Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

*Sigh*

10 pages of archived talk? In 1 week? These talk page blowouts are going to last as long as the real war, and be just as bloody. Personally, I'll be happier once both sides either grow up, or totally destroy each other. Maybe then the rest of us can have our planet (and wikipedia) back. Honestly, this whole thing is more complicated, more pathetic and attracts more fanaticism, hatred and firepower than that userbox deletion thing that I came across while perusing through through 'Hstoric Debates section. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

..there's a real war ? i thought it was just a chat room. damn it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I wish both Israel and Hamas would battle it out here, and this way avoid civilian casualties on both sides. I'll see what I can do... Rabend (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we? Or is that cheque I just got signed خالد مشعل‎ going to bounce when I bank it on Monday?Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody is going to take that seriously (and it probably would bounce, they havent been given the aid promised them as elected govt of the PNA) Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza wikichat... I know, I know it will be the last... at least until the next :D--Cerejota (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporters and the Israeli Supreme Court

The last few sentences in the lead claims the Supreme court ruled blocking reporters from enter gaza was illegal but the cited reference specifically states the court did not rule on this topic, instead making a suggestion of a compromise. I recomend the sentence be editted to reflect this. Does anyone have a different opinion or a source with more detail on the courts actual statement?

This source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3_dkukPxeaK15_zQviIWnwfKIpQ states it clearly: supreme court ordered journalists to be allowed in. The sentence appears to have been removed however.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Graph for dead and wounded

I have created this graph to show dead and wounded. Please make any suggestions and upload it in the casualties sections. Maxipuchi (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the number of "militants" on the Palestinian side from?VR talk 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (as indicated at the bottom of your graph).VR talk 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


MY EYES!!! :D This is too big and shiny, besides I restate my opinion that these types of charts are better for the end of the events, fog of war and all that. But you guys seem intent on it so go ahead...--Cerejota (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Israel managed to kill hundreds of Palestinian militants without wounding any. And by "odd", I mean it makes me question the integrity of this data. — PyTom (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how many Palestinian wounded are militants, we dont have a source that reports it, and hence the green. But there should definitely be an explicit mention of being unable to independently verify the claims and what 'uncertain' means Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to use this graph (and frankly, I'm not sure it's all that useful, especially shrunk down to the point where it can go in the article), it might make sense to reorganize it a little. Perhaps it makes sense to put the unclear casualties between the military and civilian, and shade it in either a neutral color, or with diagonal stripes of the two other colors. — PyTom (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this chart. I suggest another one broken down by the number of women, children, and elderly killed. Please see Half of Gaza dead 'children, women and elderly'. Jan. 11, 2009. RIA Novosti.

Please upload this to the Commons. It can be categorized in

Please see the upload link on the side of that page. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo from another Wiki

[1] This photo was taken by and submitted into public domain by user Tiflet. So it is free to use. This is to supplement not replace the photo from the Arabic Wiki. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good one, assuming it's really his. But I played around with it and couldn't get it to format. Does it have to be moved to en. wiki? CarolMooreDC (talk)
Based on a response I received on another pic, I think we would have to upload pic from other wikis to the eng Wiki in order to use those pics.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah nevermind, I tried uploading it to commons and it's there already. So you wouldn't have to upload it to the eng wiki commons. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF posing as Hamas militants

Next to the one describing Hamas militants disguised as IDF soldiers [2] which would be right next to the report on Hamas militants disguised as doctors and nurses.[3] In sum, I think neither should be in.--Omrim (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think is called "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza rumor mongering", its all in the fog of war :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting, although with a clear statement that it is largely unsubstantiated. The false accusations that both sides make against the other are just as important to note as the truthful ones. Both influence the conflict and the people in them. Perhaps a new header? Superpie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is largely unsubstantiated, then it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. We should not become a news dump. Rabend (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft

Once again Israeli airpower has been removed from the infobox.[4] The reason this time is given that "the total number of aircraft deployed is unknown". Yet, the claims removed are sourced: a reliable source[5] claims that 1,000 air sorties have been used by Israel, and that 60 F-16s have also been used.[6]

I previously brought this up at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_11#F-16 but it was archived as no one bother to explain his/her actions.VR talk 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1,000 air sorties - that's fine, worth to notice somewhere, but not in the info-box. Now, please try to understand, that Israel doesn't use exactly the same aircraft, or exactly the same amount of aircraft, on each day, on each strike. Read the source carefully: At 11.30am Israeli time, the first wave of 60 F-16s screamed over Gaza, launching missiles at more than 50 targets. It means, that on December 27, at 11:30 (the D-day) Israel used 60 F-16s (There were, actually, 50 jets - two squadrons - and a dozen of helicopters, but it doesn't matter now). What if on December 28 Israel used, let's say, 75 F-16's, not the same aircraft, but completely other? What about December 29 and so on? We only know, that IAF has hundreds of jets, and may use all of them. If you you want to write that the first strike 60 F-16s screamed over Gaza - I have no problem with that, but claiming that IAF used 60 F-16s throughout the whole operation, is ridicules. Flayer (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the infobox is not to claim that the entire number was used during the operation. It is to claim that that is the least number of aircraft Israel possesses to be used against Hamas. Look over to the Hamas side. The source doesn't say Hamas uses 20,000 operatives "each day". It only says that Hamas commands 20,000 fighters, not that it uses each of them every day (how can it? many have been killed since the start of the conflict). If the infobox is for "exactly the same amount of [weapons, soldiers]" on "each day" then the 20,000 Hamas strength should be removed.VR talk 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel possesses hundreds of aircraft, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of howitzers, e.t.c, and uses some (we don't know how many) of this. Do you think we should write ALL of this in the infobox? :-D Flayer (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is pointless. Technically, we should list the entire IDF, as pretty much all units of the army are involved in some way. Rabend (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, of the 1000 or so IAF aircraft, different squadrons in different formations are all taking part in this. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Including F-15's, UAVs, not just F-16's.

Please leave the Hardware out of the infobox, it is ridiculous (I already said: it is ridiculous to include all hardware being used: F-15, F-16, Heron UAV's, AH-64 and AH-1 attach helicopters, Shaldag Patrol Boat, Super Dvora MK2 and MK3 Patrol boats, Saar 4.5 missile boats, Saar 5 missile corvettes, Merkava MK 3 and MK 4lbattke thanks, Tiger and Achzarit APC's - should I continue?) All are well substantiated, but do not belong in the infobox. If we include them we should also include Hamas' rockect arsenal (not only Qassams, but also Grads, Katyushas, and possible Fajr missiles, mortars, and the latest addition Surface-to-air missiles[7] - not exactly "home made weapons". If enything these are all, MAYBE belong in the article (I think generic names like "attack helicopters" and "artilery rockets" are jusy fine), but not in the infobox.--Omrim (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Include all hardware, per Omrim, this is an encyclopedia we provide complete information. Perhaps Omrim could help with links to sources confirming the weapons listed. RomaC (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I think this is not feasible. The IDF has many many units participating in this war. Instead, we can just link to IDF. Rabend (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Combining militants and policemen

The statistics about the number of Palestinian policemen killed, and the number of Hamas militants killed shouldn't be added for a number of reasons.

First, the sources for the two figures are different, making the addition like comparing apples with oranges.

Second, the policemen are listed as "combatants". Most were not combating anyone when killed. They were simply sitting at the police stations, some were new recruits on parade.[8]

Thirdly, some have argued that the number be combined with civilians since policemen are generally civil servants. I argue to the contrary, however. Keep them separate so as to avoid confusion.VR talk 07:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed . I've seperated them againJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The CNN strategy

I am referring to this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1149129&p=1

Should this be implemented into the article? --Johndoe789 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe789 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is an opinion/editorial piece, does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And by extremely pro-Zionist, anti-Hamas Alan Dershowitz. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I swear, Alan Dershowitz is Ossam Bin Laden, but in a tidy suit. If not sure, go read his books and articles. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless who wrote it, we have had numerous articles (really editorials) by numerous RS (BBC, CNN ...) that attempted to find some motivation for the israeli offensive. Consensus was that we do not use editorials to try to gain some hidden insight into either sides motivations, and we dont use opinion pieces for anything other than to reflect the author's opinion. This was early on so I would say it probably be in the first few archives. Nableezy (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This dude is the other side extreme. He's even attacked by Israelis themselves for his fundamentalist views. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And he approximately thinks that anyone who criticize Israel deserves a special place in hell. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a quick comment because people keep bringing up CNN related issues for reasons that are a bit opaque. Remember that CNN in the US and CNN <insert other region> are not the same and have completely and I mean utterly different content when it comes to events such as this one. Anything about CNN must take that into account. This is en-Wiki not US-wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Darshowitz is "notable" just fine. He is a Harvard Law shcool prof. If an Emeritus Porf. at Princeton is good enough, a current Harvad prof. is certainly good enough. Yet, if the nationalpost doesn't meet your standrads, I'm sure that The WSJ does. [9] --Omrim (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


