Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Israel on humanitarian aid map

Israel should also appear in red on the map, as it does in fact give humanitarian aid to Gaza. More info in the main aid article (linked from the relevant subsection). 89.139.106.49 (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Rabend (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh. This made me laugh. Superpie (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
At the very least, Israel is providing medical help to Gazans. Rabend (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My POV is spilling out, I apologise. Superpie (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is highly notable for a belligerent in a conflict to provide aid to the other side while the conlict is going on, this should receive a place in the article text, not just the map (in which Israel is too small to see, anyway). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel plans to open a field hospital on Sunday (January 18 2009) to treat residents of Gaza wounded in fighting between the IDF and various terrorist groups. The hospital will open on the Israeli side of the Erez crossing and will be staffed by Magen David Adom (MDA) workers and volunteer doctors. Patients with serious injuries will be sent onwards to Israeli hospitals if necessary. Several Gaza Arabs wounded in fighting have already been taken to Israeli hospitals. [1] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be added to the article. Rabend (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1st paragraph (again)

1. Terms: Bottom line: what are we doing with the terms in boldface? Did we not have a vote on that?
2. Over-reffing: "Gaza Massare" is over-referenced. Someone just choose the top-3 sources and that's it. Adding more and more refs looks like we're trying to convince the reader that what we're writing is really really true, and also making him think that if statement A has 5 refs, it's more reliable than statement B which has 3. Thoughts? Rabend (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the amount of refs is important, it is a very controversial term and the last thing anyone wants is an ed who hasnt been around here turning up, deciding the sources quoted are not enough, or are unreliable and removing it, thus kicking off an epic war that will eclipse this one in all manner imaginable. Not to overstate things or anything. Superpie (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
After reading all atempt to povpush it away 5 refs seems few... Brunte (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
also making him think that if statement A has 5 refs, it's more reliable than statement B which has 3. I disagree. I don't see any reason why that would be the case. The Squicks (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When I imagine myself as a naive reader, and I see a statement that has 10 refs, and another that has 3, it makes me feel like the former is much "true-r". Rabend (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Such logic has no end Rabend, we'd be writing in words no longer than four letters if we made allowances for all levels of reader. Superpie (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rabend but this smells strongly of povpushing. Any other places in the article where you see a "naive reader" might feel different amount of true that just insidently not harmoniy with your own pov? Brunte (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not POV pushing, its is a logical point.Superpie (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

kk. We all hav teh pov. Brunte (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend's point is just. However, one requires certain criteria for removing refs, not the least of which is that of reading them all before removing them. One doesn't remove mainstream newspaper refs., unless two cover the same ground. One weeds out useless refs from inferior sources, unless they say something other mainstream sources don't mention, etc. This is not something to be done hapzardly, or mechanically, by individuals acting without some explanation of the basis of the judgements he or she will employ in selecting what is to be preserved and what not.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
kk. We have different amount of pov? Brunte (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If users wouldnt insist on deleting the Gaza Massacre part if it didnt have the thousand references that it does, Id be cool with narrowing down that list. But users still try to remove that line with all the refs that are there. Nableezy (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about using this

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2009/1/17/2009117822253734_2.jpg Brunte (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

article http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091177657498163.html Brunte (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, those photos are very telling but unfortunately they are not free. Thanks for pointing out the pics, they are educational and a reminder of what this assault is. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Boycotts of Israel should be mentioned, Israeli papers report they are having an effect

I did a word search of this current article body text and there was no mention of the word "boycott." This is an oversight for the following reasons:

Naomi Klein, of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine fame, is one of many calling for a boycott of Israel. She wrote two pieces, one appeared in The Nation and the other in The Guardian:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel

Here is another sanction call in a reputable newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/boycotts-may-achieve-what-bombs-and-guns-cant-20090112-7f6k.html

One of the main Israeli newspapers reports that produce is rotting in Israel's warehouses because of recently cancelled orders:

Farmers claim UK, Jordan boycotting Israeli fruit
Farmers say much of their produce is being held in warehouses due to canceled orders, and fear a sharp decrease in fruit exports to countries such as Jordan, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656454,00.html

One major Israeli newspaper has denounced Klein's boycott call:

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000417048&fid=980

A second Israeli newspaper mentioned Klein's call in passing.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424919890&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Given that these are having an effect on Israel according to reputable Israeli press reports, and actively being denounced by reputable Israeli newspapers, it should go in this article. It is clearly newsworthy.

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful about this, I have seen very little about an Israeli boycott, met very few advocating one and even fewer actually engaging in one. The Guardian has its reasons for putting this out and the Israeli press has its reasons for making a big deal out of it. I think mention it yes, but only briefly until hard evidence comes out. My thoughts anyway. Superpie (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, so far, there are people like Klein calling for a boycott and (b) nations, or markets that, have each with its own reasons, dropped their orders from Israel. Two distinct things covered by the sources, and therefore to be phrased as such, without WP:OR infringements.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see Klein's statement as notable. She's not speaking for anyone but herself. And she's not a journalist, an elected politican, the head of a major industry, or anything like that. She's just some political writer. (I don't mean that with offense, just as a descriptive term. Jonah Goldberg is also just some political writer) I would not mention the boycott calls unless it's made by more notable people or receives serious hard media coverage. The Squicks (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:RS are more than sufficient to back up notability of both the boycott and Ms. Klein; and I found more doing a quick search. But it belongs in the reaction article: International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict If anyone gives you grief there, remember there are who articles on boycotts of Israel (like Economic and political boycotts of Israel). Also I saw Klein on CNN talking against Israel's attack, but didn't hear everything so she might have been talking about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign press in Gaza

Following Israel withdrawal from Gaza there were number of cases of violence targeted at foreign journalists claimed by previously unknown groups sometimes linked to Al Qaeda. The most notable case is kidnapping of BBC journalist, Alan Johnston. Palestinian security sources urged all foreigners (especially Europeans and Americans), including aid workers of international organizations, to leave Gaza soil "for fears of new kidnappings".[1] Hamas is known to take part in negotiation and release of hostages in many cases. Subsequently Foreign Press Association issued a statement saying Gaza had become a "no-go zone". [2]

This is somehow got dangling during the re-organization and then removed completely. Please consider restore. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Al-Jazeera is the only "international broadcaster with a journalist reporting from inside Gaza". Assuming, as seems likely, that it's referring to the Gaza strip as a whole, not just Gaza City, this is inaccurate. The BBC have had a correspondent - Christian Fraser - in the town of Rafah since January 16 reporting on the damage from Israeli attacks and the condition of civilians seeking refuge from the attacks. He has been reporting both on live TV (not possible to verify here I know), but also website articles. [2] - 91.85.187.231 (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign involvement

In accord with the aim of shrinking the main article, I moved WP:RS information pertaining to foreign involvement in the conflict into a subarticle. Now, an effort is underway to delete that subarticle. If anyone finds the information in the subarticle useful and valuable, now is the time to salvage it and rescue it from the deletion brigade. Pretending that there is no foreign involvement in "Operation Cast Lead" is like pretending that there was no foreign involvement in the Vietnam "conflict". NonZionist (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree the information is notable, just not notable enough for an article on its own, and certainly not the beast you brought upon us.--Cerejota (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded video

I uploaded a video from Al Jazeera CC repository. It was the one I had on hand. Is there a certain video that would be a better replacement? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cease fire?

Should a section be included on the cease fire? Trent370 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of pointless to have a whole section on something that is being reported on now, at this very second. Because we would not have any real idea of how to present it. Wikipedia is not news. The Squicks (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone did create it, and I updated it. It does deserve a section, since this is a whole new stage in the conflict. Rabend (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks theres no such thing as a Unilateral ceasefire? Cant Israel's declaration be more accurately described as (something like) a reactionary halting of actions? Its pretty apparent there is fighting ongoing. Superpie (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Now afterward I see that it is maby some game/psywarfare/propaganda-stunt. But how shall it be in the article without OR? any good sources? Brunte (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Guardians written that it represents a "new stage" and not an end to the conflict here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/gaza-israel-ceasefire-analysis, Xinhuanet notes the continuing support for military action http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10675870.htm and reuters is reporting that fighting has already occured, and points out that Hamas is going to continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remain whilst Israeli troops will respond to attack http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50H0J320090118

I think there arereliable sources to make the point, but I fear somewhat we'll be attacked for POV if we were to suggest that the Israeli ceasefire was not made in good faith. Superpie (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

new section "January 17, Israeli officials announced a planned unilateral cease fire"

I created it as the lead section is large enough. Feel free to move it to any otherplase if its not good. I will edit in hamas reponse later if no other editor do it. Brunte (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

vandal?

Is someone still trying to remove the Gaza Massacre part in lead section. 5 reffs not enough? Brunte (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and

I need help with formating a ref here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Israeli_unilateral_ceasefire Brunte (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

fixed, TY Debresser Brunte (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i have also noticed some one/certain people are editing and removing certain articles, which is a bit annoying because they do it with out opening a Talk article for it.... --User:NeMiStIeRs 10:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit - psychological warfare

Hamas spokesperson in Cairo claims that Israel did not present any demand for release of Gilad Shalit. Israel see the claim as psychological warfare. [3] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

d.i.m.e.

the use of d.i.m.e. munitions is not in the article, when it is the first time it has been admitted to be used, tho israel stated it has been used before by nato forces. "use not illegal by internatioanl agreements or nato partners" sth of that sort. It's like omitting appollo 11 from an article on moonlandings. Not that i care, i am used to the media being shitty.24.132.170.97 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas accepted cease fire on Al Arabia

Israeli media, quoting Al-Arabia, reports that today (January 18 2009) Hamas excepted cease fire and will stop rocket fire on condition that Israel forces withdraw from Gaza withing week. [4] Ynet reports that Islamic Jihad also excepts cease fire [5]

Im hearing that Hamas is demanding its "long term demands" be met, nothing of a week deadline Superpie (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC reports: The Palestinian militant group Hamas has announced an immediate ceasefire with Israel in Gaza, according to Hamas officials. The group said it would hold fire for one week so long as Israel withdrew all its forces from the Gaza Strip. Hamas official Ayman Taha told the BBC that the ceasefire also applied to other militant groups. "Hamas and the factions announce a ceasefire in Gaza starting immediately and give Israel a week to withdraw," he was reported as saying. [6] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Strategic concepts

The strategic concepts of this war would be of interest. The concept of the IDF seems to be similar to that of Lebanon War II. --217.255.248.108 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In either case, as some strategists have remarked, bomb the country and the population so that, from sheer despair, they will change their support from their natural leaders to those who lead Israel and who destroyed their societies. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving notification

I've moved the paragraphs describing attacks on Medical facilities and personnel, and the alleged misuse of hospitals from the "Effects"/"Health" section to the Controversial incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article since those attacks are a partial cause, not an effect. Now the health section only describes the effects in a neat 2 paragraphs section. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved part of it back, because the abuse of medical facilities is not "incidental". Skäpperöd (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request permission to upload photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

I want to know if would be okay to upload a photo of a victim of the Israeli assault. The victim is a "baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank." [7] I know user:23prootie(backed by a few other users) has contested the use of other photos because they were not of "the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children" and that the photos were not "tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood)" and there were copyright issues.

