Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Updated IDF Casualties

I was just clicking around Google News and followed a story to Haaretz to read about the coalition and I happened upon the new IDF casualty list.[1] It lists 1370 total deaths. It also says "more than 600" are militants (which includes police). 309 civilians, 189 of which are under 15 as well as 91 women, 21 elderly (civilian) men six UNWRA workers and two medical workers.. 320 are listed as "unaffiliated" which means the IDF hasn't determined their status. It also includes 14 executed members of Fatah. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

just put it in the infobox and replace the current info in the casualties section. dont be scared, you are only perpetuating the notion that Canada isnt a real country. Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to but then I remembered the discussion going on above about dissecting and disclaiming the claimed figures and I just didn't want the headache.

About your other point, Canada is a real country. We recently exercised our sovereignty and kept George Galloway from coming here. Why? Apparently "an aid convoy he led into Gaza earlier this month amounted to engaging in terrorism and being a member of a terrorist organization because he said he would donate the aid to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh."

[2] At least we didn't throw stones at it like those troublesome Egyptians. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All right then, Canada is a real country. That uses monopoly money and has an elite team of horse racers. As far as the numbers, if nobody gets to it by the time I pretend to start working in the morning, I'll put them in for you. And maybe I can walk you home from daycare and check under your bed for monsters. Don't worry, there is not any evidence backing up the existence of the Ogopogo. Hope the sight of that word doesnt keep you up at night. Nableezy (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, this is the elite horse team. And they ride to be pretty, not fast. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

done and done. Nableezy (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes soldiers don't differentiate

In Zeitoun today, graffiti in Hebrew cover some walls. 'Death to Arabs,' reads a scrawl. The officer from the unit that occupied Zeitoun said men in his unit wrote graffiti. 'Sometimes soldiers don't differentiate between Hamas and Arabs,' he said.

[3]

This is also the same unit who evacuated the Samounis from their houses into one home and then shelled the home killing about 29 and injuring many others. In which section can we place the soldier's quote? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles

Should the stuff UAVs go in somewhere? link Wodge (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over rules of engagement and military rabbis & IDF:s use of human shields and confining civilians to the combat zone

shouldn't these two sections go in International law under the Israeli section.

There's also a few articles on the guardian today about investigations of Israeli war crimes.

Cut to pieces: the Palestinian family drinking tea in their courtyard

A Guardian investigation into the high number of civilian deaths has found Israel used a variety of weapons in illegal ways. Indiscriminate munitions, including shells packed with white phosphorus, were fired into densely populated areas, while precision missiles and tanks shells were fired into civilian homes.
But it is the use of drones in the killing of at least 48 civilians that appears most reprehensible.
The drones are operated from a remote position, usually outside the combat zone. They use optics that are able to see the details of a man's clothing and are fitted with pinpoint accurate missiles.
Yet they killed Mounir's family sitting in their courtyard, a group of girls and women in an empty street, two small children in a field, and many others.

Palestinian brothers: used as human shields in Gaza

Three teenage boys say they were made to kneel in front of tanks to deter Hamas attacks

Under attack: how medics died trying to help Gaza's casualties

The offensive left 16 medics dead. Nearly all of them were killed by Israeli fire while trying to save lives, and many more were wounded. According to the World Health Organisation, more than half of Gaza's 27 hospitals were damaged by Israeli bombs. Two clinics were completely destroyed and 44 others received damage.

Wodge (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wodge. What is your point? Would you like to propose good faith change to this article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that both 'Controversy over rules of engagement and military rabbis' and 'IDF:s use of human shields and confining civilians to the combat zone' are about alleged war crimes so I thought they should be moved to the International Law section. Also, 'IDF:s use of human shields and confining civilians to the combat zone' just seems to repeat stuff that's already in that section. Wodge (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to add details on munitions human rights observers were concerned about but it was strongly declined by a pro-Palestinian editor. We also already mention white phosphorus, medics, and human shields. This article cannot turn into a dumping ground for headlines again. If there is a concern that a reliable source ties to international law it needs to be summarized.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we including these two paras? The engagement para also includes info on medical stuff. And that Israeli soldiers were on opium? boasting how it wasn't afghani?

even the engagement part is covered by including info on soldiers actions under inter law. i am in favor of deleting both sections, the engagement crap and the soldiers using opium. Cryptonio (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

well let us rejoice, it was done. Cryptonio (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Military rabis and bedouin soldier

I read the reliable sources and according to documented detailed testimony one soldier Many Israeli troops had the sense of fighting a "religious war" against Gentiles. In Israel like in Iran state and religions are not separated. Maybe we could bring Israeli military muslim view on this conflict, to reflect why there was bedouin soldier among casualties. What are your thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And also Israeli military druze view? I'm not sure about New Age and Scientology though. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an awkward sentence. The rabbis part is a real controversy because they are state religious officials. And because of the nature of Israeli society. But obviously the personal opinions of soldiers is another matter. And to the extent it is relevant to the IDF, it is probably for a different article. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be NPOV, JGGardiner. After all Israel like Iran is an awkward state. IDF does have muslim and druze religious officials. We should deal with it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We deal with it if sources bring it up as it relates to this conflict, we just dont add random things into the article. Nableezy (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And again, you cannot use non-free images in talk, removing Scientology logo Nableezy (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hoped I followed Scientology church license and used the logo at original resolution. I'm interested what spiritual guidelines were given to IDF gentile soldiers for this conflict. We should honor their sacrifice. Maybe we should gather more sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to honor anybody's sacrifice, but feel free to find any sources that bring up this up in relation to the conflict, not just the IDF in general. As far as the image, the rule is only free content anywhere outside of article space. Nableezy (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree we aren't here to honour anybody. And if you want to start, I've seriously only got one barnstar and it was sarcastic. As for the logo, I've made a reasonable copy that we can use here: ΔSΔ --JGGardiner (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

JGGardiner, thank you for ascii art of Scientology church logo. Really cool, hope the church will approve it :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on honoring with both of you. Nableezy, thank you for explaining the Wikipedia rules about non-free images. Technically Scientology church should switch to svg format, so questions of resolution would disappear. This is my POV, but Free licenses are good for everybody :) I guess my point is Israeli gentile soldiers casualties are reality, we even know names of some. It is still hard to imagine IDF rabi guiding gentile soldier. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well what a racist and ignorant comment that was. welcome back. Cryptonio (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I had to go to Laos but now that I'm back I see that
a) this article still isn't an FA
b) the phrase "stirred a furor" has been used
c) no one has written an article about the really offensive T shirt I wore.
Also, the geology behind that guy looks like the Cambrian sandstones of Petra so that guy is probably about as Bedouin as Agada. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You also missed Wikifan's conversion to Islam. Many things changed while you were away. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

funniest convo ever--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a great trip to Laos. Since you mention it, probably it is Petra stones behind this legend. IMHO - not good, Bedouins, being desert-dwelling nomadic pastoralist group generally should hate urbanization. We should make it clear - Petra was capital of the Nabataeans. We don't want any false flag here :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW FA stands for? Sorry for being 100% retarded :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FA=Featured article. Slashing and burning pristine forest is very popular at this tine of year in Laos. We might be able to use this technique to good effect on the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for FA explanation. What do Laos monks say about such a barbaric life hating practice? Don't Buddhist monks treasure everything living? I can grasp agriculture benefits of it though. In any case if you know how to apply this technique here - go ahead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military Rabbis section is WP: Undue. It is based on the testimony of a single Israeli soldier (read the source carefully - there was a transcript of a discussion between many soldiers, but the claims in the article all came from one), and gives no useful information to a reader, except that such a testimony exists, and that the IDF will be looking into it to see if it is valid. I feel it should be removed, as it is a waste of space in the article. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Otherwise, I would like to know why it should stay.Kinetochore (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have included material from the Military Rabbinate article that shows that the issue is not limited to the testimony of a single soldier; human rights group Yesh Din have released a statement about the issue and Haaretz has editorialized about it. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Factsontheground. In this unrelated to this conflict Haaretz article mentioned Bedouin Soldier's Memorial at Movil Junction. "Religious war" against gentiles is still an opinion of one unnamed soldier. Very well documented and investigated. Bottom line agree on WP:UNDUE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New data

The IDF released their own estimations on the casualty data -LINK.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You happen to have an English equivalent. I'll be going off a google translation if not, but I think these are the same numbers as somebody put in this morning. Nableezy (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes they are the same, but could you find an English equivalent to use as the reference? Nableezy (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This stub - here - is pretty close. I'll maybe give it an extra look later. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Better source -/. link // Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

in the article now Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems, trying to fix

This page is horribly POV against Israel. I've done at least a bit to fix this by moving the various claims of Israel intl law violations down where they belong rather than mixed up in the Campaign section. Benwing (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

and adding a claim of violations of international law against Hamas into the Campaign section. Interesting. Nableezy (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

an edit that relies on WP:SYNTH to place in the article at all. Nableezy (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to insert something in the campaign section from Hamas claiming they were justified in dressing in civilian clothes, then you should put a counter-commentary. However, I'm going to go ahead and move that whole section down to intl law, where it belongs. Thanks for pointing that out. Benwing (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt insert anything. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you like, we can hide the sections in a collapsible box too. Sarcasm aside, there have been reports from RS detailing Israeli executions of Palestinian civilians and yet no mention of this in the article. If anything this article is biased towards Israel. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I added an NPOV tag to the section on intl law because it is unbalanced. It contains a great deal more criticism, in much more specific detail, about Israel violations than Hamas violations. It also quotes extensively from people like Richard Falk, who is extremely biased in his anti-Israel and anti-American viewpoints to the extent of writing in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories and making anti-Semitic statements accusing Israel of committing a "holocaust". Benwing (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been more criticism of Israel than Hamas, and your views of Richard Falk are wholly irrelevant, he is a UN official and his views are given the proper weight. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be because Israel committed more violations than Hamas? Just a thought. Wodge (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is bullshit. You move out information on Israel to the Intl Law section to support your claim of imbalance in that section, and then you add the very same type of information in the place you just said it does not belong. And tendentious editing, and I can say this without yelling, is re-reverting without going to talk. Nableezy (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you want something to be called a violation you need somebody saying that this is a violation, not the WP:SYNTH you are currently using to say this is the same behavior as Iraq (WP:OR) and a source says that is a violation so this is a violation (WP:SYNTH) Nableezy (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This was not my intention and I've already fixed it, see below. Benwing (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to yell and I'm sorry to have accused you of tendentious editing. I was in the middle of editing and was finding you aggressively reverting me before I'm even finished, without making any attempt to understand why I made the change. Please, can you slow down your reverting a bit and try waiting a few minutes after you add a talk-page comment for a response? I just moved the whole section down to int'l law, which I was in the process of doing when you reverted (see my previous comment up above). Please let's cool the emotions on all sides. Benwing (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To the issue of the actual edit. You use a source talking about the insurgency in Iraq to say that this behavior is a violation of intl law. You need a source actually saying this is a violation, you cannot synthesize multiple sources to come to a conclusion that no single source does. It shouldnt be too hard, I am sure somebody out there has made the accusation. But the source you are using is not applicable. And if you didnt notice, I only reverted the addition of the line, I didnt revert the move from campaign to intl law, so yes we should chill, but dont overreact and say things like 'aggressively reverting'. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

disputed para

Objections, thoughts on this para? it was under the UN report etc.