What Sean said... RomaC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Dershowitz is not a specialist in international law. His opinion as such is not notable. He is an expert in criminal law, and distinguished advocate for the defence, who happens to double as an advocate for Israel, an extremely partisan one, and, to judge by Frank Menendez's review of charges he plagiarizes sources, and Franklin Lamb's critique that he doesn't known much about international law, he is neither scrupulous in his use of evidence, nor informed about what he talks about (international law) when touching on I/P issues (independently, when reading his books, whenever I found him commenting on an area I know in depth, I noted he used bad or old sources, that have long been discredited. For this reason I tend to agree with his many academic critics). What he says are his personal opinions, such as his justifications for torture. International law condemns this, but he is entitled to argue, not as a lawyer, but as an opinionist, that it's okay if the US or Israel does it. We shouldn't have this kind of crap in, just because the fellow is notable. It's like getting Einstein's opinion on apples because Newton theorized after seeing one drop. He is adduced by Israeli advocacy groups because he is a famous person, a notable in the public eye, not because of his expertise in the area.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is getting frustrating. First, you removed Darshowitz with no consencus. Several pro-Palestinian editors agreeing among themselves to remove him is not a consensus. And to be specific :as an expert in Criminal law, I'd think that we would like to know what Darshowith has to say about international CRIMINAL issues. It's not like it is a tax attoreny's opinion... I guess you guys have a problem with the title "Harvard Law School professor" attached to a supporter of Israel, since it might undermine your Princeton friend's views. What you (or others) may think of his academic qualities is irrelevant to THIS article (Harvard law school seems to think he is just fine). If others have something concerete to answer to his current LEGAL opinion, please bring it forward. Also, the fact he is a strong supporter of Israel is hardly relevant. If you think it is, we should also mention Falk's previous statements regarding Israel. You know, just to put his current things (with which he went public ONE day after the conflict started, so I suspect he knew very little at that time about what's going on) in context. None of your arguments regarding the removal of Darshowitz (which were published in a highly reliable source - The Wall Street Journal) is even remotely compelling. HE IS A CRIMINAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FOR GOD SAKE. I WOULD ASSUME HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT --Omrim (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If that is addressed to me, then note from the archives that I said in my view he should not be there, but I would never edit him out personally. And I did not remove Dershowitz. Falk had a chair in international law, Dershowitz doesn't. It is not a 'legal opinion', i.e. one informed by area expertise, it is a private opinion by a 'notable' criminal lawyer, on an area he has never published in. Falk's statements are balanced by those of Wiener and Co. Put Dershowitz in, and you will get someone adding Franklin Lamb's cruel mockery of Dershowitz's ignorance of international law, a field in which Lamb held an associate professorship. And the stacking game goes on. We have two sources, Falk and the other two, who differ. Dershowitz adds nothing to this, but functions as 'notable' weight to unbalance the article (3 against 1 in Israel's favour). He knows, by the way, nothing about human rights outside of the US. There is a place for Dershowitz's opinions. On the wiki page dedicated to him. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't adressed to you personally, but to "you (plural)" editors agreeing among yourselves. It is very easy to edit without concecus, bt is doesn't respect many of the mutual achievements we had so far. I don't want to just put it back in with no discussion, but I am not intend to give quickly on this issue. If you say that Darshowitzh doesn't "add" anything, how about replacing Bell and Weiner with his opinion? Also, since when Human Rights Watch (and other NGOs) ARE experts in Int'l Law? by which qualifications?--Omrim (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, the net is full of trash, and in conflicts, a huge amount of the volume is just agitprop from all sides. I have always argued for best sourcing, and technical sourcing, in I/P articles, preferably from books (I'm uncomfortable with newspapers, too current, too reflective of interests). I could say a lot about Dershowitz, and edit his page with many negative sources. I never have. Not my business to go after him. His books on Israel are dreadful. The case he makes has been made far more powerfully by conservative Zionist intellectuals of real intelligence, like Efraim Karsh, or Benny Morris or any number of people. Dershowitz is badly informed on these issues, on human rights, on international law, and on Israel. He's got a far stronge rbrand recognition profile, that's all.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I personally see parallels with the unsourced claims of the editorials of bbc anf the guardian and others who said that the offensive was launched because of internal politcal considerations. I dont think we should be adding stuff like that, but I could perhaps see it going in the international law viol, but we have plenty who already accuse hamas of using human shields. Nableezy (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Information regarding Iran's involvement (if it exists) should not be kept out of this article if it comes up. There is some correlation according to a few sources. These are typically not balanced or concrete enough to warrant inclusion but I hope certain editors don't ignore it since it is such a disputed issue. A google news search (iran gaza -nuclear) comes up with a few interesting hits. Not saying it deserves a complete section or debate. I just wanted to throw it out there since it has come up in recent edits.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As you point out there isn't much reliable or neutral information about the role of Iran in this conflict. As far as I can make out, apart from public statements and condemnation, there is no direct involvement of Iran at all. The issue of what long term linkages, Iran has with Hamas is the subject of another article altogether. If we wish to discuss that, we'll have to create a section on "allies" of the belligerents which would, of course, include other countries and forces. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the involvement of Teheran and Damascus with Hamas is an established fact. The involvement of Tehran in all of this is probably why the Arab States (except the Syrian satellite) are providing far less support to the Palestinians then they typically do. This is most speculation on my part, but words to this effect will probably become plain after all of this has simmered down V. Joe (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Fatah itself caught Iranian military agents with Qassam rockets in Gaza 2 years ago: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54062]. This is not surprising, as Iran has also been behind both Hizbollah and Shiite militants in Iraq. Rabend (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties in infobox

Someone has changed it so that it now says '550 fighters'. From what I remember, a discussion here decided that policemen were not fighters. What's more, the IDF is cited as the source for the 550. I don't agree that's a valid source - it could be propaganda designed to demoralise Hamas fighters. I propose returning it to what it was a couple of days ago:

  • Hamas fighters(neutral source)
  • Policemen
  • Civilians
  • (unknown) - not sure if necessary

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be best. I think "unknown" is neccessary, safer (in my view) to leave it in. Superpie (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuous pro-Israel editing of International Reactions page - what can be done?

I just had a look at this page. It's obviously not getting as much attention as this one and as a result people are getting away with much more biased editing.

Pictures of anti-Israeli protests are continuously removed. There are pictures of pro-Israeli protesters throughout the article. There are even pictures of protesters calling for the release of Gilad Shalit, though this is unrelated to the particular incident.

There is an enormous list of "anti-Semitic violence" almost none of which can be linked directly with the current incident.

It would be great if people would keep an eye on the page. I know a few people are doing so already. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wander over there from time to time to see if anyone is playing with my stuff over there. I'll broaden my looking :). Superpie (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a box on that talk page like the above about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions I'll put one up. Gather evidence of specific editors engaging in 3rr, editwarring, constant POV editing etc and you can complain directly to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement since this already has been arbitrated. They can be sanctioned with blocks for period of time or from the article entirely. Same with this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who added the "violence" section, and I stand by that addition. Are those not responses to the conflict in Gaza?
Let's examine some connections between the acts of violence and the Gaza offensive:
  • Amran, Yemen murder: "The threats are increasing with the ongoing aggression in Gaza by the Israeli occupants."
  • Antwerp, Belgium: people protesting against Operation Cast Lead became a mob, and began marching towards the Jewish neighborhood.
  • Brussels, Belgium: "Anti-Semitic incidents in Belgium have surged in the wake of Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip."
  • Los Angeles, USA: signs for Hamas and against Israel were placed in a synagogue.
  • Rada'a, Yemen: people protesting against Operation Cast Lead engaged in vandalism against Jewish homes.
  • Irvine, California: "Gaza -- The New Shoah." Enough said.
  • Stockholm: "murderers ... You broke the ceasefire"
  • Villers-le-Bel: "Investigators suspect the attackers used the Israeli offensive in Gaza as a pretext, the judicial official said."
Is this sufficient evidence of a connection? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Is Eurovision really relevant to this article?! 80.176.88.21 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Not remotelely. Superpie (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasteless photograph

I've read the comments above and while agree that there are special and unique circumstances where horribly gruesome images may be permitted, I still don't think it adds anything to the article besides "shock value". It doesn't fully highlight the human suffering of the people of Gaza as oppose to Hamas. I would prefer if the image would show the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children, for example the incident in Zeitoun where children where left starving beside their dead mothers. I'm sure that would satisfy most of your violent fetishes. Also, there are several instances where an image might be gruesome and yet tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood) or Pietà, for example.--23prootie (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Why aren't gruesome photos of Israeli soldiers included, if Hamas has publicity then so should they.--23prootie (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Gazan policemen can be regarded as "real victims" of this conflict. They were policemen, not militants. I also resent you describing a desire to see truth and reality represented for what it is as a "violent fetish". Wikipedia isnt here to make violence "tasteful and classy", it isnt here to be aesthetically pleasing. In my view, choosing images which represent death, violence or suffering in a light which detracts from the real pain of the event is distasteful and irresponsible in the extreme. I've spotted a few pictures from the Israeli side, but they're copyrighted unfortunately. I shall keep looking. Superpie (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
for undue weight purposes, the ratio of dead on each side should match the ratio of photos/article space that those facts are given. just because the images offend you isn't reason enough to have them removed. as referred to above, images of muhammed offend muslims, but those aren't censored. Untwirl (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this statement. Who said the measure to be used is the number of dead, and that should determine the percentage in the article that this side gets? I think that the measure to be used is years of experiencing terrorism directed at civilians, in which case we should write a lot more about the Israeli side. Or maybe we should count who's more guilty. And then what? There are two sides with victims in this conflict, and both should be represented equally in images. Rabend (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The point is there are better photographs that are less controversial that best represents the conflict. And that is not one of them. Please see the statistics, almost a third of the victims are children, and where are they in the article?--23prootie (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, there are no pictures of Israeli victims in the article. How can that be neutral, no matter how inhumane they can be, they're people too.--23prootie (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably because an Israeli who took a picture of another dead Israeli could potentially be in a lot of trouble from his military superiors (if a soldier) or the local Police (if a civilian). Taking pictures of the dead is a war crime. V. Joe (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest you seek out such images. Superpie (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
there are plenty in Google, like this one, for example but unfortunately, I am not an expert on copyright tags. An he point is that image has a pro-Hamas bias.---23prootie (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
i thought your point was the "tastelessness" of the image. now it has a pro-hamas bias? we aren't here to provide "publicity" for either side, only to report info from reliable sources in a way which gives weight proportional to that info. if gazan deaths are 100:1 compared to israelis, it would be providing undue weight to give them equal time/space. Untwirl (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Im having a look on some of the public domain sites right now, the best images I have seen however are copyrighted (reuters has some very good stuff). We cant have all the images of Palestinian casualties removed from the article merely because there are not ones that exist of Israeli casualties. Superpie (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, these pictures have not been verified as factual. After the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy where mainstream photographs were pulled as false and actual propaganda, we should have learned our lessons. In fact, already in this conflict mainstream media has had to apologize for putting out false images. We should not go this route. Photographs of protests, fine. Graphic and possibly false photos, NOT. (I could upload my photographs of Bigfoot .) Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

per above: Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. These photos are as relevant as Holocaust atrocity photos as others have pointed out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust atrocity photographs have been verified and released after the war. It is inappropriate to use such "atrocity" photographs in the middle of this operation. We have no way in which we can verify that they are what it is said they are. Please see my comment above, re 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy as well as the recent France 2 blunder. Wikipedia is an enclopedia, not a newspaper

