Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

There are now no casualty photos in the article. Casualty photos are common in Wikipedia articles. Removing images is the same as removing text. Both are info. One is visual info.

Jimbo Wales wrote recently concerning photos in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article:

"Many pictures do not require a reliable source for the simple reason that they are self-evidently what they purport to be. ..."

See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 43#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?

ISM (International Solidarity Movement) casualty photos are self-evident. See

for some of their free casualty photos in the Commons, and the resource links for more.

They are self-evidently casualty photos. ISM has been in the Gaza Strip for years. There is no reason to doubt that they are casualty photos from this war. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera casualty photos are self-evident

On 23:27, 24 January 2009 Oren0 removed an Al-Jazeera casualty photo with this edit summary: "re-remove dead girl photo, per discussion on talk. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose"

Jimbo Wales wrote in the same discussion:

I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed ....

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you slightly misunderstood what "self evident" is supposed to mean - the Jimbo cite you gave stated that a zebra photo is self evident regarding a claim that this is a photo of a zebra:

A zebra is a zebra. Where it gets tricky can perhaps be characterized as "images which purport to depict a unique historical event". In this particular case, where emotions clearly run very high on all sides, and the photo itself is clearly inflammatory and upsetting, I would suggest that a very high standard of care is necessary. I think that some consideration of human dignity is also important here, although not absolutely determining what should be done. (full quote J.W.)

Maybe it is also of interest what J.W. said concerning Al-Jazeera:

Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed. (J.W. same thread as linked above)

So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident. Yet eg a skyline of Gaza with an explosion would self-evidently be an explosion in Gaza. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit the comments of others. See [1] This goes against WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:TALK says that editing others' comments is allowed: "when a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read." He didn't change your content, so calm down. Oren0 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You did not address my comments as concerns "self-evident". Read the whole Jimbo Wales thread.
Skäpperöd wrote: "So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident." A casualty photo is a casualty photo. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't leave a bold message if someone is helping you with the format. Where is your point in having an unsigned main section and a subsection on the same issue? Do you want someone to respond or did you just want to make a point? Note that I did not change any of your content but only corrected the format, but as you want it that messy, I'll leave it that way.
Self evident does not mean that just because someone claims it to be a casualty photo it necessarily is one. Self evident is eg that the photo is of a dead girl. The photo does not give an indication in itself where and when it was taken and why this girl is dead. I do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty, but I dispute that the dead girl photo is self evidently such. I read the thread, I even cited the relevant parts in more deatil. "A zebra is a zebra" is the key sentence. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A RS says she is a casualty in this conflict, that should clear up any such issues. Nableezy (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes of course it is a Gazan casualty if a RS says so. But is it not a Gazan casualty because it is "self evident". The issue here is whether or not J.W. initiated a WP:RS revolution for images, and he did not. We cannot outrule WP:RS with attributing "self evident" to claims not supported by plain photo content. Photo content is "face of a dead girl" (self evident --> no RS needed for that statement) but not "Gaza casualty" (not self evident --> RS needed). Skäpperöd (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales did not change anything. You are trying to. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Skäpperöd. I am glad that you "do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty." I wonder though why you reduced the image size from "thumb" to 50px wide in my comment. See [2]. Please do not edit the comments of others. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly an Al-Jazeera photo from a video in which it is clearly established this is a casulaty from Gaza. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Inclusion arguments of reliability are invalid. This debate ends in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please put it back in the article, and can it remain this time? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel like you misunderstand why I removed this picture. I'm not disputing that it's a photo of a dead girl or that reliable sources claim her to be a casualty of war. So I don't repeat myself too much, I point you to my comments in this section. Just because a photo exists doesn't mean we have to show it. The question, given the obvious that the picture is offensive and inflammatory to some, is whether the picture demonstrates anything that words do not. The cherry picked photo of one of many victims of war serves no encyclopedic purpose and only serves to push a POV. Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think my last response up there addressed that. I think we can, in a NPOV way, show the damage caused on each side. Just because the damage caused is not equal does not mean the representation of that damage is not NPOV. I would be fine with including images that represent a significant portion of the damage caused by Hamas, such as a rocket causing property damage, but that image is representative of 32% of all deaths in this conflict. It is not POV-pushing to show that, just as it is not POV pushing to show a representative picture of the damage Hamas has inflicted. Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the photo--again-- on grounds that there is no consensus to add it, and that it contributes to making the article unbalanced and non-neutral. The burden is now on you to explain why we should keep it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that International Solidarity Movement qualifies as a questionable source. Here is the policy: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source.
Not only promotional in nature but many of us here doubt that ISM has a good reputation for fact-checking, or that it doesn't rely "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" or that its views might be "widely acknowledged as extremist". The only question would relate to just how widely is wide. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out the Hebrew wikipedia is using an ISM image in their pictures, in fact it is the only picture they have that show anything in Gaza. Google translate didnt work so well, about half the talk page was in hebrew, but I couldnt see any dispute over there as to whether that is a reliable source for an image. Also, the image of the grad rocket that we have was uploaded by a user saying it was his own picture. Why exactly should a person taking a picture and saying it was from this conflict be treated any better then an organization taking a picture and making it available to the whole world? Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And this picture is from Al-jazeera, not ISM. Al-jazeera is a RS, if they say this girl died in this conflict we can treat that as fact. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as we attribute it and no other RS disputes this (which is not the case) - absolutely. But weren't we talking about "self-evidence"? We take the "Gaza casualty"-information from a RS, and not from the picture itself. "Al-Jazeera photo's are self-evident" is the claim made in the heading, but no they are not in any case self-evident. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that the photos are stills taken from video provided by Al Jazeera English at cc.aljazeera.net. In those videos, the people whom we see in these stills are being interviewed by Jazeera journalists and the facts surrounding the circumstances of their injuries are discussed. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Do you still have a problem? Tiamuttalk 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am confused, what RS has disputed that this is from this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think we should include Jimbo Wales full context in talking about Al-Jazeera. Specifically he said this:

  • "(1) Al-Jazeera is generally a reliable source as far as I know, in the sense that we normally mean it. (2) Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed. (3) Pictures of causualties of war of course may be pertinent, but I would immediately think of at least two cautionary notes. First, the human dignity of the person (and their family and loved ones, in case you think it doesn't matter what happens to someone once they are dead) strikes me as a relevant consideration. Second, such images can often be used to promote a political agenda. "

