commentary on the below paragraphs. Nableezy (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dovid. Any moving or removing of the name of the "Gaza Massacre" will be summarily removed by pro-Palestinian editors as "violating consensus" with an demand to discuss it on the talk page. There are now numerous archives of the talk pages and particularly on the issue of the so-called "name" ie "Gaza Massacre" and its position in the lead. It is explained to us who object, that it is a name comparable to Israel calling it "Operation Cast Lead" and thus deserves to be "balanced" in the lead. It has been taken to the "No Original Research Noticeboard" as well, and has been talked about and reverted innumerable times. I do not believe that there is a consensus for it in the lead, except that those who object simply got tired of fighting and said: "What the hell..." as they were being personally attacked, warnings put on their page, reported for edit warring etc. There are many here who do agree however, but it seems to be quixotic tilting at windmills to continue to argue it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I propose moving it somewhere reasonable. Let both names be moved into a background section. SOmething that is the subject of controersy does not belong as the lead-in. If there are many who believe the nomenclature must be in the article, that doesn't mean it should jump to the top. Takers? Dovid (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Every single conflict or war has the name of both parties in the first paragraph in all of the A/I articles. Many even have multiple names in a given language. So no, I don't think it would be appropriate to move the names further down. That is one of the most basic things about the article, and as such should stay in the first paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You see what I mean. Some of the editors here insist that Gaza Massacre is the name of the conflict in the Arab world, despite what others of us see as a case of WP:OR based on their references, which almost invariably refer to "a massacre" or "the massacre in Gaza." But the pro-Arab perspective is that because there are no "capital letters" in Arabic, (or apparently any other way to determine what we in English refer to as a 'proper noun') that we must give the benefit of the doubt to the perspective that it is a name, despite English references not supporting it when they quote Arab speakers themselves. And as another editor here has pointed out, much of the non-Arab world sees the whole conflict as part of the International War on Terror, especially with bin Laden recently calling for Jihad over just this issue. This perspective keeps getting reverted out of the lede as well, giving a false appearance of 'stability' or consensus. In fact some editors here seem to think this article is non-controversial, can you believe it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I really cannot believe you are making me do this again but here goes, and this is all directly taken from the archives:
There are a plethora of sources that give these names, both english sources that translate statements from Hamas and other arabs (eg SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [3]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [4]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [5]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [6]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
Is anything unclear? Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And I can not believe that I did not make myself clear in the past, but it is clear that you do not have as good a grasp of English as you need to, apparently, to understand the difference in English between proper nouns and common nouns. I do urge you to read it. Please note that in English a proper noun (also known as a proper name) is capitalized, and yet even you in your quotations do not capitalize "massacre," only Gaza since Gaza is indeed the name of a place. The way Gaza is being used here is to describe "massacre" in terms of its location, (eg "the massacre in Gaza") see Adjective#Other_noun_modifiers. If the references you provided had intended to convey the idea that The Gaza Massacre was what was meant by Arab speakers, the word Massacre would have been capitalized. Now I realise that English may not be your first language or even your best subject in school, but those are the facts of the English language. If you still have questions about this please bring them up on my talk page, as I do not want to clog up this page with repetitious lessons in grammar. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A proper noun: name of a specific indivdual, place, or object; usually capitalized. Now you can start arguing about the capitalization, but your previous post, no matter how you attempt to mangle the English language that you think yourself a master of, did not focus on the capitalization of Massacre, it focused on the references 'which almost invariably refer to "a massacre" or "the massacre in Gaza."' If you want to bring up the capitalization of Massacre feel free, but do not insult me or my grasp of the English language because you forgot what you wrote. There are methods of determining whether a name is a proper noun in Arabic, and capitalization is not required in a proper noun. I have not argued that it should be capitalized because there are no capital letters in Arabic, my argument that it should be capitalized is because it would be odd to assert that this is the name used, as a proper noun, and not capitalize it. I have been clear in my position on this, I have even expressed a willingness to not capitalize it in the OR noticeboard. But you have consistently said that the sources do not refer to it as 'the gaza massacre' and they clearly do. Now for a basic primer on the word 'the', which you as a master wordsmith would obviously not need but there may be others that could benefit; 'the' is generally used to provide a specification to an otherwise general term. For instance, holocaust, as a word it has a meaning, but when modified by 'the', as in The Holocaust, we are now clearly referring to a specific event. If you want to make an issue of the capitalization then fine, I haven't shown myself to be opposed to changing it. But to now come and say this has been the whole issue and my ability to understand the English language is the reason is dishonest. I would kindly request that you make no more mention of my ability to communicate in the English language, that I also know Arabic does not in any way diminish my knowledge of English. But no it wasn't my best subject in school, I generally got an A- in English. Nableezy (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And I am pretty sure my earlier post showed that there are numerous translated quotations that use the term 'the gaza massacre'. How they choose to capitalize it is on them. But you cannot argue that it has not been used as the name. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the language is sufficiently broad that it satisfies concerns about proper name. Other than weighting, which is always somewhat arbitrary, I don't think there is really a basis to oppose what we have in the lead right now.
But if I could give a little friendly advice TB, I think that you could do yourself a big favour here if you could concede a little for the sake of consensus. And then maybe you could ask the same from other editors in other sections. I'm not saying you should roll over on this. But I think dialgogue would be furthered if we just let things go sometimes. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pix (restored)

[I said this but it looks like page churn removed it. Restoring. Let me know of violations with diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)]

The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Time goes by. One dead-girl pic has been added: [7]. I don't see any consensus-to-add in the discussion above. Comments? If none convince, its going William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There were a few people above who said that this picture would be acceptable. Not sure if it qualifies as consensus though, but the main discussion above was about the one picture of the burnt baby, people objected to that on the grounds that it is not representative of the casualties, inflammatory, distasteful ..., but I do not think there has been much discussion about this besides a few people putting it in and out of the article. Nableezy (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am the one who removed the Israeli-doll pic after reading your post at the edit-warring board. You made a good point. For the killed Gaza infant pic, some people threw every excuse they can find so it can be removed. They claimed that the image is not from a reliable source, it is probably taken from another event/time, it is not educational/not representational, looks fake, it is propaganda, etc. Yet the Israeli pic was from an independent unknown photographer, it was taken almost 2 years ago (May 2007), it is as educational as clipart and only represents a single fact that isn't even significant in the article, looks staged for an artsy pic, and as for its propaganda value, you stated it best [8]. Yet the person who is spearheading the opposition to the Palestinian infant picture, just recently tried to justify the use of the Israeli-doll pic! [9] Can you not see the double standard? I don't know how we are supposed to reach a compromise with people like them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And I am the one who restored the picture of the dead Palestinian girl after some consensus was reached above that it should have been included on the page. I felt doing so was also appropriate considering that there was never any discussion regarding its original removal before it was removed in the first place. To date I have seen no arguments made on this talk page why it would not be appropriately included (unlike the picture of the dead baby). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So now with the exception of a couple of rockets coming into Israel from Gaza (non-emotive), all the pictures refer to destroyed Gazan orphanages, dead and wounded Gazan children, bombed out Gazan buildings etc, bombs over Gaza, accusations of use of illegal weapons against Israel, etc. William M Connolley gave the opinion that the page was "balanced" before those pictures were re-added. I agreed with that, and I think others here did as well. However, with the addition of more photos of dead children it is no longer. I don't believe there was a consensus to add more photos, and respectfully ask Cdogsimmons to remove this photo on grounds that the photos give undue weight to the Palestinian perspectives. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The damage is not balanced between the sides, to expect that we show equal damage in the pictures is irrational. Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
My edit restored a picture that Tundrabuggy removed here claiming no consensus. Up until the time Tundrabuggy removed the pictures, there had not been a discussion specifically regarding the image of the dead girl. Tundrabuggy had at the time, been warned about edit warring and referred to the Administrator Noticeboard. [10] User:William M. Connolley had closed the discussion finding that there had been no vio. Despite Tundrabuggy's continued removals, William M. Connolley insisted that the report was closed. The issue of whether images of casualties of the conflict should be included was ongoing for some time before the photos currently under discussion were found. See the following: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_1#Pictures, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_1#Pictures.3F, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#Photos, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_6#Picture_bias.3F, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_6#Tit-for-tat_picture_inclusions_and_deletions, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_7#Photos_in_Development_section_are_impartial, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_7#Photographs, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_9#Removed_POV_images, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_11#Pro-Israel_bias_in_images_of_destruction.2Fprotests, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_13#Photos_from_arabic_wikipedia, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Tasteless_photograph, Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_15#Graphic_Nature_of_an_Image, Previously, images of casualties had been repeatedly removed for copyright reasons (rightly I think) by User:tariqabjotu. But finally, images were posted on Flicker that had their copyrights in order, the ones currently in question. These pictures began to be systematically removed by anonymous editors and a discussion began regarding their restoration. Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_16#Removing_the_photo_is_vandalism. It was at that point that I concluded there was some consensus for their inclusion since I saw no one object at the time to their inclusion. Shortly thereafter, a discussion began about the picture of the burned baby and whether that photo was sensationalistic. Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_18#Photos. The sourcing of that photo also began to be discussed. Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_19#Al_Jazeera_photos_for_day_17_and_18 These discussions lead to a vote about the inclusion of the picture of the dead baby. Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_20#Request_permission_to_upload_photo. The vote was ended after less than two days by User:Rabend who claimed there was not consensus for inclusion and that the photo could therefore not be added. This was disputed by User:RomaC. The result of the vote from my count was 12 registered voters for inclusion (1 anonymous editor), 9 registered users against inclusion (and 1 anonymous editor), and 1 editor abstaining (User:Sean.hoyland who previously defended inclusion of the pictures). During this discussion, User:Tundrabuggy appears to have made the first attempt to remove the picture of the dead girl. [11]. He then removed the disputed images 4 more time in the space of a few hours. [12], [13], [14], [15]. After these edits were made, User:William M. Connolley stated that he thought the article was balanced, and that future edit warring would be looked upon unfavorably. Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_21#Pix Previous to this, the discussion above at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture had started during which alternatives to the picture of the baby were made. I suggested the picture of the girl and tariq and Sean.hoyland agreed. An anonymous editor voiced concern the picture could affect current affairs and so should not be included. I then restored the picture of the girl and this discussion began. I will not remove the picture of the dead girl because of the persistent concerns voiced on this page concerning lack of pictures of victims of this conflict, the picture has some consensus for inclusion, and Tundrabuggy's attempts to remove it violated 3RR despite William M. Connolley's decision. I do not think the picture should be removed but I am open to debate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Impressive finding all of those old (relatively speaking) archives. That sure is a lot of hot air, sure to contribute to global warming. At the same time I urge everyone to read Wikipedia:What is consensus for an understanding of what consensus really is. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It did take me a while. Sorry environment.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Consensus, Tundrabuggy, is not attacking a page from left-field, by substantial removals of material, without reading the archives, or having particularly participated in the process of drafting. Indeed, if you check the archives, I predicted that the real damage to the text would occur once the war was over. This is what is happening, and you behaviour has forcedCdogsimmons to employ a great amount of time, in an order of work of justifying the obvious, while your edits bespeak laziness. Do not be disruptive or discourteous in this manner.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, I would appreciate it if you would not dog my heels with personal attacks. If you have problems with a particular diff, feel free to provide it and put it up for discussion. Please do not comment on the contributor, but the content. Perhaps you should review WP:CIVIL, as I am beginning to be more than a little annoyed by your constant sniping. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He clearly said your edits, or in other words, content, indicate laziness, not the personal attack that calling you lazy would be. And calling another users edit 'hot air' is surely of the same level as what was just sent your way. Nableezy (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

npov international law section

every accusation in the israel section is followed by their denial, while the palestinian section has accusation followed by hamas' denial followed by a further refutation of their denial, or just an accusation. each side should be presented in the same fashion; either accusation then denial, or vice versa. Untwirl (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support formatting each side the same way. RomaC (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Each needs to be considered on its own merits. Similarly, in a court of law, the standard for arguments is argument,rebuttal,counter... but the judge may choose to either cut the counter short (if there is nothing new) or allow an additional rebuttal if new arguments warrant it. Here too, we should strive to simplify the arguments and counterarguments into a single block apiece, but if the nature or scope of the denials and refutations makes more sense in a back-and-forth, then "fairness of style presentation" should lose out to "fairness of logical presentation." That's not to say the cases of "further refytation" shoudl be that way, or that the Palestinian side should be restricted in any special way -- just look at each set of points, and present them in a way that makes sense to the reader, does justice to the points being made, while trying to stay concise. We're a part of an encyclopedia, not a book unto itself. Dovid (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I fiddled with that a week or so ago. The Palestinian section was laid out as rebuttal then accusation. Support formatting each side the same way.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Object. We cannot simply format two different matters the same way to suggest they were equal. Israel is a state obliged to obey certain international laws, and who can be sued if she violates these laws. Though I find it unusual and WP:undue to make up an "International law" section from feelings and thoughts of several people who are neither experts nor an international court - an international court should be the only one who can rule out if international law was violated or not, innocent until convicted - the accusations concerning Israel are all based on alleged violations of protocols she signed.