One case involved forcing a 11-year-old boy as a human shield, by forcing him to enter suspected buildings first and also inspect bags. The report also mentioned the boy was used as a shield when Israeli soldiers came under fire.^[1]^[2] The Guardian has also received testimony from three Palestinian brothers aged 14, 15, and 16, who all claimed to have been used as human shields.^[3] Cryptonio (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this the Israelis using them as human shields. I don't really have any thoughts except that it seems fine ( the paragraph, not the using of human shields)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning this so long as the article also mentions that the IDF is awaiting the results of a criminal investigation against certain soldiers (as the Telegraph reports). But, yes, it is certainly notable.

As a totally different side thing, The Guardian article there appears to mention that there is surveillance footage of Hamas attacking from within civilian areas. Is that mentioned here already? The Squicks (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe under the media section something about a reporter being a witness to such an attack. Cryptonio (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Telegraph report? There is mention already about an investigation that found soldiers claims to be false. it should be at the bottom of the inter law section btw. Cryptonio (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If I knew where it was, I would tell you. I don't know. The Squicks (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War?

I've been meaning to ask, is there any support yet for a rename to "Gaza War"? It seems to be pretty standard as the media term for the conflict. I just searched in Google News and the first page (by date) shows it is used by everyone from Fars to Fox. I don't want to start a poll, I'm just curious what people have to say. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That little fact has been true for a long time, but unfortunately the sources dont seem to matter. I wouldnt mind seeing another requested move, but I think you are going to see the same objections like 'Israel never declared war' Nableezy (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was objected to in the past, but I don't think it had much to do with Israeli vs. Palestinian POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not what I meant, I meant people will again use nonsense OR on the definition of 'war' to override what every source calls it, including Israeli sources. Nableezy (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there no objections? Maybe we should consider a rename then. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, so long as we establish here that the renaming is not a long-term endorsement of "Gaza War", merely a decision that "Gaza War" is a better name than "2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support that move. It makes sense. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts: Use of the phrase "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" means that this article is in line with the conventions of other articles: 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, Gaza–Israel conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is why the major reason for the title, but this event is nothing like what those articles describe, this was an all out attack whereas those others are more low scale and drawn out without any name really being used by the press. Nableezy (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the more compelling rationale is that Gaza War is the common name for this event whereas the others don't have common names. In any event, I didn't really want to restart the debate but to gauge people's feelings. Would you be opposed to a move Squicks? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it as is. But I wouldn't really object in any sense if the clear majority thinks otherwise. The Squicks (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

previous survey and discussion --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

My understanding from watching Al Jazzera English (their Podcasts) is that the Gazan government by definition cannot be found guilty of war crimes since it is not a de jure legal "state" and thus has no standing in anything. As well, they cannot charge Israel with anything either (other side of the same coin).

This sort of problem is not mentioned at all right now in the article. The Squicks (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, The Squicks, Well, we had pitfalls remark in International Law general subsection. In my eyes the remark reflected your point. But it was lost :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? Someone should fire off an e-mail and tell Radovan Karadzic the good news. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Belgrad rejoices: those NATO bombings of Serbia were prosecuted as war crimes. More recently Omar Hassan al-Bashir was nominated for Oscar, though. You should always look on the bright side of life/death and code exclusively in Python. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? Someone should fire off an e-mail and tell Radovan Karadzic the good news. That's a different legal issue. The United Nations Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Council itself has the legal standing to do this, and- thus- it can create a parallel international law system separate from the normal system, with the International Criminal Court.

If the Security Council wants to investigate Palestine, it has the standing to do so. The question is whether or not the normal international law system of the International Criminal Court has standing since Palestine is not a state. The Squicks (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need sources we can read up on this, but my understanding is that as Gaza is Israeli occupied, at least according to the everybody except Israel, that Israel does have responsibilites under international law that they can be prosecuted for. But 'war crime' carries a specific definition, a violation of the laws of war, where violations of international law is a larger subject. The International Court of Justice did issue a ruling about the West Bank wall, and the West Bank is also not a state. I don't know about all this though, so sources would be appreciated to determine what and how we should address the issue in the article. Nableezy (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the following relevant source could be useful in this article: Israel must not ignore its international humanitarian law obligations. To do otherwise is a violation of international law. Unfiltered Israeli stance on legal aspects of this conflict from professionally qualified expert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an Op-ed piece. There is actually already a source in the article not associated with the paragraph that currently uses unrelated sources. It goes into detail about how it is related to THIS conflict and it is from a reliable news source (if I recall correctly). I can't find it but I think it is in the Israeli seciton of intl law so I'll keep on looking unless someone else stumbles upon it.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority's decision yesterday to recognise the ICC's jurisdiction is designed to clear the way for a full investigation into alleged war crimes. However, the court can investigate only if asked by the UN security council or an involved state that has recognised the court. Israel has never recognised its jurisdiction, and because only states can recognise the court, it is unclear whether the Palestinians can do so. is decent from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/gaza-prosecution-israel-hamas Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel%E2%80%99s_Right_to_Self-Defense (source 246) argues against several things both Falk and the op-ed assert. It is only given a brief line that barely touches on the piece.Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Shields

This is from a previous version of the article, and it should be integrated.Chendy (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations investigators have evidence of the use of Human Shields by the Israeli army, including the use of children, during its recent Gaza offensive.^[2] One case involves forcing a 11-year-old boy ho be a human shield, forcing him to enter suspect buildings first and inspect dangerous-looking bags – including when they came under fire.^[1]^[2] The Guardian has also received testimony from three Palestinian brothers aged 14, 15, and 16, who claim to have be forced into being used as human shields.^[3] In February 2007, Associated Press Television News released footage showing 24-year-old Palestinian Sameh Amira used a being used as a human shield by a group of Israeli soldiers in Nablus.^[3] There is also photographic evidence of a Palestinian boy used as a shield; he can be seen tied to a Israeli Military Jeep.^[3] Israel's supreme court outlawed the use of human shields was by in 2005 following several clearly identified incidents, but human rights groups insist the Israeli military continues continues the illegal practice.^[3]

Some of the specifics are in the article now. But why would you want to add something about Nablus? It was in the West Bank the last time I checked. Although I haven't checked in a few weeks. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked again and I was wrong. Apparently Nablus is in a place called Judea and Samaria. But still, that's not in Gaza either. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

'Nablus? It was in the West Bank the last time I checked. I was wrong. Apparently Nablus is in a place called Judea and Samaria.' Nice touch of humour there, JGGardinerNishidani (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The mention of February 2007 does not belong in this article, for time period constraints that is. Everything else is basically there, and actually was just reinserted etc. Cryptonio (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian quotes Palestinians as saying that the IDF used their ambulances as human shields. [4] The Squicks (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the Guardian reported a claim by one guy. The disregard for protocols involving medics is much more important in that story anyways.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Ministry of Health

I happened across this Jerusalem Post article[5] the other day. I thought it was interesting because it suggests that Hamas did not, or did not entirely "take over" the Ministry of Health in Gaza, as we all thought they had in our previous discussion(s). I just looked through the article and I'm not sure it is relevant to anything in there now but it's good to know perhaps? I'd take this over to the troublesome Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority article but once I edit a second IP article I'd become and IP editor and the thought of that creeps me out. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects two Palestinian governing authorities, but recently Governance of the Gaza Strip "took over" Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Kind of nonsense and retarded :) At this point de-facto there are two instances of PMoH: Palestinian National Authority/Fatah/Ramallah and Governance of the Gaza Strip/Hamas/Gaza. How could we make it better? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the advert their running on JPost which seems to be for a holiday.
"The ultimate mission to Israel June 8 -15. Explore Israel's struggle for survival. Briefings by intel officials. Hamas terrorist trials. Targeted killing units". Sounds brilliant although it doesn't mention whether meals are included. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is a POV fork

an Israeli only version of a main article??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? POV fork in extreme Let me think shouldn't it just say see main article and only have Gaza got invaded.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured you can be listened to in here. What main article are you referring to? I would like to read more words from you on this matter, pronto :) Cryptonio (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Ashley is trying to say that the background section is not appropriate or excessive. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that a fair assessment ? I guess we need specifics. A quick read through didn't set off major alarms bells for me...although I've just woken up so no surprise there. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley dropped this(greatly appreciated actually) expansion in my talk page btw.

"Israeli count; no where is it mentioned that the count was taken over 1200 people and then split into militant none militant the unassigned are missing giving the impression that Israel are contesting an over 1400 figure by a larger majority than they actually are..."