Are things really going to sink this low here, disputes over the images of the victims of war. I mean, think about it. It's quite disturbing. Yes, a discussion about balance is reasonable of course (and pretty tasteless) but many people keep ignoring WP:UNDUE and just assume some kind of equivalence of representation as if it's a right by default. It's been said so many times that this is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. That said, I really have no objection to a 1:1 ratio as long as the images relate directly to this event and faithfully represent reality. I don't think it should be 1:1 but if that's what it takes to get some reality into this article then fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't equivalence of representation be a right by default? Rabend (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the photos cannot be included in the article simply to score political points. They have to add genuine value to the article from the educational perspective. It's about the article not about people's political agendas. I think you're assuming that an image has some kind of score attached to it that acts as a metric of it's political value and then concluding that the sums of the scores must match. i.e. assume political motive -> assign political score to images -> calculate total scores for each side -> apply balance. Do you see what I mean ? It's wrong. It's difficult to remember this is an encyclopedia sometimes but when we're dealing with images like these we can't afford to get it wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the scoring part. I really don't think it's a match with points. If anything, we're on the same note on this (please see my response above to Untwirl's comment about how the ratio of dead on each side should match the ratio of photos/article space that those facts are given). But then you say that images need to add genuine value to the article from the educational perspective. I'm not sure that's the case here. Is a picture of bloody Palestinian corpses educational? The feeling (not just mine) is that pictures here are put for reasons cynically beyond education. Rabend (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
These are protest posters and therefore some artistic license might be allowed. I definitely saw some that were well known photos from past Israeli atrocities; the ones I uploaded certainly might be Gaza and certain are what is happening in Gaza, unless the UN is lying. (Why aren't their guys sending out photos.) Do we need a copy of a verified Gaza photo or are you saying NO Gaza photos not released by Israel are verified since of course there isn't any media allowed in Gaza. But I guess it was hard to get photos of what the Germans were doing to their concentration camp victims before the end of the war, too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza holocaust

This is not a conflict between two equal powers as it has been portrayed here. Clearly one of the parties in the conflict is a punching bag. For this reason I suggest to rename this article the Gaza holocaust.--tequendamia (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at do not feed the trolls.--Omrim (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: The equality of the conflict is not relevant, the article and its title must be NPOV. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How do some people even get the nerve to compare under 400 innocent civilian casualties to a systematic massacre of 9 million civilians (6 mil ethnic Jews, 3 others, and I am not counting the 2 mil. USSR's POWs)... It amazes me. (that was a cynical comment, troll anti-food...) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: It's not known with such a name in the media. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Would all of those who have concerns about the lead as it is now written please be sure to put your opinion on the appropriate page--here: Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead. We are trying to determine if there is WP:consensus regarding the lead there and with the talk strewn all over hell it is difficult to get everyone in one place. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You dont just change shit that has been there for 3+ days, if you want to change it get consesnus first, Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner. Nableezy (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for using the more up-to-date information. I'm not going to touch it for now, though, since I haven't been keeping track of my reverts, and I'm hesitant to violate the WP:3RR. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The sensible thing to do is to do specialized work on the lead there, and if a consensus is forming, inform this page, so that people otherwise engaged here can go over and examine it, and contribute. Otherwise, that page becomes a backchannel by a few to achieve a consensus with a handful of people, and then thrust it, unannounced on the text, where most of us will first notice it. Bad practice. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent opinion on Alleged violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces

I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the consensus is. It was discussed. The provisory consensus was he did not match up to wiki criteria of notability. I checked Gary Grant, who graduated in 1994 as a barrister, is not on record as dealing with international law, has no academic credentials in that area as a specialist or authority, who deals in civil and criminal law cases in England. It appears that AlJazeera asked a Jewish member of the bar in England for his opinion. The opinion he gave was not framed in terms of international law, did not cite technicalities, but simplyt expressed his private view. There are thousands of lawyers throughout the world who could be asked the same question, and we could then stack the subsection with their views. None of those views holds nauthority or interest unless they are expressed by people who have a public record for authoritative knowledge about what they are speaking of.
In these things we normally choose the best specialists, to avoid opinionizing by non-professionals being cited, something which lends itself to POV stacking.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware Gary Grant was jewish, it changes everything! How do you know, could you point to the direction of the source of this information? Al Jazeera English presents him as "Gary Grant, international law expert" here [10] and used his services in the past about other international conflicts here [11]. So the fact is that Gary Grant is expert enough and notable for Al Jazeera English. I'm pretty sure that Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are also jewish !!! I suspect they are even Israelis :)
I think that Gary Grant opinion should be referenced, I was not convinced by your reasoning. At least could we reflect some other international opinion that Israel actions are Act of Self Defence, for instance current US president probably is notable enough and hopefully not jewish. Bush is not the only world leader who thinks so. Though I'd prefer it to be professional opinion and not political one, since we talk here about law and not about politics. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Gary Grant International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
AlJazeera just asked a Jewish barrister in London his opinion. It doesn't matter to me whether he's Jewish. It matters to me that he is not competent, as Falk and the other two are. Look at his legal work. There is nothing there to do with international law. I don't have to convince you. But you do have to create a new consensus if you wish to plunk it in, and if you do, you will open that page to a large number of edits interviewing nondescript Arab, American, Uzbeki lawyers saying they think it violates international law. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Duh, half the anti-IDF statements were removed cause of people arguing that it was WP:UNDUE to include all of the that. NOW, if people gonna return this un-notable Gary Grat opinion, I'm going to return all the other statements deleted from a lot of other countries officials and security councils meetings. NO. People deleted a lot of anti-IDF yesterday cause of UNDUE, so No more pro-IDF will be added unless the old anti-IDF will be returned. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg
Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.
In that case, let us include Gary Grant! And maybe even George Waterboard Bush! NonZionist (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No way this should be included. Gary Grant's only achievement in life is having talked to al-jazeera --vvarkey (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Non-Zionist: However much you dislike him, GWB is the current President of the United States and as such, his opinion is highly relevant to any major international event since for the next 8 days his opinion represents the opinion of the United States government. Might I however suggest that you change your name to "predictable leftist?" V. Joe (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a wikipedia procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Government opinions are political opinions reflecting national interests, as any one party perceives them. Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast, and the public polled to register the effect. International law is an area where professionals debate intricate issues. If we wish to be informed about it, we do not ask politicians, or newspaper editorialists, or barristers in London, or Arabs or Jews or whoever. We consult men with a distinguished record. The three gentlemen we have already are all Jewish, and disagree on this question, as the proverb tells us to expect. We cite them because of their eminence as professionals in this area of law. We do not challenge them for their ethnic background, which is irrelevant.
If there is a difficult issue you feel strongly about and want to press into the page, then make a suggestion on the edit you wish to do, and wait for other editors to comment. When several agree on it, or come to a compromise, this is regarded as a consensus, and means that, when you edit that compromise in, or consensual verdict on the text, in, it can't be erased haphazardly, since it is the result of collaborative work and agreement, unlike most edits.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast,"...classic. Thanks for that one, most excellent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, pal, if you collect'em, I think you'd prefer, as I do, Nietzsche's dictum: 'Public opinion is the absent of private opinions' or something along those lines. I think it's in 'Human, All to Human', but read it four decades ago, and can't quite vouch for the phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
sickest man (round here that is compliment) Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 and copied everything from this section to it. I wasn't sure what to leave behind in summary on the main page. Please discuss the move here; it may be that people think it should be moved back; but I decided to take action as the article was getting too long. I think it is an important section so hopefully this arrangement will be satisfactory. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No please, this is a core part of the war and where most of the media focus has been on. WP:NOTPAPER. The situation is clearly emphasized by a lot of media and reports that the small paragraph you put instead of it give the issue no fair. There have been other long articles on @ikipedia by the way. Examples: the Holocaust and Pink Floyd. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest instead that "the Humanitarian aid deliveries" section be abridged cause this micro-detailed list of aid is not very usable to Wikipedia since even the UN and others said that it was a "tickle of aid" and a "pitiful gesture" --Darwish07 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Darwish07. There is far too much one-off or hot-heaqded editing without consensus in here, making keeping track of what's worth conserving and what needs weeding out, extremely arduous. Editors who have worked hard should collaborate in making sure these constant one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information be reverted, until those doing it come to heel, register in here and talk with everyone else about why they are editing in one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough if everyone wants it back, I have no strong opinion on the matter. In my defence, this wasn't a "one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information". All the info was retained on the new page. Furthermore, a number of people have called for something like this to be done for about a week, and I hadn't seen anyone speak out against it. It was actually a considered move. But its fine if people don't agree, as I said above - where I also pointed out that I do consider this an extremely important issue.
I understand. The problem is that we tried hard to make the paragraphs on humanitarian crisis section as abridged as possible. Any size smaller than that will omit critical facts from the situation, making the paragraph a not-complete and an unfair encyclopedic reporting case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, do you think we should link at all to the new article(Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009), or just delete it?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just delete it to avoid redundancy. If some one want to add a lot of extra not-mentioned facts, he'll create the page again anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas fires missiles during "humanitarian corridor"

During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Hamas continued to fire during the three hour daily truce or from a Humanitarian corridor? Superpie (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, according to what I know, they keep firing missiles during the 3 hour "Humanitarian Corridor" cease fire. I saw it in several articles other than the one I linked to. I know that there have been several exchanges of fire between Hamas and IDF, but as much as reports go, IDF didn't initiate any attack during these 3 hours. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Today Hamas broke the truce and fired several rockets. One hit a kindergarten in Ashdod. Rabend (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Was this truce ever accepted by Hamas? Not to argue the point that they did fire the rockets, but if you want to say the broke the truce you should be able to say they accepted it. I think it can go in the article, but something along the lines of 'Hamas fired rockets during the 3 hour humanitarian corridor (or whatever sounds better) that the IDF commited to not engage in hostilities.' That good? Nableezy (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
True, the truce was never accepted by Hamas, as far as I can tell. I'll update the article. Rabend (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You know what? The ref in the article does state that Hamas agreed not to fire during corridor times. So I think that does constitue a 'truce'. Although maybe 'truce' should be replaced with 'corridor', since it is not an actual truce, and 'corridor' is the term used both officially and in the media. What do you say? Rabend (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I cant find the where it is in the article. Could you link the source here? I cant find much with google news. But if a reliable source says they accepted or agreed to not engage then I think that can go in. Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Found it, i think we can safely say that they broke the truce, and I think the wording is good. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowowowowow! The only source I have seen listing Hamas as agreeing to a truce is the first one, which states it will comply with the first three hours. It doesnt say anything after that. I may have missed something but please advise, its deeply biased to describe Hamas having broken a truce they never agreed to. Superpie (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A three-hour truce took place on 9 January as well. Palestinian militants violated the truce, firing three Grad rockets at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[168]

Hamas violated the humanitarian truce on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[169] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[170]"

Hamas is not breaking a truce, its continuing to fire through an Israeli ceasefire. The claims above are biased and unsubstantiated, neither make any mention of agreement between the two sides, only that the Israeli's have ceased firing. I am going to change the wording to reflect this if there is agreement? Superpie (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas uses ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons

There are a lot of video sites showing Hamas using ambulances for military purposes, thereby breaking the International humanitarian law. IDF has also noted that. Can you find notable sites reporting this? Rabend (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sure you remember this from the archived discussion:

IDF posing as Hamas militants

Next to the one describing Hamas militants disguised as IDF soldiers [12] which would be right next to the report on Hamas militants disguised as doctors and nurses.[13] In sum, I think neither should be in.--Omrim (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think is called "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza rumor mongering", its all in the fog of war :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting, although with a clear statement that it is largely unsubstantiated. The false accusations that both sides make against the other are just as important to note as the truthful ones. Both influence the conflict and the people in them. Perhaps a new header? Superpie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is largely unsubstantiated, then it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. We should not become a news dump. Rabend (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What's weird

Is that the article Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men has now been replaced in Haaretz by one on Obama's views on the War. It's clear it's the same place where the old article was though, because in the comments section, readers are responding to the original Amira Hass article first. Besides which the original article has been reprinted on other sites. Tiamuttalk 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Regarding this edit[14]. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.