In contrast to Israel, the Gaza strip is not a state, and Hamas is already in its statute and actions regarded by many/most/nearly all (?) states illegitimate. Of course they want to be perceived as a state and not as a political cult (or even a destructive one) controlling an area the status of which can at best be ascribed with "uncertain". Regarded as such a wanna-be state, they can of course breach international law meaning the rules of conduct of the international community, and certainly do by the actions listed in the respective section, but circumvent this by denying all legitimacy in Israel's very existance and actions, and thus concluding their actions are in fact self-defense. Although this flaws already with the recognition of Israel by the international community and by international law, and thus is pretty WP:fringe, the self defense argument is already included in length with the cited Hamas response, what more needs to be said? I therefore propose to not further change the format. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you sources for these speculations?Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not a fringe theory or undue weight when major human rights organizations are accusing them of war crimes. I dont see how somebody could argue that the accusations against each side should not be dealt with the same in the article. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

dovid - one man's "logical presentation" is another man's "pov statement." no one is asking that any allegations be removed, simply that they be arranged in a similar fashion.

skapp - your argument addresses content, not format. you have not stated a reason why you think the format should not be accusation then denial or vice versa for each side. Untwirl (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(re) In fact I didn't adress content, but the (implicit) argument that apples and oranges should be represented/formatted the same way because WP:NPOV allegedly requires both to look like onions. I have a different understanding of WP:NPOV. We should integrate Hamas views (which is not equal to "Palestinian") very sparingly and treat everything that comes from Hamas according to WP:FRINGE. That is more or less done in the respective section and I do not see a(n) NPOV violation. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
They are not 'apples and oranges' they are all apples. All the accusations in this section are coming from bystanders, namely human rights organizations and the UN, and they are identified as such. You cannot say that we should take the Israeli government's responses with any more weight than we do the responses of the government of Gaza, Hamas. They should both be treated the same, as the official response to an accusation of violating international law. Nableezy (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

more 'incidents' for ceasefire section

bbc Israelis 'shot at fleeing Gazans' Untwirl (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. BBC is good at that! Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike, say, Israeli claims, which are automatically substantiated, since they're made by Israelis. (/snark) It's reported by good sources. It's relevant and should be included, subject of course to the usual caveats of due weight, relevance, and proper framing (ie, "according to witness accounts compiled by BBC and B'tselem, XYZ. Israel denies XYZ and there is no verification of XYZ due to Israeli blockade.") <eleland/talkedits> 06:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NoCal's edits

The box at the top of this talkpage states: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

NoCal has made five controversial edits without participating in any discussions here. I reverted them, as for example removing information on Gaza's population density with an edit summary of "not even top 10" seems unilateral. RomaC (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, people are being bold alright. this is a bad place to do that, but seeing as they were all in a row lets agf. its brd and now's the time for d. hopefully he will. i have been less than bold, pretty timid actually, but i don't have time to defend myself - just got super busy here in the noncyber world. i just do very minor edits and drop some suggestions and hope someone else puts them in. Untwirl (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Were they really controversial? Brunte thinks that's a weasel word. It is when used as a label having little substance behind it. What's the substantive problem here? Dovid (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I support dropping the box since it is simply impossible for anyone to go read all those archives to determine whether or not to make an edit. That really defeats the BE BOLD part of wiki. Just let people edit and if there really is a differing consensus somewhere, let the other editor revert with a point to the discussion or consensus he is drawing on. There is precious little of that going on. I would guess the majority of reverts don't even include an edit summary, while those that claim consensus in their edit summary, don't feel compelled to point to the discussion. This is very off-putting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the way i understood it, you don't have to " point to the discussion or consensus (you are) drawing on" when you revert. it's b-r-d, meaning you revert back to the prior state and then discuss why you think a change is needed to come to consensus. isn't that true? (i'm not being facetious there, i'll admit i'm not well studied in the rules) Untwirl (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is a consensus (let's say for the lead) and someone changes it, then others are right to revert, and simply point to TALK. However when there are an infinity of TALK pages, (in itself an indication that there is very little actual consensus around) it isn't really fair to expect people to go look for the consensus. If one is reverting because there is a consensus, it seems only fair under the circumstances to point to it (ie proof that your revert is based on something valid). If there is no consensus, you should not revert. You can change the edit to better reflect the facts, to read better, to be less POV, etc but not simply revert to some non-consensus version. There is nothing wrong with someone being bold and trying a new tact anywhere in any article. Deal with the new edit if there has been no consensus established for it and if you don't like it, take it to talk. That's my reading... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I guarantee if I tried doing the same stuff here and tried these same arguments in an article, say like Jerusalem, about, lets say moving the footnote about how the whole world does not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel to the very first sentence, these same users would be yelling all sorts of policy violations. How about trying to not let your understanding of policies be determined by what side you are arguing? Nableezy (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

user doright reverted lead addition (see above)

he said (see talk) but he hasn't posted here for hours..

someone needs to revert and warn him Untwirl (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

These were ridiculous edits, I reverted, will warn. RomaC (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Update -- I reverted doright's first-sentence edit that blamed Iran for all this, and now he's warned me for "harming the encyclopedia." hehehe RomaC (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The first violation of cease-fire?

Originally the sentence was regarding gunmen firing at IDF patrol from Gaza into Israel and firing mortar shells from Gaza into Gaza and into Israel on January 20. Somehow the first violation of cease-fire got transformed into killing of "Palestinian farmer" which took place while Palestinian factions continued to fire rockets into Israel and before Hamas announced ceasefire at Sunday afternoon January 18. Well has history re-written itself somehow? Does it still reflect reality? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The source says the farmer death was the first after the ceasefire and it did precede the patrol incident. I don't see why it has to be removed. JVent (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that this incident happened before Hamas and Palestinian factions declared cease-fire. In fact during that morning rockets were fired into Israel. Maybe Hamas rocket fire just minutes after Israel cease-fire announcement is the first violation? I think that violation could happen only when both sides are committed. Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, at that time IDF has declared ceasefire and Palestinians has not. Which is why Israel shooting a Palestinian farm contradicts its ceasefire, and rockets fired into Israel does not "violate" any ceasefire. But I think we should stay away from judging who violates first, let's just state the facts. JVent (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said we're talking about first violation. According to your logic Hamas rocket fire minutes after Israeli announcement is the first violation. Should we state facts according to it? 11:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please (I could put this after every remark you make) think before editing or commenting. That Hamas, not a party to a ceasefire, fired rockets off after Israel declared unilaterally a ceasefire, is not a 'violation' of the ceasefire. I don't know what language you think in. In all those I know, these things are self-evident.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I invested some thought into it: those mutual blames, who the hell started it first. Now I fully realize that the source of the violence in the Middle East is Zionist ( = racist) movement and illegal entity so called state of Israel and its criminal creation. It is better for me to pack and leave ASAP. When rocket is fired at me I just should recall those facts and say "I'm so sorry, I'm the one to blame" and die. In no way I should commit a "war crime" and defend myself. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved Witnesses report that Palestinian farmer was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis to Hamas initially "vowed to fight on" during Israeli unilateral ceasefire where it belongs from time line point of view. Let me know if it looks fair to you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of casualties

See:,7340,L-3660423,00.html and "It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas - who sent them to their deaths," he [a doctor at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital] said." "Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper number of dead in Israeli offensive 'stands at no more than 500 or 600, most of them youths recruited to Hamas' ranks'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And we should trust Israeli news sources because....?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Because we don't understand Italian: [16] Flayer (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Both Haaretz and Ynet are reliable sources. Moreover, both the Italians (for the 500–600 figure) and the Australian source currently used for the 1,330 cite Palestinian medical staff, so maybe you should be asking why should we trust Palestinian medical staff? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Umm because Palestinian medical staff are the ones collecting the bodies? That should be obvious. As for the Italian figure, they are quoting a lone Gazan doctor. The majority of Palestinian medical sources which the UN have called reliable say the figures around 1300. There is an attempt by people to deflate the numbers by capitalizing on a minority opinion (a single source exploited by Israeli news). Is there another source other than that single doctor that corroborates the claim? Or do you just want to give undue weight to that one doctor? Use common sense please. CNN is also considered a reliable source, but even they report very wrong information. [[17]]--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

hamas' claim of 100 dead militants isn't in this section, but an unnamed physician's claim is? how is a single doctor's claim of how many died notable? is he involved with counting somehow? if not, his opinion is conjecture and not notable. i think it should be removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a claim of one doctor can not contend with the claim both by the UN, Palestinian authority and the IDF that more than 1,300 were killed.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that everybody (UN,BBC,IDF) do arithmetic based on numbers provided by Hamas controlled sources. The fact is Hamas government refused to release names for most of Gazans killed (187 were released so far?). This gives a lot of room for speculations about innocent civilians murdered by IDF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Israel seizes on claims Gaza death toll has been exaggerated"

A notable article from the telegraph [18] Grey Fox (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel is about to seize Oscar: [[19]] :) Israel still hurts Sabra and Shatila massacre. However Israeli girls crave Arab boyfriend [[20]] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Watch it when using the word murdered around here.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Italian report on Palestinian casualties appears to be based on hearsay and is not corroborated in any way, so should it not be deleted?? Peterlewis (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure. Let's just put in one side's view of the conflict. If it doesn't come from Hamas, it's hearsay. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you say, whoever there are no solid facts in this case. Gaza Hamas government is not completely transparent on casualties issue to say the least. I do not understand how this hearsay better than that hearsay. Many forget how "medical sources" claimed "hundreds of martyrs" in Battle of Jenin case and credible sources like UN/BBC/whoever initially repeated and "confirmed". It is natural for Israel to preform massacre :( I think it is only fair to say that casualties numbers are being disputed. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The MoH numbers are not hearsay, they have collected the information. If that information later is proven to be false then fine, but right now an individual doctor has not ability to estimate loses across Gaza. And you cannot say they have not been transparent, reporters have not been allowed in to independently verify the figures. AI and other human rights organizations say they are reliable enough to quote and they provide the source of the numbers until an independent verification can take place. Nableezy (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas (MoH) government of Gaza can not release list of casualties because of brutal Israeli occupation. PCHR (human rights experts) "research group" is reliable enough to count Said Siam and Nizar Rayan as civilians. And those Italian reporters clearly hired by Shin Bet while doing too much LSD. Fair and Balanced. :) Is not it fair to say that Hamas numbers are being disputed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
But the quote 'Israel has not, however, formally disputed the widely published total' shows they are not currently disputed even by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel has not, however, formally disputed the widely published total (from the article) Until it does, this article shouldn't include specuations. We can wait. The Squicks (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No place for one doctor's guesstimate versus the PA, UN & IDF figures; even the source notes this. RomaC (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth the 500-600 number does come from one doctor. But the doctor's quote is preceded by comments from the author. He says, in his own voice, that as he visits clinics, hostpitals and victim's families the truth is coming to light. And he says that the true number appears to be much lower than what Hamas has reported and was repeated by the UN and Red Cross. Then he introduces the quote from the doctor to give a more exact figure. The article also says, in its own voice, that the hospitals of Gaza are mostly empty and lists a few by name. I wouldn't suggest that we include any of this. I just noticed that the article has much more than just the one doctor even though that's what comes up most in the Israeli papers.