I sort of barely understand what comes across, but can't quite put my finger on it(yeah i know it might actually require a bit of thinking but i'm slow). If you guys can, and the concern is addressable, please? Cryptonio (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what Ashley means. The IDF figures bit in the Casualties section closely follows the JPost source. It just presents the IDF's figures. The one thing that struck me is that it should perhaps mention that the IDF haven't provided evidence to support these figures or least it's not clear how they arrived at these figures as some RS's have commented. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is just another POV against Israel. It is important for people to know that the PCHR figures consider Hamas leaders to be civilians. --Dvatel (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is confusing. Is it a POV fork for or against Israel ?
Wasn't the 'what a person is when they aren't engaged in combat' covered in the Legitamacy of PCHR numbers talk section above to your satisfaction ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another source on casualty figures

Is here - http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=25154&MenuID=821&ThreadID=1014010
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For an article with an international focus like this, I would stick to English language sources. (Not that there's anything inherently objectionable with that website). The Squicks (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an article about the findings of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism Studies (in Israel) based on their review of data published in Palestinian sources. Seems like valuable content that should be added with the Hebrew source unless an English replacement is found. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Read a google translation, doesnt seem like it adds anything that the IDF numbers dont bring up. Though the translation was kind of iffy and it may have screwed up in a few places, it pretty much just says the IDF numbers are right and the PCHR numbers are wrong. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the report is basically saying that given the demographics, indiscrimate killing would result in a 50/50 male/female and a 50/50 child/adult death toll. Since the PCHR figures are different from that they show that the IDF discriminately killed adult males who are old enough to be combatants and who are therefore not civilians. So in summary, only 1/3 are "civilians" ipso facto it's not indiscrimate. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the 1/3 civilian number is from the IDF, the PCHR said 2/3 civilian. Nableezy (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

..and it's already covered by "The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention" in the lead. I don't think this report makes it necessary to change to that statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is statistics/demographics claim ( ICT quote from AP source already in the article ): The researchers also classified 518 of the dead as unknown, arguing that not enough information is available to put them in either category. They noted that about 80 percent in the group of unknowns were men, including many in their 20s. This gender and age distribution refutes allegations that Israeli forces targeted Palestinians randomly, the researchers said. "We are being accused of not aiming, of indiscriminate attacks, and the demographics clearly contradict that," said Radlauer. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I doubt people consider the IDF an independent source, but the IICTS, is considered as independent (if not more) as the PCHR and their notes should be added. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We dont have too many 'notes' by the PCHR, just numbers and direct responses to the IDF numbers. Nableezy (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to give valuable details. If no one picks up the glove I might end up doing the additions myself when I get some time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you think it adds? Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse adding the numbers/demographic info in the appropriate section, if one exists. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No foreign or Israeli journalist were allowed to Gaza

Jalapenos do exist, I would appreciate if you would provide further explanation to your revert, especially the inaccurate part. Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel ordered to allow journalists into Gaza

Israel continues to deny media access to Gaza DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit had a very anti-Israel tone. The previous wording says pretty much the same thing but in a neutral tone. That an action is "unprecedented" changes nothing. It is not as unprecedented as you might think. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is dealt with in the article, and is not nearly weighty enough to deserve several sentences in the lede, which is already very long. Every significant change to the lede in this article has had to be well-argued and to win consensus. Besides being WP:UNDUE, your edit was inaccurate for several reasons: 1. De-facto, both Egypt and Israel barred journalists from entering the combat zone, not just Israel; 2. after the Israeli Supreme Court order, some journalists were allowed to enter from Israel; 3. after the Israeli Supreme Court order, those journalists that were barred were barred by IDF commanders on the ground, not by government policy, and thus it was not "Israel" but the IDF that was doing the barring. Cheers, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also on accuracy I'd note that the "unprecedented" quote which appears in the cited article twice[6] is attributed to Dominic Wagthorn both times and not David Mannion, as Dawn's edit had it. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly not my tone. If the media was frustrated or outraged by Israel actions, then it is the media who is outraged and frustrated because of Israel actions. I'm aware of the border issues and situation in Gaza. Yes, JG, I've been working hastily. Do you, fellow editors, think that this frustration and outrage of the media doesn't belong to article? It seems reliable. And we have policies about reliable sources. This article has very "strange" tone. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not be able to continue this, I'm already accused by "anti deformation league", boy, that was fast. Well, have fun. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is this important issue dealt with in the article ? I couldn't find anything. Maybe I've missed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...and for interest, restriction of media access is in the lead for 2008 Tibetan unrest. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is in the lead "Casualty figures have been difficult to verify due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict.[41]"

If anything else is added, can it please be added under the Media section? Cryptonio (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that sentence is about the verification of casualty figures. Casualty figures are a single metric of the effects of the conflict. There are many others, infrastructure damage, cost, so on and so forth. The sentence isn't about restrictions on the media which is an entirely different matter altogether. That's important whether or not anyone was killed. I would say due weight suggests that it deserves it's own sentence in the lead and that details go in the media section if anyone wants to add details. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But if we have to include in the lead, the apologist para brought by Jalapenos above, i will be disappointed(and would ask for more comments). anyways(not whatever) deal with it. Cryptonio (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's being advocated here...

A paragraph or several sentences in the lead about the media blackout would be undue weight, undoubtedly. A sentence that sounds something like "The IDF initially barred all reporters from entering the strip during the assault, but some went in later under am Israeli Supreme Court order" would suffice. I agree with Sean here, it ought to be touched on in the lead. The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid using "unprecedented" or "outrageous" or any other emotional adjective labels here and just stick to the facts. The Squicks (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale behind restricting media in Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos

The photos uploaded from tipinfo and paffair flickr accounts are under review for copyright violations.[7] The original source for some of the tipinfo images is Israel-News Photos which reserves all rights to the photos. The dates of the images differ from the accurate dates. For example, the qassam picture I removed is from March 2008 and not January 2009 as it says on its commons entry.[8]--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw similar pictures by many news agencies. It is interesting if there are any Al Jazeera pictures of rockets fired from urban Gaza without copyright violations. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the image licensing but we need all sorts of fun stuff to get images in. Basically, an editor new the guidelines and wikilayered the Al Jazeera stuff in (assume it is OK ). Someone with knowledge of image guidelines can probably do the same thing for the removed image via fair use rationale or something.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Al Jazeera, but still have not found any "fun" pictures there. Maybe we could get Nizar Rayan face, under fair use, into the casualties :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently both of you have missed the point entirely. The reason why I removed the pic is not because of copyright violation, it is because of the date of the photo which is March 2008 and not January 2009 as it was initially claimed. The claim that there was wikilawyering with Aljazeera photos is just so stupid. It is so beyond stupid that I really don't know how to respond to the lie. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There you go freaking out again. I stated I assumed it was OK. I didn't mean wikilawyer in a completely crap way I meant someone did the licensing who knew the ins and outs to make it meet the standards that not all of us have looked into so much. Saying your not responding to a lie is the same as responding. Stop freaking out so much.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read up on wikilawyering before tossing the word around and wondering why I responded the way I did. The process that users went through to place the Aljazeera photos on Wikipedia is the same process that all other users on commons. We didn't make the photos meet the standards, it met the standards.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to stop getting bent out of shape every time we meet on a discussion page. Regardless of this incident or others I don't really care what your reasoning is.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your use of wikilawyering is still pretty much stupid. ---Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You still have a bad attitude. I'm not going to bother to try to make you feel better about it. That is the way it has been between us so get over it.Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same about your sucky attitude but unlike you I am not crying over it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I was going to use the term "cry" about you. Lets move this banter to the user talk pages so we aren't cluttering up the article's, sport.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point: It looks like Al Jazeera released a whole bunch of images to Creative Commons. I still don't get the ins and outs of images but I would be shocked if there was not a relevant image of rockets coming out of Gaza to replace the one that was removed. Sure it would be simple for someone with the know how if anyone wants to google it for a minute.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

could just use that image in the background, replace the somewhat useless remnants of rockets image, assuming the licensing works out. Nableezy (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that image predates this conflict so that is why it is in background. I like the one just removed more but would rather have a recent one of rockets coming out of Gaza in the law section than either in the background.Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I know why the remnants image is there, just think it is useless. Just saying put the one removed into the background replacing the remnants, and if we find one from this conflict we can use put that in the intl law section and have nothing in the background section. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

...and I suppose we need to remove the size forcing on the images (apart from the charts) and just use 'thumb' as per MOS:IMAGES. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. Someone just threw in some extra large images on another article and I didn't know you could thumbnail them. You improved a stadium article without meaning to.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to restore the image of Qassam rockets remnants storage near Sderot municipality in the background section. After all it was casus belli for this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There are better pictures that could be used, ones that are used elsewhere in the article. I think a picture of a rocket is better than the remnants one, the remnants one doesn't show much of anything. Nableezy (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely against the image be put back in but have concerns with other images that could go instead. A tunnel similar to the one Israel destroyed to kick off this conflict, other rocket pictures, Palestinians living in poverty, and who knows what else could also be included from either "side". Weight wise, this picture in particular does not have any balance issues in my opinion. I also don't think it is completely useless but it definitely is not the best. I think I'll be happy with whatever consensus is found. I lean towards inclusion but would be surprised if it is truley the best and only available option. Screw you for the editing conflict Nableezy. Now I look like I am copying you. : ) Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this conflict started with Israeli offensive, it is interesting what kind of casus belli Israelis had in mind. Obama noted on July 23, 2008 (near the pile in the image) that: if someone were firing on his home, where his two daughters were sleeping, he would do everything to stop the attacks – and that this is how he expects Israel to act as well. Agree, remnants are not as "sexy" and "fun" as rocket fire itself, but provide information about phenomena span. There is also another image of the same pile.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the chart above the rockets in the background section. I know it sounds crappy but is it to off set what someone sees as a potential balance issue? (I haven't checked the edit summaries it was just my first assumption) My concerns with it there are the images are now being swooshed together. It made sense to have in the Escalation subsection since it shows the December numbers. Realistically, it is not a big deal except for aesthetics. I personally hate having the "edit" link on the side of images. Is there a guideline on that? I was never sure if that was just my taste or not.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically, I agree that directly placing one image on top of another should be avoided. IMO, the "remnants of Qassam rockets" picture should be in the Conflict escaltes section. The Squicks (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats actually why I put the chart above it, that seems to fit better in the paragraph talking about since blah this many blah happened to these, while the rockets fits more in conflict escalates. Nableezy (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I still think it is a useless image. Nableezy (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I know we are getting serious shit done here (I am happy with either image being moved down a section or finding a replacement for the rockets even though the Obama mention was interesting) but if anyone knows the guideline on the stupid edit link it owuld make my day. I've been wondering about that for some time now.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

what you talking about? what edit link? Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When an image drops below the beginning of the next section the wikilink to edit it moves to the left. Basically there is not enough room in the section for the image and it encroaches on the following which throws of the header formatting. I hate the way it looks when this happens!Cptnono (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, whether or not that happens depends on your resolution. The only real way to ensure that it doesnt happen, as far as I know, is use the {{clear}} template to clear enough space before the start of the next section. Nableezy (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should play with format/resolution technicalities instead of dealing with root cause - the images sandwich/stack up in casualties section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Injured Woman

Good argument above for keeping rockets but thought a separate section would be needed for this. The injured Israeli woman image got caught up in these edits and is gone now. It looks like this was due to "sandwiching" according to the edit descriptions. They weren't exactly facing each other but I do get the reasoning. We now have two dead or injured Palestinians and none for the Israeli's. If image balance is following the conflict's ratio it would take many more images of Palestinains to be correct. However, I think an image of a dead Israeli should be included. It would be easy to get the impression that Palestine didn't even put up a fight (or a very very small one) by images alone so I think it is needed somewhere. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk)

I dont have a problem with the sandwiching, the MOS says to avoid it not that it is prohibited. Nableezy (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont care about the MOS, im forcing the image sizes down a whole bunch of places. Nableezy (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

'm happy to see the INJURED (my bad for putting dead) woman back in. Is it funky having it next to the Other subsection? Also commenting on the rockets above. Wow... this turned into a 3 question edit.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we could simply replace it with a picture of an Israeli women who was not injured in a rocket attack, Natalie Portman for example.....I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