But this image past the tests because it is

1. of a child 2. Black and white, no blood. 3. Under a license accepted by wikipedia.

I have also uploaded an image of destroyed buildings [8]. I believe no one will contest that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realized how are we supposed to find photos of victims that contain no blood. They didn't die from pneumonia! La Howla - Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to elaborate on the 'Under a license accepted by wikipedia' ? Is the provenance of this image known because we seem to keep hitting issues with people putting AFP and such like photos on flickr ? I swear that in the end we're going to end up with images of the cats and dogs killed on both sides because everyone likes cats and dogs. What next, architects complaining that showing images of destroyed buildings is pornographic ? Bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The photos are released under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, the photos were uploaded by an organization called the ISM, and their web site links to the flickr account [9]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I just trawled through hundreds of photos in the getty image library looking for this picture just in case it's AFP etc. I couldn't find it. That of course proves nothing but that's where these kind of images have been before. Does that help in the slightest ? Not sure. Hopefully including this photo won't turn into a 'prove with absolute 100% certainty that evolution through natural selection is a fact' type of argument over the provenance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I really do think that this is the original work of the organization. I know that there are people on flickr who upload images from AFP, as you have mentioned, but I do think that based on different factors (It is a Palestinian-based organization, they have access to Gaza, they have photos not found on any other news site that I have seen), I do think that these are their photos. Works that are not theirs but are in their photostream are under all rights reserved tags, meaning we can't use them. The works under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 can be trusted as their work. The only problem is whether uploading it will lead to another edit war. I need clearance. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This ISM photostream is really helpful. Personally I would give higher priority to wide angle photos of the devastation caused by 'precision bombing' if there's going to be yet another controversy over images coming out of Gaza. I think the priority should be so show what defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[56] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. looks like given that that is apparently what this is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There are not many photos with a bigger scope of the destruction, let alone pictures free for us to use. I chose that particular photo of the buildings because it is taken from a distance allowing for a bigger glimpse of the destruction. I don't think anyone will object to the photo that I have added already. As for the photo of the infant, there is not many shots of the victims of the assault, the ones available at ISM are shot from a close angle featuring only one victim in each photo. So the options are limited to us, thus we use what we have. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough..and before anyone starts contesting graphic images again showing dead and injured people (..not wishing to jump down anyone's throat before they've even said a word but I'm going to anyway...) can I ask them first to test their arguments in the contexts of other articles e.g. Viet Nam war and so on and so forth to make sure they make sense as other people have tried to point out. Alternatively if this event is a somehow a special case let's hear those arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the photo with the caption "Almost one third of the victims are children including this infant killed in an explosion caused by Israelis in Attattra, northwestern Gaza" and already user:Thingg has reverted. Thus the edit war has begun, to be continued...--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I wasn't aware of this discussion. I'm just trying to help out.... :( Thingg⊕⊗ 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You didn't do anything wrong and I can understand your action. Thanks for reverting your edit and you are free to share your thoughts on the matter. The discussions are mostly in the archive, but I summarized some of the main points in the first post of this thread. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This image was removed between last night and this morning. I don't know by whom or for what reason, but it seemed like there was consensus here about its inclusion. I would like to remind everyone on this page of wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit [10]. I restored the image and I will leave a note on the user's page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Please remove this picture, WP:NPOV --Rick Smit (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No...and Why? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are going to include this picture, then- for balance- we should include a picture of one of the elementary school children's playgrounds that Hamas has fired a rocket into. The Squicks (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
balance? you do realize that 98 percent of the killed were killed by Israelis. So you think 2 percent Israelis = 98 percent Gazans and others killed by Israelis?? If you want to add the Israeli photo, go ahead and add at least 20 more Palestinian photos. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the image here on the Talk page before but it was removed by User:The Squicks with this edit who claimed it blocked his ability to post comments (unaware no doubt that without notifying me, it could constitute a form of vandalism). I am reposting the image in a smaller form so we will all know what exactly we are talking about (in anticipation of its next removal without an edit summary). I have no problem whatsoever of posting other images for balance. I do think an honest portrayal of the events on the ground is in order (something that is difficult because, to my understanding, international journalists have been denied entrance into Gaza by the IDF in violation of an Israeli court order). This makes the posting of this particular image all the more pressing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, balance but proportion as well.
Fallacy arguments such as if we don't have A we should not have B doesn't work. While they were two photos related to Hamas attacks and none of the impact from Israeli's attacks, no one advocated removing the two photo. Instead I found one of the latter and added it to the article. The argument if we find A, then we can have B doesn't fly. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby: Let me try to understand your logic. Since the Palestinians have failed to kill any Israeli children so far due to luck, the childrens' preperations, and their own inspid incompetence, that means that those attacks morally mean less compared to the Israelis one's that succeeded? How does that fly, morally? Is there any moral difference between trying to kill someone and failing and trying to kill someone and succeeding? If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level? The Squicks (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks are you going to compare the type and amount of firepower used by both sides as being the same?? The images aren't about what each side has attempted to do, it is about what they already have done. You show the results with the images and I did say balance but proportion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no inherent objection to including the picture. I just support morally proportionate balance. So, if we represent the 'A' side with a picture we need to represent the 'B' side with another picture. I would like it if Cdogsimmons or another editor would find a 'B' side picture. (I can't do it myself, since I have never used Flicker and the other sites).
The firepower is not the same, but I'm not talking about firepower- I'm talking about both moral sides. There is an equally valid point of view on both sides. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. But anyway, I did say add a photo though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo. Remember there is only one Palestinian photo, not 20, not 5, not 2. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The body count speaks for itself. Balance in the article IS a concern. I see no problem with presenting accurate, well sourced images portraying both sides of the conflict. As I indicated before, the IDF's censorship of the International Press is an impediment to that goal. If you want to put in 20 pictures why don't you try doing that and we'll see what the result is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have access to photos that are under the same license from the same source. But I didn't think that I needed to add anymore and that they didn't represent a bigger scope of the carnage. Here they are [11] [12] [13] [14][15] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Please upload more photos to the Commons. Other Wikipedias in many languages need the selection of photos. We also need a variety of photos of Israeli casualties. We also need more bomb damage photos from both within Israel and the Gaza Strip. Please see all the subcategories of commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Create more subcategories if necessary. It is difficult to find these type of free images for any conflict or war. Please upload them. See commons:Category:War casualties and commons:Category:War damage --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the inspid incompetence seems to be present on both sides seeing that Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Right... At least the IDF is trying to sort out the militants from the civilians they're hiding among. Hamas fires rockets almost exclusively at population centers, and sends suicide bombers to explode in buses, restaurants and night clubs. Do you not see the moral difference here? Rabend (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Um dropping one ton bombs and firing missiles in densely populated areas doesn't suggest sorting out the militants from the civilians. No one buys the collateral damage excuse. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Always the victim, forever and ever. Rabend (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless they are winning. V. Joe (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo? We had the reverse situation before (an Israeli bias in photos), some users complained, and then the situation was resolved in a civil way with a compromise. Why can't we do what now? The Squicks (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't resolved until I added the photos, and even then it is still being contested. Do what I did. Search for the photos, learn how to upload them, upload them, insert them and then prepare to defend the usage. Don't expect others to do this for you like I did. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why should I attempt to do that if you and other editors are just going to prevent me from adding a photo? The Squicks (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Because we're not going to do that, assuming that the photo you find meets the set criteria for inclusion. And because you care about improving the quality of the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that I would be the one to challenge your photo. Go ahead and find a photo and photos of any of the three Israeli casualties or the injured, or the shocked victims. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby, you are being very provocative. on one hand, you said this is Wikipedia, and we're only here to report, and on the other you've said "Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them.". I suggest you calm down as you are not helping this discussion. Also, the article itself currently states "*Casualty figures in Gaza cannot yet be independently verified" in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezek (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually Nezek, I was quoting The Squicks. "This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report" is not my statement, it is his. He wanted to debated the morality, and we debated it. I don't mind debating it, and of course he initiated the conversation. Being pro Israeli, The Squicks's words were like beautiful music to your ears, while my response (using the same language), was provocative and angry to you. In the end, I could give a rats a** what you say. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You're being oh-so immature throughout this whole talk page. Since you took the time to explain yourself, you obviously do care what I think. It doesn't matter pro-what are you, and how you justify it: you aren't helping by arguing politics, so stop it. --Nezek (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You're being oh-so useless throughout this whole thing. Why don't you contribute something worth the time you spend commenting on my comments. Your posts don't contribute anything other than to bait people. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It is as much my place as anyone else's to tell you to stop initiating debates that contain your personal views and unverified claims. So please, don't tell me where I contribute and to go somewhere else. I'm trying keep the neutrality of this article. If anything, your personal attacks, temper, and language are attempts to bait people, and that can be said for other discussions you're a part of. For example: [16] [17] [18] [19]. I only suggested you think about your replies. As you should for your next one on this thread. --Nezek (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of your worthy contributions....Oh, but there is none. This is just the most pathetic display of whining. Why stop there, make a list of all the edits of mine that you think are "bad" and cry about them. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I want and hopefully you have more for your list. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You've made yourself into a "bad boy" in your own head, as if anyone cares, And you're trying to call /my/ comments pathetic. Man, you're measuring contributions as if they were a currency! There is nothing more ridiculous than a Wikipedian getting all defensive over a talk page comment that tells him to chill. If you don't want to take my advice, you're welcome to ignore it. --Nezek (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Squicks: "If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level?" This is the old "intent" argument used by Israeli propaganda: Israel kill unintentionally, so Israel deserves only praise, while Palestinians kill intentionally so Palestinians deserve to die.
  • And our information about intent comes from where? -- from Israel, of course! That is like getting our information about Jewish "intent" from German propaganda. But that is only half of the problem.
  • The other half is that the focus on intent opens the door to thought crime, something I as an American find utterly repugnant. If someone breaks into my house and murders my children, and I try to kill the intruder, who is more blameworthy? By your intent logic, I am! -- after all, I intend to kill the intruder, whereas the intruder, who murders my children in cold-blood, without passion or intent, is blameless!
  • What you fail to take into account is the justification for the intent. If I live in a place that has been under a murderous occupation for forty years, then I have good reason to hate the occupation forces: my hostile intent is justifiable.
  • Condemning me for my intent alone inverts the moral order and facilitates a delusional blame the victim worldview -- delusional, because there is only so much blood we can squeeze out of a stone, as the current slaughter in the Gaza Strip demonstrates. Eventually, we run out of hospitals to bomb -- accidentally of course -- and then what do we do? NonZionist (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A Palestinian baby killed by the IDF.jpg‎ && Casualties