Israel disputes Gaza death toll

The POV in the title of the section above "Israel seizes on claims...." seems to me to be outrageous. I realise it is written in a RS. However here is a more neutral title from the JPost, also a RS. There is quite a bit of information in it. The article can be read here: [21] Some salient bits-

"IDF estimates are that two-thirds of all those killed were gunmen affiliated with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terror factions.
Hamas deliberately played down the number of its dead and on Sunday claimed that only 48 members of its military wing had been killed, defense officials said. Many bodies belonging to Hamas operatives were being stored in the morgue in Shifa Hospital, the officials added.
They said the vast majority of the Hamas operatives killed were not wearing uniforms, to disguise their affiliation, another reason for the exaggerated estimate of civilian casualties cited by the United Nations and others."

Re Cremonesi, the Italian doctor journalist:

"Cremonesi, who based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties, also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,300, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.
It had, however, warm words for Cremonesi's work. "Because this is the first independent evaluation, it needs to be taken seriously by all the NGOs," one ministry official said."

One Foreign minister said something that seems rather evident in this article and talk page as well: "Opponents of Israel would always find a way to blame it and accuse it of wrongdoing, he said. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've got a life to lead, instead of correcting every other edit you make. Lorenzo Cremonesi is not a 'doctor'. He is foreign correspondent for the centre-right business newspaper, Corriere della Sera. His report should be taken seriously, but he's had long experience in areas caught up in war and says that for every dead person, expect 3 wounded. He reports that at most doctors said 700 died, which means the wounded would range around the 2000 figure, which would means hitherto all figures are doubled. He did this in a day, after, by the way, being ambushed twice by the IDF. I note that Israel's Ministry of Disinformation is not praising him for his coolness under fire: he speaks fluent Hebrew, had his passage through the lines approved. Was shot at, got out of his car and identified himself to the soldiers nearby in Hebrew as an Italian journalist, and had to duck when they replied by shooting once more at him. The soldiers even continued shooting at him when, on the phone, he had been assured that the local commanders had been informed who he was. He said the experience gave one a good insight into what it must be like to be a Palestinian.
He's a serious journalist, who did his estimate in several hours. We shall have to wait until the sober analysis of independent bodies comes up with a verifiable figure. That on the last two days, he found hospitals empty is not in itself proof of anything. Muslims bury their dead the same day, and most of the carnage was over. Let's wait.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A further article in the JPost: "Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza" must read- [22]

  • Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza shouting at Hamas and Islamic Jihad men, "Go away, go away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill us all? Do you want our children to die under their bombs? Take your guns and missiles with you."

To Nishidani, empty hospitals may well prove that there are not so many wounded as reported. If the morgues were overflowing and bombs dropping, perhaps they weren't able to bury their dead the same day. I assume that under those circumstances, Allah would have understood. Of course, this custom means that it may never be possible to determine a death toll, and one will have to accept the numbers on faith according to one's bias. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's record for misrepresenting primary data, and not investigating, is as strong as the Palestinians. We shall perhaps never know. I don't accept anything on faith. My biases are twofold. Pro-Palestinian, and, before that, to the facts as independently ascertained and verified by non-ruling bodies, Israeli or Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, look: I would be more than willing to add the IDF's numbers or the Israeli Forign Office's numbers or the Obama administration's numbers or any other offically claimed numbers that come from a notable POV. But this is not that. What we have is the opinions of one investigative journalist, speaking more or less for himself. I can understand putting this into the body of the article, but it's simply not acceptable for the top.The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hacktivisim section

This doesn't really seem notable enough to merit a place in the main article. Move it to the International Reaction article, perhaps? Blackeagle (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Grey Fox (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
After thinking about it a bit I think the media article might be a better place for it than international reaction. Blackeagle (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the section. Blackeagle (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza tunnels remain in use

I read this Apparently it's confirmed by the BBC and not just an Israeli claim, however it's a pretty small article at this stage so just in case it turns out to be a point of conflict I thought I'd post it here.Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And this from the Jeremy Bowen at the BBC.[23] It talks about the tunnel use, rebuilding and includes the Hamas claim that 30% of the tunnels were destroyed during the fighting. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Channel 4 News has video footage of tunnel repair work, here. Dynablaster (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Highly disturbing picture bias

The article only shows very graphical pictures of Palestinian dead/wounded. I believe these pictures are completely out of place (with absolutely no relation to Palestinian/Israeli civilians, simply because of the pictures' highly graphical nature). Some of you would say- "that represents reality". That's not correct. Although there have been many times more Palestinian civilians hurt than Israelis, Israel does not have a goal of deliberately targeting innocent civilians as the Hamas has, therefore these pictures are highly unfit. Please do some editing to adjust it. -- (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, israelis targeted civilians like hamas but more efficient. Efficient israelis. To me it seems like israelis have forgotten their history and behave like nazist from ww2. Noone will like the results from this. Brunte (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can there be any doubt that Israel targeted civilians deliberately? We have all seen the carnage created by high explosives, phosphorus and evil shrapnel among the population. Why target UN warehouses and schools when no gunmen were even close? It seems to me that war crimes have been committed in Gaza. Peterlewis (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you read the discussion above, you will realize that the remaining pictures of Palestinian casualties were a watered down compromise from pictures of really horrific casualties (one particular picture of a burned baby was found to be unfit for inclusion). The pictures that remain show the cost of war (a "reality"), whether the casualties were intended victims or not. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that pictures are OK as long as it does not serve narrative claiming Israel targeted civilians "deliberately". Please assume good faith (WP) on Israel part. For those who believe it's unthinkable that UN school in Gaza could be used as launch pad for mortar squad see (not from this conflict) For those who think that Gaza Media Office is not above grad rockets launcher please see Hamas has chosen the battle ground for this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF refers to the intentions of users, not to the actions of countries. If the facts portray Israel in a bad light, we are not portraying Israel in a bad light, the facts are. Likewise, when the facts show Hamas in a bad light, we are not, the facts are. Nableezy (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) And one could easily say by closing off Gaza that Israel chose the 'battle ground for this conflict'. Nableezy (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of References

I'm listing here some of the referencing problems. The review was done with the "insert citation template" Error check.

I will start addressing these issues but need some help along.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    • I'm trying but am failing to adress the issues. Is there a way for you to wait just 5min so I can edit the references?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I updated the "ocha2009jan19" ref to the "ocha2009jan21" ref. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 background info

Please see:

Casualties section

I reorganized the casualties section, instead of grouping "civilians" and "militants/IDF", I restored the earlier grouping "Gaza", "Israel", and "other". The reason is that the Israeli and "Other" casualties are low and undisputed, while the Gazan casualties are not yet fixed and there are a lot of different estimates that are very likely to change further in the next days. I also grouped the Gazan casualties by primary source (though cited by secondary/tertiary sources) to make it clear where the figures come from (Hamas, PCHR, etc) and let the reader decide which source he trusts most. This way, it is also less messy, since the ranges are huge, eg civilians: 150 (Israel) to 1,330 (Hamas) and fighters: 158 (Hamas) - >700 (Israel), and the primary sources differ in whom they include in their figures and in how much detail they go with them. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the lead

In the lead, only the Hamas figures of Palestinian casualties were presented. I added that there are others without going into much detail:

On the Palestinian side, estimates differ. The Hamas-run Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians, while other Palestinian estimates are lower. Israel says at least 700 Hamas fighters were killed

Skäpperöd (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption to Talk Page & Deletion of Active Disputes

Who is the clever editor that set the bot to delete from this page active discussions after only 9 hours of inactivity? That is disruptive. Some of us do have to sleep. Also, who deleted the POV notice from the article? The notice should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. More importantly, who can restore the deleted talk (those deleted since the 9 hour criteria was set) section back to this talk page? Doright (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the NPOV for "Gaza Massacre" and for the start date? I agree, after having found some talk material, and searched for other talk material that's buried somewhere in 21 pages of archive. I tried to solve the problem by removing massacre to another section, and neutrally descriving the start of conflict as concurrent with the end of the truce, but I'm getting beaten up. Can someone please take the huge summary and simply pair it down to 2-3 short paras, 2-3 sentences each, and any talk about naming can be moved to its own section? This will cover all the disputes, and the big NPOV arguments won't be about anything important at the top.Dovid (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
ho! good luck Dovid! Put on your boots and your heavy armour. :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The names both belligerents have given to the conflict are given in the lead, that is the definition of NPOV. Now the lead isnt exactly how I would phrase it, but this phrasing has had the support of the majority of the editors every time this discussion has come up. If you want to start a new discussion feel free. Nableezy (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not talking about just one section. All the sections that have vanished since the bot was set to remove all sections after only 9 hours needs to be restored immediately and the bot frequency needs to be set to a reasonable frequency ... not several times a day . . . that is pure Vandalism. Also, the POV tags need to be restored to the article and not removed until the many disputes are resolved. Doright (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does every mistake or bad edit have to be accused of vandalism? This is a bot. If someone has indeed created a bot that acts in bad faith it deserves to win the Loebner Prize. Anyway, if you have a problem maybe you should leave a message on the user talk page. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A bot did not change its own parameters, an editor on this page did it. So who did it? And, who knows how to set it back to the way it was? Also, a bot did not at the same time remove the pov tags from the article page, an editor did. So who did it? Doright (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just saying that you need to calm down and AGF. Most bad edits are simply bad edits. The vandalism part happens when they are done intentionally to hurt the project. In this case it looks like the bot was set to nine hours after being set for six. User:Hapsala did that. S/he's been doing lots of maintenance around here and in fact got into a heated exchange with User:Skäpperöd who felt archiving was going too slowly and letting the page become too large for low-speed users to use.
There's a simple edit for the bot but you should probably talk to Hapsala first. Although the bot only runs once a day anyway, at 00:37 GMT. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
JGGardiner, thank you bringing that info to my attention. Vandalism was a poor choice of words. I should have said an incredibly disruptive thing to do and way outside the norms of my experience with wikipedia for ongoing disputes to be removed from the talk page, after only 9 hours of inactivity. So, how do we restore those talk sections? Also, It is WP practice as identified in the how to guide that states, "you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Wikipedia:NPOV dispute The same holds true for an ongoing discussion involving a dispute. On this article both the tag was removed and the discussion was removed. Since the bot cannot evaluate the content and know that the dispute has not been resolved, there is going to be an ongoing problem. Thanks, Doright (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't look into the tags so I don't know who removed them. I wasn't really following that part of the discussion. If you do want to change the settings, I think that you just edit the line that looks like this:|algo = old(9h) But again, you should probably talk to Hapsala first. If you want to resurrect anything from the archives I'd just paste it back here or just bring up the subject again. Everyone here seems happy to talk about the same things over and over. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks JGG. Additionally, now I see the separate talk page for the lead that contained other active and unresolved disputes has also been archived creating even more disruption. Yikes! Doright (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say the most 'human' bot would act in bad faith? I take that as a personal attack on all of humanity! Nableezy (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So do I and in that sense I fully support it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah me too Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved Disputes Should not be Removed