~~That would be much nicer on the eyes~~ Bad picture of her.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Natali was awesome in Star Wars :) Still currently we have "daughter" "mother" "grandma" pictures. Casualties section do not tell the story story of "son" "father" "grandpa". Some males did take part in hostilities. There were some dudes with guns, which used toys like factory made rockets and factory made fighter jets. Are casualties pictures balanced from gender point of view? Was this conflict femicide? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We dont have pictures for that. We use what we have. Nableezy (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not say that, limitations are in your head. Be positive, use your imagination, don't think inside the box. Maybe we could use Nizar picture? Maybe Cptnono could help picking his flattering side picture :) In any way I strongly object publishing "grandma" picture. This is not balanced at all and still looks like femicide serial with "stack-ups" and "sandwiches". I'm not sure anyone asked "grandma" permissions. Nizar from other hand loved camera when he was wearing military uniform and playing with guns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We dont need her permission. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert of privacy rules in Wikipedia, maybe you could explain. Still I hope we need consensus for inclusion of pictures into the article. I can not see any encyclopedic value of images stack-up/sandwich in casualties section. Looks to me like femicide conflict from the section images point of view. I do not think it is balanced at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if no one has an objection, I would like to remove "grandma" picture from casualties section. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

At least 3 people have objected to you removing the picture. Please do not, you are the only person to object to its inclusion. Nableezy (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nableezy. I did not notice any loud objection. You did not object initially either. Still there was some wondering about other<->disputed funky sandwich location. Frankly we both more concerned about casualties "femicide parade". Clearly it does not reflect demographic casualties statistics in encyclopedic way. While I'm not concerned about "balance", the civilian cost is still a big question of this conflict. Maybe we could use image of Bomb shelter in Sderot elsewhere in the article instead. "Grandma" picture still looks like breach of privacy to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My revert should tell you I objected, Cpt objected and Falastine fee Qalby reverted as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Add me there as well. Objections don't have to be 'loud', unless you are somewhat deaf to quiet argument. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see why there's any problem in having female pictures. They're meant to illustrate. It's not like we should debate what the "average Palestinian" or the "average Israel" caught up in the events look like, for proper representation. Apply that logic somewhere else: "After all, none of those people have green eyes. Clearly, this is a problem given the fact that- statistically- many Levant people have green eyes compared to other peoples." The Squicks (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of this image because it means the article shows that both the young and old on both sides were affected. It was taken in a public place and she's definitely not a minor (no offence madam if you are reading this) so there's no privacy issue according to WP guidelines. Objections need to be refer to guidelines. In fact I'd like to know more about this woman. She probably survived the nazis or the soviets and then got hit by a rocket in a million to one shot. She's probably got lots of interesting stories. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear you dudes loud and clear. As long as we don't add pictures like this, from Arabic language article describing this "conflict". Do we have a Wikipedia infobox for massacre, already? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If that upsets you, calm down and enjoy these, which have a bigger sympathetic audience, and if you object to that, console yourself by enjoying what folks around here call Pallywood, i.e. attempts to tell the world the Warsaw ghetto's lesson has been learnt by the wrong side. Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I loved the movie, in my eyes kind of demonstrates what Pallywood means. Cool soundtrack also. Learning lessons of Leningrad Blockade I was amused in the past by source in this article reporting of Dignity from the incidents popping up from Cyprus to chat with Ismail Haniye about prospects of peace weeks before the intensification. Sean maybe knows what HCJ ruled about embargo of fuel, electricity and candles :) Agree though the 1.5 millions of people would be better with boarders wide open to both of its neighbors, kind of like it was in 2005. Well, maybe things need to get worse before it gets better. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave HCJ alone, I love those guys. This was a classic "this petitioner is apparently active as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in part of his hours of activity he is the director of a human rights organisation, and in another part he is an activist in a terrorist organisation which does not shy away from acts of murder and attempted murder, which have nothing to do with rights, and, on the contrary, deny the most basic right of all, the most fundamental of fundamental rights, without which there are no other rights – the right to life." Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

stop trolling. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

left|thumb|250px|Does Qualby's and Squicks' meta-ironic argument about an arguement count as an 'arguement' itself?

That image is currently being discussed for inclusion in New antisemitism. Yes, there is an info box for massacre. It's here. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with the discussion in this thread: pictures are good. Balance is good. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This must be reverse psychology with the objective of compelling pro-Palestinian editors to force the inclusion of Israeli plight-related images. That's the only thing I can think of to explain Agada's constant removal of the image. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel that this is clearly reverse reverse psycology. Agada is trying to get everyone to think that she is reverse psycoloizing the Palis to add Israeli pictures and thereby make them more pro-Zionist, whereas Agada's real agenda is to use these feelings of resentment to make the Palis even more anti-Zionist! (which suits Agada's secret pro-Pali agenda).

/sarc The Squicks (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

UN Human Rights report and human shields allegations

So this is a new subsection now. I know some editors have already stated that this section is fine but I think it is laid out poorly. I think changing this subsection to to "Human Shields Allegations" and breaking the other allegations into subsections might be a fix ("Weapons" "Human Shields" "Disproportionate force"}. I think the section could be fixed without it but if we are breaking it up according to allegations now we might as well do it for everything. I would still prefer more concise paragraphs. Sorry for beating the hell out of this dead herd of horses, guys, but it is still so poor style/grammar wise (look at the first sentence alone) and that doesn't even address potential weight or validity issues. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are some problems with the war crimes sections but I think it will be difficult to break up into sections as in many parts, all of the allegations are discussed together (eg. the first sentence on ISrael about Falks allegations, or the mention of people protesting against these violations.) Perhaps the best solution is just to merge the section in question back into the main part. Or, you could have a fairly detailed and general part, followed by a bulleted list of the specific violations? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only reason the first paragraph is so weird is because an editor through in the Falk stuff and it wasn't updated properly when other sources came out. I still think it needs to be broken down like this (in no particular order):

Disproportionate response/collective punishment
Infrastructure/Dead police
Civilian homes
Medics not getting in
Human shields
Controversial use of weapons (mainly WP)
Unlikely prosecution/legal mumbo jumbo
Self defense/occupation/other legal arguments

After properly stylized paragraphs are started some might even be merged (like the infrastructure police one currently or self defense argument in with prosecution). I also think we should work in the random commentary from sources into these individual paragraphs or scrap them since every quote that receives a headline seems to be making it in which bloats it even more. It has gotten worse since it was last brought up.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a strong improvement. The Squicks (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Haq paper "Operation Cast Lead and the Distortion of International Law - A Legal Analysis of Israel’s Claim to Self-Defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter" with a free cut and paste cite if anyone is interested. <ref name="AlHaq-OCL">{{cite web|url=http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/OperationCastLeadandtheDistortionofInternationalLaw.pdf|title=Operation Cast Lead and the Distortion of International Law|date=2009-04-06|publisher=Al Haq|language=English|accessdate=2009-04-12}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to tackle this yet?Cptnono (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties' demographic distribution according to PHCR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

resolved, at least for now. Nableezy (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/rights-group-names-1417-gaza-war-dead-1/ 1. According to PHCR, there are overall 313 minors below 18. This is 22% of total casualties and 34% of 926 civilian casualties. Anyhow, the percent figures are lower than approx. 50% of 0-18 demography in Gaza. 2. According to PHRC, total of 116 women were killed. This is 8% of total casualties and 13% of 926 civilian casualties. This is considerably lower than approx. 50% population in Gaza. 3. According to PHCR, there is total number of 497 civilian males over 18. This constitutes 54% out of 916 uninvolved. This is much higher than approx. 25% of males over 18 in Gaza.

I guess nothing would be done with this figures, because Wiki does not deal with speculations. However, perhaps it would be appropriate to point out that, regardless of PHCR reliability, those figures are inconsistent with demographic distribution of Gaza population.