--to translate "generally reliable as far as he knows" -- "be careful what for". Do we know the answers to the questions he raises in relation to these pictures? and secondly and just as important to me and others here in as Al-Jazeera's general reliability, he says "such images" (ie casualty photos) "can often be used to promote a political agenda." We at wiki are trying not' to promote a political agenda, and when some of us claim that the photos are unbalanced that is exactly what we mean, ie that the photos are being used to promote a political agenda. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are not qualified to translate anything. And I quote you here from a recent OR noticeboard: "It's undeniable that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are reliable sources" from Itsmejudith. Al-jazeera is a RS, if you want to ask that question in the RS noticeboard go ahead. And these were from camera shots from a staff photographer that they have released to the world, ie standing behind it. If you want to open a RfC on this picture go ahead. But it is clearly pertinent to the discussion here, and Al-jazeera is a RS. And before you go any further I want you to understand what you are trying to set as the standard for pictures to be from a RS. Every single picture that shows any damage done to Israel would have to go. Not a single one of them is from a RS. If you want to make this 'view of policy' what you are going to stick by, then what you will end up seeing just Al-jazeera photos, because as far as I know they are the only RS in the entire world that has released any photos on a free-use basis. If you want to restrict the pictures based on the source on one side, you have to do it on the other. So take a minute, and let us know what you think we should have as the standard of reliability to include photos. But you cannot object to this photo based on reliability, the facts are against you, feel free to take it up wherever you want. Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And I see suppression of these images as promoting a political agenda (at the least in the way some are trying to do it). Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats what I thought. Nableezy (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket attacks into Israel

In the article section "Rocket attacks into Israel" I added this gallery:

  • Beersheba, Israel. Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack 20 meters away.
    Beersheba, Israel. Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack 20 meters away.
  • Municipal worker repairing water pipe in Sderot, damaged by Qassam rocket on Dec. 29, 2008.
    Municipal worker repairing water pipe in Sderot, damaged by Qassam rocket on Dec. 29, 2008.

See: commons:Category:Damage in Israel from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is all we currently have to show.

We also need some Israeli casualty photos. Please upload some. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dislike galleries so I broke them up, and are not including the repair picture, which I find pedestrian. The one with the holes gives a nice human touch.--Cerejota (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Was there some commotion about not showing the faces of the victims as it would make the picture emotive, something forbidden in this article? I think the picture of the child siting under the damage might be considered an emotive pic. I am for showing emotive pictures but I rather not have it be one-sided. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Some commotion ? No, you're imagining that. No, there's never been any commotion about showing Israeli casualties. In fact the slideshow that we used to have as an external link called something like "The Reason Why" showing the consequences of suicide attacks was spectacularly gruesome with bit's of torso's, legs, arms etc I seem to recall. It was a regular blood splatterfest orders of magnitude more "emotive" (whatever that means) than anything coming out of Gaza. Showing Israeli casualties is relevant to the background of the conflict and necessary for context but showing Palestinian casualties is politically motivated, an attempt to gain symnpathy, embroiling Wiki in the conflict, immoral, unethical, undignified, shocking, insensitive to cultural/religious values, supporting terrorism and worst of all unencyclopedic. It's a funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice rant, Sean, but the photo only shows someone sitting under a wall with holes in it. The person is not a victim, and I don't see what emotiveness has to do with this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right Sean. When I first posted the burned infant pic, there was much bellyaching and many tantrums over the lack of balance. It drove them insane that there was too many Palestinian casualty pics (about 1) and no Israeli casualty pic. Can you imagine the chaos that would have happened if the Israeli civilian casualty toll was 10 instead of 3 and there was still no Israeli casualty pic in the article? Certainly, CAMERA-recruited administrators would have swarmed the article talk. I don't want to even imagine what would have happened if the casualty toll was one-third of the Gaza toll, I am certain we would have been banned by now. Thankfully, they are a bit more calmer - now that they realized it is impossible to retrieve an Israeli casualty pic of any of the 3 victims, but they are focusing their energy on getting rid of the very few Palestinian casualty pics.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Are they from RS?JVent (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Shrapnel holes in a wall are one thing, does composing with children take the image beyond documentation? RomaC (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Sean is describing the exact logical opposite of what has been and is happening (with the Palestian arms race of pictures) is deliciously ironic. It's so delicious I almost want to chop the irony up and add some parmesian and oregano.

Anyways, I see the water pipe picture as irrelevant and it shouldn't be here. The missile one is relevent, but I don't have strong feelings either way. I lean twoards keeping it, for the same reasons Cert stated before. The Squicks (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"water pipe"? ~we'd have fewer corpses if there were more water pipes. RomaC (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

my post in the section above this one applies to this section as well. Untwirl (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my edit above wasn't a rant. It was a pretty accurate summary of the history of discussions about images although I may have missed a couple of examples of the reasons given to exclude images from Gaza. My simple point being that there is a remarkable assymmetry in the way images from both sides are discussed by editors. Israeli casualty images are, by and large proposed and discussed in a reasonable and rational way consistent with Wiki guidelines and this being an encyclopedia article. Issues such as due weight, encyclopedic value and so forth are discussed in an attempt to reach consensus. Palestinian casualty images are, by and large discussed in an unreasonable and irrational way inconsistent with Wiki guidelines and this being an encyclopedia article. It truely is remarkable, hence my remark. Think about it. It's remarkable. The fact that including images of the dead and injured that describe objective reality can be described as a "Palestian arms race of pictures" is really very remarkable indeed. Dead and injured people as "arms". That is irony. And since The Squicks raised the issue of logic let's say something about that. If the foundation upon which you base your logical reasoning is false then everything that follows is false. If you assume that Palestinian casualty images (which after all simply describe objective reality) are inherently anti-Israeli and part of a politically motivated propaganda arms race then every decision you make about those images will be wrong and you are failing in your duty as a Wiki editor. I have to single out TundraBuggy here for admiration. He had the honesty to unambiguously state why he didn't want these kind of images in the article, enough people already hate Israel so let's not make it worse. As for Israeli casualty images, I'm all for including them if they help readers even at a 1:1 ratio despite that being a grossly distorted ratio. Emotiveness is not a useful measurement of anything in this context. People died or were injured. Readers will feel emotions about the information in this article, both text and images. Attempting to control people's emotional responses by limiting the availability of information is censorship. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Sean, believe the quality of inclusion discussions totally shifts depending on whether the images in question show Israeli or Palestinian damage/casualties. Some editors are not working to reflect an event but to project one. RomaC (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is possible to show balance with a 1:1 picture ratio, it just means the actual pictures have to reflect the damage in a balanced way. If you want to put up a picture like the broken pipe right next to a picture of a dead child, I think that accurately shows the damage inflicted by both sides in a representative way. Next set could be like the picture of the Grad rocket in the town, that could be balanced by the explosion in Gaza picture. Balance doesnt have to be about the numbers, but there still has to be balance. The holes in the wall could be balanced by the destroyed building picture. Nableezy (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The irony is getting more delicious by the second. So, people who have named themselves after Palestinian terms or even openly political terms-- like "Palestine is in my heart"-- are assumed to be operating from 100% pure, objective motives with not even a hint of bias whatsoever. And the attempts to include multiple pictures of almost the exact same thing (a building with smoke; a dead body) based on an abuse of the WP:Fringe concept, which was meant to imply a proporiate balance of cited facts- not of pictures since pictures are only used for illustration of text and not for pushing an editorial point. In contrast, people who have objected to this idea are all nothing but ignorant Israeli POV-pushers. Incredible.
As I've pointed out, the cold-blooded murder of 520 or so innocent Serbian civilians, much of them children, with only 2 deaths by the other side (a 260 to 1 ratio!) has no long lists and galleries of pictures of them. There, as should be here, users included images only to illustrate the points in the text and not to establish some kind of moral value principle.
Nableezy's suggestion sounds like the best bet to me, personally. The Squicks (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the two pictures obviously can't be right next to each other, they belong in their respective article sections. The Squicks (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Where have I claimed "to be operating from 100% pure, objective motives with not even a hint of bias whatsoever" WHERE? I have never said it, I never claimed it, will not pretend that I do. Time after time, you have deceitfully misinterpreted my words, attributing wrong statements/opinions to me. Like the rest of your postings, you speak before you think and you never do research. I had enough of you, now leave me alone. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah but you see Squicks, I'm just looking at empirical data and making observations based on that. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, just observations. I don't have a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli agenda here but I do have a very strong pro-NPOV agenda and the clear asymmetry in the way images from both sides are discussed by editors and the contrast in behavior between different sets of editors is quite striking. It's a problem. In a nutshell it seems that one set wants to produce an encyclopedia article that reflects the objective reality of this event and the other set doesn't. I don't really know (or care) why that is but it's a problem that we need to be honest about and discuss rationally. Referring to the lack of information in other articles to advocate the lack of information in this article is quite a strange line of reasoning isn't it given that this is an encyclopedia. Similarly references to hypocrisy/double standards that I've seen using similar comparisons between this article and others are quite bizarre. It's like someone calling their dentist a hypocrite because they wimped out and studied teeth when there are so many people dying of malaria. Where are you getting the information to be able to say things like "establish some kind of moral value principle" by the way ? What moral principal ? Whose values ? The editors you seem concerned about are simply trying to illustrate what happened in Gaza using the limited material available. Will that make Israel look bad ? It's irrelevant. Morals are irrelevant here too. In fact if anything they're worse than irrelevant, they're counterproductive because they're local not global. Some editors are just trying to make an encyclopedia article about a subject that interests them, they care about and are willing to spend time on while playing by the rules. That's all. What I would really like to see is a general understanding and acceptance of the simple truths that including images that accurately describe what happened in Gaza in order to assist the reader in understanding this event are
  • necessary and what we are supposed to do as Wiki editors
  • not inherently anti-this/pro-that
  • morally neutral
We really need to have a common understanding of these simple truths so that we can get past all this nonsense over images.