See above section titled Vandalism to Talk Page & Deletion of Active Disputes for background, and yes, it should have been titled "Removal of Ongoing and Unresolved Disputes from Article and Talkpage." Doright (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Setting's Removal of Ongoing talk and Unresolved Disputes

Please do not change the bot setting without first reading and responding to the above discussions or providing your reasoning here. Hapsala, please do not revert the bot setting without even providing an edit summary as you did HERE. It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page. You should Briefly describe the changes you have made. I have explained above in detail the reason why removing discussions after only 9 hours is unacceptable, results in a disruption to the project and causes the removal of ongoing disputes from the page.Doright (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC) If the talk page is getting too long, then sections can be moved to a talk subpage as was done for the discussion of the lead. However, in no case should ongoing disputes be merely removed to an archive. The archives are not the place for unresolved disputes and ongoing discussions.Doright (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hapsala, Please stop reverting the archive bot setting as you did HERE without first addressing the above identified issues associated with such short deletion intervals. And please stop marking the edit as minor. There is nothing minor about removing content, ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes from the talk page. Thank you.Doright (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

4 days is ridiculously long 24 or 36 hours should be sufficient. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You provided no reasoning. You say it should be sufficient, but sufficient for what? What part of unresolved disputes should not be removed from the talk page do you not agree with or not understand?Doright (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Doright should calm down and listen to other editors for a change; 4 days at this point only makes the this page a mess, and doesn't benefit the article a bit. --Hapsala (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If a conversation is stale for 24 hours it likely means that you are arguing by yourself and nobody else sees fit to join you. If that is the case, it is all about starting an argument, not reaching consensus, Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Your comment is a straw-man eating a red-herring. Consensus does mean the mob control of a tiny set of users that are dedicated to this single page 24/7. You have to allow other users a chance to comment. Doright (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should reread my previous comment about 24 hours being enough for a variety of users, not a small mob, for discussion of an article that is getting as much discussion as this one. If nobody else sees fit to join you in voicing your concern I would think that should be seen as indicative of an attempt to start an argument, not an attempt to seek consensus on improving the article. Nableezy (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved Disputes Lifeline

The purpose of this section is to provide a place to make a meaningless edit so that the archive bot installed on the top of this page does not automatically remove the unresolved disputes in the super-section that this section is a subsection of. In this way at least a small measure of human control can be exerted over the removal of content from this article talk page. This is required since certain editors insist on having content removed from this page everywhere from every 9 hours to every 24-36 hours. Obviously, setting the bot to such a short deletion interval serves the interests of those that want to limit the participation of a broad cross section of WP editors. Actually, the edits are not entirely meaningless because they will have a meaning to the bot. Please keep them short, e.g., 1 character like this x Doright (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) xxxx xx

Disruptive Misuse of Archive BOT

As you can see [HERE] most pages that use the BOT have the time interval set from couple weeks to a couple months. Doright (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power" - 1st sentence???

the first line of the lead was changed from,

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[38]


"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power [2][3], began on ..."

with the edit summ : "views on conflict - see talk"

i didn't see a section on that so i reverted it and i'm starting one. here ya go. sadly, i have to go to bed now and you'll all have to uke it out without me. night. Untwirl (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

i meant duke (obviously). although it would be cute if yall all had little ukeleles and played devil went down to georgia against each other . . . Untwirl (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason you don't see it is because editors on this page insist on removing to archives unresolved disputes and ongoing conversations. However, if someone changes the bot again to remove discussions after a mere 9 hours, there is a good chance this talk section will be gone before you wake up. Doright (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Doright is hysterical. LMAO at the Iran line! But yeah, it is borderline vandalism. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine, would you please limit yourself to talking about article content, rather than commenting on other contributors? Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And in that section he is so concerned about he was arguing by himself that some PhD involved in forgery should have his personal views in the first section. You want that line, then include this one: "The assault on Gaza is also being carried out to help Kadima and Labour defeat Likud and its leader Binyamin Netanyahu, who is currently ahead in the polls." [24]. Neither should be in the first sentence, something Doright refuses to understand. Nableezy (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, your misleading comment is not helpful. The edits include citations from the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Israel, high level government advisers, noted academics, etc. Of course, you already know that but choose to ignore it. And, as you have already been shown many times, that person you characterize as "some PhD" is a trusted adviser to the highest levels of the government of the Unites States that no doubt require a security clearance including the National Security Council, the Secretaty of State (I'm not going to list them all again as I have already done so many times before) and is the author of numerous books and articles and holds some of the most prestigious positions in what is among the most prominent think-tanks in the USA. In light of this your comment can hardly be taken seriously. Doright (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ledeen once was a trusted adviser to the Government of the United States, in such things as WMD in Iraq, Nigeria nuclear material in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and all the other crap. None of it true.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The archived section did not include anything from the former (thankfully) President of the United States. And your Israel PM quote was taken from a speech with 2,452 words (English translation as posted by the Israeli MFA) in which the word Iran appeared a total of 4 times in 2 adjacent sentences near the middle of the speech. That you think this somehow means that the sentiment expressed should then be included in the very first sentence of the article shows how ridiculous this conversation is. Now, for what I hope will be the last time, if you want to add this into the lead, get consensus. I do not see what is so difficult to understand about this. Your repeated insistence in bringing editorials and opinions into the lead of this article, and then claim that you are doing so in the name of NPOV shows your bias clearly. Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And as far as misleading, I would encourage others to look at this about Michael Leeden's interest in Iran. A cofounder of 'The Coalition for Democracy in Iran', which is oddly enough a democracy and whose President he is so agitated about democratically elected, which has as its aims 'regime change' in Iran, cannot be used as a source to claim this conflict is connected to Iranian goals to become a regional power. You could also check out the NY Times review of his book 'The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction': "Ledeen’s effort to lay virtually every attack by Muslims against Americans at Tehran’s feet takes him into rather bizarre territory. He says the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ‘were in large part Iranian operations,’ which would come as news to the 9/11 Commission, which attributed them solely to Al Qaeda. He says Shiite Iran was largely behind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man famous for his genocidal hatred of Shiites. He claims that ‘most’ Iraqi insurgents are ‘under Iranian guidance and/or control,’ not just Shiite warlords like Moktada al-Sadr, but Sunni militants as well—the very people who say they are fighting to prevent Iranian domination. In Ledeen’s view, in fact, Sunni-Shiite conflict—the very thing that most observers think is tearing Iraq apart—is largely a mirage, because Iran controls both sides. And Al Qaeda is a mirage too, a mere front for the regime in Tehran. ‘When you hear “Al Qaeda,”’ Ledeen writes, ‘it’s probably wise to think “Iran.”’ Not surprisingly, he thinks the mullahs were probably behind 9/11." And you want us to put as fact his assertion that this conflict should also be laid at the feet of, surprise surprise, Iran. That he convinced George Bush and you that he is right says more about George Bush and yourself then it does about the many editors refusal to allow such fringe views to be prominently displayed. Nableezy (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Your attacks on Ledeen are in their own ways red herrings. The broader question the edit raises is supported by all sorts of knowledgeable people and RS. In fact the thesis is quite mainstream. Here are a few more making that point as well. Iran's Quest for Superpower Status [25]; Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States Triti Parsi, Yale University PRess; Hudson Institute: The Iran-Hamas Alliance [26]; A Recipe For Defeat Tashbih Sayyed from Muslim World Today [27]; Jerusalem Post [28] Iran is "chief beneficiary of the war on terror" George Conger How many acceptable references will you require to allow that thesis to be aired in this article? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Iran should defend Islamic world: top cleric [29] etcTundrabuggy (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe lobby for including this theory in the Arab-Israeli conflict article? But here it is irrelevant, even if true it is out of the scope of this article. For example I see no mention of herrenvolkism in the Bombing of Dresden article. RomaC (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Red herrings? They clearly demonstrate the man cannot be trusted is completely biased. Your Foreign Affairs Journal article is from 1987. The second source is from 2007. The last two are from 2006. Googling only gets what you are looking for, and here it has given you irrelevant nonsense, which you in turn brought here. Nableezy (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
perhaps you need to look at the sentence we are discussing again. It says: ""The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power [2][3], began on ..." "part of a conflict with Iran's quest, etc ...." Iran's quest for power did not begin in 2008. It has been fomenting trouble in the region for quite a long time. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And they were not 'my attacks' the first was a fact, the second was a direct quote from the New York Times review of one of his books. The review was by Peter Beinart who is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

tundra - this looks like some serious synthesis and mischaracterization. the jpost article you cited refutes your position - i haven't read the others yet -

"Even though Iran is frequently depicted as a manipulator and instigator of violence in the broader Middle East," the report argued, "the Iranian regime is wary of provoking generalized chaos in the region, because it is essentially conservative and seeks to maintain the status quo." Untwirl (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Read superficially you are correct. But the very fact of the "argument" (ie "Iran is frequently depicted") actually proves the point of the original edit, ie "viewed by some as ... and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power..." The report acknowledges the viewpoint of the "others" even as it disagrees with them. Article acknowledges the viewpoint, no? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has an interest in scholarly work on Iran I would recommend this Surrounded: Seeing the World from Iran’s Point of View by Dr. Houman A. Sadri, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Central Florida. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy, you say that their quest for regional domination does not begin in 2008 so a source from 1987 is acceptable to try to tie this conflict with this supposed quest. I am sorry that does not make any sense. That this conflict is part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at Palestinians and Israelis in armed conflict. If you want to start an article on Iranian influence in the Middle East, by all means go make that article, a source from 1987, or 2006, or 2007, may actually be relevant there. Here, however, it is not. Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And further, we are not including any allegations that Hamas has made that EU and Americans are involved in this conflict, nor should we include any allegations about Iranian influence. We have an article for that too, 2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement. Nableezy (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If I can just jump in here, I'd like to say that we don't need every section to degenerate into a debate about our political views. It doesn't just get side-tracked but it hurts our already fragile dialogue in general.