Let's stay calm everybody. Don't make these issues personal. They should not be personal. Making things personal only messes things up. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's verifiable, refer to the video link posted above under section 'Photos'.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would also recommend discussing this in the section above devoted to this subject already. Tiamuttalk 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What mates it represent the casualties unfairly? That was a real child who was killed on the Palestinian side, there are about 1000 vs 10 deaths. So I don't see what's represented unfairly — CHANDLER#10 — 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are tasteless, offensive, and sensationalistic images all over wikipedia. Man, there is child pornography in here: Virgin Killer. Yeah, this is offensive to Israeli interests, but we are not here to take care of the ego of one side of a conflict, I am here to write an encyclopedia, which usually are better served by pictures. That said I will support removal if that is consensus, and if it is proven that the image is doctored, false, from another conflict, or a copy-vio. I am sure that if this is the case CAMERA will continue their selfless struggle for accuracy and find it - unless, of course, the image is true, in which case some other way to make it the others fault will be found. Until then, your reasons are not good reasons to remove, nor reasons to remove antisemitic protests in San Francisco (which if I am not mistaken, were not removed, but moved to an appropiate sub-article). --Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, if you're going to make up your own comment and respond to that like Cdog did below, I'm not responding to you either. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
moved by Superpie (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Sensationalist? What does that mean? If you are shocked by this image, perhaps it is because the thought of dead children is shocking. As a matter of FACT, there are 300 of them in the Gaza strip today as a result of this conflict. As a father of a 6 month old, I personally don't like this picture any more than you do. I wish it didn't exist. But to remove this image is TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!! tantamount to censorship. This is the reality. A dead child. If you want a cookie cutter version of that reality reflected by wikipedia we have vastly different ideas about what this project is about. I refer again to our set policy that wikipedia is not censored - WP:CENSOR. "Sensationalism" is in the eye of the beholder for which I do not see a set policy. I don't understand you when you say that this dead child is the "fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties" besides my perception that you would like to minimize the importance of this image for whatever reason I have no idea. This is the image that we have. If you want to give us other images to debate lets debate them, but don't hand me a line like "you don't like this picture so it shouldn't be here". It's about as effective as the 5 anonymous editors who have tried to surreptitiously remove the image while no one was looking in the last two days.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, everything that Cdogsimmons said multiplied by 300. Perhaps we should step back a bit and make a list of the mandatory minimum requirement in terms of images for this article i.e. identify key themes e.g. lots of dead/injured human beings, trashed infrastructure/medical stuff, no food/water, rocket attacks, demonstrations and so on and make/agree a list of what must be in this article to illustrate what is happening for a reader. It might provide a bit of structure to efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sean, I am almost appalled that you say you agree with him, considering you're generally civil and on the mark (as in the remainder of your comment, sans the first sentence). Hopefully you only agreed with the content of Cdog's comment, rather than its tenor, although I'm not even sure why you would do even that, because Cdog for some reason seems to think "babies" and "children" are equivalent (apparently just for the sake of his arguement). Even though I specifically say "I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be)" he centered his whole arguement around the fact that many children are dying and the allegation that I just don't want gruesome images in the article. But, as I said, if Cdog just wants to yell and scream about something, he can go to his corner and do that. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Cdog, try this for a second: Read my comment aloud, and then get a friend to read yours, ensuring he includes the SHOUTING!!!! you implied with your comment. Your reaction in that scenario should hopefully be something to the effect of well, if the guy's going to be such a jerk about it, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to him. I just wanted you to act that out so it would be no surprise to you when I say that if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, please don't take me too literally, I'm rarely literal. I'm not advocating a gallery of 300 dead babies, that can be left to contemporary artists. Yes, I agreed with the content rather than it's tenor. I like peace and quiet. The basic problem is of course that we somehow must show what has happened in a way that genuinely adds value to the article and it will certainly upset some people. I have no strong attachment to this particular image but nor do I see a charred dead baby as either "Sensationalism" or different in any way whatsoever from a dead adult, child, soldier or militant. Maybe that's just me but I really don't. One thing I tried to say before somewhere is that these moral judgements people make about images are often based of local/regional/religious etc cultural value systems that can't be extrapolated globally and Wikipedia is global. What you find acceptable/unacceptable/sensationalist will of course be based on a local set of rules in your head/society. Those rules won't necessary make any sense whatsoever in a different place. For example, feet are extremely offensive here but there's no hesitation in showing blood and guts in the media. Death has a completely different treatment in a Buddhist society vs others. We need to find the best images for the article. I don't know what they should be but I'm not willing to exclude any on the basis of local cultural tastes/values. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
..and to me choosing the images is an optimisation problem not a moral problem. The objective is a good encyclopedia article and not moral/cultural imprinting by inclusion or exclusion of material. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well said. and on that note I would like to bring up what tariqabjotu said above. If this image really is "at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties", and can be verified as an extreme and isolated case, it would mean it doesn't fairly represent the Palestinian casualties, and should be removed. I especially want to hear tariq's say and what sources he is basing this on. --Nezek (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Tariqabjot, you appear to be pretty quick to say my argument is not worth responding to because of those three capitalized words. You said, "if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you." And on my talk page you said, "judging by your comment on the article talk page, mere words are incomprehensible to you" which I take to be close to a personal attack. My comments were not intended to offend but to stress the importance of the issue. Perhaps I was out of line although I notice you like to use bold yourself. But what's up? I asked you an honest question about a matter of policy [20] and you respond saying I'm not worth talking to. I'm not very happy about such a response, especially from an Administrator and a member of the Mediation Committee. Just so we stay on track, you cited WP:UNDUE on my talk page as the reason why this photo should be removed for "Sensationalism." I really don't think that one picture of a casualty on this very long page is undue. And I don't think the picture is as clearly sensationalist as you claim it to be. Now there is also a picture of a wounded man near the bottom of the page. So maybe it does violate WP:UNDUE. (I really shouldn't have to make these arguments for you). Two pictures of two of over 5000 Palestinian casualties. Is that undue? Do you want to take a vote? I also second what Nezek and Sean.hoyland said above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, Cdog, you're making up your own comment and then responding to that. You are simplifying my point to "I have a problem with images of casualties" or even "I have a problem with images of dead children". As the original comment said, but you have ignored twice, my complaint comes from the fact that we're showing a dead baby. How many babies have been killed in the conflict? I don't know, and I am unable to find a source that suggests a significant proportion of the people killed have been babies. However, infants and babies hardly get a mention in the article (once or twice in this collosal article). We only have five dead babies confirmed in the text of the article, and one of those is pictured in the article. Out of a 1100+ casulaties, we're representing these five mentioned in the article. I don't think we should assume there are a significant number more are dead babies, unless we can demonstrate that is the case. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
But Tariq, the picture fairly represents the injury to the baby, an individual. Many people have died in many different ways. Practically we don't have the luxury of doing an injury frequency analysis and picking the mode, selecting an image of a victim with the associated cause of death from a library of victims categorised by cause of death and so on in an attempt to somehow comply with a novel interpretation of WP:UNDUE. A Palestinian died as a direct result of IDF actions, she was a baby, we have a picture, that's it. We need more pictures so that we can find the best ones to illustrate what happened. We should approach that in a dispassionate way to optimise the quality of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you are OK with uploading the image.Trent370 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sean, maybe you (based on your 14:42, 16 January 2009 comment) are incapable of seeing the difference between an adult and a child (and by extension a baby), but I think it's obvious to everyone else. That's why we (and the media) have capitalized on the number of women killed, the number of children killed, and, now, the fact that babies were killed. Those are important distinctions. We're choosing to illustrate Palestinian deaths by depicting the most defenseless human being possible. If a significant number of babies were killed, then it's appropriate. But, I see no evidence of that in the article or anywhere else. You're pulling the classic slippery slope fallacy; I'm not asking that we create a catalog of images of victims, and select based on a variety of factors that you're inventing to just to make your arguement, so let's drop that line of attack. Again, if you want to make up a comment, and respond to that, fine. Don't involve me. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that I was wrong to shout. I apologize if I've been a jerk.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, thank you for clarifying your point. As I've said before on this page, I have no problem with other pictures being presented. I have no problem choosing pictures that are representative of the conflict. To my knowledge, there are NO other pictures of any dead individuals (babies, children, adults, the elderly, Hamas members, non-Hamas members, etc.) available at this time on Wikipedia. None. At least none have been brought to my attention. There was a picture showing a number of dead Hamas policemen on this page earlier but it was removed for copyright reasons. Your argument appears to be that this picture only represents dead babies. I disagree. I think of babies as being within the category of children so I think it is also representative of dead children. I also think of babies as being individuals so the picture is representative of dead individuals. I also tend to think of the dead as being casualties, so the picture is representative of casualties. I object to the way you are personalizing this as you did in the comment above aimed at Sean.hoyland ("maybe you... are incapable") and your previous comments made toward myself. Allow me to reiterate, as I have said before on more than one occasion on this page, I have no objection to you or anyone else presenting other images to post on this page that might be more "representative". I do have a problem with people trying to remove this image without debate after there was some consensus found to keep it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the article because of the presence of the image, I feel too sick with it being there to be able to concentrate on the wording. So, to me, removing the image from the article would not amount to censorship, because its presence already acts as a barrier to me reading the no doubt neutrally worded, sourced and informative text on the conflict. Of course it is sensationalist, and not in any way necessary for understanding the article. But I doubt anybody cares about such cold hard logic. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is uncensored. (See WP:CENSOR) There is also some precedent for graphic images of the innocent victims of war. See the picture of a dead child killed during the Mai Lai Massacre at Vietnam War or the picture of the victims of the Holocaust at World War II.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
File:BouvierBernoisetPoulpe.JPG
Do this with your dog, after breathing and seating back, but before posting.

[edit conflict]::Totally agree with user:Nezek user:Tariqabjotu and others above. There's no consensus for this photo. It is extreme and unbalanced and unverified, even if it is "free." Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion below regarding the proper verification of this image. Extreme yes, but then again, this a War we're talking about. Unbalanced seems like your pov, but removal of the photograph would not be the solution for that problem. I suggest finding corresponding pictures showing casualties on the Israeli side if that is your concern.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest removal of image of dead baby and attempt to find consensus

The image has been removed again, this time by Tundrabuggy (who also removed the pictures from the morgue) [21]. His edit summary: no consensus for " burned baby "- removed morgue photo on grounds that there is no balance on Israel pics per talk. Please do not return photos until balance and consensus is achieved. I have not restored it because there truly does not appear to be consensus. Let's try to find the consensus:

Should the picture of the dead baby be displayed on the page?