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information to be able to say things like "establish some kind of moral value principle" by the way ? What moral principal ? Whose values ? I've said it before, and I will say it again until I am blue in the face. Pictures are included to illustrate the principles of the text beside it. And that is it. That is it. That is it. The idea that "There were more Palestinian deaths in the sources, therefore we need more pictures to ensure moral balance" is contrary to Wikipedia. It does not illustrate anything to the reader. Looking at 13 similar pages of a generic building exploding does not help the reader more than looking at just one picture. Looking at 13 seperate pictures of dead people does not help the reader either.
This idea that "Palestine morally deserves more pictures" is just compeletely un-Wikipedia-like. The Squicks (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The editors you seem concerned about are simply trying to illustrate what happened in Gaza using the limited material available. I'm just looking at empirical data and making observations based on that. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, just observations. Nice hand waving. Editors who happen to agree with you are all acting in good faith, and all those who disagree are all acting in bad faith. And your question begging is also extremely frustrating. Yes, if you assume from the outset that "objective reality" demands that the article must have a gallery and must have 13 Palestinian pictures of the exact same thing to one Israeli picture, then that surely means that people who disagree are all POV-pushers. But how can either you are I say that a truely independent editors who peer reviews this article from a different background will come to the same conculsion as us? We can't. We have to admit that our objectivity is not perfect, and then work with our biases. Pretending that they do not exist will only make things much much worse. The Squicks (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure who you're quoting with the "Palestine morally deserves more pictures" line. you seem to be intentionally misquoting what the editors are saying. palestine doesnt morally deserve it, the article deserves it for balance, neutrality and undue weight purposes. the fact remains that in your example, if the "other side" was trying to place an "equal" number of casualty photos in a blatantly unequal war in terms of casualties, we would be opposed to that as well. Untwirl (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, I think you misunderstood what I said.
  • "Pictures are included to illustrate the principles of the text beside it." - I agree with you as long as there is flexibility e.g. obviously it would be unreasonable for example for someone to object to an image of rocket damage on the basis that that particular rocket attack isn't specifically mentioned in the text. I assume that is what you mean by "principals". I don't think anyone here would disagree with what you are saying.
  • I've not heard anyone talk about "moral balance". Arguments based on morality have only been used by editors wishing to exclude images. As Untwirl says it seems that you have misunderstood peoples position on this issue. The issues are "balance, neutrality and undue weight" not morality.
Think about what we are meant to be illustrating here. To a first approximation, ignoring details, what has happened is this; the IDF carried out a military operation in the Gaza Strip. There were many casualties and many buildings were destroyed. Those are very approximately the key features of this event and so those are the key things we must illustrate as an absolute minimum somehow. I don't think that's controversial (even though it has proved to be very controversial in practice) and I agree with you that the article doesn't require large galleries of images to do that. So, we must at least show casualties and infrastructure damage in Gaza. Showing that is necessary, what we are supposed to do, not inherently anti-this/pro-that and is morally neutral. That's what I think all editors need to simply accept as a basic, mandatory requirement for the article. Then we can talk about expanding the set of images to cover other issues like rocket attacks etc being very careful not to lose focus on the basic key features/themes of this event. Yes, our objectivity isn't perfect but it's good enough to deal rationally and fairly with the basic requirements of this article because they're simple. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Good reading here. I wonder if Squicks was implying there aren't enough pro-Israel editors in here. Names that imply an 'obligation' to one side no matter what? those are not the problem, the problem 'if any', are the names that don't imply much. This is garbage what I'm offering here, simply because the discussion is not all that enlightening.
This is a conflict between two sides were lives are at stake and not only that, livelihoods as well(so important in western societies). Perhaps Squicks want pictures of the buildings that remain, pictures of the people who survived this war, from both sides. That's a strong argument.
This is not a conflict between two 'schools of thoughts'(oh if only was that easy!). The victims are not egos or wasted time, the victims on all sides are real human beings. To get caught up, in these nuances, is the only 'objectivity' that some editors in here are aiming for.
Perhaps we should start a section(alas Vietnam war) on the winners and losers in this war. Cryptonio (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

War crimes in lead

I've added following to war crimes subsection of lead just before "twist":

Hamas claims responsibility and calls it "normal response"[1] [2] , Israel continues to deny allegations. [3] While Hamas officials are "not welcome" in western countries [4]