Sceptic, Ashdod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.92.86 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other discussions on this page about this demographic analysis approach. Not sure if you've seen them. The point of the analysis was to show that the effects of the IDF action were discriminate rather than random. It doesn't address the excessive force issue and it's a bit meaningless without context i.e. that the way the IDF classify combatants (technically unlawful combatants = civilians engaging in hostilities)/civilians at the time of their death/injury and what the PHCR (and the norms of international humanitarian law) classify as a combatants/civilians at the time of their death/injury are different. Have a look at the other discussions here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC).....so my challenge to advocates of this info being added (and there are several) is to consider whether it would increase the encyclopedic value of this article and if so, how ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The appropriate question that is asked is 'to consider whether it would increase the encyclopedic value of this article and if so, how ?' Let's go back to the article. 'Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces.[197] The organization has also posted a list of the victims detailing their names, ages, jobs, place of residence, and time and place of the attacks that killed them.[198]' In my POV, this paragraph implies bias. Figure of 926 causes a lot of empathy. The average unaffiliated reader might interpret 926 out of 1417 figure as indirect evidence that Israel and IDF used unproportionate force and caused much devastation and mass killing of the Gazans. It could be corrected and encyclopedic value of this article would be increased by citing the source further, saying that out of 926 civilians, there are 116 women, 313 minors under 18 and the rest, 497, are civilian males. 2. It should be noted that source 198 implies bias. For example, #412, Nizar Abdul Kader Mohammed Rayan. PCHR states that he is University Professor, civilian. It is true, but only half-true. Regardless of the fact that he was not involved directly with the warfare and is considered civilian casualty, he was, according to Al-Jazeera, one of the most senior Hamas officials. 'Nizar Rayyan is the most senior Hamas official killed since Israel unleashed its massive bombardment on Gaza seven days ago'. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911133527449783.html Not to include this data is, as I said, a half-truth 3. From my POV, description of Rayyan as civilian due to the fact that he was not directly involved in fighting is erroneous. Israel claims to end Gaza occupation in Autumn 2005. However, rockets on Israeli sovereign territory continued throughout late 2005 and further, even before Hamas won the municipal elections. Now if Gaza is sovereign territory, than rocketing of Israel was, and is, an act of war, and targeting of Hamas chief members is legal. If Gaza is occupied, occupation implies effective ground control and ability to arrest Hamas officials by police forces, which is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.92.86 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that we include verifiable information (WP:V) based on reliable, preferably secondary sources (WP:RS) with due care and attention to neutrality issues (WP:NPOV) and due weight (WP:DUE) so that people can make up their own minds. Something is either true or false according to the decision procedure used to make that assessment and Wikipedia doesn't deal with actual 'truth'. As I said, the IDF uses a different decision procedure to the norm e.g. under their schema a militant is a legitimate target = unprotected civilian = unlawful combatant at all times and so is never described as a civilian although under international law (and Israeli law) he is regarded as a protected civilian while not directly engaged in hostilities. So, this issue is a bit problematic. I don't understand your 'source 198 implies bias' comment. Those are the PCHR figures just like the IDF figures are the IDF figures. Wikipedia isn't saying that they're right/wrong/accurate/inaccurate/use the right or wrong decision procedures etc etc. Saying "From my POV, description of Rayyan as civilian due to the fact that he was not directly involved in fighting is erroneous" or trying to anticipate and manage a reader's emotional response to verifiable information doesn't help. It's true that this article needs to make it very clear to the reader that the stats are disputed, different because of different decision procedures, explain those differences a bit and minimise ambiguity. Readers can then at least understand what they mean. How best to do that is being discussed in the Legitamacy of PCHR numbers section so that is probably the best place for your comments. Let's not get into an occupation discussion... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Sean.hoyland, but you either misunderstood or deliberately ignored the core issue of my post. 'Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces.[197] This phrase, based on [197] source, deliveres great empathy towards the victims, because 926 out of 1417 is too much. I am not arguing this figures. The conclusions out of PCHR data are debatable, but I'll agree with you and will argue them later and elsewhere. Right now I am suggesting a very simple thing. Why not add another sentence from [197] source, saying that according to PCHR, [197], out of 926 civilians, there are 116 women, 313 minors under 18 and the rest, 497, are civilian males? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you just want to add a breakdown of the casualties allocated to the civilian category by the PCHR in the Casualties section. I personally don't have a problem with that apart from the "and the rest, 497, are civilian males". You need a source that says that. You can't extrapolate it from the sources because neither the primary source PCHR nor the secondary source Karin Laub at AP says that (which is a broken link by the way although I think this is the same story). I assume they are 18+ men but not necessarily so we can't just assume it. Also it's better to say 'civilians and non-combatants' to be clearer as that is what the PCHR say. Can you find a reliable source that says 497 18+ males ? It shouldn't be difficult to verify if it is correct. Maybe we already have one somewhere in our refs or the PCHR say it elsewhere like their list with names. I don't quite understand "deliveres great empathy towards the victims". It's just says what the source says. How is it different from saying "The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police" which someone could say delivers great antipathy towards the victims ? People will make whatever they want out of the information. We just need to make sure it's sourced and makes sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see washington post story again now so the ref is fine. Thai gov may be messing with the firewalls at the moment... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The definitions you use for 'occupation' are only used by Israel, the world disagrees. The UN, the ICRC, HRW, AI, even the CIA Factbook say the Gaza is currently occupied as Israel controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters (effective military control). Also, the defintion you are using for 'noncombatant' is, once again, only used by Israel (and the Israeli HCJ disagrees with that as well). The standard definition of a noncombatant is anybody who is not engaged in hostilities. You seem to want to introduce an assumption of bias or unreliability on the PCHR numbers that follow standard definitions. I don't care if we say X children, Y adult women, and Z adult men; doesn't bother me at all. Also, the Rayan case specifically has been argued to death over here. If you want to explicitly mention that the PCHR counted him as a civilian (which isn't necessary because we already say that the PCHR civilian numbers include Hamas members killed in noncombat situations) that is fine, but also include why they counted him as such (the sources report that he was killed in a bombing of his home with his family). But the addition you made about just the numbers is cool with me. Nableezy (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Having had a quick look I think it might be more problematic than I expected finding a source that explicitly says 497 civilian+non-combatant adult males because PCHR don't say it themselves. I find it hard to believe that a journalist somewhere wouldn't do the extrapolation given that they're not normally adverse to printing any old rubbish. What to do ? Let people do the math themselves from what's there now ? Is that okay with you Agada+Sceptic Ashdod ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

..and to quote Eyal Benvenisti from his book about the laws of occupation "I was struck by the fact that most contemporary occupants ignored their status"....how ironic. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally love Samba style freedom fighters much better. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the welcome note. Friendly attitude appreciated. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

2. We just need to make sure it's sourced and makes sense - right, however I find important one more thing. To put information in proper context. I for one use Wiki on a daily bases. Frankly, when I first saw that out of 1417 casualties, there are 926 civilians, I felt, eh, uneasy. When, however, I read the [197], and later took a look at the PCHR data, I felt somewhat better. I claim, and I see you have no problem with that, that reader will get a bit different impression over figures when he will learn that out of 916, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. That will suffice for now. All the other problematic issues will be addressed elsewhere. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Don't get me wrong. We the Israelis are neither proud nor happy with every civilian uninvolved casualty on the other side. However, when things are put in the proper context, the whole picture is not that bad. And since the casualty issue is perhaps the most important (this is what people will remember), I intend to make some contribution to the discussion. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Someone named Thevoy put casualties distribution based on PCHR data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2009#19_March_2009

Unfortunately, the figures are simply inconsistent with PCHR data itself. Moreover, the conclusion in the box is completely false. I am going to put some effort to make chart of my own, based on [198]. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

5. There is a section "Disputed Figures". I will place later some peculiar findings from PCHR data [198] observation. I know the general policy does not encourage private research. Maybe someone will help figure out what can be done with them. And yes, Nizar Rayan will be addressed there, but from different perspective. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As these issues have tended to turn into edit wars rather quickly, I would suggest putting whatever changes you wish to introduce to the article here on the talk page first so we can work out any issues others may have. Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, i've seen that frequency distribution graph File:Israel-Gaza_conflict_2008-2009_gazan_casualties_as_reported_by_Palestinian_CHR.JPG and i don't like it because it's WP:OR. the graph itself is fine, it's just a visualisation of the source data. it's the description and the interpretation that needs to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

having said that i now see that ashdod may have spotted actual data errors..do'h! user informed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment there, your remark is fine with me. Did you notice he puts number of female casualties at 217 and not 116? One don't have to be an expert to spot the discrepancy, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It occured to me that I might be wrong here. It is conceivable that 116 is the number of females above 18, whereas 217 is total number of females. Anyway I am going to check the chart thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't follow all the discussion but isn't another reason for women children death rate is unbalanced for the population rate is because Israel even bombed some schools that women and children refugees hiding in. Kasaalan (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to save you time reading, no, it's the other way around. There are less woman and children injured than would be expected from random attacks i.e. you would expect 50% but it's less. This interpretation is used by some people as evidence that the IDF attacks were not random but targeted Hamas people. In fact it only shows that more young men died. It doesn't tell you anymore than that by itself. Some might call it spin. There is a discussion whether this kind of demographic analysis is worth mentioning. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

not evidence, but indirect support. BTW, when we will discuss later the actual distribution, you will see that out of the minor's group, the number of 15-17 aged casualties is unproportionally high. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see someone added the following sentence: According to PCHR, out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. Thanx. Fine with me, it will suffice at this stage. As far as I am concerned, this section can be archived. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointing the casualty tolls according to different reliable sources is enough I assume. Because for commenting on a statistics you should be real experts on the area. For example if the women and children casualty is less then 50 percent which is expected usually, it might has something to do with people aware IDF not choosing particular target so leave women children in safest places, and only men go for shopping or other necessaries. So most people damaged by attacks being man since most of the people on street are men. Also don't forget Gaza ruled by Hamas which believes strict religious rules so it might also have something to do with women not so free in streets like other western countries or as in PLO settlements. I am not expert on the area, this are figurative speeches, what I mean to say is the statistics may lie, so commenting on statistics might be misleading. But as far as I know PCHR is serious on the Human Rights, and have some strict reports against Hamas' Human Right violations, so they are not fanatic Hamas supporters, and most of the time PCHR numbers should be taken seriously. Kasaalan (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Agreed for now that the casualty toll according to different reliable sources is enough.

2. Your possible explanation serves pro-Israeli agenda just fine. This is because it suggests certain areas were safe for civilians and that IDF did not target anything and anywhere without discrimination, except perhaps for some tragic incidents that unfortunately happen in any war. Don't forget also that from the 4th day from the ground invasion, humanitarian break was introduced. Can you recall any other war conflict in which one hostility side would hold its fire for a couple of hours daily so that civilians could 'go shopping'? 3. Frankly, I am not familiar with PCHR record and its relations towards Hamas. However, their previous record is not enough to assume their data on this conflict against IDF would be reliable. Look for example at the link below. They refer to IDF as IOF, O standing for occupation. They do not simply report, but refer to 'crimes committed by IOF'. http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/03-2009.html With all the sympathy to their cause, do you think they can be objective here? Soon I will start posting some major discrepancies in their casualties' report. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashdod, please let's leave the IOF stuff alone please. It's not relevant here. Virtually every major international organisation in the world uses the O for occupied or occupation in all of their official documents and I mean the US gov, the EU, the ICC, the UN, the Red Cross etc etc. There are various reasons why they they have decided that they have to do that but here is not the place to discuss it. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF or IOF?

1. Show me, Sean, any other major international organization, like the US gov, the EU, the ICC, the UN, the Red Cross, apart from Palestinian organizations, that refers to IDF as IOF. Even Norman Finkelstein, prominent and uncompromised Israeli critic, objects this usage: "It is the IDF, and it's also illegally occupying Gaza, it's illegally invading them. But don't use terminology which is going to make it seem as if you're a propagandist. Use the terminology that everybody else uses. [...] You should insist on [the term "occupation."] But I would not use 'IOF.' It's 'IDF.' We don't have to become propagandists because we could just use the mainstream [term] and still succeed." All I am saying, replying to Kasaalan, that the moment PCHR uses this kind of terminology, it switches to propaganda and holds no balanced and objective view over the Palestinian casualties in the war conflict with IDF.