Yes

The picture's copyright seems to be in order. The picture seems to be properly sourced. The picture fairly represents the facts on the ground which is that there have been over 1,000 Palestinians killed, including over 300 children. The picture, although graphic, should not be censored due to its graphic nature because to do so would violate Wikipedia's policy of WP:CENSOR. There are comparable pictures of the innocent victims of war at other Wikipedia articles (See Vietnam War and World War II).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Cdogsimmons. There is no pool of free images that you can sort out to choose what you think is neutral and representational. I don't think any photo of the casualities is going to be accepted if we go by this faulty logic. The censorship that is taking place only proves that there are people who are trying to hide the facts because it shows the side they support in a bad light. This should not be acceptable. Neturality isn't about balancing the coverage, hiding facts to make one side appear in the same light as the other. Neutrality is about complete exposure without biased commentary. We show the photos and the people decide what they think about the war. Wikipedia users should make use of the resources available to Wikipedia and that includes ISM photostream and Aljazeera CC repository, who were generous enough to share material. We should be lucky that they have provided images for Wikipedians to use in recording history. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes it should be shown, as Falastine fee Qalby said, neutrality isn't having the same amount of pictures of victims from both sides, if the victim ratio is 100 to 1, it would not be neutral to in anyway try to represent the causalities as equal in number. Plus that as noted WP does not censor. — CHANDLER#10 — 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - the picture is relevant, its licensing sound. I mean, we have a picture of a bunch of broken rockets from previous events, why not something more relevant, current, and notable? Neutrality is not served by hiding facts, it is served by presenting them in a neutral fashion, and hiding this picture is not neutral, it is trying to hide incontrovertible facts: a clear violation of NPOV. --Cerejota (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
balance does not mean one pic for each side, as stated much more eloquently above. Untwirl (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - People arguing about balance are making the argument that because there is no picture that is equivalent on the Israeli side that this should not then be included. You know what balance is? Find the very worst picture of the damage Hamas has inflicted on the Israelis and put the next to the very worst picture of the damage Israeli has done to Gaza. That the damage is not equivalent is not reason to not display it. I personally find it extremely difficult to look at the image, as I am sure most do. But the picture is descriptive of the damage done to Gaza, and as such should stay. Nableezy (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Copyright is in order. Because of the asymmetric nature of the war, certainly no Israeli equivalents can be found. This is same as how Israeli actions are defended from allegations of war crimes, yet no one has defended Hamas actions from allegations of terrorism, war crimes and genocide. There is little comparison between the Israeli army and Hamas' military wing, and we shouldn't pretend the two sides are equal.VR talk 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is relevant and Wikipedia is not censored (as per earlier discussions on hot topics such as Piss Christ & Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), the image is an result of the conflict. The removal of it would be to censor the article and could be perceived as taking a pro-Israeli stance by hiding it. Warfare is an ugly business and causes tragedy, something which the image illustrate (cf. the images by Raghu Rai covering the Bhopal disaster) Is it hitting people in the face? Yes, but then they should not have accessed the article in the first place, no? 88.148.219.153 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Under circumstances where images are unnecessarily offensive, they should be removed. This is according to wikipedia's own censorship policy (last sentence). This situation is different from Piss Christ & the Muhammed cartoons, which I've explained further down. Therefore their precedence does not apply here. My comments below explain in more detail. Thanks. Cider86 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Of course. Neutrality does not mean there shouldn't be controversial content, this is a picture that illustrates the human tragedy in the event. RomaC (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • YES!!! I have been following this article for some time now and I must say it's quite Pro-Israel for claiming "Neutrality." Neutrality doesn't mean that both sides must be equal - it means they are only represented equally - without bias. Trying to forcibly make both sides "equal" just for the sake of "neutrality" is BIAS. This is not Red vs. Blue here. Both sides are NOT equal. The damage is NOT equal. Stop trying to make it look that way, you are obstructing reality. Thank you. Straightliner (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • None of the "yes" comments have addressed all the points raised by those in opposition to this picture. This leads me to believe most of the above people have not read what the opposition has said and is instead basing their positions only on what other supporters have said the opposition has said. Of course, shooting down a straw man argument is not particularly productive. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now. See my response below your vote. Wikipedia agrees with me, unless the editors from the page: "Child" have their own agendaAndrew's Concience (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So, you think my point is that babies aren't children? Forget it, Andrew. Seriously, just don't bother. I am just shocked by the all-around inability or unwillingness expressed by many supporters of this image to comprehend and respond to statements by the other side. Really, don't attempt to respond any further; you've already shown that you can't. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And I’m sure ad hominem won’t do much good, either. Sorry, but I answered directly to the question, which was, “Should the picture be posted?” That’s what I was concerned with and what I answered to, within reason. The picture can be posted by its own merits, regardless of the opposing view. It clearly documents an important event that has occurred, and in this case, an event which is representative on a wide scale. There is nothing false or misleading about a picture that shows a dead Palestinian child, which no doubt represents many Palestinian children who have died in this massacre. That is a valid representation.
As for other concerns:
1) The picture acts as propaganda? False. Connections between the viewer and pictures are being ASSUMED by this party. Propaganda is deliberate.
2) Picture arouses shock value and sympathy? Please do a favor and browse over “The Holocaust” article, the “My Lai Massacre” article, and the “Rape Of Nanjing” article. How come I see pictures of dead people in there? How come I don’t see pictures of dead people in here? I'm not too low to stoop to an equalizing argument so I'll provide another reason why this argument is faulty: "Shock value" and "Sympathy" are relative by degree. What may seem shocking to someone may seem mild to me. We cannot judge by this standard. Invalid.
3) This argument will no doubt lead into “The Israeli-Gaza Conflict is not a massacre" argument. False. Massacre is defined as “To kill a large number of people indiscriminately; slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people” (Google). Now let’s look at the stats. 13 Israeli dead. 1,300 Palestinians dead. Ratio of death is 1 Israeli to 100 Palestinian dead. Killings have been indiscriminate. Civilians have died. This a massacre. Period.
There are just countless arguments that easily show the double standards the Israeli-Gaza article is being held by. Every opposing view is violated by several other Wikipedia articles. There are shocking pictures on Wikipedia. There are pictures of dead, severely tortured and killed people on Wikipedia. Yet, when it comes to pictures of dead people in Gaza, we are forced to censor or not post it because "balance has not been achieved." The problem is once again, this mistaken idea of balance. Balance is not "both sides are equally good and bad;" balance is portraying the event fairly, without any deliberate readjustment to bring the IDF or Palestinians to a positive light. This is what the opposing view is guilty of when they deny a picture of a dead Palestinian child - in a conflict where 100 Palestinian have died for each Israeli - including and not limited to - children, women and civilians. The right to fair representation is denied.
If someone makes the claim "Picture A should not be posted because its equivalent, Picture B, does not exist," there is something definitely fishy with that statement.
Do what you want. I'm done here. Straightliner (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • YES Too many of the reasons against are emotionally based, the morality of this picture is easily argued either way as evidenced in this very talk page. However with the madia ban and the limited availiability of pictures that notably reflect the weight of the civillian casualities there is really no better photo at this time. If we were so stringent here this article would be filled with vague over the border shots of smoke trails and distantly flaming buildings. If at a latter dat we find a more tastefull picture I would be happy to review my stance here.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes the image represents civilian casualties in the conflict. Also, I don't believe that in a war where the casualty ratio is 100:1 we should somehow balance the casualty image to 50-50. JVent (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No

We are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). Rabend (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings. However, I disagree with your first sentence. We are here to to educate the reader about the war, good or bad. I agree that the picture is graphic and I don't think there are too many people who could possible disagree with us on that point. I also understand that the picture could arouse feelings of shock and possibly sympathy for the Palestinian side of the conflict. In that sense, those who advocate its inclusion on this page (such as myself) could be accused of pushing Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Hamas propaganda (and this picture could definitely be used as propaganda). The flip side of that argument is that the result of removing this image aids the Israeli military's side of the conflict and subjects the User who removes the photograph to accusations of aiding an Israeli campaign to block the release of information from Gaza by restricting access by the International press (against an Israeli court order) or the manipulation of Internet data through a military Psy-ops campaign. (See a recent article in The Economist). If it were proved that someone was editing for either of those reasons, their edit should be reverted as a violation of [WP:POV|wikipedia's policy on Point of View]]. So what are we left with? A desire for neutrality in the article up against the desire for accuracy? The problem I have is that I don't know how to define neutrality in this conflict. Is Neutrality showing a picture of a Hamas rocket and a picture of Israeli Tank? A picture of a dead Israeli soldier and a dead Hamas fighter? A bombed Israeli schoolyard and a dead Palestinian child? I don't know. So what do I do? I do I edit this page? I just stick to policy. Wikipedia says we don't censor images. WP:CENSOR You say you object to posting horrific images. But that's not our policy. If it was, we wouldn't have an accurate portrayal of our human experience. We wouldn't have images like this and this because everyone hates those pictures. But maybe we wouldn't have pictures like this or this because they offend some people too. I hope we can reach a lasting consensus here. Now I have some important stuff to do. I have to go play with my 6 month old son. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. - true, we are here to collect encyclopedic information on wars. However, if the reader comes out feeling that war is horrible, after the facts, unfiltered, are presented to them, it is their response, not ours.
  • There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. - we are not sticking then in their face. We are an encyclopedia that that doesn't censor. That means we present facts however disgusting, disturbing or insensible they might be. For example, in Ejaculation, we present a picture that many find offensive, and even pornographic. Yet we include it, because it is a neutral, verifiable, description of the topic: to not have the picture would be doing a great disservice to our work as encyclopedist.
  • It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. - While it is natural that you might feel this way, and to a certain extent you might be correct in assuming that a reader might have such feelings - the inverse argument could be made: that those who want the picture removed are doing it without consideration to its inherent encyclopedic value, but because it arouses sympathy for their rivals. However, both are total failures to assume good faith. We have to include content based on the contents relevancy, due weight, and availability. This is probably the only available non-copy-vio picture we have of an actual dead person in Gaza. We need it to illustrate the human toll. The only valid argument for its replacement would be that sufficient alternatives exist, but faced with no alternatives, we must use what we have at hand - to not do so would be to hide facts in order to assuage some moral or ethical or political objection, the very definition of censorship.
  • I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). - And I would not agree with your objection: pictures of dead and wounded Israelis are a significant and important addition to relevant articles. And again, while Israeli culture might object to this content, Wikipedia doesn't (that said, maybe some sort of Israeli culture, because I have seen images in both Ynet and Haaretz of dead/wounded people in the past). I wish we had more pictures of casualties (dead and wounded) in all conflict articles: a picture is worth a thousand words, and keeping dry statics doesn't really convey the meaning, the facts of being dead and wounded.--Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No! A picture is not worth a 1000 words! (the exclamation marks do not convey my yelling.. they're just for emphasis.) Not in an encyclopedia. This is precisely my point. You cannot convey the context or the specifics of an incident with a picture. The reader just creates a story in his mind according to the emotions it arouses in him. He is much more likely to do that with just a glimpse of a horrific picture, than thru actually reading the facts. We're giving him a shortcut which may lead to a wrong destination. Rabend (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me first state that I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, so if I present an opinion that violates a policy that I am not aware or is in contravention of some rule, please forgive me. Several individuals have invoked the wikipedia policy of WP:CENSOR as justification for including the picture in the article. However, the same page states that:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