Let me know if there is any object to addition. Thank you AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this line doesn't make sense to me. What does Hamas call normal response? Your source cites 'sweden'.. what does a 'western country' mean? Please remove this line. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that it was already removed by someone. Let me clarify, please. Hamas calls its attacks defined by many "war crimes" - "normal response". I was quoting RS which quoted Hamas, it is evident if you read the source. As for "western" (I agree fully - not best definition at all) I mean The European Union, the United States, Australia and other countries which consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas officials can not get Visa and "not welcome" into such countries as neutral and balanced Sweden’s prime minister said in understatement as another RS describes. English is not my native tongue. Could you suggest better wording? More RS needed? Other changes? Thank you for suggestions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead currently says
Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits.[86][87][88][89][90][91]
Here are the refs
^ a b "Gaza 'human shields' criticised".
^ a b "Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime" - B'Tselem press release, issued 25 June 2007
^ McGreal, Chris (2009-01-23). "Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2009-01-23.
^ Beaumont, Peter (2009-01-10). "Does the world have the appetite to prosecute Israel for war crimes in Gaza?". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2009-01-23.
^ "Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza". Human Rights Watch (2009-01-10). Retrieved on 2009-01-23.
^ MYRE, GREG (2003-04-20). "Israeli Soldiers Kill 5 Palestinians, Including a Journalist". New York Times. Retrieved on 2009-01-23.
A couple of points
  • Does the sentence really provide a reasonable summary of the balance of views on this issue ? That seems like an important requirement in a lead. It appears quite out of step with the UN's "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war" with respect to Israel for example. It also seems quite out of step with the refs cited balance-wise. Reading the lead one might get the impression that both belligerents have been critcised equally when of course they have not.
  • How is Gilad Shalit connected to this issue during this event ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-conflict incidents

Today a roadside bomb killed on Israeli soldier and wounded three others on the border between Israel and Gaza, not long after the bombing, a 27-year-old Gaza farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire along the border several miles away. Also, a few hours after the bombing an airstrike wounded a militant in Khan Younis. This could threaten the ceasefire, should we mention this and call the section something like Post-conflict incidents?BobaFett85 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, Hamas violated the ceasefire with this roadside bomb, thus voiding the ceasefire. Israel is under no obligation to honor a ceasefire unilaterally. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Though I THINK I agree with your thought, why is that relevant to this discussion?Dovid (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Should this be included in the list of casualties? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the casulaty count should be fixed. The overall I-P conflict is a larger topic that is ongoing. This particular self-contained part of it is over. If it escalates on a large scale, and the past week is apparent as a brief lull, we can reconsider.Dovid (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Such a section makes sense to me, but let's keep it small. If it grows, we'll have to trim it down, because I don't think we want to see every detail of what happens in the larger I-P conflict from now until infinity. Whatever is pithy and germane to the events of the recent conflict and its ceasefire, that's what goes in. Agreed? Dovid (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I reorganized the "Unilateral ceasefires" section to group the post-January 17th incidents into a ceasefire violations section. I agree that it should be kept short. Blackeagle (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as a matter of curiosity, I cannot find anything in articles specifying whether this occurred within the Gaza Strip or outside of it. Does anyone know a source which can specify exactly where? ThanksNishidani (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nish. This article says it happened "just outside Gaza", Gaza here meaning the strip and not the city. This might explain why the Israeli leadership is freaking out over it. Its not in any article I've seen yet, but what this implies is that militants were able to get past the security fence, perhaps by tunnel, to plant the explosives. Tiamuttalk 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tia. 'Inside Israel', then. Most articles said 'along the border' which is waffle. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility (confirmed by BBC or Al-Jazeera, i'll check which later) is that the explosive was planted on the bottom of the vehicle and was detonated while outside of the Strip. A third possibility was a mortar round from one of the militias, although I doubt that was what happened. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Notice the Ceasefire Violations section. Anything that happens from hitherto on, should be included here. In the event of a major excursion again by Israel, or Hamas fires something like 100 rockets in one day(which will surely invite Israel back) then we will have to rethink this a bit. Cryptonio (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the ceasefires are unilateral? In other words, they cannot be violated by either party. Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'unilateral' nature is more of a fig leaf to Israel doesn't actually have to negotiate with Hamas. There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Blackeagle (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose to have all "important" incidents happenening now in this article for now (with due weight). The cease-fire is temporary and not that stable, and the parties must yet agree how this conflict will end. If they agree on something, we should take this agreement as the final stage of the conflict and thus the article's scope. If they don't, we should take the Israeli withdrawal as final stage, and all events thereafter may be cut and added to the (yet to be drafted) next article in the chronology of the I-P-story. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

casualties - balance

the casualties/gaza strip section needs work

"The World Health Organization reported that 16 health personnel were killed and 22 injured while on duty over the course of the offensive.[287] UNRWA reported that 5 of its staff members, 1 Job Creation Programme (JCP) beneficiary, and 3 contractors were killed, while 11 staff members, 2 JCP beneficiaries and 4 contractors injured.[287] The World Food Programme reported 1 contractor killed and 2 injured.[287]"

a line should be added to reflect that these aid workers were killed by israeli fire, and that the un withdrew it workers for that reason, (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm)

"According to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, some Palestinian civilians accused Hamas of "forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers."[289]"

i don't have the source right no, but i know there are plenty, stating that the idf would shoot civilians as they left their homes carrying white flags, so that should be added to balance this claim. Untwirl (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the aid workers, the article already talks about that in the incident that prompted th U.N to suspend aid in the "Humanitarian ceasefires" section. There also appears to be uncertainty as to whether Israeli fire was responsible. Blackeagle (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


the un did not appear to doubt who was responsible when they withdrew: "The UN's main aid agency has suspended its operations in Gaza because its staff have been hit by Israeli attacks."

said Unrwa spokesman Chris Gunness:

"Our installations have been hit, our workers have been killed in spite of the fact that the Israeli authorities have the co-ordinates of our facilities and that all our movements are co-ordinated with the Israeli army." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm

these are the refs for the "white flag" reports: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056952.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3655753,00.html Untwirl (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC story you linked to is datelined January 8th. By the 10th, the UN seemed considerably less sure about the border crossing incident (which was the trigger for suspending aid work). "The foreign press reports were based on UN sources, who later admitted to the Post that they were not sure in which direction the truck was headed when it was hit, and could also not say with certainty that tank shells were responsible." http://www.webcitation.org/5djd1poP6 Blackeagle (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
did you read the link you posted?

"In a high-level meeting at the Israeli Ministry of Defense Headquarters in Tel Aviv, the UN was informed that the incidents which led to a temporary suspension of UN staff movements are deeply regretted and do not reflect official government policy."

why would israel regret or say that their actions didnt reflect official policy if those actions didn't happen? plus, mr gunness is unequivocal, "Reacting to the IDF's assertion that it did not fire on the UN convoy last Thursday, UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said the UN "was careful to source its information from eyewitnesses on the ground."