May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary"[15] also isn't a reason to remove images.VR talk 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but the image was too large and badly misplaced. Please don't start personal attacks and let's just act like cordial human beings. It's bad enough that some people are killing each other.--23prootie (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The image is also unsourced and doesn't have a copyright. And the uniforms, are these really civilians?--23prootie (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of images do you prefer? I don't think you will find an image of Palestinian children handing out flower bouquets to Israeli soldiers. We are not going to sugarcoat what the Israelis have done and if the truth affects "the naive reader's judgement" then so be it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg
Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.
I prefer ones that are not of dead Palestinian kids that were alive until a Hamas terrorist forced them to be his human shield. These are not my favorites. Rabend (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Like the Palestinian kids that were killed at that UN school? Oh wait there were no Hamas militants there, but Israelis slaughtered those kids anyway. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* Rabend (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The scary unsourced one, that's really creepy.--23prootie (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, we could not find a more innocent/rosier looking image of the slaughter. If you can find one, please let us know. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Scary" and "creepy" are arguments to be thrown out the window.
As for sourcing, what source are you exactly looking for. Please note that images enjoy certain exceptions to the policy of souring and original research. See WP:OI in that regard.VR talk 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The photo was removed again, inspite of this discussion. I've replaced. --vvarkey (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And again. Still no discussion upon removal. cojoco (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is also being talked about down in #Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture Nableezy (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a different image. I translated the Arabic caption on the original image using http://translation.babylon.com/Arabic, it it came up with
"The Gaza massacre December 2008 dozens of Palestinian policemen dead after the bombing of all Palestinian security headquarters in the Gaza Strip"
So I think it would be safe to say that they're policemen cojoco (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
My bad, there are like 4 image discussions going on, got mixed up. (think it is time i weaned myself off my wiki-crack) Nableezy (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added it again. 23prootie removed it with the comment "Week of air strikes: better if the image is about women or children, overcrowding hospitals or the UN being target toget more symphathy votes, alsowhy aren't Israeli victims shown?" cojoco (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added it again for a third time, still with no discussion from 23prootie. This time it was removed on Copyright grounds, but it is a legitimate Wikipedia image on the Arabic wiki with a licence that needs translation. I can see no reason to remove the image.


Proposed rules from discussion below:
  1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
  2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).--23prootie (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pro-Israeli photo added with silly caption added by user:Mbz1

"Side by side and the world apart. While the[the pro-israeli] demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, [pro-Palestinians] demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a caption is definitely inappropriate. Unless the image is edited to remove or change this description, it should be taken out of the article and possibly deleted completely. I think the image would be fine, if the caption was changed to something more neutral, or if there was no text at all (since the file page already has a description as is). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Already changed it. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the description associated with the file's page has been edited, the image itself includes a caption that needs to be cropped (since it's not text that can be edited). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm so glad you brought this issue to the talk page and lodged another complaint about how the article is becoming increasingly pro-X. It's not like there was anything you could have done about it, like, I dunno, cropping the image. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of that image was to make that point. It's just confusing otherwise. I'm putting up some more tomorrow for people to choose from. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh I cannot the crop the image because um the article is locked. An um I can not change and upload the image because it is not mine. And I have a problem with the image itself, as it clearly put together to compare the protesters. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction: it's not like you could have signed up for an account, downloaded the current image, and uploaded the edited image. Anyone with an account on Commons can upload images, and anyone can overwrite someone else's image. -- tariqabjotu 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction, I would still have to wait 10 days so that my account can be autoconfirmed and even had I opened an account 3 days ago, I would still be limited to voicing my suggestions in the talk page where I still have to deal with annoying sarcastic remarks.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, anyone with an account on Wikimedia Commons can upload images. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You're not hearing me out. I am not advocating the cropping of the caption. I am suggesting that the picture be removed in its entirety! I don't have the capabilities to remove and add another picture on this locked article and that is why I "lodged another complaint" on the talk page. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to delete this silly picture. It's clearly trying to promote a point. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn that. As if the IDF is trying to promote piece by killing and injuring thousands of people mostly women and children. Cute trick Mbz. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Darwish07, please stop SOAPing. These statements are just your personal opinions and are irrelevant, at best. Rabend (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So you don't like to see yourself in a mirror,User:Darwish07?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually think the last version of the image was OK, and there's nothing wrong with including it in the article, since the inappropriate caption was removed. Plus, even the thumbnail quality was improved. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think if the protests are related, and if they are protestting in favor of the attack to bring Shalit back I would think it is, it can stay in the article, if it is not related, if this was from a demonstration from before the strikes, it should be removed. Im sure there are pictures of pro-israel demonstrations, if this is one of them then I think it would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The silly caption has been sneaked back in. I dunno how to revert images, can someone take a look? if the creator of the image objects to it being modified, let's delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to revert to the other version of the file within Wikimedia Commons, but was unable to do so. I was probably not doing it the right way. (I've never dealt with that domain before.) So, I agree with Vvarkey - either the caption needs to be removed anew, or the image should be taken out of this article completely. I personally think the last version was OK, because it didn't have any captions within the image itself (so wasn't biased either way), and was actually of better size and outlay than the original. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of my image with no caption at all.After all the image speaks for itself and leaves no doubt who wants two state solution and peace and who wants the destruction of Israel and war. I hope this is going to be satisfactary.Here's a new caption:"Two demonstrations regarding the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.The images were taken on the same day, at the same time. The demonstrations were located across the street from each other". The image is not pro Israeli, the image is pro Peace, pro friendship and against the war and against the hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the pro-israeli signs are an expression of arrogance and self-conceited attitude. "Israeli wants peace (but only for the Israelis so we give you the green light to slaughter the Palestinians)". "Israel wishes you a terror-free day (to the israelis only, we support Israelis terrorizing the Palestinians by slaughtering them with all the weaponry they have.)" Not one of those people holding those signs are against the Israeli assault on the Gazans where they are massacring dozens of people each day. Maybe you want to stick that as a caption on the photo. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
They are against the war. My heart hurts for every killed child, no mater what religion and what nationality a child is. The war was started by hamas that fires rockets to Israel while hiding behind Human shield made out of their own women and children. Hamas kills their own kids. I'm sure that as soon as rockets from Gaza to Israel stop flying there would be peace! May I please ask you to use your common sense. As you probably know Isreal withdrew from Gaza few years ago. Why in the world they would risk the lifes of their soldiers to go back? No, Israelis want peace and friendship with Palestinians and it is what my image shows.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the point where you need to step back and to take a good look at your self. The pro-Palestinian protesters are protesting the wanton killing of a helpless people who are destitute and crowded in refuge camps, while the people supporting Israel could give a damn about the lives loss on the Palestinian side just as long as Israelis are safe, as one Israeli here said the Palestinian civilians "were sacrificed for the greater good." [16] The pictures you posted are open for interpretation, and it can certainly go against your point. So keep them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But you did not answer my questions. Why after leaving Gaza Israel went back? Who benifits from this war, how and why? Do you hold hamas responsible in any way at all, or in your opinion only Israel is at fault? I'm telling you that I would sacrifice my own life for the life of a child no matter what nationality and what religion the child is. Do you? I want peace. Do you? I want two states solution. Do you? You're saying Israelis want peace for themselves, but are you agree that peace in Israel could only come together with the peace in Gaza? Please do answer my questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion was supposed to be about how you were trying to prove a point with the pictures, and that point backfiring. But to answer your questions, I do think that Hamas is partly responsible for putting the Gazans in danger by attacking the Israelis, the same way a person who attacks a king knowing fully well that the king will have him executed, his family fed to a den of lions, and his whole town burned down. I don't pretend to know what is going on between Hamas and the Israelis, and what initiated the Hamas rocket attacks. What I do know is that Israelis are not fooling anyone, this is a full-blown assault using as much military technology (why white phosphorus too?) on a helpless people. What's worse is that these people are poor and have suffered a lot, have no organized military and defense, and no one to intervene on their side because everyone is afraid of the Israelis. What's even more frustrating is that some people think this assault is for the greater good. If you think Israelis wanted to achieve peace with this slaughter, they were mistaken or you must not know what is true. How is this going to bring peace? What's going to stop the child, who witnessed his whole family brutally slaughtered by Israeli shelling in this assault, from joining the only organization that dare go against the military might of the Israelis? This is strengthening the case for Hamas. I am guessing Hamas, today, consist of these exact people.
Also in lesser violent times, when Israelis are claiming to push for peace, Israelis were/are building settlements on Palestinian land. David Gregory, who is Jewish and pro-Israeli, said that from 2000, settlement activity had increased the population of Israelis by 45 percent. How am I or others supposed to believe that Israeli believe in peace and a two-state solution when they are eating up the land and doing away with its inhabitants? Yes, I wish there was peace and a two-state solution is needed because it is better than what is now. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The new image works well, and I think it's of a more manageable size (right?). I'd still make it vertical if possible, so the the resolution of the thumbnail and its placement would be better within the article, but that's not necessary. At this point, I think the image should stay, because it depicts both kinds of protests/demonstrations going on around the world regarding the current conflict. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not consider this image to be mine any more, so if you want it vertical, please revert to the second version from the bottom. Please remember that it takes time to see the result of the reversion, maybe an hour or more.BTW I do not care, if the image stays in the article or it is removed.I'm simply tired. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More subpages/move material since size expanding

  1. That huge aid table should be its own list or part of Humanitarian aid for Gaza? Article has slowed down terribly since put in. Doing minor clean ups and can't even clean up my mistakes quickly it takes so long to load!
  2. Incidents: there are/ will be eventually so many that needs own page anyway
  3. Casualties as well, unless put together with incidents. CarolMooreDC (talk)
I agree with your points 100%.VR talk 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture

This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is relevant to this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. However, there have been recent demonstrations in Israel in support of Gilad Shalit, so those can go in the "Reactions" sub-article. --Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've also deleted the picture and someone returned it back. This one need to be reported for clearly violating the 3 edits rule. I'm no longer permissive with people after all this shitty arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's irrelvant and politically motivated. But the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This image on the "Gilad Shalit" protest has returned. I'm going to remove it again. In fact, I left a message regarding this on User:Mbz1's talk page more than 12 hours ago here. In addition, there was discussion regarding this image yesterday with Jandrews. Apart from the question of relevance, User:Mbz1 has not provided any mainstream media sources that report on this protest. when was it held? Why is it notable? Despite the fact that these images have been reverted several times, User:Mbz1 simply claims that "If they are removed, I'll put them back". In my opinion this is inappropriate. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by Israelies, by hamas.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You're kidding no one. The repeating of a lie isn't going to make it the truth. 99 percent of the slaughtering was done by the Israelis so far.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it doesn't belong here.

i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.

as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! It is entirely relevant. The fact that there is another article on him is completely irrelevant. Just as there is a photograph of Muhammad al-Durrah on that page as well as on the Second Intifada page. I seriously question how relevancy is being established here on the basis of POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
that is my point. al durrah was killed on the 3rd day of the second intifada, during the scope of that article. shalit waas captured 2 years ago and moreover hasn't been listed as a reason for this attack. you can say its pov, but i think its relevance is in question due to the limited scope of this article. Untwirl (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of international law

The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs argues that Hamas violates the Rome statute: "Utilizing the presence of a civilian […] to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations." However, as the Israeli shelling of a school did demonstrate, the presence of a civilian does not appear to render it to be immune from military operations, and thus does not violate the Rome statute. This appears to be an amusing inconsistency. cojoco (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If Hamas violates the Rome statutes, then the IDF does. It has taken several years to argue before the Israeli Supreme Court that the persistent use by the IDF of Palestinians as human shields is illegal. The Court at one point agreed it was a violation of international law. The IDF persisted in the practice, even in 2007. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reliable source alleging the IDF to do so in THIS conflict? For the Hamas we have plenty, which for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Omrim (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Cite the sources. Who is close enough on the ground to know? It is a generic accusation that Hamas is positioned within civilian areas, as Haganah in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem under siege, was positioned on rooftops and houses in civilian areas, and told to shoot from there. This, as I said elsewhere, is just, as far as I can see, a Hasbara strategem, as repeated in 2006, where it was largely found to be untrue (different kind of battle), to insinuate Hamas are cowards for doing what Israel never does. Well Israel's IDF used human shields for more than a decade, against court orders. If Hamas is proven, as opposed to generic claims, to use shields in this way, by direct observation, then by all means edit that info in, hopefully from a reliable source. The assumption is, of course, that when you are under a siege, the honourable thing to do is to walk down the road, into the fields beyond your town, dig a trench or two under the drone photographing you in real time, so that when your adversary shoots, both you and he will not have ethical problems. No army in the history of the world has ever done that. Well, Leonidas did something similar, but I still ask why the largest mall in Israel, Azrieli shopping centre, is right next to Kirya military headquarters, Israel's defence ministry, not to speak of how ndefence industries are placed in Nazareth. Hypocrisy, in short. But very effective as a propaganda tool, admittedly.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
AGAIN:Any reliable source alleging the IDF IS DOING so in THIS conflict? I thought not, more baseless allegations by Pro-Hamas/Palestinian editors. For Hamas we have plenty, which seems to be there modus operendi and for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not using the proper header originally. Regardless of all of the above (which is important), do the first two lines of the By Palestinian militants section seem out of place? They come across as a rebuttal.Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Changes made: /* By Palestinian militants */ International views which should come after participants so moved UN views. Allegations moved before rebuttalCptnono (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 11, 2007 New York Times says 93 Palestinian women dead

Israeli Troops Push Into Gaza City in Day of Fierce Fighting. By Steven Erlanger and Ethan Bronner. Jan. 11, 2009. New York Times.

The number is in the notes section of the infobox until more recent numbers from well-known media or wire services are found. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Raid Gaza!

Placed the section here since it is awkwardly located n in the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. The makers don't represent a international entity so it shouldn't be there but should it be here?--23prootie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Raid Gaza! is of such little notability that it should not be included in the (already long) article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But where should it be placed?--23prootie (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think an article on the cyberspace reaction to the war on Gaza would be worth creating. Raid Gaza! could be placed there, and the cyber attacks info, SecondLife demos, etc. If you start such an article, I could pitch in with sources and text. Tiamuttalk 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF on dead. "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas

We should use the on-the-record number in the infobox not the 550 number in my opinion.

In a closed-door briefing a high-ranking army officer said Israeli troops had killed more than 550 Palestinian fighters since the operation began, a senior military official told AFP.
Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal declined to confirm the number but said "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas, had been killed since Israel launched its offensive on December 27.

Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

The multi-use wikicode for the ref is <ref name=afp2009jan10/>

Publicly, the IDF is saying "several hundred." In my opinion that is the number we should ascribe to them since that is the number they stand by publicly. Otherwise this 550 number sounds like original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All these figures are rubbery. We have 879 death, composed of more than 550 Hamas fighters (IDF) and 444 civilians (MoH), which of course means we have 879 deaths, or 994 deaths somehow, i.e, a disparity of more than 115. The MoH one is quite specific, the IDF one is a round figure, based on principles that do not discriminate between Hamas administrative people (police cadets) and militants.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is probably why publicly the IDF is no longer claiming that only one quarter of the Palestinian dead are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok at this point it is clear that IDF shouldn't be quoted since the numbers simply don't add up. The IDF's numbers are also unclear (do they include policemen?). I'm removing the IDF claim from the infobox.VR talk 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

MoH gives no number for total number of civilian dead

I don't think we should put a total number like 444+ in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilian dead. MoH has not made an estimate for the total number in awhile. That 444+ number came from a Wikipedia editor totaling up numbers for children, women, elderly, aid workers, etc.. that the MoH has given.

That total number is original research on our part. Plus that total does not include civilian men who were killed. Also, there is some unavoidable duplication between the numbers for women and elderly.

Readers can follow the references and decide. We let the readers decide what to believe. By the way, linked below is an article about the MoH source, and this article puts all these numbers in perspective:

The macabre count of a doctor in Gaza. Jan. 11, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

I think it should just say "see notes" or "several hundred" in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilians.

I think using total numbers for fighters or civilians puts words in the mouth of IDF and MoH spokespeople. See the previous talk section.

That is original research on our part. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but let's wait to hear what others have say as this is a very controversial issue.--Omrim (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for addressing tensions over imagery

I have reviewed the most recent discussion over the inclusion of graphic imagery into the article from Gaza. I also weighed in with my opinion at one point, arguing essentially that images are used as documentary records and importantly as tools for "imagining."

By that I mean they are used to help viewers come to approach and understanding of events that are difficult to comprehend because of their extreme nature. I drew from the example of the WWII Holocaust because this is easily the most obvious example. The enormity of suffering during that period is incomprehensible to those who were not present. In an attempt to render it intelligible photographic representations have routinely been included in nearly all accounts of that moment in history. (One need only pause and reflect on how much of our collective "imagination" of the suffering during the Holocaust has been formed by graphical representations and semi-fictionalized film accounts to see the important role these media have played in conveying the weight of the Holocaust).

The current conflict has been characterized by the high number of deaths of civilians, especially women and children. During this conflict there have been instances where entire families have been wiped out with only one or two members remaining. Hundreds of children have been killed. The gravity of these incidents deserve a multimedia account to help render them in our minds. An accurate presentation of these events would not exclude that in my opinion and I am unmoved by arguments to exclude such representations based on their "graphic" or "distasteful" nature alone.

I am more concerned with issues of licensing, authenticity of images and the unqieu difficulties of assembling and formatting images in a slightly disorganized article of an ongoing conflict. Therefore my current proposal for addressing our contentions is the following:

  1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
  2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).

This proposal resolves the issues of licensing and authenticity since the cited source would be responsible for determing both. Please discuss this proposal as a possible (temporary) resolution to our disagreement over image inclusions.

(PS. I noticed someone removed the pictures I included from the wiki Holocaust page. I want to emphasize again that I'm not trying to draw direct, general, parallels to the Holocaust nor am I trying to accuse Israel of a systematic, intentional genocide as was carried out in the Holocaust. as I noted above I've drawn a limited comparison to the Holocaust because of the notable use of multi-media approaches to developing an account of that period and the traditional inclusion of images into nearly all accounts of the Holocaust.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea:
  1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
  2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).
I have seen this done in Wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Superb idea. This approach will also make it possible to put a disclaimer above the link, allowing readers to make the choice whether or not to look at images truly representative of the massacre.

How about the "Gaza Kill and Maim" series at cryptome.org?--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thrylos000, your explanation of the role of images here is a breath of fresh air. Your proposed solution does kind of avoid the issue i.e. what I regard as the root causes of what has turned out to be yet another controversy. In that sense I have some reservations but it's such a simple, practical solution that could be implemented quickly I think we should just go for it. It's a lot better than nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Chikamatsu. Your idea sounds good. Cryptome is notable, and has stood up to government scrutiny, and internet host attempts to shut it down. So the images will likely remain accessible. The index for all the Gaza photo gallery pages is at http://cryptome.info/0001/gaza-kill/gaza-kill-photos.htm
Some of the photos are harrowing, and so a warning should be put on the link from here. The galleries include some Israeli casualty photos too.
Any other galleries for this war? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I also want to have a short soapy rant about absurb accusations of 'snuff', 'pornography' etc when we're dealing with graphic photos of violent deaths in an article about a war. Apart from completely ignoring guidelines it's such a parochial way of thinking. I'm really sick to death of people trying to impose their irrational so called moral values on other people to distort representations of objective reality. I happen to live in Thailand at the moment and the Thai media have absolutely no reservations about including extremely graphic things in their reports about crimes, suicides, war etc. Why ? I don't know and I don't care because it's not my place to moralise about these things. We're not colonial masters/missionaries trying to correct the errors of irrational and evil foreigners for their own good who want to destroy the beautiful and righteous values and freedoms of the good ole'U.S of A etc and all that profoundly stupid nonsense. We absolutely cannot have the kind of parochial values you see so much in the US media contaminating this encyclopedia. Normal programming has now resumed. Please continue. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"Normal programming has now resumed." Lol. Maybe that can be the slogan of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What does 'absurb' mean ? Jeez, this Sean.hoyland bloke is some kind of moron. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
External links would be a good solution for now. I don't think a warning is appropriate, as this could be used as an argument against including images in the article, and I hope we're past that now. Some sensitivity in the wording of the links should give people an idea of what to expect. When images become available with solid licensing, some should be added to the article. cojoco (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps of some use

'This is one of the reasons the air attack was carried out as a surprise. The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded. . . It is not clear, for example, what advantage or military gain stems from the intentional killing of a hundred or more Palestinian policemen standing on parade. Reuven Pedatzur, 'The mistakes of Cast Lead,‘, Haaretz 08/01/2009