I would not be surprised if most people reading this article were to find the dead baby image highly offensive. Given the litany of news sources available I think it would be likely that a less offensive alternative could be found. Cider86 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No On the censorship issue, Cider86 is right on. Agree with Cerejota we are not here to educate on the evils of war, only to document the facts. Further, I am less than certain this picture is about what it claims to be about. In the 2006 Lebanon war we had all sorts of pictures from reliable news sources (such as Reuters) that were demonstrated to have been doctored and/or staged. Already France 2 has had to apologize for putting up false accusatory (anti-Israeli) footage. Will Al-Jaz be more reliable/less biased than France 2 or Reuters? Finally on the issue of balance, any article which puts up a half dozen pictures of the carnage of only one side in a conflict will be (rightly) accused being unencylopedia, or worse -- of spreading propaganda for that side. Better no pictures at all than only one-sided pictures of carnage. And yes, the picture is "offensive, profane and obscene" by many standards and their insertion would actually render the article less informative, rather than more. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)(signed later)
For people's reference, the above comment was made by User:Tundrabuggy. [22].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You claim that including the picture would be propaganda? Why wouldn't censoring it be propaganda? It would be removed to show Israel in a better light. And the picture. There is nothing that indicates the picture to be a fake, I've seen pictures of the baby from different image sources one in that video posted somewhere her, one with a man holding it outside to show people and this. — CHANDLER#10 — 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, there is no doubt of about 300 child casualties in the conflict, why would someone edit a photo to make it appear - like what was actually happening. On the note of balance, the dis-proportionality of casualty rates would make having a hundred pictures of dying Palestinians to one dead Israeli balanced. Yossarianminderbinder (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing the picture would make the page less informative.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should look at the Muhammad images controversy, over a billion people find that image offensive, but it was decided, and I think rightly decided, that their offense is not grounds to remove the image. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't entirely relevant to the discussion here, but I'd like you to drop the "over a billion people find that image offensive" bit; Muslims are not a monolith. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That is why I left out 500 million from that. And it is relevant because some have made the argument that because it is objectionable it should be removed. I am not comparing the images, but that argument has been made before and failed. I am not saying you are making that argument, but some certainly have. Nableezy (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a critical difference between the Muhammad images controversy article and the image in discussion here. In the Muhammed images controversy article, it dealt with a very specific group of cartoons that caused offence. There would, of course, be no possible alternative to these images since the article deals specifically with that singular group of cartoons and removal of that image causes the article to be significantly less informative. The situation here is different. This article is about the war in gaza. The image is not central to the war in gaza. Its removal or substitution with a less offensive alternative does not detract from the article's ability to inform. Therefore it should be removed or replaced, in accordance with the last section of wikipedia's censorship policy. Cider86 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about the cartoons, about the inclusion of an image of Muhammad preaching in the Muhammad page. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this image very distressing. Including it is fine, but could the page display a warning at the top notifying us of the objectional content? It's only fair. Prylon (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP doesnt do that either, as there is a general disclaimer that covers all these issues for all WP articles. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage people to look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for how these issues have already been dealt with, the discussion there is focused on the images of Muhammad, but it does go into more general issues. Specifically the last part: Q8 Isn't censorship already employed on Wikipedia? Nableezy (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That's unsatisfactory. I very much appreciate the uncensored nature of WP but this is maddening. I don't think the comparison to Muhammad is justified as persons from all races/religions may be upset by this. Prylon (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an experienced WP editor but I feel that as a user, who has a strong stomach for these things normally, my view does count. My reaction to this image was one which questioned the bias of WP for using such strong imagery. As this page notes, the conflict has diverse opinions. These diverse opinions do not apply as much to dog faeces or the Holocaust. Prylon (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your view absolutely counts. I wasn't really comparing the images, but rather the rationale for trying to exclude them. The reason that these images are distasteful should be thrown out with prejudice as it is truly an attempt to censor. There are certainly other arguments for not including them, but one that centers on whether or not these are distasteful or objectionable should not be considered. Nableezy (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Prylon, I could say that people from all races and ethnic backgrounds may find images and videos at penis, anus and ejaculation offensive. That doesn't mean they should be removed.VR talk 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No, Prylon, that's not a valid point. Objectionableness (which varies in concept from culture to culture), on its own, is not a reason for removal. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No obviously. I have failed to see a single supporter of this image address my point. Instead, they have opted to throw around buzzwords like "censorship" and generalize this to an image of just a typical Palestinian casualty, or just a typical Palestinian child killed in the conflict. Alternatively, we have had others claim that if we start categorizing this, we'd be here until eternity. Look -- there is nothing unusual or "faulty" about discerning between a baby, a child capable of fleeing, an adult woman, an adult man, and the elderly (due to degrees of defenselessness); this is done multiple times throughout the article. This is a picture of a dead baby in an article in which dead babies hardly get a mention, for a conflict in which an unknown, but in no way presumably high, number of babies have been killed. Please; let's cut the crap. Quit averting the issue to something easier to refute. -- tariqabjotu 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly you would be fine with this picture if it was a ten year old girl and not an infant? That doesn't make sense to me. An infant and a child are one and the same in my mind. Both are protected by the same laws and have the same status as civillians. Your own personal view is that they are different but you say that without anything but your own personal opinion to state this. If you provide a picture that is more suited to softer sensibilities you would have my vote sir. This picture is fully useable under wikipedia's policies and there are no other pictures to take it's place. I would rather have a perhaps harsh representation than no representation at all. If you find any part of this message offensive to you at all I appologise it was not my intent to confront you, but to discuss with you as you have asked the issue at hand,Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Additionally please refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child . "A child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority." Thankyou Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an idiot, Andrew. I know what a child is. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you understand me correctly. There is, in fact, a picture of girl we have available (see File:DeadGazagirlday14.JPG and File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG). I think those pictures adequately, and more accurately, depict a typical Palestinian casualty, considering the subject is in a more representative age range.
An infant and a child are one and the same in my mind. Both are protected by the same laws and have the same status as civillians. Uh... well, so do adult civilians. Now I bet you're going to say infants and adult civilians are one and the same in your mind. Ridiculous. As I said below to Cdog, I'm not going to waste even more time educating people about the obvious. Can't see the difference between a baby and an older child? Okay, fine; keep the blinders on. I don't need to convince people the sky is blue; I don't need to convince people that there are fundamental differences between a baby and a (more grown) child. This isn't my "personal opinion"; this is just basic observation. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I've made this point before and no one has addressed it properly. I'll make it again only try to be more clear. I shall repeat the last line of wikipedia's own censorship policy:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

  • Is the image of the dead baby offensive, profane, or obscene to the typical Wikipedia reader? Yes!
  • Would the image's omission cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate? No!
  • Are more suitable alternatives available? Yes!