So I think everyone would agree there is a place for mentioning Iran somewhere but I think most of us can agree that it is not in the first sentence. Or disagree if you want but try and limit it to that issue please. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

JGG, Yes and no. No it is not necessary to have it in the first sentence, if the first sentence does not say it is part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. If the first sentence has to say it is part of the I-P conflict to avoid WP:Undo it must say it is part of other widely held understandings of the conflict, e.g., it is part of the conflict with Iranian hegemonic quests, part of the war on terror, part of the conflict with Islamic fundamentalism, etc. To give the I-P conflict exclusive mention is an egregious violation of [WP:NPOV]. Therefore, the compromise would be either to remove the exclusive I-P mention or follow WP policy and guidelines and mention the others along with it. Doright (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United States, and yes Iran etc., are part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.To single out Iran, is to play the axis of evil card. The lead should have no place for this. Iran can be mentioned in the text, along with all of the other regional powers which, like Iran, have a role, most of them larger and more active than Iran's, in that conflict. All nations and powers vie for regional influence, this is the nature of states. iran, I might add, hasn't, in 30 years, invaded unilaterally any neighbouring country, unlike Israel. Put Iran in, and, as an external actor in the Gaza conflict, one that meddles in Palestinian affairs incessantly, and you are extending an open invitation to editors to expand on Israel's behaviour, and malign influence for malign influence, it has a far sorrier record.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking your history. It is generally understood that Hezbollah is deeply under the influence, and possibly the control, of Iran. It certainly was armed by Iran, and takes its agenda from Iran. -- see NY Times Hezbollah trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials say & Understanding the Iran-Hezbollah Connection, BBC Who are Hezbollah? for example. Clearly they were meddling in 2006 Lebanon, as they are now meddling in Gaza. In fact, depending on one's perspective, it could be argued that the Lebanon situation was promoted by Hezbollah as Iran's "proxy." As this Reuters article points out, it is admitted by Hamas that they trained in Iran for this event. Further Israelis say that they got their Katyushas and Grads from Iran. Just a few days ago Iran urged Hamas to reject the ceasefire and to continue to target Israeli positions. [30] In fact, this TimesOnLine article from March of 2008 is entitled Hamas wages Iran’s proxy war on Israel! If that isn't "meddling," I'm not sure what is... Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out it was argued that to say that an armed conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is 'an egregious violation of WP:NPOV'. I just thought that was funny. Nableezy (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

'Cherrypicking 'my' history?' An odd comment when I was extending the range of examples, rather than, as you do, restrict them. It is widely bruited in newspapers that Hezbollah is a pawn of Iran. All countries meddle in the Middle East.To select one agent, and ignore the others, is to cherrypick history. Encyclopedias should not be written in obeisance to the propaganda wars being waged in the media by interested parties. They should, optimally, review their material according to official documents, academic secondary sources, and works that privilege the comprehensive hindsight of time, rather than the petty gossip of articles written from day to day.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved Disputes Lifeline

The purpose of this section is to provide a place to make a meaningless edit so that the archive bot installed on the top of this page does not automatically remove the unresolved disputes in the super-section that this section is a subsection of. In this way at least a small measure of human control can be exerted over the removal of content from this article talk page. This is required since certain editors insist on having content removed from this page everywhere from every 9 hours to every 24 hours. Obviously, setting the bot to such a short deletion interval serves the interests of those that want to limit the participation of a broad cross section of WP editors. Actually, the edits are not entirely meaningless because they will have a meaning to the bot. That is, do not remove this section from the talk page. Please keep them short, e.g., 1 character like this x

As you can see [HERE] most pages that use the BOT have the time interval set from couple weeks to a couple months. However, some editors insist on edit warring even on the talk page resulting in a disruptively short time interval. Doright (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Gazan Casualties number disputed

[[31]] Gazan doctor says death toll inflated. Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper regarding number of dead in Israeli offensive "The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

THE CASUALTIES NUMBERS SHOULD STARTED TO BE CORRECTED, or at least mentioned that informations are not quite sure: A recent article based on the testimony of a Gazan physician says that there were "only" around 500-600 casaulties with MOST of them armed young Hamas fighters.

Gazan doctor says death toll inflated Physician at Gaza's Shifa Hospital tells Italian newspaper number of dead in Israeli offensive 'stands at no more than 500 or 600, most of them youths recruited to Hamas' ranks'

[...] A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

SOURCE:,7340,L-3660423,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Identify the Italian Newspaper, and read to the bottom of the article:

These new figures must be treated with caution especially in light of the fact that various official sources in the Gaza Strip, including United Nations and Red Cross officials, have reported that more than 1,300 people were killed and some 5,000 wounded during the three weeks of fighting in the coastal strip. Palestinian sources claim that three-quarters of the dead were unarmed civilians

Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, I see what you mean. Numbers flow around bigger - better. I think that quoted "at least 940 civilians" PCHR statistics about are questionable. [[32]] Here two examples of civilians: Nizar Rayan ( forced his four wives and kids with him in his into grave ) and Said Siam. Is this balanced and neutral? Some say Israel target is killing as much Gaza civilians as Israel can. It is so easy to believe. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you maybe explain yourself in complete English sentences? I don't know what you're contributing here other than a vague sense that "they asked for it." There's one contrarian report, quickly flashed around the world by the IDF media machine. The numbers you think are questionable are the best ones available and the most widely cited. Nobody's saying the one report should be suppressed, just that it can't be taken as The Truth because some people like it for political reasons. <eleland/talkedits> 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
English is my third ("weakest link") language. I say that south of Israel does not deserve to leave in shelter. Have you ever experienced an air raid siren? Palestinians do deserve to create their own state and create solution for their refugees after more than 60 years. Many agree that main obstacle on road of peace is Hamas, which vetoed Oslo accords and currently de-facto in state of civil war with rival Fatah. I believe Gaza International Airport will be opened again and hope my neighbor will invest efforts in building his home instead of trying to crush mine. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt your sincerity, but this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for airing your personal analysis of the roots of conflict. <eleland/talkedits> 04:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, Agada's point is well taken here but you seem to be missing it. He is talking about is the anti-Israel bias that permeates the article. It is noticeable to all but the most biased. The article would be much improved if it were fairer and more balanced, rather than the polemical screed it now appears. Your characterisation of Agada's editing on this page is mistaken. He is discussing improvements to the article, but ears and mind have to be tuned to "neutral" to be able to hear & understand it. I find his English quite understandable, and am confident that should you have a problem with it and remain WP:CIVIL in asking for clarification, he would be more than happy to provide it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New BBC atrocity allegations

In the video on this page:

it is alleged that israeli troops herded gazan civilians, members of a large family, into a room and began shooting them systematically. Could someone suggest an appropriate place to add the allegations, as they are surely notableJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From that diary entry and his next one[33] I believe that is referring to the "Zeitoun incident" which we already mention. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
the zeitoun bombing is mentioned - this is an account of idf soldiers shooting civilians in their homes. it should be added to that section. Untwirl (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that this refers to the Zeitoun incident: "After we left Rafah we went on to the district of Zaytoun on the edge of Gaza City. It is the home of the Samouni clan, farmers who were, as one of them said, caught between Hamas and Israel.[...] I spoke to Zeinat Abdullah al-Samouni. [...] Zeinat said the Israeli troops had herded several families from the al-Samouni clan into one of the houses..." Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely the same. Though I should say it is kind of the same and kind of not. What happened in Zeitoun was really a series of incidents which have been mostly presented together, just as Bowen does here. In reality a lot happened over a couple of days including the shooting of Atiya and the bombing or shelling of the house (or warehouse), belonging to Wael, across the street. They did happen different days but the bombing is where most of the 29 (or so) deaths come from. Here's a Jan. 9 story with the same procession picture as in the BBC article.[34] The story is mostly about the bombings but includes the shooting of Atiya (Atiyeh). You can also see the same child and father in Bowen's 23rd piece[35] and in these older stories about the incident.[36][37] The shootings have pretty much always been in the news stories along with the bombings/shellings. I think a lot of people (including me) mostly glossed over the details because the bombing was the big thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli admits using phosphorus shells after denying it. Amnesty joins UN and HRW in saying Israel guilty of war crimes

Israeli admits using troops used phosphorus shells after denying it, in contravention of international law. Amnesty on Monday warned that Israel could be guilty of war crimes, saying the use of the shells in a civilian areas was "clear and undeniable"." "The Israeli Ambassador to Russia admitted that Israel used white phosphorous but maintained that it was in accordance with international law. "Phosphorous is not a prohibited component of weaponry. It was used for making smoke screens. Israel did not use white phosphorous in densely populated areas," said Israeli Ambassador Anna Azari. Amnesty joins UN and HRW in saying Israel guilty of war crimes Havanra (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that all of that information is already in the article. The Squicks (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, the article currently says that Israel denies it used phosphurous.--Havanra (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is already covered. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I however reinstated the attribution of the claims to the groups making them, so hopefully there will not again be paragraphs on each group saying basically the same. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


A reminder that primary sources should only be used a) in tandem with secondary sources that verify b) to speak of themselves. They should never be used alone to establish controversial information of third parties, or of events in the wider sense as encyclopedic fact. Am just sayin'...--Cerejota (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: NPOV and the Gaza massacre.

I like to bring up the subject of NPOV and this article. As it is now it is threated as about a conflict between two fairly equal parts. As time goes and info leaking through the israeli newsblockade making the horrible picture stronger. It is a fact that israel have comited a atrousity of maby not epic but historic proportions. The killing of civilian on an organised level and of individual israeli soldier are totaly awfull. The article must leave the focus of a conflict with somewath equal bad parts with its NPOV limitations.

Some editors here have successfull whitewashed the israeli crimes by reasons I dont understand. If they belong to israeli infowar-effort that be, of cause unacceptable in a wikiperspective, but I guess they are more of israeli nationalists or israeli usefull idiots of either conservative americans with their naive worldview or fascists who justify the massacre of ppl they dislike by they own dirtugly reasons.

We also stand infront of a response by many direct affected and other strongly indignated after this awfull action by the israelis. When palestinians and arabs wake up from their chock, the israelis will probably face the dragonseed they planted. Quotes like this from a only surviving child of a whole murdered family "I will never forgive them" or other victims saying "Heaven is closed from now".

Article must be moved to somthing more up to date with the reality of information and facts surfacing. Maby time to move it to The Gaza massacre or something to make it possible to edit with NPOV in mind, not with NPOV as the tool for those who support israels actions. The terrorist state of israel. The state which existens now must be questioned. NPOV must respond to reality and facts, not to a idea of equal parts in a conflit, equal reponsybilitys of thousend killed in a ghettolike construction on one side and a handfull on the occupier side.

With sadness and rage that make my article editing almost impossible. Brunte (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

while your opinion is respected, please limit your comments to specific issues within the article. many of us here strive for npov, but we can only achieve that through reasoned arguments about content and policy. statements like this only fuel the animosity of editors who don't share your views. please find reliable sources that show your viewpoint and include them in the article. thanks Untwirl (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
uhh, yeah, the common name in English is not 'The Gaza Massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs for this article

I noticed that previous talk sections on images were dedicated to one particular photograph. I hope in this section we might look at a selection of available photographs and make some comparative analysis. RomaC (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy/respect of the dead