They are classified as terrorists and militants by the IDF's Hamas kill sheet. In fact they were part of the civilian administrative infrastructure's personnel. Police forces, anywhere, are not counted as part of the military. These were then civilians hit without warning, despite the frequent rhetoric about Israel's purity of arms, and the distinction between civilians and militants.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are incorrect Nishidani, in many countries, Burma, India, and Indonesia to name a few, the police are part and parcel of the military. Even to the point of being part of the Ministry of Defense. Then there is the fact that no countries police are exactly alike. For instance the police in the UK do not regularly carry firearms while the Carabinieri are heavily armed. Many police forces are in reality paramilitary forces, see Constabulary, gendarmerie and national guard. Plus many of the paramilitary forces operating in the Middle East and the world may maintain their own military police when the organizations themselves are considered terrorist organizations in the countries that they operate. The real question is are the "police" maintained by Hamas actually police or an extension of their paramilitary. Was this a way to legalise the continuous existence of armed Hamas combatants?--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me that the early 'neutral' wiki did have in it the fact that the minute choswen for the attack coincided with the precise time for children to be released from schools in Gaza, and one report said something of the order of 200,000 were in the streets at that time. This has been elided of course.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can prove intention in this case. And I hope you're not suggesting that Israel planned the attack so that as many school kids as possible will be killed. Rabend (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Pedatzur said mass killing of policfe cadets who were civil service people, not militants, was intentional. Many sources noted that the timing coincided with the time children left school and were on their way home. Whatever the intention, the effect was that of creating a very large street audience to admire the precision bombing of 100 targets in 4 minutes. Stuff pour encourager les autres. I'll try to find the BBC reports I read on this tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Palestinian children attend school on saturdays. Rabend (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, Palestinians are not Americans and Europeans, they probably go to school from Sat to Wed (take Thurs and Fri off) like other people do in some Muslim countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. Rabend (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, even the earliest UN reports codnemed the timing exactly for this matter. You made me remember this fact, I'm going to add it to a relative paragraph. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of defining this, I, once again, say that "policemen" should be classified neither as militants nor civilians, but rather independently listed.VR talk 03:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very sensible approach to this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo copyright

Description from Arabic Wikipedia as translated by Google Translate: Copyrighted

هذا العمل له حقوق محفوظة و غير مرخص. و لكنه يندرج تحت أحد بنود الاستعمال العادل استعمال عادل للصور أو استعمال عادل للملفات الصوتية. على أية حال، الشخص الذي أضاف هذه البطاقة يصرح أن استعمال هذا العملِ في المقالة "مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008" هو لتوضيح العمل في المقالة في صفحات الويكيبيديا العربية، المستضافة على خادمات في الولايات المتّحدة. مؤسسة ويكيميديا اللاربحية، ويتأهل تحت بند استعمال عادل تحت قانون حقوق النشر الأمريكي. أيّ استعمالات أخرى لهذه الصورة، قد يشكل خرقا لحقوق النشر. انظر en:Wikipedia:Fair use و en:Wikipedia:Copyrights.

للشخص الذي أضاف هذا القالب، الرجاء وضع تعليق تشرح به سبب احتمال خضوع هذه الصورة للاستعمال العادل.

[عدل] أسباب الاستخدام العادل

أسباب الاستخدام العادل 

  1. عدم وجود نسخة حرة من معارك تاريخها اليوم 27 ديسمبر 2008
  2. رفعت الصور بدقة منخفضة
  3. معظم من في الصورة متوفون في المعارك
  4. حدث تاريخي تصفه كثير من الأطراف بجريمة حرب وهي أكبر عملية قتال ضد الفلسطينيين منذ عام 1967
  5. ستستخدم الصورة كوسيلة توثيقية معلوماتية لدعم رواية الحدث.

تاريخ الملف

اضغط إحدى وصلات تاريخ/وقت لترى الملف كما كان في هذا الوقت.


opyrighted

This work has rights reserved and non-licensed. , But it falls under one of the items on the fair use of the fair use of images or just use the audio file. In any case, the person who said this card says that the use of this work in the article "Gaza massacre in December 2008" is to explain in the article in the pages of Arab Aloueckebedea, hosted on maids in the United States. Profit Wikimedia Foundation, and qualify under fair use under U.S. copyright law. Any other uses of this image, may constitute a breach of copyright. See en: Wikipedia: Fair use and en: Wikipedia: Copyrights.

The person who added this template, please explain the reason for the suspension of the possibility that such use of the image to the fair.


Employment, equitable 

   1. The absence of a free copy of the history of battles today December 27, 2008
   2. The pictures accurately low
   3. Most of the dead in the picture in the fighting
   4. It describes a historic event, many of the parties, the biggest war crime of the process of fighting against Palestinians since 1967
   5. Will be used as a photo documentary information to support the version of the event.

History file

Click one of the links to the date / time to view the file as it was at this time.


[Changed] the causes of fair use --23prootie (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reservists

Earlier in the conflict Israel had sent 10,000 soldiers on ground.[17] Now Israel has sent an unknown number of reservists,[18] so the 10,000 figure doesn't seem appropriate anymore. It is also unclear if the 150 soldiers wounded are still in battle or not. Therefore I've listed just the total number, as we have the Hamas total number of combatants.VR talk 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli response to Hamas claims

Omrim has added "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated, pointing out that a week ago only three IDF soldiers were killed when a tank fired two rounds - which have a much larger impact than mortar rounds - into a building which was occupied by 50 IDF soldiers." to the report on the UNRWA school attack. The figure of 40 dead mentioned at the beginning of the section comes from John Ging, not from Hamas, according to the cited NYT article. Omrim's addition is therefore misleading and contradictory. I believe it should be deleted. However, if it is left in, it helps us to see the contemptuous attitude of the aggressor. NonZionist (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim's addition is not contradictory, only irrelevant. The fact is that we are not quoting Hamas figures, so an Israeli rebuttal is unnecessary. Now, this rebuttal should be added to the Timeline article, but in this article, where space is a key issue, it doesn't make sense to keep it.VR talk 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly misleading. The source specifically states the casualties figure which is exaggerated according to the IDF - 42. Unless you suggest there are other 42 casualites we don't know about (totaling in about ~90 dead which would make interesting news), I fail to see how this is misleading. Also, I didn't put it there, I just reverted the deletion of it, as this is VERY relevant (unless you think that the IDF side of the story is irrelevant, a thing in which I can hardly find any logic).--Omrim (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case it would be less misleading to state that IDF is claiming the number 42 is exaggerated, since that is what the wikipedia article claims.VR talk 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Logic seems to be in short supply around here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith accusations, unfortunately, are not.VR talk 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Im pretty sure the idf is saying the number is actually 42 and that hamas 'grossly exaggerated' the initial estimates of (i think) 70+. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I've removed the mention of Hamas, and instead used the words "official death toll", since we refer to Palestinian medics in the article but not Hamas. I believe that's a fair compromise.VR talk 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur.--Omrim (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) And Nableezy, the 70 figure belongs to the Zeitoun incident, while we are discussing the UNRWA school. Only goes to show how terrible is this conflict, that we are even unable to keep track of terrible incidents, which each by itself, if happened out of the current context, would have gotten far more attention.--Omrim (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, hard to keep track Nableezy (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian border guard killed

Under casualities, the following sentence (One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28) might not be accurate as there is nothing to indicate that Hamas was involved in the incident, on the 27th Dec a palestinian was killed by the border guards while trying to escape to Egypt, this incident might habe been in retaliation, a more accurate description would be to replace (Hamas gunmen) by (shots from the palestinian side) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should just say the border guard was killed, we dont differentiate between the israeli soldiers who died as a result of friendly fire as killed by the idf. The casualty count is sufficient with just casualties of all involved parties. Nableezy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

On a separate note two Egyptian policemen and and two Egyptian children were wounded yesterday by a bomb shrapnel.[19] VR talk 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid

Somebody seems to think that there is no relevance to listing the quantities of aid that enter Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel. I have put the listing in twice, and each time, it disappears within a day. Since there are so many edits, it is difficult to identify who is doing this - whoever it is does not write comments.

If there is a valid reason NOT to have this information, I would like to hear it. I for one think it is relevant because much of the media coverage implies that aid does not get through, or is being restricted by Israel, which is clearly not true. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone is objecting to a succinct listing of aid and is deleting that from the article, please refrain from deletion until this point is resolved here. Rabend (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: since a humanitarian crisis is going on in Gaza, to a greater or lesser extent (depends on who's being asked), and Israel is being blamed for it, I think that it's important to add another facet to the description of the situation, by supplying these facts. Thus, the reader has a chance to decide for himself the degree of the severity of the humanitarian crisis. Our job is to supply the facts (but in a succinct fashion, of course) Rabend (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The crisis is not described on day by day basis, so the section of aid should not be described using day by day basis. This is unfair. Return the info if you like, but put it in one paragraph, not in that weird and deceiving format it was in before. I also doubt this macro-detailing of the number of trucks each day, just sum it up. This is "trickle of aid" as the UN said and "pitful gesture" as Amnesty said. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic (possibly dishonest) editing

A few minutes ago the graph of casualties was changed by User:Cflm001. The edit summary said this was a 'minor edit' with the graph being replaced by a 'vector version'. However, alongside, in the new graph the number of Palestinian casualties declined dramatically from 857 to 683. Multiple sources support the original figure and if User:Cflm001 had some evidence for the lower figure, I would welcome him to present that on the talk page. However, to change the figure with a "minor edit" edit summary suggesting just a change in format is, in my opinion, not entirely honest. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking does not belong to the "Israel media campaign" sections

  • I'm going to move this "roof knocking" paragraph to the Planning section. The planning section already have mentioning of leaflets, warning people and such, so I'm going to mix this info with it. "Roof knocking" does not relate the media campaigns in any possible way.
  • Second point, and the important one, is that editors have twisted the facts from the cited reference making the info under "protecting civilians" section, although it's clear in the reference that the quotes was not for protecting civilians, but as psychological warfare. I'll modify that too. Be honest please folks. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And to be clear, the reference said: "Israel also stepped up its psychological campaign Monday, trying to turn Gazans against Hamas.." then typed the messages. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that. Someone mentioned it's positioning as an example of anti-Israeli bias the other day and they had a valid point. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tahdiya or hudna?

The cease fire between June till recently was not a Hudna (as written in the article), but a Tahdiya. Below source explains the differences and cites sources.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=0&IID=2224

I recommend you add this to the article.