"On the one hand we have IDF spokespeople accusing UNRWA of allowing militants into its facilities, while at the same time an IDF general is telling diplomats that the army had got it wrong," Gunness said, referring to a meeting at the Defense Ministry Friday at which the army told UN officials it "deeply regretted" the latest attacks against UN workers." Untwirl (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel would most definitely say it regretted an incident in order to smooth things over with the UN even if it didn't happen. "Regret" is one of diplomats favorite words because it sounds like you're apologizing without actually acknowledging anything. Blackeagle (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
they definitely didn't deny it, or say 'we'll get back to ya." when do they say -"yes, we absolutely attacked a civilian area."? if they thought they could get away with saying it didnt happen then thats what they would have said. anyway, the point is that israeli attacks were the reason the un left, even if israel didnt admit them (which i believe they did). show me where a un spokeperson says they are, in your words,"considerably less sure" about whether they were attacked by the idf or not and then i'll consider your argument valid. did gunness retract his statements? Untwirl (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
See the article I linked above, specifically that UN officials "could also not say with certainty that tank shells were responsible." Blackeagle (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

POV editing

It is hard to accept good faith when the following edits are made with neither edit summary nor talk. These edits were deleted that reflected damage to Israel and reflected Israel's POV: [3][4][5] sourced reference to casualty figures re Israel's POV [6] At the same time the following diffs were added reflecting damage to Gaza and Gaza/Hamas' POV: [7][8] [9] This is not right folks! This is not working together to make a good article, but pushing an agenda! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of these are my edits. Sorry for lack of description. In defence: I actually took this stuff from "effects" article to summarise the corresponding section of this article. I then took out substantial amounts to shorten it and reduce it to the most important parts. It's just a summary. The rest is still in the main articleJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost posted this above in where TB was on the receiving end of some comments but it works just as well down here. I have seen a few too many suggestions lately that groups of editors are trying to skew and distort the article. Why can't people just accept that they have differences of opinion? Anyway, I don't think some of the comments have been completely appropriate and they are certainly not helpful.

Editors should seriously read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision. We're supposed to be on our best behaviour here. Better than the high standards that WP already assumes. One editor was already blocked for calling another editor a Hamas agent. Since then I've seen comments that are only a few degrees less than that. It really needs to stop. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, that Hamas operative line was clearly accurate, and by golly, something must be done! Nableezy (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. But I'm sure that the Mossad can handle that problem without our help. We need to focus on the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the lack of edit summaries or any discussion of these edits on the talk page plays a big part. When you don't know why someone is doing something, it's a lot easier to conclude they have an agenda. Wikipedians are usually encouraged to "be bold", but with a controversial topic like this I think too much boldness can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions about what you're trying to do. Good edit summaries, and especially talking about these things on this page can prevent a lot of misunderstandings. I don't think we need to discuss everything to death, but a simple explanation of what you are doing and why before making a significant change could go a long way. Blackeagle (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to take Tundra's protestations seriously when s/he has remained silent with much more egregious crap. Of course, editors are encouraged to post edit summaries, specially in controversial articles. --Cerejota (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian casualty count

Two sources used for Palestinian casualty count in the infobox are [10] and [11] Both of them said that

  • militant groups in total acknowledges 158 casualty, since this is reported in RS I believe it can be included in the article as well.
  • PCHR groups militants and "civil police" together as 390 (167 police and 223 fighters), and therefore policemen deaths are not seen as civilian by PCHR count

My edit [12] reflects these, that's why I reinstated the edits after which was undone by BobaFett85 JVent (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR does not include the policemen in the militant count. "The PCHR said 894 of the dead were civilians, including 280 children and minors, age 17 and under, as well as 111 women. Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said." They don't count the policemen as civilians nor militants.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen people, I am going to revert you again, before making a new edit again read previous discussions on this topic, it was discussed previously and decided to lump both policemen and militants together. The PCHR has said 390 of the dead are not civilians, and they included policemen obviously in that number. Also, you are ignoring and constantly removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman who confirmed 231 policemen were killed during the war, if you would sum up that number with that claim of 158 you would get 389, which is only one short of 390. So read previous discussions before making any new edits. Once more, we put the number of both policemen and militants together in the infobox, do not separate them.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen Bobafett85, I am not going to keep repeating this, it is a lie to say that the PCHR has counted the policemen along with the militants, they counted them separately. It is an inaccurate take on the articles that were cited, and the PCHR web site doesn't count the policemen and combatants together.[13] You represent it the same way the articles present it, otherwise its deceptive. As far as removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Here let me see if this example can help you understand the way the numbers were presented in the MSNBC and CBSNews articles. There were 100 flowers (total) that were planted, 55 of them were roses (civilians) including 45 blue roses (children) and 5 pink roses (women). Of the remaining 45 flowers (total), about 25 are sunflowers (civil police). The rest, or 20, are tulips (militants). Are you going to lump the tulips and sunflowers together as 45 even though we counted them separately? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR):

See the table in the article, and note the PCHR wording in the table: "civilian police force members." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I am not going to argue, you are going against the consensus of the majority of editors made in a prevous discussion. It was agreed to include militants and policemen together since the IDF saw them both as enemies and francly most of the police were Hamas operatives. They don't call it Hamas-run police force for nothing. Read the previous discussion before pushing your point of view. And what's that talk about flowers I realy don't get it. Here is the reference you are ignoring [14] where a police spokesman cites the number of 231 policemen killed, so that official statement torpedoes the PCHR's statement of only 167 police killed, second this reference [15] states that 390 of the dead are not civilians, stating 167 of them are police (which is obviously wrong since the official number was given by the police), so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants. But, listen if you sum up the number of 158 militants killed (claimed by Hamas) with 231 policemen killed you get 389 which is preaty close to 390. The 167 number may not even be wrong because they probably counted among those policemen only the ones that were not affiliated with Hamas, the rest of the policemen were probably counted as militants.BobaFett85

Statements like these "so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants." reveal that you haven't read the source you keep pushing and keep citing. The source you provided says "The rest, or 223, were combatants...." It is not according to me. BTW How can you reach a consensus on misrepresenting a source? Do you know the rule about in-text citations? You represent the meaning without attributing to the source any other information not provided in the source. Your claim that PCHR counts the policemen with the militants in the number 390, is a complete lie. BTW, PCHR counts combatants not Hamas militants meaning combatants include non-Hamas fighters while civilians can count in non-combatant Hamas members. Accurately representing a source is what the issue is. I don't know what the police spokesman's statement has to do with this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs)

The idea that the militants and police are so alike that they should be merged is really an opinion and I think not the most NPOV formulation for that reason. That isn't to say it is wrong or not a fair comment. But I don't think that we even have to consider if it is right or wrong, at least not for this section. Similarly I think merging the police numbers into civilians would have the same kind of problem.