2. Unlikely, though conceivable cause you are from Thailand, that you do not know Ashdod is the city in Israel, the 5th largest. And no, there is no need to remind that before 1948 it was Arab's town Isdud and according to 1947 UN Partition Plan recommendation was supposed to be part of the Arab state in Palestine. So, if you are referring to me, Sceptic or Sceptic from Ashdod will be nice. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

the issue of the use of the terms 'occupation', 'occupying', 'occupied' etc isn't relevant to this article. it is relevant in other articles though. have a look around. we have aerial drones circling over this article at all times looking for cases where people drift into soapboxing and despatching missiles accordingly. everyone here has failed to resist the urge to soapbox at one time or another but we're doing quite well to keep it to a minimum. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not saying this issue is relevant to the article or trying to sneak it in. We were simply discussing some aspects of PCHR credibility in this conflict, weren't we? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PCHR credibility isn't a function of the language they use to describe the legal status of the Israeli military from their perspective nor is it our place to judge their credibility based on our own views. We can attribute contentious language to sources when necessary and we have some guidelines in dealing with issues like that to avoid statements being expressed using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..and to be clear on your IDF vs IOF 'Show me' question, I was referring to the use of various 'occupied'-based terminology such as 'oPt' etc etc by international bodies when referring to Palestinian territories they have assessed as being 'occupied' in one form or another. I actually don't know if international bodies have ever used IOF, I've never looked into it but it's hardly surprising that a Palestinian organisation would prefer not to use the D for defense and prefer an O just like Israeli sources prefer to use 'terrorist' rather than other terms. It's just a point of view rather than a metric of credibility. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1.I realize Wiki is not the place where you prove something to anyone. However, I am entitled to present verifiable evidences, questioning their reliability, am I not? 2.Sean, you are falling into sophistry here. No one except for Palestinians call the IDF 'Occupation Forces'. Not just Israeli sources but almost all the Western world, including EU, Australia, Canada and the US, call Hamas or its military wing as a terrorist organization. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp, http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument. This is not merely POV, but a question of generally accepted policies. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What we care is if their numbers are correct, calling IDF as IOF is not my care, yet you leave some points out for this case. First personally I call them IDF because that is how they call themselves, like I call Hamas as Hamas simple as that. Yet PCHR lives under occupation of IDF, so how they call Israeli Forces is their preference. Also since Israel calls his forces as defense does not whitewash their offensive attacks and civilian harm during the bombardments. IDF uses the defense term as in "the best defense is to attack" terms. So if calling IOF is being sided calling IDF is also sided you should just call Israel Army or Israel Military Forces to be neutral if you care that part ultimately. And as a side note "PCHR has submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national. PCHR asserts that the State of Israel should be aware that where it fails in its specific legal obligations to conduct full and fair investigations into human rights violations, and bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international law, victims of Israeli war crimes may seek alternative judicial remedies abroad, including under the principle of universal jurisdiction." [9] and that is the number till year 2003. Kasaalan (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're entitled to present reliable sources that question their reliability and make a case for the information being added to the article. You should also read about the WP:BRD process. No one owns this article. Sophistry ? Well, I'll ignore that. I don't understand your objective. You seem to be trying to convince me of something about the real world and right and wrong rather than about the article. That's a waste of your time. As for words, if Palestinians want to call the Israeli military the IOF and the Western world want to call Hamas a terrorist organisation that's up to them. It doesn't mean that we use those terms here without attributing them to their sources. Read WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. As you say we aren't propagandists. We aren't censors either. We call them the IDF because that is their common name and we have guidelines about naming. We describe Hamas using neutral terms that are not defined by the Western world's opinion of what they are or what they think they are. We have a bunch of guidelines and we just need to stick to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to stay on topic here? I haven't read this section in a couple of days and now I cannot tell what part of the article is being discussed and what to change. I am not sure, but it sounds like Sceptic agreed to use 'IOF' and Sean agreed to use the 'terrorist organization Hamas'. I for one dont agree to either, but can we try to relate the discussion to the article? Nableezy (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but nevermind. I agree, the current discussion is pointless. I go backwards to what I said already. I see someone added the following sentence: According to PCHR, out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. Fine with me, it will suffice at this stage. As far as I am concerned, this section can be archived. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New source, more input

-> Here

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. I am collecting now some fine examples of the discrepancies in the PCHR report. In the course of the following days they will be presented to the forum. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything inherently objectionable to it. Although, of course, if we cite it we should correctly attribute that it is the opinion of an Israeli think tank. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Report on Israeli White Phosphorus Use

Rain of Fire
Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
March 25, 2009

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

Related Materials Legacy Links:

Satellite Maps

Photo Slideshow

Download report with cover (PDF, 6.08 MB)[10][11]

Table of Contents

Rain of Fire

I. Summary

II. Recommendations

III. What is White Phosphorus?

IV. White Phosphorus Attacks in Populated Areas

V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

VI. Legal Standards

Acknowledgements

Appendices

New evidence on Israeli White Phosphorus Use. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense meant to you or to HRW, but this issue is pretty thoughoutly covered by the sources that we already have. The Squicks (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip.[266] The IDF repeatedly denied using white phosphorus munitions but acknowledged use after the conflict. Israel claims the use was in compliance with international law. The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[267] or as a smoke screen. The weapon has a potential to cause particularly severe and painful burns or death.[268]

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

No offense to you, but all I could find in the article about White Phosphorus usage is a single paragraph, and yet it lacks any evidence, but only contains some claims from the 2 parties. Do your understanding of "pretty much covered" is limited to above paragraph. Because it does not cover the issue at all, in comparison to HRW report. Even the summary and Table of Contents of the HRW report is much more detailed. This should be added as external and internal reference. Kasaalan (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is short since it is only one allegation (not its use but potentially criminal use is alleged) out of many in a single section of an article containing tons of information. It had to be reduced in size for a variety of reasons. If you want to go into greater detail I recommend putting it in the White Phosphorus article, the Incidents article regarding this conflict, or using the report as a source without overdoing it. It comes across like you are concerned with lack of detail but realistically how much detail does this actually deserve? We also rely on sources for evidence. If we went into every detail of the report and 1000 reports and news articles the page would be too long and unbalanced. I have a concern with it in the external link section when its use as a source is sufficient and believe the external link should be removed. Inclusion of the information can be done in a variety of ways. If we start linking every report the external link section will be a massive list.Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

HRW reports are credible worldwide, so it is not just any report. Second the paragraph is only concerned about if it is illegal to use white phosphorus or not. But not even mention if israel did it and was there any evidence. This is the best report I came up with about the white phosphorus usage on Gaza. But if you claim you have a better report go ahead and post it. But untill you came up with a better report this is the best one we have, and either as external reference or internal reference the report should be mentioned, at least for 1-2 sentences. This is obligatory, not a personal preference. There is no space limitation exist for ignoring a special HRW report about the case. Yet until I can read the report myself, I delay the editing to the main article. And don't forget "The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government." Which are always, far more convincing than verbally denying claims of the IDF. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Israel has admitted use of the munition. There is no argument that it was used. Better report or not, why is it appropriate as an external link as opposed to a cite? WIkipedia isn't google.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where you put evidence and proof and credible reports, not just some arguments and claims. Wikipedia isn't google, right, but also not a radio, so if you still don't see the point why don't you bother reading IV. White Phosphorus Attacks in Populated Areas Attacks on Urban Areas before you objecting. The proof and evidence on the affects over civilians with proofs and testimonies.

The widespread use of white phosphorus in the area caused many injuries from smoke inhalation, residents and local human rights activists said. This was confirmed by Dr. Yusuf Abu Rish, the director of Nasser Hospital in nearby Khan Yunis, where many of the wounded were taken. He told Human Rights Watch that the hospital received more than 150 patients on January 13, and most of them were suffering from smoke inhalation. "Even the ambulance bringing the victims was full of a foul odor," he said. "Many of the victims suffered from a shortness of breath, hysteria and muscle spasms."[64] Twelve patients arrived at the hospital dead that day, Dr. Abu Rish said, but that was from all attacks in the Khan Yunis area and not just from white phosphorus.

Dr. says the hospital received more than 150 patients in 1 day.

"Human Rights Watch reviewed the hospital's records and found that on January 13 doctors there had treated 13 persons for what the hospital called chemical burns. Two of these patients required transfer to Egypt for treatment. Dr. Abu Rish also showed Human Rights Watch seven samples of white phosphorus in glass jars, which he said a resident of Khuza'a had collected on January 13."

So over a dozen people treated for chemical burns.

Acknowledgements
This report was researched and written by Human Rights Watch staff Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst, Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher, Bill van Esveld, researcher, Fares Akram, research consultant, and Darryl Li, consultant to Human Rights Watch. It was edited by Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division, James Ross, legal and policy director, and Iain Levine, program director.
Human Rights Watch thanks all the victims and witnesses of white phosphorus attacks who took the time to relate their experiences. Thanks also to the human rights organizations who provided assistance, in particular: the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.

This is important because it is against international military code to use this kind of weapons over civilians. Israel claims just to smokescreen yet people suffocated and intoxicated by the white smoke and chemically burn by the weapons. Very important report by very important and internationally credible source, you cannot ignore it by any means according to any encyclopedia standard. Kasaalan (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also this report is supporting the current paragraph in the article with sound and detailed proofs. Try reading V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus and VI. Legal Standards and HRW letter to the IDF IDF response to HRW. Even the titles is enough to understand the report is important. Kasaalan (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan, I think you might be missing the points people are making. I don't think anyone is denying the value of this report as an information source it's just a question of how to use it and due weight for this issue within the article. The normal approach is to use it as a reference next to the relevant information in the article rather than as an external link. There are other reports that I personally regard as far more important than this one e.g. UNHRC statement about war crimes but even that is not an external link. This is just one aspect of the IDF operations. There are so many, many, many more issues like this of equal if not more weight that we are forced to keep things a bit brief in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all in my opinion the report should be added both as a reference and an external reference. The content about white phosphorus usage is below any standard right now. So you say you have page length issue therefore best solution mentioning the context of the report 1-2 sentences in the paragraph. Referencing it. And keeping it in external references or further reading section. And if you have a good UN report why don't you post its link here so we can discuss it further. Moreover let me remind you UN even hosts HRW reports in their own site and servers because HRW reports are credible internationally.

Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Also the page has some more evidence in it. Israel/Gaza: Satellite Imagery of White Phosphorus Use and Israel/Gaza: Photographs of White Phosphorus Use which are also important and missing for the article currently.