I think the article should not show the faces of dead people, on either sides. This is for maintaining the privacy/respect of those individuals who were killed. Loss of human lives is unfotunate, but displaying a dead girl's face, from either sides, is not an ethical thing to do here. John Hyams (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ugghh, you cannot seriously say that we should, in effect, cover up the loss of life that this conflict has caused and say we should do it in the name of ethics. Nableezy (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why can he not say such a thing? It is a reasonable viewpoint to respect the privacy of the dead (who cannot give consent to being photographed). I think that the picture of the dead girl is acceptable, but I do not think JHs viewpoint is unreasonable, even though I mildly disagree. V. Joe (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to oppose it on ethical grounds. Morals vary from culture to culture, and religion to religion, but ethics in this case means standards of professional conduct. As we are 'editors of an encyclopedia' our ethics should be based on that mission. It cannot be seen as unethical to display these pictures in an encyclopedia. You might think it is immoral, but that also cannot be a valid argument for inclusion or exclusion of material. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I can agree with that, as far as valid goes, but it is by no means unreasonable. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Privacy means 'the sphere of life opposed to public life'. One withdraws from public life to enjoy one's life in private. The dead have no privacy in this sense, since they have no life, having had their lives, public and private, denied them. The dead only 'exist' in commemoration, which is, as often as not, public. Were the dead to have natural private rights, the genre of biography would die on its feet, or its practitioners languish in gaol for many a violation of the deceased's ostensible right not to have his private life written.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see the point behind displaying images of dead people of any side and in any time. the graveness of destruction can be adressed in numbers, and if doing so through photographs is necessary, images of destroyed houses, hospitals, mosques, bridges, police stations, and so on with the list as further as not to show the images of the dead, and specially the faces. The human being should be respected dead and alive as well, and as dead people cannot tell whether they agree that people see their dead bodies -noting that "people" here means those who live the other way across the globe where they never met before, or virtually any and every one- or not, specially, when that means showing their burned up, sliced, and deformed bodies, and the favorite media coverage of showing the suffering expression on the faces of the dead. Maybe Islam is the only religion that prohibits viewing any part of the body of a dead believer; i do not know, but i really believe that at least the extreme vast majority of cultural view points no matter how different they are, agree on that seeing dead people is not some thing necessary, and should be avoided. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
i would argue that we are showing respect for human life by showing the catastrophic loss of life of war - which by its nature holds human life at a lower value than the goals of a conflict.Untwirl (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
By stating the catastrophic loss of human life, we show the truth. We might have different view points, by we all agree on telling the truth. This is History, we cannot change history, but we can tell what happened, and hope it wont happen again -and doing any thing we can to avoid it's painfull facts being repeated-.
I also think that the nature of wars is that two armies, or two military forces of any kind fighting each other, not one military power killing civilians, and demolishing cities. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
'The human being should be respected dead and alive talk. I commend the ssentiment sir, but the photo is of someone who wasn't sufficiently respected to be allowed to remain alive. The pics have been picked clean to make us read in perfect comfort. If people preferred print, they would not watch the boobtube, which shows such things in any case. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally have been to multiple Islamic funerals where the face was not covered. I cannot find anything in Islam that says viewing any part of a dead person is prohibited. Also, whether or not Islam bans this is irrelevant, that cannot be used as an argument, as per WP:CENSOR. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Define the term "Islamic funerals". do you mean those made by Hamas after their fire they useless toy rockets on no man's land giving the Israelis an excuse to kill civilians, and further western puplic support? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean funeral services carried out for Muslims in a mosque (Janazah, or you might say Ganazah) and then a burial according to Islamic law. That you blame Hamas for all this doesn't really concern me, in fact it hurts less than a mosquito bite, but your assertion that it is against Islamic law to show any part of a dead body is both factually wrong, as well as completely irrelevant to this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually i did not intend to hurt you, so sorry it hurts less than a mosquito bite would. This is not the place to discuss the the Islamic law, neither where it would come to an effect. Any way, see p.349, part one, "فقه السنة". I am a Muslim living in a Muslim society, and apart from those Hamas and Hamas-like funerals on TV, i never saw the body of a dead person in a funeral. So let's now forget the religious view point, and continue the discussion.One last pharaoh (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it's "Ganaza" in Masry, not "Ganazah". One last pharaoh (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
ok ok you both know alot about islam.:>) i dont, but luckily wiki doesn't follow islamic law so we dont have to worry about that!  ;>) regardless, i think we can come to a consensus that dead people are shown on wiki and this section is irrelevant to the article, huh? 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Untwirl (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This was not an ancient Egyptian funeral either, there is no complete wrapping of the face like mummies, at least not to my knowledge. Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, this was a girl at a hospital not a "Hamas funeral" as you cynically put it. Every Arab news station displays the casualties of war, I haven't heard of any outcry against it by Muslim scholars. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Like if every thing Arab new agencies do is right according to Islamic law. any way let's forget about that, it does not have any effect. actually the image showing the girl's face was in a hospital like you said, and it is very clear that that was not what i was talking about. For those who wondered what did you mean by Mr. Ana min Ahlil Farioon, I suppose you meant Mr. I am of the people of the Pharaoh which BTW should have been written as Mr.Ana men ahlell-Phar'oon; And yes, i am proudly one of the people of the pharaohs, the people of the black land. Let's not get to which is better Arabs, or Egyptians, because this is not the place for it. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

can we "come to a consensus that dead people are shown on wiki and this section is irrelevant to the article"? Untwirl (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Any argument based on the religious or cultural misgivings of displaying such images should be summarily dismissed. Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It was just an opinion. I still think that images that are very violent, or very "non respectful" for the dead be excluded.One last pharaoh (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That wasnt directed specifically at you. And you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion. But even if I shared your religious or cultural misgivings on the display on these images, I might not advocate their display but I certainly would not advocate their removal, because my beliefs should not influence anothers actions. Just my personal thinking. Nableezy (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This whole section has been on people's opinions. Therefore I find discussing whether or not we should remove the pictures of the dead to be irrelevant on the basis of being "disrespectful". Wikipedia does not censor, see My Lai Massacre and Sabra and Shatila massacre. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this discussion isn't going to achieve anything because Wiki doesn't censor. It's not a negotiation. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, we should not start removing images from wikipedia solely on the basis that they might offend the sensabilities of some readers. That is the essence (practically the definition) of censorship. Wikipedia does not censor.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, I agree with eds lastpharoah and John Hyams ... not to mention the families of the dead who have presumably not given permission for them to be used in this venue. A further point in relation to these dead children is the weight of the pictures on the page. As I wrote elsewhere on this page , we now have, with the exception of a (non-emotive pic) of rockets coming into Israel from Gaza , all the pictures refer to destroyed Gazan orphanages, dead and wounded Gazan children, bombed out Gazan buildings etc, bombs over Gaza, accusations of use of illegal weapons against Israel, etc. Some of these pictures are of dubious parentage (ISM) but the collection of them makes for a serious unbalance in the article. The article is better balanced with zero pictures of dead people or children, and we do not run the risk of appearing to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia. All of these pictures make for UNDUE WEIGHT on only one perspective in this "conflict." The other side should put up pictures of Hamas suicide bombings in order to show both perspectives equally. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia may not WP:CENSOR but obviously and hopefully, it does discriminate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You keep expecting that the damage shown be equal, that is not reality. The damage is not balanced, to try to show that it is would be UNDUE WEIGHT. And these images are in the public domain, there is no issue of permission. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? If there is undue weight it is having two pictures of rockets going to Isreal. Undue means we show what happened not give an equal number of pictures to both sides. What happened was Isreal dropped thousands of bombs and missiles and killed 1300+ people while leveling hundreds of buildings, hamas launched tens of rockets killing under 10 people and a few squaddis. The pictures in this article do not show the true amount of devistation or civilian toll, more need to be added, i think there is a need for a gallery of ALL pictures relating to this conflict on this page. (Hypnosadist) 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am quite serious. This war didn't happen in a vacuum. There were years of Hamas suicide bombings, kidnappings and murders, followed by years of rockets, after Israel left Gaza. You don't go around bombing your neighbor and expect them to sit quietly and do nothing. Then when your neighbor finally gets good and sick of it and retaliates, you claim everyone there was civilian and no one was really doing anything. Good luck! btw, what is a "squaddi"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy.YTou have a serious problem with chronology as well as geography (Samaria is Israel). years of suicide bombings by Hamas did not follow Israel's withdrawal from, and blockade of, Gaza. Israel barred all gazans from entry after the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
squaddi is an infantry soldier in british military slang. (Hypnosadist) 06:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly presents itself as part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We don't have to present the entire conflict on this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you citing WP:Controversial articles ? There's no controversy. Lot's of people died/were injured and buildings were destroyed. We need to show that. Where's the controversy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ha. We have 20-some odd pages of archived talk for something that happened less than a month ago and you claim there is no controversy? There is a war going on and we can't decide what to call it. Pages have been written over whether it is called the Gaza Massacre or a massacre in Gaza. We can't even decide if it started or intensified on the 19th or the 27th. If it's a conflict, if it's a war or what? And you don't think the article is controversial?!? You're joking, right? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