Tuvia, Israel January 12th 2009

I think you're right. Through the period, Haaretz referred to its as a Tahidiyya (sp.?) and not a hudna, which tended to be reserved for Hamas's negotiating stance, according to which they would be prepared to make a 'hudna' for 25 years with Israel, if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. At least this is my strong memory of consistent usage by commentators in that newspaper. I see on checking wiki that the terms are defined differently however. Perhaps an Arabist could step in. Is the Israeli/Haaretz distinction consonant with Hamas usage?Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this WP:OR from the article:

Hamas ideology does not allow a permanent cease-fire with a non-Muslim enemy, though a temporary truce up to ten years, called Hudna, is allowed.[1]

I replaced it with the source provided above, noting the difference between a tahdiya and a hudna and that this was a tahdiya and not a hudna. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the UN picture big enough?

It fills the entire screen! I don't know how to resize it though. It wasn't like that last time I looked.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. I tried to make it bigger so that people would stop ignoring them but I seem to have accidentally made it smaller. Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)..and for a more sensible explanation, whoever put it in or changed it just forgot to use thumb to let the browser resize it automatically. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Lead

The lead is under attack by several editors who don't like both names for the conflict being used in the lead. A large number of different objections have been argued, all of which failed to get consensus. Now open attacking the lead has commenced, what is to be done? RomaC (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The censoring enemies, after their false-logic tanks being depleted, have begun satisfying their means by abuse and disproportionate Power. They think no one will stop them, but the "censoring resistance group" is going to fight the foreign occupiers till the end. They've declared that it's better to die on their feet than to walk crawling on their knees. The censoring group, ignoring all the UN International Wikipedia rules, stores and manufactures around 200 nuclear bombs including advanced socketpuppeting and wikilawyering tools. Although they may have thought that the "censoring resistence" is dead, we're always here to defend Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the first paragraph is pretty awful now. What are the options (apart from having the lead in Thai script) ? Is anyone monitoring it closely enough to know who's doing this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the first para was consensually agreed upon, and extensively debated, could we agree, or ask an administrative eye, to intervene and reestablish the agreed-upon version until the dissonance edits are justified, obtain consensus or are rejected, on the appropriate talk page?Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please look at this. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_suggestions. I don't take kindly to the misrepresentation. It's quite staggering. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal Links in Background Section

See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and 2009.

Is there a List of Israeli raids/incursions/executions in Gaza in 2008 and 2009? If there isn't, should there be? Trachys (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you but it's clear that many editors feel very strongly about this 'everyone keeps ignoring the rockets' issue. There should be something to balance those very high profile links (not sure where to find it though). I already removed even more of those same links to the rocket attack pages from the see also section a while back...and I have to say that the articles at the end of those links were perfect examples of context-free and consequently quite misleading information last time I looked. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right that such information would be useful for balance. I will try to find something on that and bring it here.
Might I suggest though, that we consider including a casulaty chart for 2008 and 2009? In the absence of detailed info on the number of Israeli raids, such a chart could provide some idea of their effect onn the ground and the effect of rocket fire on the ground for Israelis. Tiamuttalk 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I can make the chart - any idea where we might find the monthly figures for 2008, pre-conflict? Trachys (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day, so that we can see just who is driving the cycle of action and reaction. The pages links to articles in the Guardian(UK) that substantiate the figures. NonZionist (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Btselem collects casualty figures. They have a breakdown for the number killed in the Gaza Strip from January through to the end of November 2008here, with a month by months breakdown. I'll keep looking for more detailed info on their site and elsewhere for Israeli casualties and Palestinian casualties for December 2008 - December 2009 and post them here for you to use. Tiamuttalk 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The breakdown for Israelis killed in Israel by Palestinians is here. The January to November 2008 total there (18) should be added to this one on Israelis killed in the territories by Palestinians. For soldiers killed, the info for January to November 2008 is here and here. Please note that the figures I gave for for Palestinian deaths include only those in Gaza, while the figures for Israeli deaths are for all those that toook place anywhere in Israel-Palestine, including fatalities for which Gaza Palestinians are not responsible. Tiamuttalk 15:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's table view leading to all of the above information and more: [20]. Tiamuttalk 15:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. What about these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinians_killed_by_Israeli_security_forces_in_Gaza_Strip_2008.jpg#file http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Israeli_civilians_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel.jpg Trachys (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are good. But what about combining the two into one, with red columns for Palestinians and blue for Israelis, side by side in the month by month breakdown? Is it possible? Tiamuttalk 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Combined: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Graph_showing_total_Israelis_and_Gazans_killed_by_month_for_2008.jpg Sources: [21] and (for December 2008) Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please add the image to the article, I've never before attempted to add an image and am not bold. Trachys (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added it. One minor critiques though: it's not that clear who is blue and who is red in the chart - a legend may be needed. Otherwise, great work and thanks. Tiamuttalk 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, added. Trachys (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Tiamuttalk 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, "notable" issues in the legal section

I find it very troubling that Darshowitz, A Harvard Law School Professor of Criminal Law and Human Rights is not considered by many editors notable enough to have his opinion quoted in the legal section. On the other hand the Qatar Minister of Foreign Affairs, The secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza ARE notable enough to be considered experts in Int'l law, and thus are qouted in the section. Isn't that strange? Will someone care to explain?--Omrim (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Will those who object to Darshowitz being notable in that context please explain succinctly, since this doesn't reasonable. Rabend (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Qatar minister's remarks. I think Falk, Weiner & Co, and UNRWA (being UN) statements competently grounded, and do not think it sane to begin stuffing the section with Dershowitz, Grant or Lopez, or the Qatar FM's personal or advocacy remarks. Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Dershowitz is notable as a criminal law expert, with vast experience, and as a strong advocate for Israel. I repeat, he has no competence in international law, or in international law governing human rights. His human rights work is a relique of his days as a lawyer for civil rights in the US. His recent work on the right of government to suspend human rights and the Geneva conventions is not taken seriously by any professional theorist of law I am familiar with. It is simply pure partisan advocacy, poorly argued and politically motivated. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Omrim (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Attorney General comments on procedure IDF military goals are being legally approved

Fellows, I'm restoring Israel Attorney General comments way IDF military goals are being legally approved during the conflict. Let me know if it violates any WP:* and feel free to make it more balanced. Thank You. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for a better diff/history tool

With so many people making edits, it is impossible to see at a glance which edits are vandalistic and which are not. What we need is:

  • a history page that provides two additional textarea (scrollable) controls per line -- one showing text added and the other text deleted by the update
  • a composite diff that analyzes the final version of the article and shows the origin of each block of added or deleted text

If the articles are stored in entry-sequence format, there would be no additional comparison overhead, since the composite diff would simply arrange the data in narrative sequence.

A tabular format could be used on the history page to present the new information. The composite diff could allow control over the number of versions compared simultaneously. NonZionist (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to International Law

I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):

  1. Length - At this rate, we'll need to start a separate article for this section. That's fine if that's the way people want to go, except that nobody ever reads articles that are that specific.
  2. Gaza as occupied territory - This debate deviates severely from the discussion we ought to be having. But, if other editors want to go there, the Israeli position must be represented adequately. The sources used to rebut it fundamentally violate WP:Synthesis, because they don't respond to the Israeli position; instead, the editor must synthesize them to clarify that Gaza is occupied territory in spite of the disengagement. It's also synthesis to say "the UN and other international organizations," when the only other organization quoted is the Human Rights Council. Let's examine the sources used to establish Gaza's position as occupied territory:
    1. An International Court of Justice decision from one year prior to Israeli disengagement (i.e. irrelevant).
    2. The fact that there is an "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs office on Occupied Palestinian Territory." Consider the fact that the argument has to be made in the citation, because it's not actually made in the source. To draw such a conclusion violates WP:Synthesis.
    3. Gunness refers to Israel as an "Occupying Power." That he does, but in an interview, not some sort of official publication. As mentioned above, this also does not touch upon the disengagement, and so is synthesis.
    4. HRC - Again, there's no consideration of the disengagement.
  3. Ad-hominem attacks against Falk - I don't see the reason why the whole "Falk is a controversial figure…" part is included. It adds very little to the article, and is quite long.
  4. Gary Grant - Again, I think it generally best to avoid quoting interviews in lieu of actual published works. Also, why are we quoting Gary Grant? On what grounds is the value of his legal opinion asserted? If we have to quote him, let's at least cut down on the paragraph, because it can be summarized in one sentence.
  5. UN speeches - The snippets from Egypt and Jordan are, again, not actual publications. UN speeches are better than interviews, but still. If these government have published amicus currae briefs, or something like that, it would be better to quote them than a speech--a speech is just a summary of the country's position, and not an actual WP:RS in itself. Even if they were actual publications, I don't see what they add to the article. Everything they say has already been said, and they don't give any reason why Israel violates international law; they simply state that it does. Of notable irrelevance is the Egyptian statement, which pertains to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to the conflict (which is, after all, the subject of the article).
  6. Specific incidents - Are we all ABSOLUTELY sure that we want to start listing specific incidents. By the middle of next week, the "International law" section will be bursting at the seams with incidents in which Israel and Hamas violated international law. I vote we stick to the bigger picture, because all these incidents fall under its wing. But, if I have failed to persuade you, let's consider some specifics about the UN school incident: Investigation is ongoing, not to mention the fact that it has its own section. Besides, in what legal capacity is the OIC brought into the picture? They don't even elaborate on anything.
  7. Petition to the court - This section needs to be seriously cut down; it's way too long. Also, are they arguing on the grounds of international law or Israeli law?
  8. Hamas ideology - Why is this in the article? Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters.

Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed references 2.1 and 2.2 (numbering scheme follows list above). Maybe I assumed to much, but I figured that WP policy was so clear on the subject, that their removal would not prove too controversial. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks against Falk should be removed. By all means feel free to do so. He has a page for that crap doesn't he? 'Controversial' in wiki I/P articles is code language for unreliable, by the way, and is found as the standard epithet for any wiki page covering a critic of Israel. One could say the same of Dershowitz, that he is 'controversial', and this would be improper, since a link will take anyone to those pages where his status is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you're on board with the discussion, Nishidani. What's your opinion on the other points?
Meantime, I've looked back at the source for the Supreme Court petition (point no. 7 above), and found that there was no discussion there whatsoever of international law. Can anyone find a source that says the petition is founded in international law? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been busy, and just glanced through, and haven't had the time to check anything, so I responded on the first point I knew about off-hand. I agree with you also that 'Hamas ideology' has to be excerpted from the article. Hamas has its own page, and its ideology is discussed there. It is totally inappropriate here, and as you quote it, evidently an attempt to prejudice the reader by hitting the 'barbarian' button, aside from its irrelevance to what should be a strict factual accountancy of the conflict. I'll certainly look through the rest, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Look up the talk page a bit and you'll see the 'Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation' section. I put a link to the archives in there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.

The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!

Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.