I don't think anyone here is questioning the validity of the HRW report. You don't need to keep defending their credibility. Yes, I've read it and a very good source for the White Phosphorus article. Yes, it's important from the potential war crimes perspective because it's an indiscriminate weapons system like flechettes but as HRW acknowledge "White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire". That to me shows how it is just one aspect of the many ways people were injured and killed by the IDF. How many out of the 1417 people were killed by it for example ? The UN stuff isn't an external link because 'link farming' is discouraged. The reports are available via the references cited. I don't mind whether this report is or isn't an external link but there are so many reports. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most possible you don't know much about the situation and what the white phosphorus can lead. White phosphorus bombs did not used for killing civilians, it wouldn't kill much people even if they target civilians, because its main purpose is not that. White phosphorus means suffering for the most part, not death, if not directly touched to the skin. Yet its smoke is hazardous while breathing. I don't know if you have ever been in a position like Gaza or watched an interview about it. While the bombing was on in winter, since all the bombs fell over Gaza, all the residents obliged to open all their windows. Why, because if they don't open their windows', they would shatter in an instant with shock waves caused by the explosions. So if you use a chemical smoke that suffocates people, over a city in which all of its windows open, that means physical harm to any civilian, especially children. People not died true, but how many people suffocated and treated at the hospital, and how many more didn't even get reported. Think about that and think again for a better understanding what white phosphorus leads. Try to understand my point. Harm is not limited to killing. Kasaalan (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no one is questioning the validity and I doubt anyone questions the concerns regarding use of the munition. The problem is potential overloading the external links section. I agree that "...information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as .... amount of detail" makes inclusion somewhat appropriate. However, 'link farming' is also a reason to not use the source there. We could put dozens of external links in that section regarding various aspects of the conflict. We need to use discretion since this article has had a tendency to get bloated. WP but it is not the primary reason this article exists and doesn't deserve more weight than military tactics, casualties, background, and all of the other topics covered.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it until consensus was reached and also because the report title was used which is an allegation not fact. Cryptonio reverted so lets see if we can come to consensus. in regards to the revert edit summary, HRW is not the UN. Also, I would prefer to not counter external links with more external links.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also remain unconvinced that this merits it's own external link and would prefer to not counter external links with more external links...which is difficult anyway since HRW haven't written a detailed (half) report about rocket attacks since 2007. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..it is a 'fact' though that HRW published a report titled 'Rain of Fire Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza'. I don't see a problem with the title if it's attributed to HRW. It's no different than "Israel strikes back against Hamas terror infrastructure in Gaza" from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If this report will be excluded from both external links section and from the white phosphorus usage paragraph, that is not about the link farming, but more about censorship. You cannot leave out one of the world's leading Human Rights group out of the context without even mentioning 1 or 2 sentences. I don't know what you have in mind, but the report is full of 1st party testimonies with proper sourcing, so best report available on the issue, unless you can put a link to a better report, which you talked about yet not proved by putting a proper link for it. White phosphorus usage is illegal, dangerous, important and should be mentioned better. The paragraph currently is just some verbosity, but has no evidence in it. Your reference for the paragraph also is not any way near as high quality as HRW report. Also the report contains the lacking photographic proof in the paragraph. I don't know what you want more from a report. HRW report is better than any other newspaper article, but Human Right organizations are 3rd party and better sources for the conflicting situations than Hamas or IDF, yet also they are better source than most of the newspapers because they work on the mentioned areas as first party. Kasaalan (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel Accused of 'War Crimes' for Phosphorus Shells In Gaza, even the Red Cross accepts that the intention is probably to use WP to create smoke rather than to deliberately injure; the Associated Press quotes the ICRC's Peter Herby as saying: "It's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." WP smoke rounds are not classed as an incendiary weapon either. This is because the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Incendiary Weapons specifically does not cover "Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems." … the case put forward by Human Rights Watch and others is not that WP is an incendiary, but that its use "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life." This looks like a reference to a different treaty, the 1949 Geneva Protocol, which has a section on "General protection against effects of hostilities". http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/white-phosphoru.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

HRW and AI both acknowledge that WP can be used legally as a smoke screen or for illumination. They both have said that there is evidence that Israel has used it as a weapon, which they argue is against international law. That Israel has been accused of using it as a weapon, which in the opinion of high quality sources like AI or HRW constitutes a 'war crime', should be in the article. (The argument that use as a weapon is illegal is that it is a weapon that is indiscriminate in its effects, ie that it cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants) Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no problem with 'according to HRW report, WP was used as a weapon' or whatever you want to phrase it. However, I intend to insert in the article a counterweight cited in the JPost, saying that 'The International Red Cross said on January 13 2009, that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.' Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit, told The Associated Press that it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way.' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both should go in. Nableezy (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we should add all leading Human Rights Organization's conclusions as summary 1-2 sentences, pro or con for a conflicting case like this. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, try not to assume the worse and jump to conclusions about censorship. As long as the paragraph does not become bloated and is balanced there is no problem with adding information. The report looks like a good source (haven't gone through it completely myself yet) so please cite it. I also recommend using it as a source in other articles related to this conflict and the munition.Cptnono (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the sources needed for the case.

The Israeli military has denied the allegations that it has improperly used white phosphorous shells, saying only that it uses munitions in accordance with international law.

But Abrahams refutes the claim. "We saw it (white phosphorous) bursting over Gaza ourselves. It has a distinguishable appearance - which is a155 mm artillery fired shell that explodes in the air, sending down about 100 burning wafers, which leave smoking trails. We saw them detonate over the Gaza City/Jabaliya area,” he wrote.

White phosphorous with its distinct garlic smell is under international law permissible to use as an "obscurant" to mask troop movements particularly in open areas or to illuminate targets at night, but its use is controversial as it can cause severe chemical burns to people.

The usage of white phosphorous against civilians is prohibited under international law.

In a recent press release, Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that the use of white phosphorous in Gaza "violated the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life."

Abrahams voiced strong concern over the usage of white phosphorous in an area like Gaza that not only is highly populated but also lacks the necessary water resources to put out the gas shells whose fire can be difficult to extinguish.

White phosphorous is "highly problematic when used in populated areas, such as Jabaliya. It rains down 116 burning wafers over an area the size of a football field, and those wafers can set civilian structures on fire. They can also burn people. The fire is very hard to put out – you must cut off all the oxygen, such as by emerging it in water, which today in Gaza is in short supply," Abrahams told MENASSAT.

Photographic evidence

The International Red Cross said today that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip. But it says it has no evidence to suggest that the shells are being used improperly or illegally.

But, The Times of London claims to have obtained photographic evidence that proves Israel has indeed been using the notorious white gas in populated areas of the Gaza Strip.

The Times also claims to have "identified stockpiles of white phosphorous shells" from photos taken by Israeli troops on the Israeli-Gaza border this week.

The paper mentions the same type of shell "…155mm rounds clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition," that was shown to a reporter by a Gaza resident a few days ago-and which HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco identified as white phosphorous.

Abrahams added that HRW had also obtained photographic evidence, telling MENASSAT, "We saw photos of the fused artillery shells taken inside Israel, and the markings on those photos are of white phosphorous. You don’t fuse a shell unless it’s being prepared for use."

Influx of burn victims in Gaza hospitals

In addition to the claims made by HRW, an increasing number of Gazans, doctors and aid workers deployed in the Strip are now claiming its evident that Israel has been using the white phosphorous gas in Gaza.

On January 12, the Times of London reported that more than 50 people with burns were taken in for treatment at Nasser Hospital in the southern town of Khan Yunis.

The hospital director, Youssef Abu Al-Reesh, told The Times the influx of burn victims was the result of "a massive case of exposure to white phosphorus."

“We don’t have the medical experience to judge these cases, but we searched the Internet according to the cases we have, and it indeed confirmed that it’s white phosphorus munitions. I have been working in this hospital for ten years and I have never seen anything like this,” said Abu Al-Reesh.

Also on January 12, the New York Times reported on 10-year old Luay Suboh from Beit Lahiya who lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a "fiery substance clung to him" as he was on his way home from a shelter where his family had gathered to pick up clothes.

Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian war surgery specialist who up until recently was providing emergency care at the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza told The Times that he had seen injuries he believed resulted from Israel’s use of a new "dense inert metal explosive" that caused "extreme explosions."

In the summer of 2006, HRW documented Israel's use of white phosphorous during its 34-day long war against Lebanon’s Shia party, Hezbollah. In 2004, the United States used the gas shells during its controversial siege of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004.

http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/5730-illegal-use-white-phosphorous-gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/world/middleeast/13mideast.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911114222894141.html http://www.theworld.org/audio/0112092.mp3

Maybe helps. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to list every incident and proof of the munitions use is not necessary. The Red Cross line is interesting: "But it says it has no evidence to suggest that the shells are being used improperly or illegally." I don't think that is in the article yet.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"It rains down 116 burning wafers over an area the size of a football field, and those wafers can set civilian structures on fire. They can also burn people. The fire is very hard to put out – you must cut off all the oxygen, such as by emerging it in water, which today in Gaza is in short supply" "“We don’t have the medical experience to judge these cases, but we searched the Internet according to the cases we have, and it indeed confirmed that it’s white phosphorus munitions. I have been working in this hospital for ten years and I have never seen anything like this,” said Abu Al-Reesh." "On January 12, the Times of London reported that more than 50 people with burns were taken in for treatment at Nasser Hospital in the southern town of Khan Yunis." "In the summer of 2006, HRW documented Israel's use of white phosphorous during its 34-day long war against Lebanon’s Shia party, Hezbollah." These lines are much more interesting to me. "Internationally Illegal" or not, if "non-targetted" civilians highly affected, it is not a justifiable action. Also white phosphorus shells not only damages civilian health, but also damages their property and homes. Kasaalan (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But again wrong sources might lead you misjudge. So that is why I posted HRW report, try to read it through.

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."[71] Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue [of whether the IDF was using white phosphorus], they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."[72]

On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.[73] Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.[74]

In response to media requests, the ICRC further clarified its position. "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," Peter Herby told the Christian Science Monitor in early February. "The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors."[75]

According to the newspaper, Herby also said: "The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

Red Cross didn't said IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal afterall, they even claimed it is against protocol III of geneva convention. So it might be even more interesting when you found out IDF spokesman just twisting comments to justify their bombing of UN school by previous comments of Red Cross. Kasaalan (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Kasaalan, you are jumping into conclusions that are not sustained by your sources. 'It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors'. Very lukewarm statement. Red Cross didn't say IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal after all? But they didn't say it was illegal either. And further, 'The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.' Does he present evidence WP was used as a weapon? No. Does he say that WP is classed as an incendiary weapon? No, cause it is not. Are military objectives are separated from civilian ones in Gaza? No, and I can produce dozen of evidence for that. Finally, does he say clearly that IDF violated Protocol III? No. He says that IF WP was used in inappropriate manner, this is a violation. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law? If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/weapons-interview-170109 --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you read the "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," or "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," parts. If you butcher a conversation you can jump to any conclusion you like. Kasaalan (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you guys consider whether it may be better to format your discussions in a way that centre around concrete proposed changes/additions to text and references in the article. I suggest you propose text and references and directly address that text in your discussions. This should help matters to remain focused on the task at hand which is the article contents rather than who are the good guys, who are the bad guys and who would win in a violations of international law competition. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Along those lines, I would like to introduce 'and it burns, burns, burns' cited to this investigative report on the effects of WP. Nableezy (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm ring of fire. that reminds me. lunchtime. better start chopping some chillis. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, these are concrete proposals, as a counterweight:

1. According to IDF, 'About 200 such [WP] shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.' In response to the allegations of improper use, IDF officers say that 'the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html 2. Contrary to the claims in the report, the IDF states, smoke shells are not an incendiary weapon. The third protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) [which defines particular limitations on incendiary weapons] makes it clear that weapons intended for screening are not classified as incendiary weapons. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073825.html 3. According to initial IDF probe, 'It is already possible to conclude that the IDF's use of smoke shells was in accordance with international law. These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless. … weapons intended for screening are not classed as incendiary weapons," the IDF said. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/25/israel.white.phosphorus.gaza/ 4. "… the case put forward by Human Rights Watch …is not that WP is an incendiary, but that its use "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life." http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/white-phosphoru.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Haaretz source, you left out two key points of the article. It is an IDF investigation that found concern with a single unit (not the orchard event), and "Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law." It should be included but those lines are necessary or the reader may take it out of context. Also, the writer used the term "at" which contradicts the IDF claim. It was not used as a direct quote so it looks like a mistake or weasel word on Amos Harel's part. Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. 1. The Israel Defense Forces is investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza. The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza. Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law. According to IDF, 'About 200 such [WP] shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired [by the brigade] at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.' In response to the allegations of improper use, the reserve paratroops brigade officers say that 'the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS unless the person writing the blog are themselves an RS. The WP:NPOV and WP:DUE guidelines help us to make sensible assessments about whether we are appropriately balancing opposing views so that we can avoid giving too much 'air time' to a particular perspective. I suggest we use them here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you were saying. Is this particular one acceptable or not?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Assume by default that a blog is not a reliable source. An exception is when the blogger is widely regarded as a reliable source but only if they are talking about something that they are considered an 'expert' in. Check the RS noticeboard, there's a link via WP:RS. For example, in this case the piece is written by David Hambling. At a quick glance he looks like an RS on weaponry etc because he has written on this subject for sources that are RS e.g. The Guardian and he's a published author of military geek stuff. Since he seems to be well known his piece posted in this blog is very likely to available elsewhere actually in an RS like The Guardian etc. Try to find that material and reference that rather than the blog. It's your responsibility to show that the source you propose using is an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

General policy is clear, however I don't get one thing. In this particular case I could not find the material in other RS. You say that an exception is possible, when the blogger is widely regarded as a reliable source but only if they are talking about something that they are considered an 'expert' in. So, if we agree the blogger is an expert and is widely regarded as a reliable source, could the article be used as a source?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same blog? The wired page is a blog (according to the page address) but it links to sources so just jump over to those.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about David Hambling's piece in Wired's Danger Room blog then I think it should be okay to use the article directly because Wired is itself an RS. So you have a reputable publisher publishing a blog by a blogger who is himself an RS....at least that's what it looks like to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look bloggish but it says blog so I am confused by it. It links to sources in the piece though so it doesn't look like there should be any problems.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is conceivable that there will be a separate article on WP, taking into an account the allegations and the responses from IDF and assertions from other sources. In my opinion this is not the core issue of the Cast Lead. What do you think? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I support a sub-article about white phosphorus usage in Gaza. We may not go in every detail in main article. But the key points should be mentioned in 1 paragraph, since the white phosphorus usage discussions are broadly common and extremely important due to involving civilians. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on the same subject as above

UN reports is what all sides should look after(until these scholar reports come out etc). there is great interest to counter these reports by both sides, so the importance to both sides isn't disputed. how important they are to both sides is a matter of position and not POV. Cryptonio (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to your edit summary and comments in the section already devoted to the external link. "Human Rights Watch Report on Israeli White Phosphorus Use" shown a few sections above. == Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am posting an expert opinion on the WP in Gaza in the appropriate section. To sum things up, usage of weaponry containing WP is legal. The Human Rights Watch are unhappy because in their view not all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life were made. This is unfortunate, but this is war. I guess I will incorporate the following paragraph in the article, if there will be no objections. "In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1231866575577 --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some problem posting, I will post the whole article later.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do they need illumination or smoking. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted an article in the upper section, see what the expert has to say. WP is used both to create smoke and illuminate target. Now pay attention, it is quite obvious even without the HRW report, and the expert points it out, that WP might and actually did result in some serious injuries. Nobody denies that. However, it has nothing to do with alleged war crimes. Back to the JPost link, 'The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.' No war crime here. Finally, see what British soldier of the Intelligence Corps in Iraq has to say on the issue: 'During the course of Israeli operations in Gaza the whole of the media seems to have become expert in the use of white phosphorous. Most commentators either do not know, or have refused to acknowledge, that the use of white phosphorous is not illegal. The Geneva conventions do restrict the use of white phosphorous in certain circumstances, but it is used almost daily by British forces in Afghanistan. White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3286561/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead.thtml Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all some country's usage will never whitewash an illegal usage, bad examples aren't good examples. Second does taliban hide in cities or mountains, that is the question, because using a dangerous bomb over one of the most crowded cities in the world, and using against separated armed men is different. Yet even against Taliban, or anyone burning even a single man alive is inhuman, I don't know if I can make myself clear but even British do or American do or whomever does that, will not change the reality. Yet British army has one of the worst records in the world for Human Rights issues, like American army along with Israel Army. So are you sure you giving the good example here. Did you read the HRW report, only in 1 single hospital, it is reported 150 people come with suffocating because of the White Phosphorus. I stressed earlier that, all the windows in Gaza were open, and the smoke of White Phosphorus is simply hazardous, so if suffocating civilian is not IDF's care, why they bother whitewashing their deliberate attempts against civilians the mouth of an aliased British soldier. If he is so much proud of his legal work, why don't he even uses real name in the first place. "Daniel was a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is writing under a pseudonym." Also if it is not illegal or dangerous to use white phosphorus, why IDF strongly claimed they didn't use or even used empty white phosphorus bomb shells earlier. Kasaalan (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I again suggest that we move this discussion into the seciton above before people get confussed. Also, Kasaalan, stop trying to make a point about how the munitions hurt people and get on topic of what else is needed that will improve the INternational Law section. You are treading dangerously close to WP:SOAP.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I just accept the whitewash of Israeli army's white phosphorus usage right into one of the world's most crowded population in the world, by mouth of the world's one of the worst human rights record army's nameless soldier, in silence, because while invading Afghanistan British army used the same artillery over the Taleban forces, who they had supported and financed for all these years against Soviets along with USA. No I don't think that is any kind of soap, and if you think these are just opinions they can always be proved. Other than that the article interesting and informative if you ask me, but never justifies white phosphorus usage, so by the article you may add some opinions, but don't try to came up with a conclusion, british uses that too, that is legal and justifiable to be used right among Gaza city civilians. Kasaalan (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But again wrong sources might lead you misjudge. Especially POV sources like JerusalemPost. So that is why I posted HRW report, try to read it through.

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."[71] Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue [of whether the IDF was using white phosphorus], they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."[72]

On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.[73] Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.[74]

In response to media requests, the ICRC further clarified its position. "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal," Peter Herby told the Christian Science Monitor in early February. "The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors."[75]

According to the newspaper, Herby also said: "The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." V. Israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

The case is very clear. Red Cross didn't said IDF's white phosphorus usage is legal afterall, they even claimed it is against protocol III of geneva convention. IDF spokesman just twisted Red Cross spokesman's past comments to justify their bombing of UN school. Kasaalan (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I am moving to the upper section.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan/Sceptic please can you...

Remember to indent your comments properly so that discussion threads are easier to read as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. It's easy once you get into the habit.
Ensure that you carefully read the details of the discretionary sanctions that apply to this page and take them into account when you post comments here.

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

i'll do my bestSceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot always use indent because while using with blockquote the page becomes more crowded and layout corrupts. If you have a proper solution for using indent with blockquote, then I can use it like you suggest. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you paste an example of what you mean on my talk page and i'll have a look ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a solution for the indent issue. Now I can indent. Thanks. But also, time to time it is wise to outdent, because indents leads vertically long paragraphs after a while. Kasaalan (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

About the sanctioning I clearly don't understand why I should be banned by any means. I do research which contributes to the topic highly and more than 1 way, yet constant verbal objections based on weak sources against the high standard sources to a clearly important issue leads the discussion here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only saying that you need to be aware of them because everyone working on Israel-Palestine related articles is expected to be on their best behavior to avoid the conflict spreading to Wikipedia (which happens frequently over almost every issue). I'm not an admin and I haven't seen you do anything that would result in a ban. What I have seen is a bit too much information and advocacy in both directions. As I said somewhere else around here, it's better to make concrete proposals about changes to the text in the article based on your references so that discussion can focus on the proposed changes. It makes it more collaborative. A one state solution is the only option available to us for this article so consensus has to be found somehow. This article is about the whole conflict so I personally don't think a lot of space should be given to this particular weapon, it's effects and Israeli counter-arguments. It should be possible to briefly summarise the key points from HRW etc and the Israeli counter-arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also say that I've always thought that the best way for this article to describe the effects of this weapon is by showing a picture of it's effects on a person in Gaza in this conflict. We had a good picture but many people objected to it so it's not here. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we all stop this section, it is impossible to follow the two fronts. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sections so it might be less confusing.

Kasaalan, stop trying to make a point on the talk page. You're not changing anyone's mind on the munition. You can, however, use the source in the article assuming it is done in a way that does not upset weight while giving facts in a neutral manner. If you want to discuss or blog about it there are other sites.

Also, is there consensus either way on the external link?Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Well I just proved Red Cross did not state opinion on Israel's white phosphorus usage is legal and justifiable very clearly above, so before claiming untrue arguments like Red Cross blessed white phosphorus usage, maybe you should read the HRW report thoroughly. You may ignore my proof and blame me, yet what I do here is research unlike some verbosity. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. You shouldn't be trying to prove anything. You should be attempting to better the article.Cptnono (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No you are simply wrong. I try to prove something because jerusalem post article does not reflect the truth. And before doing any edit to the main page and overcoming possible long reverting process, I share my point with proper sources beforehand. If you have the intention for improving the article, you may always go and edit according to the HRW report I provided before I do. But I don't like to edit before finishing the report so it may take some time. Kasaalan (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One of your original comments said the exact opposite of your "proof" and you provided a source. Although I see your point, don't give me a hard time since you had to change your stance on it. To be perfectly frank, if you go overboard with information in this article as you have on this talk page it will be more than likely be removed. The paragraph can easily be longer but you need to show some discretion with weight and possible neutrality concerns. I agree with an above post you made regarding more information going into a subarticle. this page might need improvement.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Macintyre, Donald (2009-03-24). "UN accuses Israeli troops of using boy, 11, as human shield". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-03-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference unchildren was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Clancy Chassay. Palestinian brothers: Israel used us as human shields in Gaza war (Documentary). {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessmonth=, |accessyear=, |month2=, and |year2= (help); Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)

[BShield-1] Macintyre, Donald (2009-03-24). "UN accuses Israeli troops of using boy, 11, as human shield". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-03-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[unchildren-2] Cite error: The named reference unchildren was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[GShield-3] Clancy Chassay. Palestinian brothers: Israel used us as human shields in Gaza war (Documentary). {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessmonth=, |accessyear=, |month2=, and |year2= (help); Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]