Therefore according to wikipedia's own censorship policy, the image should be removed. The comparison to articles for penis and others is not fair. In an article such as that, a picture of the penis is quite clearly required since omission of that picture would significantly detriment the quality of the article. I this case, removal of the dead baby picture would not. Each response to my point that I've had so far has been the generic "WP doesn't censor" which, if you look at the policy, is actually not quite correct in situations such as this. Fact is, the dead baby picture shouldn't be in the article. Just my two cents. Cider86 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate to include any pictures of those who have died during this war? Do you not think doing so would be informative or relevant? How is this image not as "suitable" as alternatives?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not object to pictures of dead people in the article generally. However, due to the very young age of the victim, the probable excruciating manner of death and the extreme physical grotesqueness of the image, I feel that (only in my honest opinion) this picture is orders of magnitude more offensive even than pictures of other dead individuals. Its much worse even than anything in the Holocaust article. A less offensive, more suitable alternative should be sought. Cider86 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there still debate, we debated this to death. The vote should should resolve this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We cannot declare this debate dead until someone addresses my point. You all are making the beginning and the end of this issue about "censorship" because that's easy to refute. I presented an additional point, and I'd like someone to at least acknowledge it. If this discussion simmers down, I'll simply create a new section. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I previously attempted to respond to your point about babies not being representative of children here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sure; I'll play. Obviously, babies are a subset of children. But the distinction, as suggested in my 2:08 (UTC) comment (and others), between babies and other children -- i.e. those who are capable of fleeing -- is important. It was a distinction that used to be made in the article twice (including in the caption), although, interestingly, both have been removed. It's a distinction made in the title of this section "Should the picture of the dead baby...", in much of the discussion where people specifically talk about a dead baby rather than just a dead child, and in the image's file name. But, of course, this point -- and my point in general -- are not in any way refuted in your opening statement of this section. It's all about censorship. It's still about children, as you refuse to acknowledge the obvious distinction (apparently to serve your point). Your opening comment is simply written in a manner that just begs people to avoid debating my point. And, unsurprisingly, that's what everyone did -- ignore it, to your benefit. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. You think that the ability of children to flee has some bearing on whether we should post their picture on the page? That's the first time I've seen that argument. I have no problem with you re-labeling the picture,"Dead Palestinian Child". To me, the reason the picture of a dead child (or baby) is important and relevant to this article is that children (including babies) are non-combatants. Their deaths are indications of the way the war has been conducted. Maybe you can say a little more explicitly what distinction my opening point begged people to ignore. I'm afraid I must have missed it myself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You're not the only person to hear that argument for the first time. Honestly, I don't know what the whole post is about. When I posted a picture of men slaughtered by Israelis, I was told to look for a photo of the "real victims" "the children and women" "one without blood" "one that is free to use." With a flickr search, this was first one I found and it met all the conditions, very rare and a coincidence.I don't know what the conditions are now, I don't understand what tariqabhotu is arguing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you're just misunderstanding me? Oh really? You're only three days late to come to that revelation. If you didn't get that from my initial statement (and, as I stated earlier, it was obvious you understood zero there), you should have at least got it when I said We're choosing to illustrate Palestinian deaths by depicting the most defenseless human being possible. two days ago. Cdog, let me ask you: why do you think we in the article, and the general public in the media, frequently differentiate between men, women, and children? Why are juveniles given lighter sentences than adults who have committed the same crimes? Why are civilians differentiated from militants? Honestly, I'd love to know, because the whole time here you have been blurring distinctions to support your point. I'm not making this up; there is general consensus in the real world ("high vulnerability", "defenseless civilian populations", "most vulnerable and defenseless", "defenseless against abuses") that these distinctions have to do with the inability of a certain segment of a population to defend and save itself (e.g. by shooting back, by taking cover, etc.)
So, let me say again -- because both you and Falastine have been too busy yelling censorship over and over to comprehend what I have said already -- Why do you feel it is necessary to depict Palestinian casualties with a picture of the most defenseless human being possible? Why do you choose to include a picture that represents an unknown, but in no way presumably high, number of the Palestinian casualties?. Again; let's cut the crap. There is a difference between a baby and an older child, and I'm not going to continue wasting my time trying to drill into your head the obvious because you are unwilling or incapable of responding to this point. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't insult me. It makes talking to you much, much harder.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You're insulted??? By what? -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I see now that circumstances have changed because other pictures of Palestinian casualties have become available. Perhaps this debate should be expanded to the question: "If the picture is to be replaced, what picture should replace it?"--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen a radical change, but... okay. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No, because we have no way of knowing that the baby has anything to do with this conflict, or even that it is a baby at all, and we have good reason to question any claims made about the image, namely: this is a highly emotive image in a conflict where both sides and their allies are using images to garner sympathy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes we do, its been reported by different sources, wiyouth different pictures of it... Again can't come and claim the pictures are faked unles you have some proof to undermine the sources (which can be found in the sections this image has been discussed in) — CHANDLER#10 — 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think some of your concerns, Jalepenos, have been addressed below at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Is_source_of_dead_baby_photo_a_reliable_source.3F.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I said we have no way of knowing the image is related to the conflict, since the photo has not been vouched for by a reliable source, as defined by WP policy, plain and simple. I wasn't even talking about the possibility that the photo is doctored (although that's also a concern; in the 2006 Lebanon war reliable sources vouched for photos later proven to be doctored, but there's nothing we can do about that kind of thing), rather the possibility that the photo is not related to this conflict or that it is not a photo of a real baby. And my concerns were not addressed at all in the discussion below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and Cider86's reasoning above is by itself a decisive argument not to include the photo, independent of my arguments and others'. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to believe that this baby was killed during the 'conflict'. With over 400 children dead including babies, why would anyone need to have to lie? Is it impossible for a person killed in an explosion to look like this? There are probably dozens of bodies like this from the 22 days of hell in Gaza. Is this the most graphic? No, to me a picture of "five-month-old baby 'whose whole brain was outside his body' is more graphic [23]. I provided a reference to verify that this picture is indeed related to the "conflict" that should be enough.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your "reference" does not speak of this photo, nor does it speak of a baby that could possibly be the one in the photo. It is not "hard for me to believe" that the photo is what it is claimed to be, but it is easy for me to believe that it is not what it is claimed to be, for the reasons I mentioned above. The 2006 Lebanon War had even more casualties than this conflict, and yet people felt a need to fake photos. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you waiting for a source to say that the baby in the photo is the same one in the video? Did you even watch video where the baby is clearly there with paramedics giving an explanation? Do you realize that you are among the few that says this reference doesn't verify the link between the photo and the attack on Zeitoun? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the link that I am referring to is in the caption not the one I posted in the above response. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I indeed thought you were talking about the reference in your response immediately above. I just watched the video, which settled for me any reasonable doubt that the photo was indeed taken in relation to this conflict. But I still have the same doubt as before whether the burnt figure is actually a baby, or just a doll, since it's just as easy to take a video of a burnt doll as to photograph it. By the way, although I'm happy to continue this conversation, I want to reiterate - so as not to waste your time - that even if you convince me that the photo is legit (and you may well do so), I will still object to its inclusion based on Cider86's reasoning, unless, of course, you or someone else refutes that reasoning. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Although we are not censored, we aren't a tabloid or a shock website either. The image's shock value and sensationalist nature distracts from the actual article in a manner that far outweighs its documentary benefit. We don't want an arms race in war articles, in which each side tries to get as gruesome an image as possible into our articles.  Sandstein  15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's hardly comparable to the goatse phenomenon or such. This talk page is getting rather hard to follow with heavily entrenched positions on both sides voicing their opinion. Just one small comment before I retire for you to ponder: if the image would depict an Israeli baby, would those who want to remove it be just as vocal about it? 88.148.219.153 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah... the typical they-must-be-biased card. The answer is yes, but thanks for playing. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the baby's parents? Do we have to exploit their grief? Prylon (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No. I am not a contributor to wikipedia just like the other 99% of it's readership and I think that is why my post counts. There is no need for this picture. PERIOD. This is a war, people die in wars, civilians die in wars, its a sad truth but the average Joe who comes to this page to learn about what is going on in the world does not need to see a deep-fried-baby. This picture just screams AGENDA. If it was an Israeli baby, you would have a million people jumping on this page right now screaming "zionist agenda!" In such a hostile, volitile situation such as this Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral and objective as possible. If you notice, there are no other wars that have images like this. There is not a genocide, where a specific group of people are being targeted for a mass elimination. Then and only then is it okay to post an image like this, though I still feel the shock value is too much; there aren't even images like this on Darfur's page. No one targeted this baby, it was just a sad reality of war. Please take it off and save it for rotten.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskee (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Commment User:Cdogsimmons brought the issue of the photograph(s) up at the Administrators Notice Board here: [24] I urge you all to read it. Here's one admin's take on the issue (edited out extraneous material): "Here's my take:

  • Whether the image should be on the page is a question for community consensus, as with any other content dispute.
  • Your message here [28] suggests that you are thinking that everything is ok provided there is no specific policy. This is incorrect: the policies constrain consensus (editors can't ignore WP:NPOV or WP:BLP even if there is a consensus to do so), but the consensus is free to be more restrictive.
  • The reference to WP:UNDUE does seem appropriate to me. Children have been injured and killed on both sides of this conflict; it gives undue weight to post an emotionally inflammatory photograph of a dead Palestinian child, as if there have not also been dead Israeli children.
  • ... It is not censorship for the consensus of editors to agree on what an article should say, and remove text or images that you think should be there. .....Tb (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

he went on to say: "Instead of trying to figure out only how to get what you want, see if you can figure out how to give everyone what they want. Find some pictures of devastation of lives by rocket attack, and put both up to show the devastation caused by the conflict. In other words, address the NPOV concerns that others have expressed, rather than trying to defeat or disprove them. In that way, you will only make the encyclopedia better. You do not seem to have yet gotten the point that there was nothing "against policy" about removing the photo. There is no policy that requires all material to be kept. Tb (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) and "But the other policies, including those against needlessly inflammator material, remain. " and in fact I just removed three of the pictures on the front page as "needlessly inflammatory" and WP:UNDUE. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think if you check the lists of casualties you'll find that no Israeli children have been killed in the 2008-9 Israel-Gaza conflict. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I was debating this in my head for a while, but reading [the adminstrator's comments sort of changed my mind. What we are doing in this page is sensationalistic. It is grotesque. It is for shock value and pure shock value only. It is not for illustrating the information of the article. We are including this picture because we want to generate a gut effect in the viewer's mind. And that reaction is an anti-Israeli one. We are, in a real sense, moralizing here. We are posting something desgined to trigger a specific response in the reader's mind, the same way (in a more mundane example) putting this picture in the article for Nintendo triggers a subconsious viewer response. And that is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Abstain

I refuse to take part in this vote. For demographic reasons it's fatally flawed anyway. The arguments put forward to remove this image are irrational, parochial, arbitrary and pose a threat to Wikipedia as a neutral, global encyclopedia in my view. For example, Cider86 "Is the image of the dead baby offensive, profane, or obscene to the typical Wikipedia reader? Yes!". How would you know that ? This kind of thinking is dangerous stuff for an encyclopedia. It's en-Wiki, not Communist Party of China-Wiki.