I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

someone beat me to it! Anyway, I completely endorse the removal of this paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Hamas stuff and also the Gary Grant stuff. He does not appear to judge by his brief history here, to have any particular competence in international law, and the statements are just generic opinions by an otherwise nondescript barrister. This section should quote opinions only by recognized authorities. Dershowitz by the way is not a recognized authority on international law. I won't touch it. But if he stays, he should be balanced by Franklin Lamb's withering critique of his opinions in this case. No hurry. Ideas? Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I further indented your line. I hope you don't mind.
Yeah, I also think that Dershowitz needs to be removed. Everything he says is already said by Israel in the following paragraph, and of the two sources, he is less reliable.
I'll go ahead and remove him. If I get reverted, then we'll discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've returned the indent compliment! I've had a first go at cutting back the petition. In any case, this will have to be rewritten as news comes in of the Court's decision. It's sitting today, I believe. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Egypt-Jordanian stuff is sourced, and needn't be a brief. It should of course be brief. The following remark in the text, 'This comes as a surprise since Egypt imposed (the) Gaza Strip blockade in full cooperation with Israel following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip,' is unsourced, and looks like an editorial comment, apart from being poorly written (= 'though Egypt collaborated fully with Israel in imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas took over its administration'. I happen to agree with it. Unless someone can come up with a source for it, it will have to be removed. I will post a citation needed tag for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put the 'citation required' flag after 'it comes as a surprise'. Some source has to say both (it was a surprise) and (b) that in making the declaration, Egypt was being hypocritical, since it supports the very blockade it denounces as a violation of international law. Otherwise we haqve WP:SYNTH probs.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Something that needs to be borne in mind is that there is no single, accepted definition of what international law is in relation to any particular issue, due to there being no international government. An ICJ or International Criminal Court decision is pretty clear evidence, but we don't have any in relation to this specific conflict or any of the alleged incidents during it. Therefore all Wikipedia can do is to state "Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group X says this, Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group Y says that" and leave the reader to make up his/her own mind. We aren't an arbitrator of "the truth", we simply collate facts and opinions established by others. Cynical (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine. So all of those doctorates in international law, and the history of rulings, are invalid. You've just downsized a notable constituency of the legal world. For the record, 'international law' since Grotius's time, refers to the law of nations, between nations, and does not require the existence of an international government. One used to learn this in high schools in the old world. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"One used to learn this in High Schools in the old worlds remember WP:Civil concerning "One used to learn this in High Schools in the old world." V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen a source yet that links the petition (no. 7 above) to international law, so I'm removing it. If it survives revert, I'll put a strikethrough on the above list.
Also, the quality of the Egyptian and Jordanian sources (no. 5 above) was only the smallest part of my complaint against them. They add nothing to the article (and are quite long in so doing). The Egyptian source doesn't even have to do with the conflict. How do people feel about removing them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A small point, as I recall Britian did a Blockage of Germany during WWI and parts of the German population were close to starving to death. However, Britian was not considered an Occupying power. I think they may have also done a Blockage on what became Lebannon. Blockages per se do not create Occupying powers. ITBlair (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cynical. International Law is only relevant to those who follow it. Israel is not a signatory to many "International Laws" that she found inappropriate and did not ratify many of the treaties signed by the European powers. International Law is also a recourse which has repeatedly been used against Israeli interests. ." Also, what might be legal in Israel or Sweden or Nigeria might not apply to other countries. The simple truth is that international law is in flux and has been since the very first agreements, and certain things seem to ALWAYS apply (Laws agaisnt Piracy) and certain ideas of international law seem sometimes to apply and certain other ideas are NEVER applied). Which laws are applied and by what we have politicians for. One should also never forget that lawyers of any stripe are advocates first, and "friends of the court" second V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Joe, neither you nor the other editor, Cynical, have the foggiest notion of what you are descanting on. You can opinionize, but nothing you say is relevant to editing in this regard.
Saepe habilis. I have no problem with eliding the Egyptian-Jordanian bits, but others may object. The petition should not be struck out, though you have a point. But many of these questions before the Supreme Court of Israel have to do with Israel's international obligations consequent upon a complex array of treaties, associations with international bodies etc. It is true that, in many cases, Israeli legal scholars have argued that a number of provisions in international law do not apply to acts or laws passed by the state. But that does not mean Israeli law itself is hermetically sealed off from international law and conventions. I therefore advise you to not elide the petition, esp. since it was to be heard today, and we should shortly have some indications of a verdict. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Es, Nishidani, ridiculor. Te amo. If you can find a RS that spells out the connection between the petition and international law, I won't object to its (brief) inclusion. Otherwise, the connection would be synthesis.
As for Egypt and Jordan, I'll wait a little longer to see if there are objection, and if not, I'll take them out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is simple, I feel that International Law, which is a Trojan Horse when applied to Israel. Essentially, notice the amount of attention paid to Sri Lanka and you can perhaps understand my feelings about International Law. V. Joe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I note the petition section has been removed without consensus, and despite the fact that Joe and Cynical can't distinguish customary and conventional international law. Petitions to the Supreme Court of Israel that have been decided by that august body through reference to International Law are perhaps not commonplace, but precedents exist. Ther right to do so was estbalished soon after the Six Day War. Nothing I say will change your opinion, so go read Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992. I know you won't, so read at least pp.70ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I think we're losing focus a bit here. Isn't the section getting a bit long for this article ? Yes, country/person X can say something like "compliance with international law isn't required for the legitimate use of power" as Condie Rice wrote once I recall (...can't remember the exact words) and various bodies will challenge that position and so on and so forth but we're in danger of getting into a swamp here and over complicating matters. Would it not be better to make a big effort to keep this section as simple as possible (in this article) e.g. set out the UNHRC position and provide counter arguments maintaining due weight for the bodies that speak on behalf on the world/regional communities, have some specific examples/details but not too much. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, I was bold, and removed the petition section. I figured if it was reverted, we could discuss. Let me make one thing clear: I completely agree with you that Israeli court decisions are often founded in international law. But, absent a RS that specifically says that this particular petition is founded in international law, this section is out of place. If you find such a source, I would not object to including it (but let's make it brief, if we can). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agreed you had a point. Removing it removed the source, and the point, so I had trouble this morning checking it out. But I objected more to the assertion International Law does not matter to the ISC, than to the propriety of your call. I haven't as yet enough Hebrew to read the petition, which was promoted by 9 groups:Gisha, Adalah, Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh Din, but will search to see if a foreign language version is available and whether, if so, ref. is made therein to international customary law (from what I know, there would be certainly a legal problem for the petitioners, but of course my opinion is irrelevant), CheersNishidani (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.

Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it (or I removed them and forgot). I'm way too young to be getting senile… hmf… Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, I haven't been able to find the petition. If you can post a link to the Hebrew version, I could read it and tell you if there's mention of international law in it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Gisha petition. They only have a summary on their page. Gisha.org. Thanks for the courtesy of offering to check it,Saepe Fidelis . I don't expect an explicit claim, so won't be surprised if the verdict is no. Keep me tuned.Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Specific incidents "Sub-Section Name" distorts what needed in this section By big bold I assume you mean your reference to specific incidents sub-section? Originally we were just listing those who also called Israel's actions violations of international law. Then someone made it an "incidents" section and then someone said let's delete the incidents. It should NOT be an incident section, but a list of important parties world wide calling Israel's actions violations of international law war crimes. When it's save for me to revert it i'll do so and shorten the Amnesty international section which does start to read like an incident report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Carol, please read the discussion above about why individual country's opinions on the legality of Israel's actions have been removed.
Nishidani, I've started to make my way through the document. It's 26 pages long, so I'll try to give you an answer soon, but don't hold your breath. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hold my breath? Me? With the emphysema I've got after smoking 3 cartons of cigarettes in the past week? No hurry, but I may not be around to read it, at this rate of pulmonary bombing.:)Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, I hope your lungs get better.
The petition makes many references to international law, beginning on page 18. I am currently working on too many things to reword the section so that it includes this information. If someone else could do that, that would be wonderful. If not, I'll do it when I get around to it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response on number 6. Fundamentally, the issue is that if we go into individual cases of alleged violation on the Israeli side, then we must do the same for Palestinian militants. Any input from other editors on whether they would rather do both or neither? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone created the section. I'll take that as "both." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No feedback probably because no one is reading your request. I suggest you move the unaswered queries down, reopen the case in short. As to the query, my only suggestion is that the 'incidents' of violations of international law be those that are thus classified by our sources, that mentions be brief. At some point this article will be subject to severe slimming. All that interests me is that key points be enumerated and referenced in notes to reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is Dershowitz back in the article? I'll go ahead and remove him, and hopefully someone will be willing to discuss on this page, rather than just reverting.

Additionally, I was thinking that the Falk statement in the "By Palestinian militants" section should probably be removed. There are four things that trouble me about it: (1) Falk wrote it mostly as a diplomatic nicety, and it doesn't follow the spirit of his statement, (2) due to this, it is paired with an (awkward) explanation of Israel's legal position, which doesn't fit in the section, (3) as Special Rapporteur, his opinion about Palestinian violations of IL aren't relevant (his job is only to report Israeli violations of HR), and (4) we already have this viewpoint represented by the BBC, Israel and other sources. Speaking of which, who removed the Human Rights Council comment on the illegality of Hamas rockets and why? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The technique being employed is to snow eyes or throw sand in them, by a blizzard of provocative edits too fast for anyone to see what's going on everywhere. At this point, the page should be reverted to what it was three days ago, and administrative oversight exercised to see that, apart from statistics, no major edits or deletes are done until we obtain some consensus. People who edit without arguing their case are in bad faith, from wherever they hail (to pick up my original metaphor). As to Falk, my view is that Falk and the Wiener & Co remarks,balance out (or did) fairly well, and were reasonably authoritative, until disturbances started chocking the text with blog sources, and uninformed comment by people who may be lawyers but are not competent in the area. I think we should reserve the section for international lawyers. Sure the language can be trimmed. But balance is of the essence. I say that fully aware that a crew of blowhards are going to do whatever they feel like irrespective of attempts here to edit collaboratively.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

British Foreign Secretary says Gaza abuse allegations by both sides must be properly investigated: [22]. Notable and should be added. Fig (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge problem with using the opinion of individual governments. Governments are both political and legal entities. If we quote statements like that, then we're quoting them in their capacity as political entities. In addition to the verifiability and POV concerns that arise, there's also the problem of balance. Are we going to include all opinions published by states? Will the Dutch support of Israel's legal position be included? How about the Qatari condemnation? We get into a soupy mess of dozens of countries, which quickly becomes unwieldy. If the UK actually takes Israel or Hamas to international court, then we move into the legal side of government. In that capacity, I think we should consider mentioning it. Until then, it's a can of worms that won't do anyone any good. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Saepe Fidelis here. Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_14&oldid=1136353033"