It might be appropriate for the article to have a comment from an Israeli official or a prof. or something saying that they consider police to be alike militants or legitimate targets or whatever. But it isn't neutral for us to take up that perspective and apply it broadly. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese "People's Daily Online" article [16] in English sounds like an unreliable article to me. It keeps using the phrase "police officers and police men." Why do they distinguish between the two? I wouldn't use the article as a reference. It sounds like it has been through multiple translations, phone tag, and word-of-mouth changes in meaning as it got farther away from the sources of info. I suggest reporting the info from the PCHR, MoH, IDF, etc., and letting the readers decide who, if any, are correct. I think they are still figuring things out. The CBSnews.com article that BobaFett85 linked to is a good start: [17] --Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, first of all, don't be rude, I didn't accuse you of lying now did I? Be polite. Second, read this previous discussion [18], both of you, both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner. It was previously discussed and agreed by five editors, including myself, that the IDF considered the cops as enemy combatants. There was a problem to distinguish militants from policemen. So we decided to lump both the cops and militants together in the infobox. The number 700 given by the IDF was agreed to hold both policemen and regular militants. And the 390 number, which is given by the PCHR, has been stated to NOT BE civilians, so they are eather militants or cops. And they even said that the 158 number given by Hamas is propaganda on their part. Furthermore I never said that the killed were exclusivly Hamas, now you are lying, there were others like Islamic Jihad. If you realy want to know, at one point during the previous discussion I myself proposed we stated combatants, instead of militants, but many editors had a problem with this because they didn't see ALL of the cops as militants so we agreed to put Militants and policemen since the number stated by the IDF 700 and by PCHR 390 includes both militants and policemen. And for last, Timeshifters discussion about the number of policemen killed given by the peoples daily. I said this before. They said that 231 policemen were killed. Wheater it be officers or just men, police is police. But if you want proof here it is. If we would combine this claim of 231 policemen with 158 militants (claimed by the militants) then we would get 389, which is only one short from 390 combatants killed which is claimed by PCHR. I started to think why 231 was claimed by a spokesman for the Interior Ministry and 168 by PCHR, then I remembered PCHR claimed 168 CIVIL policemen, and that is the number stated in their 390 claim. I came to the conclusion that they probably counted as civil policemen only those that had no militant ties. Listen, I'm telling this to both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner, you can not change the fact that 390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police, and an official police spokesman stated that 231 cops died. End of story.BobaFett85 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

please read the quote again : your statement "390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police," is not what the source said.

Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said."

it says "the rest were combatants" thereby explicitly stating that the police were neither combatants nor civilians. i am in favor of stating them as police, like the source does. Untwirl (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not you too now Untwirl, for God's sake people READ THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. It was agreed that most of the policemen, not all, but most were Hamas operatives and some of them even participated in rocket attacks.BobaFett85 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What does this curious term 'Hamas operatives' mean? Anyone with a job within the Hamas administration is included, and 'operative' connotes a shady function in the jargon of security services. One does not call police 'operatives' anywhere else. One should not use such pointy, loaded jargon, which is part of the verbal crud of politically spinning events, aside from being lousy English bureaucratese.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you just said Nishidani, that term 'Hamas operatives' isn't even mine, some user used it in the previous discussion so I said it. Listen people, for the last time, the IDF stated the number of 700 killed, this includes policemen since they see them as the enemy too. Second we have the number given by the PCHR, 390 killed, which also includes both policemen and non-police militants. I cann't make it anymore clear than this. It is better to give these two numbers that sum up both the militants and policemen, and we have noted in the notes section that at least 231 of those 390, or 700, are policemen which were regarded as enemy combatants by the IDF since many of them were active members of Hamas, by that I mean they participated in rocket attacks, there are references that cover this in the previous discussion.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your problem, apparently, is with the English language, not me. 'Operative' means 'secret agent', 'someone working undercover' for a organization engaged in detective work, spying etc. You can call policemen enrolled by Hamas as 'operatives', implying that spying was part of their job, only in so far as all policemen in the world are spies. Perhaps they are, but we need not induct peculiar theories about what police are into our thinking by using loaded terms to denote their functions, instead of the normal words readily available. As Gertrude Stein would have said, a policemen is a cop is a peeler.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? I never said I had a problem with you. And I know what the word operative means, don't get all high and mighty on me now. I learned English when I was six years old. I only said it this once because it stuck in my memory after another editor used the expresion in the previous discussion. I wasn't even realy thinking about it when I said it. If you realy want to know what I ment when I said it was: fighter, militant, combatant, terrorist. Jeez!BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

i still think we should refer to the source which said, "Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police ...The rest, or 223, were combatants.

ie some were police, the rest were combatants

i don't see any vagueness in that statement. the idf regarding them as combatants doesn't change what the source said. they are clearly not stated to be either civilians or combatants, just police, and that's how we should refer to them. Untwirl (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen we agreed in the previous discussion to put the count of militants and policemen together, and that number is (given by the PCHR) 390. We agreed NOT TO SEPARATE them. Why? Because we agreed that some of the policemen, if not the majority, were active members of Hamas (fighters), furthermore, we have provided a reference from a police official, not a PCHR but a police official which states 231 policemen and not 167 died. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaFett85 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I really dont see why this has to be so hard, just include both, the IDF count with a (includes police) and the PCHR count broken down. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the 167 number of police killed, given PCHR, has been established as wrong since the police themselves said that 231 of their members died during the war..BobaFett85
Include that too, who cares? It is a tiny line in an already bloated infobox, what is one more line going to do? Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing, the infobox is bloated as it is. Why make it any bigger. We have put the number of 700 provided by the IDF, and the number of 390, and we noted in the notes section that both numbers include the cops, but apparently the main problem is now again what we discussed before, and that is are the cops civilians or combatants, I am trying to stick by what we agreed before, to sum up both cops and militants together, and the PCHR even gave a number 390 which includes both policemen and militants.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but it just seems like a simple solution to a problem that has caused way too much contention among us. But I'll step back from this again and let yall work it out. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Indent dropped) It seems to me that this is primarily an argument between BobaFett, and Falastine (and maybe Nishidani). The latter opinion is that these categories are separate and possible to calculate, and should be distinct. The former's argument is that there is already a consensus to reduce the number of categories, partially due to some possible confusion over whether it is really possible to break them down, and possibly to save space in a summary-level item. Is that a fair summary? If so, please, people, let's keep the discussion on these main points, and not get sidetracked. If we aim for a new consensus based on the major arguments, and not sidebars, we'll get there quickly, and can decide on wording change, if any. If not, this will become bogged down, will not reach a new consensus, and we will per force have to take the status quo. Dovid (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No discussion for two days, sounds like the matter is closed, status quo stays.Dovid (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence counting the casualty (3rd paragraph) should be rewritten - 400 children AND 900 civilians may be misinterpreted to sound like there was no militant casualty out of the total of 1300. Usrules (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Background section

I deleted this sentence:

This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.[5]

The source cited is this article. Please note that the audio recordings from one journalist that possibly indicate that a rocket was fired from near the building she was in, do not constitute sufficient prrof for the conclusion made in this sentence. I also do not think the placement of this sentence, right after the info on Gaza's population density and high number of children, is appropriate. In any case, the way it's formulated is WP:OR. Its a total stretch of one anecdote into an infrastructural fact. Tiamuttalk 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Tiamut, welcome into discussion. You know this was already discussed for a long time here [[19]] Both sources and exact wording. Let's work together towards a neutral point of view. You also welcome to suggest replacements, but please wait with remove till you get a reply. Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Reliability of source: Haaretz is RS and that is the reason why it is quoted. This source was found in compromise during previous discussions. If you still not convinced, you could also see video footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK2bg1yNqN4 I heard UNRWA spokesmen confirming on radio interview that on footage we see Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood). You could also clearly see on Youtube that it is the case, since there are other related clips by Hanan Al-Masri. Don't you just love Internet technology? I'm not an Arabic speaker. Maybe you could confirm that she tells about Grad launching near her office? She looks somehow surprised. Still not convinced? There are a lot of other footages which show rocket launching from center of Gaza city, it was reported by everybody. I hope you don't dispute this. Maybe you'd like to suggest alternative source?