i think what sean was saying is that there is no controversy over how many people were killed on each side. and it is the proportional weight of these figures that should determine the 'ratio' of photos/text regarding each. Untwirl (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Untwirl. (Hypnosadist) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) And Gaza Massacre is only a 'controversy' because you cannot accept that people have used it as a name for the conflict, you keep on insisting that it is an accusation that needs some response. We report it as a name of the conflict, now if you refuse to accept reason then you can persist in calling this a controversy. Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Untwirl corrected interpreted my meaning and in future I would like to subcontract all of my edits to Untwirl to save time....well, my time anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the guidelines at WP:CONTROVERSY doesn't really say anything anyway. Just remember to dot your i's and cross your t's. The more important thing is what they decided at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Apparently we are supposed to act in a "dignified fashion" among other things. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was here where it is said, among other things: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. --my bolds. Fair and accurate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to what some are saying above, we could show, for example, faces of dead people from the September 11th attack. That would be OK by them. I say: No, we should not. John Hyams (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the most haunting images, at least to me, of that event are displayed, specifically the three frames of the plane flying in to the building. Wikipedia shows dead faces all over the place. Nableezy (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, with respect "No, we should not" contains no information about how you arrived at that conclusion and you haven't referred to any Wiki guidelines (By the way I found myself imagining you at the back of an Obama rally shouting that everytime he said "Yes, we can" for my own amusement). I can guess what you mean and why you would draw a parallel i.e. dignity issues, try to transpose the issue to a more familiar context etc but I'm just guessing. Maybe it is useful to discuss this in a context more familiar to some editors. I think we could show the faces of dead people from 9/11 and that would be OK and consistent with Wiki guidelines but I would see little benefit to a 9/11 article in doing that because such images are decontextualized i.e. they contain practically no information about the event. I would argue that the same goes for certain images from Gaza but something is a infinitely better than nothing. When I try to look at the images in the 9/11 Wiki article from the imaginary perspective of a person who knows nothing about the event I think the images don't really provide a very good description of the horrific nature of the event. The whole article (and I have to say the whole US media nowadays) appears to suffer from some form of self-censorship. For example, the iconic images for me are the ones of people who decided to jump rather than burn. Those kind of images show you the context, they aren't sanitised, they show the human element, they don't pull any punchs and viewers are better placed to imagine the true nature of the event and it's consequences for people in the building. In the same sense I would consider images of burned and mangled bodies of people who died in 9/11 as entirely appropriate for that article. Those kind of images are required in the 9/11 article and they're required in this article at least for me but only if they enable the reader to gain a better understanding of the event. The risk of censorship based on 'Yuck it's horrible' or 'I don't want to see that' creeping into Wikipedia is something that I think everyone needs to take very seriously indeed because pretty much every single culture, demographic/religious etc group has something they don't like to look at so Wiki's ability to educate is attacked from all sides. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, then I may need to raise this issue on the talk page one of the guideline pages. I may do so, or perhaps just upload the faces of dead Israelis instead, who suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years, or faces of dead individuals from Sudan, in the relevant articles. If any other editor will object that, I will refer him to what you have said. Anyway, just a question, are there faces of dead individuals on the online Britannica encyclopedia? John Hyams (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to upload graphic photos that show the objective reality of suicide attacks on Israelis to the appropriate articles or pictures of that nature from any other part of the world you are free to do so and I would fully support you if they improve the articles and comply with guidelines. As I say, faces by themselves or indeed decontextualized information of any nature doesn't help much in my view. Regarding "suffered countless intentional suicide/terror attacks for years", they are countable not countless and in Wiki we count them along with the statistics for the deaths of Lebanese, Palestinian and other people resulting from Israeli actions so that readers can find the information and draw their own conclusions based on reliably sourced information. As for Britannica, it's not relevant to Wiki but I doubt that they have the same content disclaimer and WP:NOTCENSORED rules as here but yes, I think you probably can see the faces of dead individuals and those about to die in their Library of Congress photos for example in the Holocaust article and elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so with your permission, I will add a photo of a dead Muslim girl to this article:
I hope you will not mind. Thanks John Hyams (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, well you don't need anyone's permission to edit Wiki. You already signed your contract when you signed up. If you can get hold of good images describing what is happening in the civil war in the south I would absolutely support you 100% because everything going on down there is totally censored in Thailand along with many other issues. Consequently, no one really has a clue what is happening (apart from that lot's of people are dying) and the major news networks don't have people on the ground in the 3 provinces in the south. It's a perfect example of the potential of Wiki to provide information unavailable elsewhere because, for the time being at least, Wiki isn't one of the tens of thousands of web sites blocked in Thailand for political reasons by unelected government censors trained in China. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should read WP:POINT but I dont really care if you do add one to that article. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course you (Nableezy) don't care, because you have a pro-Muslim agenda as many Muslim editors who have joined Wikipedia just to state/promote a political agenda (with reference to your user page).
My point is this: I could not find other articles in Wikipedia where faces of dead individuals are presented. Could you show me other conflict-related articles that present the faces of dead people? This Anti-Israel campaign on Wikipedia is a façade. Such pictures are presented in order to "show" how "heartless" is Israel, when Israel never shows the faces of its own deads on TV, never during all the suicide bombings attacks, Israel has never released such pictures because of ethics. Israel never intentionally targets civilians, no other army in the world makes so much effort to avoid that (if yes, please state the army name). While Hamas intentionally targets civilians and uses civilians as human shields (firing rockets from schools, mosques and press buildings), and encourages civilian losses for its own propaganda. Israel was defending itself, nothing more, like any other sane nation in the world, and I have not seen such dead faces, for example, in the articles about the Mulim attacks in Bali, Besslan (the children in Russia), suicide bombings in Israel (if you didn't know why the West Bank wall was build - per your user page), the Falkland Islands war (Britain vs. Argentina), the Iran-Iraq war, and so on. Wikipedia is being used here intentionally to discredit Israel. This has to stop. John Hyams (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a 'pro-Muslim' agenda? I think I have a pro-human agenda, and my user page makes no mention of my Muslim beliefs except for a tiny userbox, which is hidden, that states 'This user is a Muslim'. And if you want faces of dead people, here you go: My Lai Massacre, The Holocaust, Vietnam War, Korean War, or World War II to name a few off the top of my head. Your last edit clearly shows your 'pro-Israeli' agenda. What has to stop is people trying to stop the truth from getting out in the name of some misguided nationalism. You do not see me trying to edit out any mention of Egyptian human rights abuses, or try to hide that Muslims have done some terrible things. You do not see my trying to remove the images of Muhammad, as surely I would have had I been operating with a 'pro-Muslim' agenda. My religious beliefs are not your concern, you cannot point to a single edit where I have done something in the name of Islam. And I know why the wall was built, but I also know that parts of its construction have been deemed illegal by the International Court for Justice, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. You really need to open a book before attacking somebody that disagrees with you. And in this very thread I have repeatedly stated that religious feelings, namely Muslim religious feelings coming from an Egyptian Muslim, should not impact the contents of this encyclopedia. So I kindly ask that you not reference my religious beliefs again. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Israel has ethics (not showing dead faces), Hamas has none (as I wrote above, and you did not provide an answer to that). There is a great difference between the Holocaust and this conflict. The Holocaust is a a crime against humanity in which people were being murdered systematically in a factory-like mechanism (gas chambers + ovens). This conflict, however, is just like any other armed conflict in the world. If there are any criminals here, its the Hamas fascist group. If you are trying (I hope not) to compare between the Gaza conflict and the Holocaust, then I would say you are poorly sighted. In none of the links you have given there's a close-up photo. In the Holocaust photo, there is a pile of corpses, none of these persons are identifiable. This girl is. John Hyams (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, take a look at this regarding IDF ethics in using 'human shields', including the continued use after the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the practice illegal. My Lai has a few close ups, so does WW2 article. Your whole argument has been that Israel should not be allowed to be displayed in a bad light. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that sentiment can not be allowed to stand in an 'encyclopedia'. Your personal feelings on the morals of Hamas are irrelevant to this conversation, that you do not like Hamas is not reason enough for us not to display any images of Palestinians who have been killed in this conflict. A huge percentage of the casualties have been children, that is a fact that should be illustrated. Hamas is widely considered a terrorist group, but it is also widely considered a resistance group. They run hospitals, schools, and orphanages, as well as many other civil programs. They are also the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. That they treat Israel as their enemy is logical, as Israel treats Hamas as its enemy. This isn't propgaganda, this is an accurate portrayal of the events that occurred and the damage these events have caused. You keep objecting because you do not want to see anything that could possible portray Israel in a bad light. I am sorry, but that simply is not an acceptable argument. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, Israel has a supreme court, Hamas has none. Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a fascist regime. You are only strengthening my point: the court has ruled (in that case) that IDF did not - in that case - behave as it should, according to Israel's laws. So Israel's laws dictate how the IDF should behave. Hamas, on the other hand, intentionally targets civilians.
CHILDREN? You again avoided the fact that HAMAS ABUSES children (, putting explosives on children and using them as SHIELDS in their fight against IDF. Hamas are killing THEIR OWN civilians (, and is USING CIVILIAN BUILDINGS in order to encourage casualties, firing ROCKETS FROM MOSQUES and schools.
Democratically elected?? Hamas took Gaza by FORCE. They killed/butchered all Fatah members, including their families. You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with.
But all that is irrelevant to this specific discussion. This girl is identifiable, and that is not a practice in Wikipedia, this is my argument, and it is very acceptable. Israel does not put faces of SUICIDE BOMBING attacks, so you should refrain from doing so as well. John Hyams (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That comment is completely uncalled for and absolutely not allowed anywhere on WP and most especially here. I don't think Nableezy has anything to be ashamed of in his conduct but even if he was behaving poorly you have no right to say things like that to another editor. I'm not going to bother throwing up links to the relevant policies because I'm pretty sure you know how wrong that outburst was.
As strongly as I can say this as a simple editor I think you should at least take a few days away from this article. Besides the general expectation of good behaviour, we are operating under the restrictions of this arbitration. I strongly suggest that you read the remedies there. And I think that you owe Nableezy an apology as well. If I was Nableezy, I'd be leaving a message for an admin right now. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
JGGardiner, do not patronize on me and do not try to educate me. I stand behind all I've ever written on Wikipedia and I have low tolerance for those who endorse Hamas or any other fascist or Nazi group. I strongly suggest that you speak to the point regarding this specific discussion and don't assume the part of other people who obviously have a pro-Hamas agenda. John Hyams (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly believe you should be banned from editing Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Never have I heard a user (no matter how much POV he showed) accuse someone of being a "Hamas operative". You are way out of line and it seems all you want do is bash Hamas. Obviously you don't know what NPOV - a key of Wikipedia - is. We all have strong emotions but we keep them out of articles and talk pages of article. You could present your POV on your user page. I have generally stayed out of this article, but I couldn't just stand idly by while you accuse an editor of being an operative of a militant group. Shame on you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Ameer son, you yourself should be banned. On your user page you endorse a dictator (Nasser of Egypt) who said once that Israel should be burned to the ground and that all Jews should be thrown to the sea. Shame on YOU!! This is becoming a joint Arab venture I see, and don't think for a moment that the administrators are that stupid (and they're not, thank God). John Hyams (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Shame on me for "supporting a dictator"? This is grounds for being banned while accusing other editors of being operatives of Hamas is not? My POV does not breach my user page (occasionally I engage other editors in a brotherly matter, but there's no harm in that). I haven't allowed my pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian view violate the NPOV of articles as well as their talk pages. You have no right to bash me for supporting Nasser (you know nothing of him except that he was a dictator, and since you are probably not Arab you will have little sympathy for his cause of Arab unity). This is besides the point, my POV is on my user page and I don't accuse anyone of being an "operative", spy, whatever, of any organization, nor do I bash anyone and anything out of respect for other people's views no matter how much I could diasgree with them. I learned in my first month on Wikipedia, that doesn't get you anywhere, since at the end of the day, Wikipedia will always follow NPOV. You should learn this also. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, there John Hyams (talk). Your comments here are unacceptable: "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." constitutes a personal attack and implied threat toward an editor. RomaC (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
By saying "this has to be dealt with" I meant by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. Who were already summoned by the way. John Hyams (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
John. you need to calm down and set your own views on these matters to one side if you want to contribute to Wiki on subjects where you have a strong POV. Wiki is "just" an encyclopedia. Your job here is to help present a reliably sourced, verifiable description of objective reality in order to educate. In theory it's as simple as that. That description absolutely cannot be skewed by your or anyone else's partisan political, moral or religious views. Can you do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I can, but the Arab/pro-Arab editors here clearly can't. An encyclopedia in an important thing in our days. It's not "just" an encyclopedia, it's *the* encyclopedia in the 21st century. John Hyams (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that why I just the quotation marks. Okay, the key thing is that complaining by itself won't achieve anything and complaining about editors rather than the article is counterproductive amongst other things. Attacking editors will get you banned for a while. You need to support a complaint with evidence, bring it to the talk page, demonstrate that there's an inconsistency between information in the article and reliable sources or Wiki guidelines, argue your case in a reasoned way. Pretty much every editor here has complained that parts of this article are pro-this or anti-that at some point. It's bound to happen but despite that, the article is by and large well sourced and evolving through consensus. Editors here are quite polarised but if you actually look at the information in the article, look at the edits made by people you think are not following the rules (and make sure you understand WP:UNDUE) I think it would be quite difficult to support the view that it's "anti-Israeli" or taking sides in a conflict. The images seem to be problematic for many people for reasons that I don't fully understand. Showing what has happened to people and infrastructure in Gaza isn't anti-Israeli or Wiki taking sides in a conflict any more than showing what happened at Abu Ghraib is anti-American or Wiki recruiting for Jihadi groups. It's just showing what happened like we're supposed to. Personally I don't understand why these things are becoming such a big deal given that the rules in Wiki are pretty clear about due weight, NPOV, no censorship, reliable sources, assume good faith and so forth. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This is awesome. I really wanted to get on the JIDF list, you think you can make that happen? And I support Nasser too, would you like to raise that to the administrators?. Nasser, ya huriya, Nasser, ya watania, Nasser, ya ruh el um el arabiyya, ya NAAAAASSER! Great singers never die Nableezy (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
And since you did just accuse me of violating US federal law, I kinda have to say this. FBI, if you are watching (i know the if isnt necessary but anyway) I am not, nor have I ever been, a Hamas operative. I have never provided material support to a terrorist group. Thanks for the understanding FBI. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
..on the other hand you have helped pay for all this through a variety of taxes so if anything John should be thanking you. I'm just saying. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Dog, you dont have to hurt my feelings :( Nableezy (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Above, "dog" was said as a Chicagoan not an Egyptian, a term of endearment rather than a personal attack :) Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, don't worry about the FBI too much. They're still busy searching for the alleged Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. ;) --Darwish07 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Step back for a minute