  • All arguments based on the potential distress caused by a dead baby image are not even worth taking seriously. Furthermore, why is a dead baby image more distressing that a dead old person image ? Where are these value judgments coming from ? Your culture. Do they apply globally ? No, they don't.
  • All arguments based on the defencelessness of victims are frankly ludicrous. The degree of difference in defensivelessness between different Palestinians is insignificantly small given the firepower of the IDF and the level of destruction in the Gaza Strip.
  • All arguments based on statistics e.g. dead baby is atypical/unrepresentative use arbitrary categorisation of victims. Somehow we are meant to simply accept that a baby, a 5 year old and a teenager are in different categories. A child is a child, children died, this is a picture of one of them. And by the way, why just pick age as the thing to fight about representative sampling ? Why not gender, shoesize, educational level, income, length of hair. It's arbitrary and because it's arbitrary it's impossible to have a sensible argument about it.
  • Almost all arguments seem to have an implicit assumption of bad faith/political motivations. Why is that ? I personally see no point in voting when there is already an assumption of bad faith. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You are free to abstain, but discussion trumps votes, so I can't just let you show up and then leave. So, I'd like to address a couple of your points: The reason age (and gender too, which I'll address in a moment) is important, rather than shoe size, educational level, income, length of hair, or any other metric that you'd like add to your slippery slope is because there is a correlation between age (and some would argue gender as well) and the ability to defend oneself. And while, judging by your second point, you may think arguments based on defenselessness are "ludicrous", your opinion on that is rather meaningless to me compared to those opinions raised in the links I provided in response to Cdog. That's among the reasons why the distinction between militant and civilian is important and why the number of women and children is noted as well. It has to do with defenselessness. Not important to you, perhaps, but that's what it's about. Your second and third points are intentionally interconnected, and, thus, it doesn't make sense to debate them separately as you did.
Still, as with Cdog, this will be the final time I explain this to you. If you are unwilling to see my point and provide a counterpoint to that, this discussion will end up nowhere anyway; no reason to continue farther down the path to nowhere. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Tariq, remind me of your point (I'm not being sarcastic, I thought I'd addressed it). I thought it was centered on degree of defencelessness and atypical sampling. I've addressed and rejected them as without merit. There is a correlation between risk of injury and age obviously. That's why there are lot's of dead children and that is a category of relevance to the article, children. This is an image of a child. So the discussion should be structured around whether it is appropriate to include this image of a Palestinian child. That would be reasonable. An adult civilian or adult militant or child civilian have approximately the same ability to defend themselves against state of the art air power. Any difference is vanishingly small. Perhaps the degree of defencelessness should be based on leg length, running speed, weight i.e. ease of carrying. I'm sorry Tariq but I'm trying to approach this issue in a dispassionate way and constrain arguments to issues that make sense in a clear rational way just like we were arguing about what type of car image we should include in an article about cars. I think taking that cold, callous approach is better for the article and would help editors. The reason I want to abstain is because there has been a failure of reason here. It's as simple as that for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
..and if my argument about the degrees of defencelessness is unclear perhaps an example will help. In my garden there is a very large, highly distributed colony of asian weaver ants. The number of individuals I estimate to be somewhere in the order of 1 million workers, pretty similar to Gaza. The workers are dimorphic i.e. they come in 2 distinct sizes, minor (5mm) and major (10mm) with virtually no intermediate forms. What is the difference in the degree of defencelessness of minor and major workers if I, a giant primate attack them with advanced chemical weapons ? Is it a significant difference or an insignificant difference ? (I don't do that by the way). This is why arguments about defencelessness just don't make any sense to me when we are talking about the IDF offensive in the Gaza Strip. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The argument about the degree of defenselessness is absolutely ridiculous especially with this context, thanks for pointing that out. The baby was killed along with others including adult men and women. (read about the Zeitoun attack) The adult is just as defenseless as the baby s/he is holding with the type of firepower used and with no warning or expectation. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
To Falastine and Sean: yes, but people are going to automatically see a baby and have some response such as poor baby. This is a natural response irrelevant of the military onslaught; babies are seen as the most defenseless, innocent members of society. I don't know how I can say this any other way, without eliciting these bizarre, irrelevant analogies. We are illustrating dead people by using an image of a type of person -- i.e. a baby -- that is likely to trigger the most sympathetic response, even though this baby is not representative of a large segment of those killed. As Squack said above, we are not using the image to illustrate content in the article (because dead babies are such a small segment of the fatalities), but rather to elicit a response sympathetic toward the Palestinians. While I have no problem with people being sympathetic toward the Palestinians, they should be so because of the facts and accurate representations, not because we show them the most extreme examples of casualties. But, as I said earlier, there's no point wasting my time on this. You're not going to change your mind; I'm not going to change mine. (To Falastine mostly now) You're never going to respond to my point because you'll come up with some alternative, bizarre, and, ultimately, inaccurate reading of it. Or, you'll be in denial that there is a difference between a baby and an older child because it doesn't serve your point. -- tariqabjotu 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you voting for abstain when you have commented ^ there and elsewhere to keep the image. The Squicks (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
For the same reason I see no point in trying to have a rational argument with someone in the Taleban about whether listening to music is consistent with Islam. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I share your concerns, all four of them. Personally, I see the whole crux of this debate as the question: "Does including this image help the viewer understand the subject material of the article in a way that is NPOV?" I believe that answer to that is no. So, I must vote 'no'. The Squicks (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, if you assume good faith there is no POV issue. Wikipedia editors are not smart enough to be able to know what thoughts/reactions may or may not be triggered in someone in a given culture with a given set of political/moral/religious POVs by viewing an image nor should they be concerned with such matters. If you had said "Does including this image help the viewer understand the subject material of the article" and then voted "No" I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. There are all sorts of rational, dispassionate, culturally neutral arguments you could put forward to support that view and people could have a sensible discussion about it. For example, I would argue that an image that shows a person in the context of where the injury took place is better than one that doesn't i.e. if a child died when a building was bombed then a picture showing the child in that building is better than one taken in the hospital. To me that is the kind of discussion we should be having when more images are available. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
---- STATUS ----

It seems that there is too much of a non-consensus regarding this photo, that for now we cannot include it. Rabend (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, your conclusion is not shared. More editors are in favor of including the images of dead victims. However, noting that polling is not a substitute for discussion, let's look at the reasoning instead. Those editors asserting that images are are "offensive" might consider that as there no censorship here, many images will be likely be offensive to some people. Further, before pictures started coming out of Gaza, there were photos of Israeli casualties in the article. These pictures show what happened in this event, there is no dispute that fighter aircraft delivered ordnance to a densely populated area. Of course the documentation is grisly, but that is no reason to censor it. RomaC (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding consensus, a moral tale. Many years ago I had the great privilege of attending a Christmas Panto at a secure psychiatric facility performed by the patients. Despite the fact that the performers had a script and a clear set of objectives which the staff thought they understood, 2 things happened
  • There was absolutely no consensus whatsoever with respect to the actual content of the performance when the curtain went up. It was almost chaos with random musical improvistions, bizarre monologues clearly not being addressed to the audience, strange dancing and all sorts of happy strangeness. During the interval one of the patients sat at my table eating cigarette butts out of the ashtray.
  • It was the best Christmas Panto ever probably in the whole history of Christmas Pantos.
So, we still have a chance of making the best Wiki article ever. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caption of airstrike photo

Israeli air strike on Gazans

The still is from Aljazeera video footage and the caption included these two descriptions:

  • Various shots of Israeli shelling Gaza strip with cluster bomb and smoke raising from building.
  • Various high angle shots to Israeli helicopters bombing Gaza.

I wasn't sure which scene corresponded to which description and so I used air strike to describe the action because air strike can apply to both. The WP article on Airstrike states that "Airstrikes are commonly delivered from aircraft such as bombers, ground attack aircraft, strike fighters, and Helicopters. Weapons used in an airstrike can range from machine gun bullets, missiles, to various types of bombs. Airstrikes are sometimes initiated in strategic bombings, but the term generally refers to tactical intervention by airpower on the battlefield." Assuming this is a weapon launched from the air diagonally downwards, I called it an air strike. But this was called making up stuff. So can someone suggest an accurate caption thanks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


This is not an airstrike, but shelling with M825. Flayer (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What is M825? I can't seem to find information on it anywhere. Also, I think it is best that you watch the video with the entirety of the attack. Here is the link, the exact footage starts at 8:12. Also can you confirm what is being launched at 9:30? Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[25], [26]. Flayer (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In other words, this is WP for smoke screening (image), it clearly detonates mid-air. And the helicopter in the video is releasing Flares to avoid missles, see File:IAF-Apache-Flaers.ogv --Nezek (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Flayer (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand... Then why is Aljazeera saying it's a cluster bomb(illegal) bombardment? Any reasons? - Danito —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.235.101 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of the dead

Having visited this page with regard to simply finding out more info on the conflict, I was a bit surprised to skim down the page and see images of dead people. I'll admit I'm not aware of wikipedia policy regarding this type of thing and I don't want to downplay the massive killing in gaza but isn't isn't this a bit distaseful? My 2 cents. Cider86 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This debate is ongoing elsewhere and the concensus from what I see is pretty split. In my view, portraying war for anything other than the repulsive act of violence in which there are no boundaries is irresponsible and in my view, more distasteful. Wiki policy is clear on censorship to my knowledge Superpie (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
There are many pictures of dead people in Wikipedia articles. For example, scroll down this article: Holocaust. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Cider86, wikipedia is not censored. "Distasteful" is never a criterion for images, copyright status, quality (e.g. resolution), relevance and amount of information contained are all valid criteria to evaluate images.VR talk 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
But these images are not representative of the conflict. If 30% of the casulties are children (according to palestinian sources) why are 100% of the photos in the casulties section children? Surely shouldn't we have images of other dead civilians and Militants which is a very big group if not biggest to properly illustrate the conflict? And we also should have some pictures of Israeli casulties as well.--Fipplet (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And if 99% of the casualties (according to all sources) are Palestinians, then should we have one picture of an Israeli casualty for every 99 pictures of Palestinians? RolandR (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't have 2 pictures of dead children and 1 of unknown while there are many "other casulties" as well. Why not; one picture of a child, one of other civilians, one of a militant and one of Israeli casulties to illustrate the different "kinds of casulties" of conflict. In a way that contradicts what I just said but my point is that it is enough with one picture of a child to illustrate that children dies. The text still sais alot of children dies. --Fipplet (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fipplet. The current selection of images are not representative of even just the Palestinian casualties. We have too many pictures of dead and ailing children, and I think the charred baby image should be the first to go. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
From reading the comments of RolandR and Fipplet I think it would be WP:Undue weight to have an equal number of Israeli casualties as Palestinian casualties. As for showing children, adults, men, women, etc., I agree we need a representative gallery. But we need someone to upload those free photos, and we need someone to upload some free Israeli casualty photos. Here is where all the correctly-categorized casualty photos are:
commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties
We could put some damage photos from Israel though in the article in the meantime. See:
commons:Category:Damage from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Timeshifter (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who screwed up the second paragraph? It is completely tilted now.

It now reads:

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008.[3][4][5] Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4,[6] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over" and there would not be a renewal,[7] Hamas said it would consider extending the truce on December 23 if its demands were met.[8][9][10][11] On December 27, 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of eliminating Hamas' ability and/or will to fire rockets at Israel's southern cities and communities.[12] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[13]

Unless this is fixed rapidly, I suggest turning to the briefest of the stable earlier versions of this paragraph, for instance.

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[3][4][14][15] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza, and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[16] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[17] and prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[13]

Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way note to 'Israel's southern cities and communities' (another weasel word, this last one. It is in every article on Israel, as if a community were distinct from a city, town etc.) simply does not bear out the emended text, since it refers to securing security in southern Israel. The paragraph further suggests Israel was unilaterally subject to rocket attack in the period, which is simply not true. Whoever did this was in bad faith. Hence the need to revert to the terse consensual paragraph of some time ago.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Communities" is not a weasel word, and it is often used in the foreign media in the context of Hamas rockets. Israel (like most if not all countries) has official designations for different sizes and types of places where people live: city, town, moshav, kibbutz, etc. "Community" is a simple term to cover everything that's not a town or a city. So your premise is wrong. A community is different from a city and a town, and is used specifically to make that distinction. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys don't be lame. cities and communities is not a weasel wordage (I have a keen eye for that), but there is no need to get your undies all up in a bunch over the dramatics of Nishidani...--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Israel's southern cities and communities" should be replaced by just "Israel" or "Israelis". Southern Israel can be confused with Eilat, which is not targeted. And community is a vague word, if not a weasel one. Let's keep it simple.VR talk 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How on earth is "communities" a weasel word? I agree with Jalapenos. The Squicks (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What, couldn't bear to say "and with Cerejota"?--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, "southern Israel" is the term being used across the board in the international media to describe the region within Israel subject to Hamas rocket attacks. I personally think that this was a poor choice on their part, for the reason mentioned by VR, and believe that "western Israel" would be more apt. But we have no business changing the term used by our reliable sources. Indeed, changing it would be more confusing than not changing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the second paragraph. It is longer but considerably more accurate. I erased the "Israeli communities" since it was not reflected in the reference as written. I put what the reference actually said concerning Israel's goals. Secondly, added context for the days between the 23rd, when Hamas said it would consider extending the "truce" until the 25th. During those days, Israel warned Hamas and Gaza and explained the rationale for the attack. It does not make sense to jump from the 23rd to the 27th without acknowledging that Hamas was warned by Israel. Actually, something should be mentioned about Hamas essentially telling Israel to stick it during those days, and on the number of attacks from Hamas from the day of the warning on the 25th, until the strike on the 27th. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for any one individual to write or rewrite a paragraph in a lead. So I take your 'rewriting', Tundabuggy, is just that, an inappropriate act. Leads are to be done collaboratively. Secondly, you like myself have a strong POV. These things are not to be dictated by individuals from one side or another, but consensually agreed on.
As to communities, it was not in the source. Cerejota for once does not know what he is talking about (sorry, but start to give me examples of where in I/P articles, 'community' is used of Palestinians, and for everyone I'll give you a dozen examples of articles where it is the preferred term to refer to Jewish villages and townships). There is nothing theatrical about my point. I was looking after other sections, came back to review the article, and found para.2 unrecognizable, and unbalanced, after so much work had been done collaboratively on it. I'm quite happy to parse the revised, unilateral section, or Tundrabuggy's further reworking, to show anyone why it has destablized the neutrality of the earlier text, with details that strongly tilt the text to Israel's perspective.
'Community' came into use throughout the English world in the 80s broadly to substitute society, which was too abstract and not warm enough. As societies atomized, or lost their former traditional neighbourly identities, 'community' was inducted into politicians' jargon to give a cosy sense of fellowship where none existed anymore. The more the economic doctrine 'individualized' values, the greater the need for its advocates to deny the obvious, and provide us with an anodyne wording that recalled what Ferdinand Tönnies called 'Gemeinschaft', i.e., the close, intensely felt world of rural and pre-industrial villages. Gemeinschaft is what modernity destroys, replacing it with 'Gesellschaft', i.e. 'society'. 'Community' is not geographical, or topological (which the context requires) but a form of social grouping, 'identity of character ore mores' 'a municipal unity', 'a body of people with shared ethnic origin, values' living together etc.. Hamas fires at areas, and townships, it does not fire at social groupings, except in so far as townships have them.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated time and time again by editors here that the previous wording suggests that Israel somehow woke up one day and decided to bomb the innocent and quiet Gazans for absolutely no reason. The jump from December 23rd where Hamas said it would consider a truce to the 27th where Israel bombed Gaza was simply empty. Further the previous version claimed that Hamas resumed attacks on Israel on November 4 when it simply extended them. The idea of a "truce" was simply imaginary and was honored by Hamas more in the breach. Something needs to be said about that because that was what instigated the attack. Israel warned Hamas that they should desist on pain of an attack. That needs to be there. Nothing I said was not accurate and supported with RS. Simply because the paragraph has been "stable" is no excuse for it being inaccurate and POV. It is because people tire of having their every edit reverted that it is "stable," not because it is accurate or neutral. You need to try to understand that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Tags

Takes up my whole screen I can't even see the article without scolling down. Chillroy (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillroy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They are there for a reason. When the reason disappears, so do the tags.--Cerejota (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

The section of the article called Media coverage could be completely split to make Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, the above could be added as well. Anyone agree with this or think its a bad idea? (Hypnosadist) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, and already suggested this once before (look in archive 18 or 19, I think). --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Cerejota on this one. The Squicks (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Anything to small this one up Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! (Hypnosadist) 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a short summary should stay in the article, like reaction and incident sections JVent (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he did it wrong! LOL I am fixing now.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and leads

In the last few days consensus has been ignored where it is absolutely essential, in the lead. Considerable leeway is given in the rest of the text, where however significant edits require that the proprieties of notification and discussion on the talk page be observed.

I have reverted the first and second paras. to the relatively stable forms pre-existing these abuses. I personally disagree with them on fine points, but do not interfere with them because they were arrived at by intensive negotiation, and compromise.

For example, in the consensual lead we now have:

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] when Israel launched.

This is of course stupid, and resulted from an unresolved problem over the introduction of 'intensified'. Look at the logic. What intensified was 'the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict', not, as the syntax of the sentence has it, 'the 2008-2009 Israeli-gaza conflict'(wiki code for the Operation Cast Lead). Since the '2008-2009 Israeli-gaza conflict' is a provisory name for the war that broke out on the 27th., that war did not 'intensify' Operation Cast Lead'. It intensified the 'ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict' which however is not the subject of the sentence.

All modifications however have not addressed this unresolved problem in the consensual lead, but simply complicated it but adding details, mainly to thicken the lead (violating the call to be 'compact').

If one wants to challenge the lead, I suggest we rebegin with the problems in the consensual text, rather than complicate an already delicate understanding by editors who participated in drafting that lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the "intensified" is a POV pushing crap from people that won't let a dead horse rest in peace. Perhaps they should consider growing up. --Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. A wording more along the lines of: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict began when the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] is more accurate. But I don't want to burn consensus and compromise is definitely needed. The Squicks (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That fixes the grammar, but it's factually wrong, since 'the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict', didn't intensify in the West Bank, where Palestinians are in a conflicted relationship with the occupying power. It's in the nature of this extremely complex historical world, not in my own niggling, that these problems occur and recur. I'm waiting for technical papers in journals by acknowledged historians to see what they can offer on things like this. Personally I would write provisorily: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza 'war, an extension of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, broke out on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33]. Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the lead, sugestion.

and some quotes can be moved to other sections.

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[34][35][36] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[47][48][49][50] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza, and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[51] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[52] and prevent the rearming of Hamas.[53] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[54]

As of January 17, 2009, 13 Israelis (including 3 civilians) and 1,210 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in this conflict. The Palestinian fatalities include 410 children and 85 women.[55]

On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[56][57] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[58][59][60][61][62][63] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons and personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[71][72][73]

Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[74][75][76][77][78]

On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.[79][80] Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end,"[81] while Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwant declared Hamas would "fight until the last breath."[82]

International reactions to the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[83][84][85][86] In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected.[87][88] The UN and the Red Cross welcomed the move, but have criticized it as inadequate. [89][90][91]

On January 8, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops, with 14 of 15 member states supporting the resolution and one abstaining (the United States).[92] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the resolution "unworkable" due to continued rocket fire, and Hamas spokesperson Ayman Taha accused the UN of having "not taken into account the interests of our people".[93]


Brunte (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those are good removals. If I may suggest this edit: On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.[79][80] Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end,"[81] while Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwant declared Hamas would "fight until the last breath."[82]Superpie (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the editor who do it be carful not just delete it but see if it is included in other sections or include it. Brunte (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Rem parts:

In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected.[18][19] The UN and the Red Cross welcomed the move, but have criticized it as inadequate. [20][21][22]

and

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the resolution "unworkable" due to continued rocket fire, and Hamas spokesperson Ayman Taha accused the UN of having "not taken into account the interests of our people".[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and

The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[24][25][26][27][28]


In my opinion, this line is quite important:

Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons and personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

I think this issue (the allegations made and the Israeli defense) needs to mentioned in the lead. I think the media, around the world, has focused a lot of attention on this; from that point of view, this is probably the most "notable" aspect of the war and, in fact, deserves more than this single sentence in the lead. I would agree with striking out the other lines. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) P.S: Just to clarify; when I said 'other lines', I was referring to the initial proposal. I do not agree with Superpie's suggestion. In my opinion, some details regarding the ground invasion are necessary in the lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. I leave that for now Brunte (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead should summarize in terse neutral language, balanced for each party to a conflict, the sections of the article. So far the lead does not do this, because the sections have developed without consideration for the lead. Until the sections and subsections are reworked, cut down, and extraneous material pared down, or hived off to other pages, we do not know exactly how the lead should be revised. Some of your suggestions are positive, but procedurally, we must first address the systematic revision of the article's main sections.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Jacob, the only details regarding the ground invasion important in the lead, is noting a ground invasion happened. What exactly this ground invasion comprised of is for later in the article Superpie (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nishidani - While the conflict was ongoing, the lead was more important. Now its the time to cleanup the article, and from there, cleanup the lead. Also see my gorilla comment below. --Cerejota (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well then. It was interesting to do the little I did. More experiensed editors gogogo. I be around ;) Brunte (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Yan (2007-04-01). "Foreigners asked to leave Gaza after AFP journalist abducted".
  2. ^ Martin Patience (2007-04-25). "Reporting risks leave Gaza neglected". BBC.
  3. ^ a b Jacobs, Phil (2008-12-30). "Tipping Point After years of rocket attacks, Israel finally says, 'Enough!'". Baltimore Jewish Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Cite error: The named reference "bjt-tip-point-cross-border-figthing" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b New York Times (June 18, 2008). "Israel Agrees to Truce with Hamas on Gaza". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  5. ^ "TIMELINE - Israeli-Hamas violence since truce ended". Reuters.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian20091105 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Hamas declares Israel truce over". BBC News.
  8. ^ "Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel". Reuters.
  9. ^ "Hamas: Willing to renew truce". Ynet.
  10. ^ "Hamas 'might renew' truce in Gaza". BBC.
  11. ^ "Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer In December". Huffington Post.
  12. ^ "Israel says world understands its actions in Gaza".
  13. ^ a b Ibrahim Barzak (2009-01-04). "World leaders converge on Israel in push for truce". Charlotte Observer. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "charlott" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ "TIMELINE - Israeli-Hamas violence since truce ended". Reuters.
  15. ^ Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen, The Guardian, November 5, 2008.
  16. ^ "Hamas declares Israel truce over". BBC News.
  17. ^ "Israel says world understands its actions in Gaza".
  18. ^ Rockets strike Israel during humanitarian lull, 2009-01-12
  19. ^ "Israelis strike 60 Gaza targets". BBC.
  20. ^ "U.N. and Red Cross Add to Outcry on Gaza War". New York Times.
  21. ^ "Israel's daily 3-hour truces in Gaza good first step, but not nearly enough, UN warns".
  22. ^ "Israel offers Gaza aid corridor". BBC. 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  23. ^ UN ceasefire call goes unheeded BBC News. Published January 9, 2009.
  24. ^ Black, Ian (December 27, 2008). "Israel's hammer blow in Gaza". Guardian. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  25. ^ Curiel, Ilana (December 27, 2008). "Man killed in rocket strike". ynetnews. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  26. ^ "Rockets land east of Ashdod". Ynetnews. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  27. ^ "Rockets reach Beersheba, cause damage". YNET. 2008-12-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  28. ^ "Ceasefire is the aim for Gaza, diplomat says". swissinfo. 2009-01-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_20&oldid=1136754077"