Relevance: During previous discussions [[20]] Skäpperöd noted The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So my assumption is that high population density and the unusually high proportion of children go hand in hand with use of human shields in the background section. It is worth mentioning that some areas of Gaza strip are even more densely populated than others. According to reports Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) located in the heart of Gaza City, include among others the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky, NBC, Russian news channel Russia Today, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Arabiya. This is clearly use of human shields on Hamas Gaza government.

Please let me know on which points you disagree. You are welcome to suggest how to make it better. Again please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. I'm going to restore this sentence and wait for your and others comments. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you're new here, so there may be some things you do not understand. I reviewed the discussion you pointed to. I found no support for your inclusion of this material. The source sim[ply does not support the phrasing of the sentence you have introduced and its placement is dubious. When other editors disagree with your edits, the onus is on you to gain consensus for their inclusion. (Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS) It is inappropriate for you toc continually restore material when others object to its presence and make clear their objections.
To summarize, your source does not say what the sentence you are adding says. Find a source that does first, and then we can discuss whether or not the info in that source is relevant. Tiamuttalk 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto.
In this 'human shields'/'Hamas' propaganda, one should of course recall that the Israeli Supreme Court has twice handed down decisions condemning the IDF for the use of captured Palestinian boys as human shields in their incursive operations (2004,2005) and yet B'tselem reports that the IDF continue(s)(d) to do so, using them 13 times in 2007. Secondly, as that wise man Uri Avnery noted for the umpteenth time:

'Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.'Uri Avnery, 'The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza,' Counterpunch 12/01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay relevant to this conflict, Nishidani. I do not really get it. Don't you know that Earth is flat? What is your point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe the goal of that blockquote was to boil it down to "Jews Israelis are Nazis." I would like to protest strongly at the inclusion of this text. I do not demand that it be struck out, but I still protest. V. Joe (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, Avnery was commenting on this conflict. On a point of language, the earth is of course, round. earth can be flat.My point was, as in my edit summary, the material you distorted and made a private synthesis of (two violations of wiki rules) has no bearing on the background to the conflict. At best, it refers to the 'orders of battle' in a war, only, as Reuven Pedatzur points out, there was no war. He also remarks, and you might put this in your notes, that IDF officials privately admitted that they made no distinction between civilians and fighters.

At the start of the ground offensive, senior command decided to avoid endangering the lives of soldiers, even at the price of seriously harming the civilian population. This is why the IDF made use of massive force during its advance in the Strip. As a Golani brigade commander explained, if there is any concern that a house is booby-trapped, even if it is filled with civilians, it should be targeted and hit, to ensure that it is not mined - only then should it be approached. Without going into the moral aspects, such fighting tactics explain why there were no instances in which there was a need to assault homes where Hamas fighters were holed up. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058460.html Reuven Pedatzur The war that wasn't Haaretz 25/01/2009