It's obvious that this issue generates very heated emotions on both sides. In the skirmishes about Islamic law, who has what agenda, and censorship, the core discussion has been lost: the question is whether this image provides encyclopedic value to this article. That Wikipedia is not censored does not imply a free pass for all objectionable material to be in all articles. Just because we could show nude photos on any porn star's article doesn't mean we have to. One could find disturbing photos to place on many pages under the guise of "we can't censor." Personally, I don't believe that pictures of casualties of war belong on any Wikipedia page unless there is a very specific reason that their inclusion would increase the readers' understanding, and in this case I just don't see any encyclopedic value coming from the inclusion of these photos. Oren0 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with that, but i think there is encyclopedic value in illustrating that a huge percentage of the casualties have been children, I think such an image does indeed increase the readers understanding. But I don't think the argument has been made that we should include the pictures because we don't censor; that argument has been used to refute users who specifically objected to the use of images on moral, ethical or religious grounds. Other arguments have been made in the archived discussion currently at the top of this page that, specifically the image being discussed there, was not representative of Palestinian casualties. That argument was not met with 'We don't censor', the ones that say we shouldn't display the images because of their own cultural or religious misgivings have been. Nableezy (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
52-60% of Gazans are under the age of 18, according to sources. Thus a larger than normal percentage of casualties would be under the age of 18 based on simple statistics. However, before you suggest that the percentage of children is huge, I would think you would want a verified source for that. Considering that Israel did warn civilians before striking their homes, it would be surprising if most sensible people did not try to move themselves and their children out of harm's way. I am aware that some did not however, even after being warned. Perhaps some were forced by Hamas to stay and be martyrs, as per the Italian journalist Cremonisi. Furthermore, the vast majority of casualties, children or otherwise, was the direct result of Hamas' actions by firing from civilian areas. So maybe you ought to be looking to more pictures of Hamas firing rockets from built-up areas. I remind everybody that before this attack, Hamas was warned what would happen if they continued firing rockets. The onus is completely on Hamas for these pictures and that ought to be made clear if they are put on this page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WHAT????? The onus is on Hamas. WHAT???? That entire post is meaningless. I am sorry, but if I shoot somebody, the injury to that person is directly attributed to me. I dont think you understand what you are typing. As such, I am not going to pay any more attention to what you typed. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think TB means something along the lines of "if I take a hostage, and that hostage is shot by the SWAT team in order to kill me," am I, the hostage-taker responsible, or is SWAT operative?" My question for you is "if the hostages taken were Serbian, placed by the Serbian Army, who would you blame, the Coalition pilot who took out the target, or the Serbian officers who placed the civilians in the way? V. Joe (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ok how about this, if I force you to live in a place and not leave, even if you get scholarships to prestigious universities overseas, and then I start bombing you, am I responsible for the death of those that died? This is all personal feelings bs, and it doesnt belong here. And who is keeping who hostage, a couple reports about Hamas telling people to stay in their homes, or a long running siege where somebody needs permission to take a shit. Nableezy (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, then, how is the West Bank fairing in all of this? They don't launch rockets so they are allowed to go about their ordinary tasks with a minimum of fuss. As for the Palestinian "refugees" not being allowed to leave, aren't the other Arab governments, particularly Egypt as culpable as Israel? Israel has attempted to give the Palestinians a state many times, and in each case, by failing to control militants, Fatah and now Hamas have forced the Israeli's back into these occupied territories. The result is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world. What is especially ironic about all of this is that the West is largely footing the bill via the UN charities and grants to the P.A. Less than 10% of the "living" funds come from Arab states. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is like you cannot see what appears to me to be a simple cause and effect. For some reason, you see this is a response to the rockets, but you do not once ask what are the rockets in response to? What is that in response to? ... And as has already been discussed, again with no relevance to the content of this article but only as trying to deflect blame from Israel, yes I think Egypt is complicit in this crime, but I do not think they are the perpetrator. Egypt has a moral responsibility to provide assistance to the people of Gaza, Israel has a legal one. Also, Egypt has closed its border, it has not participated in a blockade of Gaza's coast. No matter what the state of Israel says about whether or not the unilateral disengagement of Gaza somehow makes them no longer an occupying power, the UN, and a number of human rights organizations disagree. But again, where is the relevance in all of this in discussing whether or not this picture should be included? I think next time I am just going to save 5 minutes of my life. Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes a war/conflict/terrorist attack etc notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article ? Surely the most obvious answer is casualties. We need to assist readers in their 'imagining' of an event using the best material available which can be limited. Not trying to show casualties and the human impact in a conflict related article seems distinctly odd to me. Are you able to outline the decision procedures you use to decide
  • a) whether a conflict related image has encyclopedic value by increasing the readers understanding
  • b) whether a conflict related image is objectionable (bearing in mind that this procedure must be globally applicable, culturally neutral etc i.e. it must comply with guidelines)
perhaps using a specific example such as the famous Haeberle photos here. The reason I ask is that I keep hearing the same things from people objecting to photos coming out of Gaza but so far no one has really managed to explain their decision procedures. I'm struggling to understand how some people are reaching their conclusions because the decision procedures are either never explained or else ignore guidelines and the approach used in other conlict related articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes an attack notable and worthy are the casualties? What about the article on the Christmas massacres which took place at the same time as this one, and brought up by a previous editor? This from the wiki entry.
The Christmas massacres took place on 25–27 December 2008, when the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan rebel group, attacked several villages in Haut-Uele Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
"Media reports indicated that more than 400 people were killed many of them hacked into pieces, decapitated, or burned alive in their homes. Several people reportedly had their lips cut off as a "warning not to speak ill of the rebels", and 'two three-year-old girls suffered serious neck injuries when rebels tried to twist their heads off. More than 20,000 people were reported to have been displaced by the attacks, and at least 20 children were abducted by the LRA. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that as many as 225 people, including 160 children, may have been abducted and more than 80 women raped. (my bolds)
You might not understand it, but there is not one picture on that page of anyone hacked to pieces, decapitated, burned alive or raped. Not one picture of the wounds of a three year old girl whose neck was twisted by the LRA. The only discussion on that talk page is not over pictures in the least, but whether to delete the article altogether! Can you explain the difference? Why are there no pictures on that page? Are the Congolese people and children somehow less worthy than their Palestinian counterparts of having their fate illustrated? Where is the outrage over that event? Can you spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I spell it t-u-n-d-r-a-b-u-g-g-y. Nableezy (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And before you even say 'comment on content not contributors' keep in mind you just called a whole bunch of us hypocrites. If you feel so strongly about that event, by all means go edit that article. Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Images selected should be commensurate with the nature of the conflict. I don't think any, even in the IDF, doubt that massive destruction occurred and a high proportion of casualties were civilian. Not to register this element is to distort the reality on the ground. This should also be true of suicide bombings of restaurants.Those articles lack photos of such detail, apparently, from scruples internal to Israeli/Jewish beliefs. But more generally, many war articles carry them, and it would be improper to suggest that because of Israeli practice, articles on Muslim victims should, correspondingly, refrain from carrying such material. That would be both ethnocentric and a misunderstanding of things through a rather restrictive application of the notion of parity. The cultures and the realities are different.In my view, it is simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The decision process for this is the same as the decision process for anything else: community consensus. In addition to their questionable encyclopedic value, I'm concerned about the photos being used purely for shock value. Showing pictures of dead children on one side of a casualty, in addition to being shocking and objectionable to many readers IMO, seems very POV to me. I urge everyone to read Jimbo Wales' take on this, specifically: "I would immediately think of at least two cautionary notes. First, the human dignity of the person (and their family and loved ones, in case you think it doesn't matter what happens to someone once they are dead) strikes me as a relevant consideration. Second, such images can often be used to promote a political agenda." If we can't come to an agreement on this here, a wider RfC may be in order. Oren0 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with not showing an image because we do not show an equivalent on the other side is that there are no such equivalent images on the Israeli side. There have been 13 Israeli deaths in this conflict, 3 of which were civilians. There have been a reported 1330 Palestinian deaths, 940 'civilians' (where civilian is defined as children, women, and elderly males) among them 437 children or 32% of all deaths or 46% of 'civilian' deaths. I think it would be appropriate to illustrate that. The damage isnt equivalent, I cannot see why the images should be. Nableezy (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
1) The reason Israel has no such pictures is because Israel's ethics does not allow the release of such pictures on the media. Israel respects its dead. Hamas, appearantly, does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2) In World War II, the allied forces bombed German cities without even thinking about civilians. Would we show a dead German girl in order to add any encyclopedic value?
3) The difference between the allied forces in WW2 and Israel, is that IDF at least does every effort to avoid civilian casualties, while Hamas does every effort to encourage civilian casualties, on both sides: On the Israeli side in order to kill civilians, and on the Gazan side in order to appear well on the media. Thank God that the Germans did not have the media back then, because the may have appealed to it every time the allied forces were bombing their cities and killing German civilians. Since Hamas is using civilans as human shields in schools, that girl may have been killed due to Hamas's actions and not Israel's.
4) As editor John stated above, this girl is identifyable. No where in Wikipedia are there faces like this poor girl's face. Imagine it was your sister. Would you want to see her dead face on an Internet article? On all other articles, the persons are not identifyable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You misread what I said. How many children have been killed on the Israeli side in this conflict? As far as I know, 0, though it could be up to 3 as that was the total number of civilians. That is why there are no such images on 'the Israeli side'. There have been 437 Palestinian children killed, that is why such images exist. And we have already shown multiple locations where "identifyable" (sic) images are used elsewhere on wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Many German children were killed by the allied forces in WW2. Adding a German girl's face to the WW2 article would have no encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
First, could you please sign your comments? Second, if you have any evidence that the number of children killed in bombing raids was presented in multiple RS, and that the percentage of children among those killed was so high as it is here, I would think it would add encyclopedic value to that article to illustrate such a thing. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The number of children is a direct consequence of Hamas's usage of childrens as shilelds, and using schools to fire missles from. So if it's just a numbers issue, then Wikipedia should mention that Hamas was using childrens and schools as shields and firing locations. (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be arguing about whether to show both a dead Israeli child and a dead Palestinian one. We should be arguing about whether to show images of the dead at all, which I argue we shouldn't. Pictures of the dead serve no more of an encyclopedic purpose than numbers do except to inflame, offend, and push an agenda. Oren0 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur. (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I rather wish we were discussing instead of arguing, but I think images of the dead also serve to educate the reader rather than just inflame, offend, or push an agenda. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What "education" could be gained by a graphic photo of a dead body that cannot be gained by text indicating the casualties? Surely you agree that the image may be offensive to some and therefore it seems logical that in order to keep the image we'd need a compelling encyclopedic value that non-offensive text cannot meet. Oren0 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Education can be gained in text as well as images. Images can describe things that are nearly indescribable in words. To allow somebody to understand something requires more then just a single input for many. The very same reason why we need images to show us the events of the My Lai Massacre in a way that illuminates the reader as to what happened. The same reason we need images to show the effect on even those who survived the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Images are needed to show what happened. And the sad fact is that a large number of children died as a result of this conflict. That is something that is much more easily described by a single picture rather than an entire article. As far as any accusation of POV-pushing, I would have to object on these grounds. The damage shown can be shown in a neutral way, that the damage was not actually equivalent does not make it that showing an accurate portrayal of the damage is non-NPOV. But to answer why I think specifically this image is needed is to demonstrate to the reader that the number of child casualties as a result of this conflict is very high, in absolute number, in percentage of dead and wounded, and in percentage of civilian dead and wounded. That image is representative of 32% of all deaths in this conflict. I think that is reason enough to conclude that it does serve a compelling encyclopedic value to include. Nableezy (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
On a separate note, would you mind making this a separate section rather then a subsection of the above. I would personally rather have that nonsense archived. Nableezy (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)