I.e. high civilian casualties are a necessary correlative of low IDF casualties, and as they say in the classics, it was, to the planners, just 'stiff cheddar' for anyone in the way of that objective. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And the end of the quote from Uri Avnery, an Israeli Jew by the way, was "This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war." It wasn't a direct relation between Israelis and Nazis, it is saying that the media would have reported the same events quite differently had Germany won the war, that the media would follow the same lines that the Israelis have used about Hamas using human shields. Which he relates immediatley following that quote: "Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured." I didn't read it as an equivalence between Nazis and Israelis, rather as a refutation of the repeated claim that Hamas is using 'human shields'. Nableezy (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome, Tiamut. I'm here to learn and improve encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on my part. Why do you assume that sentence placement is dubious? Did you see what experienced Skäpperöd noted? Please elaborate on this point, if you disagree! Do you suggest that source does not support that there was a Hamas Gaza government military installation of grad rocket launchers near Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood)? It is use of human shields in the heart of Gaza city. I'm new so please explain verbosely. I believe we could overcome cognitive relativism and reach Wikipedia:consensus together. Really there is no need for extermination/removal. Thank you for your guidance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The source supports this sentence: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It does not support anything beyond that. It is also not pertinent to the background section. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I see zero problem with the sentence. It may have been placed in the wrong section of the article, but the sentence's removal was clearly unjustifiable. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You see nothing wrong with: This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.? Besides the fact that military installations, as pointed out earlier, could not possibly include a roving group of rocket launchers, how about that it doesnt address, what I think would be the opposite POV, that Israel has chosen this area by imposing a blockade on Gaza? The source supports only this: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It cannot be taken to show that Hamas has chosen the heart Gaza city for military installations like grad rocket launchers. Hamas has launched rockets from numerous locations up and down the strip, there is no evidence that they chose the center of Gaza city in the source provided. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all "blockade" was imposed by both by Israel and by Egypt. Hamas was also involved. Hamas could as well cooperate with Fatah and leave Rafah crossing open, please see wikipedia article. Some also would argue that "commercial" blockade is less aggressive then Grad rocket fire at cities. From other hand you can not be that naive Hamas government of Gaza put those rockets launchers there. It did not get there by chance or "because of occupation". There were no military Israeli presence (ocupation) in Gaza. Frankly I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. I also would add that RS reported that Hamas had reason to think that Israel would attack those launchers, in self-deference, especially after they were used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything you just said was a personal opinion. Your personal opinions are unfortunately not supported by the sources or the facts. This is your accusation in a form that is unsupported by the sources. Opinions cannot be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The terminology "heart of" is leading the reader and seems inappropriate, as if this area is somehow more morally superior than another area. Same thing with the term "installations", which seems to imply that tanks or assault vehicles or whatever are housed there. The sentence "Hamas' Gaza government chose this area for grad rocket launchers" would be a much better wording. The Squicks (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Special pleading. It violated WP:OR and everything else in the book. One doesn't compromise on bad edits, especially when they are put in contexts where they are irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestions, The Squicks. If "heart of" is offending (while it is used to describe where Israeli military hit in response in the article so maybe we should review it also to stay balanced) I suggest to change it to "Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City" or just "downtown Gaza City" which was used in RS to describe location of Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower. As for "military installation" it still looks fair to me, I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. Are we getting to toward an agreement? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The source does not support what you are saying. It says there was a report of a rocket launch from the area of Al-Arabiya offices in Gaza city. It says nothing else. Other attempts to put this there have included statements from the Israeli MFA. That is a primary source and cannot be used to cite a fact, it can only be used to cite the opinion of that source, it cannot be presented as fact. And finally, this does not belong in that paragraph of that section. This is not background to the event. You are trying to put the opinion of a few people as a fact in a place where it is completely irrelevant. The very next paragraph focuses on Hamas launching rockets. This sentence cannot be supported by its citations, it constitutes OR and is completely irrelevant to the background of this event. It is not possible that something that happened during the event be at all related to the background. Nableezy (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We moved this discusion? Ok, Hi again, AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big hullabaloo is. The statement should be in the "Media" section, and should only state that according to blahblah, Hamas launched Grad rockets from next to the particular building in question. The extent to which Hamas launched rockets from next to sensitive buildings as a consistent policy is still being hashed out. When more info comes out we'll put it in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we did move this discussion. Glad to see you again, RomaC. Haaretz AFAIK is RS. and let me re-iterate: Hamas grad rocket launcher is military installation and did not get there (heart|downtown) of Gaza city and fired by chance. Hamas Gaza goverment deployed it there and claimed responsibility for firing. There are other RS reports of Grad fire from (heart|downtown) of Gaza city. It was not isolated case, just most obvious graphic and convincing. Please explain me in more details what exactly is the problem? If it is strictly reliable sources problem here another from BBC which is also RS AFAIK reported: analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets. See [[21]]. Human rights group consider it as taking (my wording) heart of Gaza as human shield. So how do we proceed to agreement? Could you offer a compromise instead of total elimination? 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jalapenos, Thank you for suggestion. The point here per is "high density of population" and "human shiels" according to Skäpperöd quote The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So it belongs in background. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This sentence:
Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel.
is already in the paragraph directly below this. It make no sense that you keep wanting to put this other piece of your OR right before it. This is OR and irrelevant to the section you are placing that text. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nableezy, good to argue (about facts) with you again. Please try to consider it (again): we (guided by Skäpperöd) agreed to justify relevancy of "leading" "high density of population" "on an area of only" "almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger" quotes as relevant to background section by human shields. Deployment of Hamas Grad launcher by Hamas goverment of Gaza in downtown Gaza city could be considered human shields by many. Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did not agree to any such thing. No I do not see your point, there is no argument presented at all in that paragraph, I do not see why you want to keep adding this into a paragraph that only contains pertinent information about Gaza, as the location of the fighting. The very next section talks about rocket fire, there is no point in having it here as well expect to advance a POV. Nableezy (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit (talk), your explanation above helps illustrate why editors are objecting: A good Wiki passage should not require an explanation. Best to reflect the source, not interpret it.
On a personal note if you'll excuse me, you're new here but I think you already see how this article has attracted editors who have strong POV, which is probably unavoidable with controversial articles in general. Anyway, some editors have an approach that earns them respect from both 'sides', and I think everyone appreciates that. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey RomaC, Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Agada, I don't see that point at all, sorry. When I am in doubt, I only see sources. RomaC (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Roma, what exactly don't you understand? I propose a compromise - let's remove "leading" high density, in order to be balanced. If you don't agree please explain what is the problem with the Haaretz and BBC clearly RS sources? Verbosely please. One sided extermination/removal is not a proper solution. There are some editors which see no problem with my quote what so ever, so let's move toward a consensus. Hope you could see it now. 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)
This isnt about compromise, you want people to compromise from your starting point of having OR in a paragraph where it is not relevance and end up where you are removing information that is both well sourced and relevant. There is no compromise here that involves either solution. Nableezy (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me tell you a little story about compromise: Once upon a time, a turtle was walking along, when a gopher popped by and said 'Hey turtle, 5+5=8!' The turtle retorted: 'No, actually, 5+5=10'. But the gopher was persistent in his argument that 5+5=8, and the disagreement between the two continued for some time. Finally, the gopher said, 'Ok, let's compromise, and say that 5+5=9.' I think anyone considering this scenario would have to conclude that it's ridiculous to imagine animals knowing anything at all about arithmetic. RomaC (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story, RomaC. Really enlightening. How is it relevant? I'm sorry that you refuse to state what is wrong with Haaretz and BBC sources, in you opinion. Initially you removed the phrase without any discussion and now you refuse to work towards agreement. What gives you a right for unexplained Veto? Please act in good faith, according to Wikipedia:Etiquette and please assume good faith on my side. Do you have any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we have a suggestion, it stays as it is. We have repeatedly explained why the content you are attempting to add is both out of place and OR. There really isnt much more to discuss. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What Nableezy said. RomaC (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While we talking Grad rockets, me being a nerd for military crap, I have yet to find, in my original research, any picture of a destroyed Grad launcher in Gaza. Qassams are clearly Grad-derived, but Grads are pretty specifically MLRS weapons, not single launch rockets. Can people point me to where I am wrong? I mean, it just doesn't verify.--Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you'll allow me to out-geek you, there is a man-portable version see "9K132 'Grad-P'" on the BM-21 article. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am out-geeked indeed. Remember kids, User:Cerejota/OpCastLead is were you should store this data... There is a MILHIST angle lost in all the partisan pushing, but I'll surrender my geek credentials if we don't take care of it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose re-inststing the sentence into the population paragraph. Reason: The paragraph serves as background information for a lot of stuff covered in the article. That is the eg human shield problem, the casualties, a major aspect of Israeli planning and progress in the area, among other stuff. The information given in the population paragraph further contributes to a lot of different POVs and reasoning about the conflict as a whole and the Hamas and Israeli operations in particular, eg justifiability of military operations in that area and responsibility for the casualties. If we single out just one argument to place behind the information it looks pretty much like a synthesis to support a POV. On the other hand, I do not oppose having information about the rocket launching procedure in the article, it should be mentioned how and from where what rockets were launched (rocket launching squads, were non-portable launchers also used, was their a preferration from where rockets were launched or were they launched from most densely and unpopulated areas alike, stuff like this should be in the article). I think however that at least some of that is already covered, and I think it should rather go into the Palestinian militants subsection of the campaign section as far as it concerns the actual fighting, and what is introduced in the background section (which covers the previous rocket attacks) should be carefully evaluated following WP:UNDUE - eg was it of any value for the conflict and the Israeli military decisions where exactly the rockets were launched? Would it have changed anything if they launched their rockets always and only from let's say 2971 Main Street Khan Younis? It is however worth mentioning if non-portable launchers were installed inmidst of civilians, making the area a potential target. Was that the case? Then introduce into the next paragraph in the background section (maybe after the "resumed their rocket and mortar attacks" sentence) and source. If only portable launchers were used, that should be mentioned within some other sentence (eg "squads with portable launchers resumed their rocket and mortar attacks"), more weight would be undue for the background, but more detailed information regarding launching tactics and devices are certainly relevant for the campaign section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an not sure I have understood your point, since it is not phrased with sufficient clarity. There is an extensive amount of material in the serious literature that the demographic density of Gaza is one of the main concerns of forward planners in Israeli. The architect of Sharon's unilateral engagement identified this as one of the key factors in Israel's policies, and one of the reasons why war would ensue. The military data to hand so far is that the IDF's plan did not foresee discriminating against civilians and paramilitary people: the main objective of the way the assault was conducted was to reduce to an absolute minimum (it was politically unacceptable to suffer high casualties given the forthcoming elections) deaths among the ranks of Israeli soldiers, while doing maximum damage to the enemy. One must distinguish government press declarations of intent, from what IDF spokesmen are reported as saying off the record. Rockets have to be launched in the open. One doesn't trudge out of an area offering cover into an open field to launch rockets, since, tactically, this would mean that all units launching rockets would be killed instantly, and the number of units engaged in this suicidal assistance to the enemy (the IDF) would be wasted to virtually zero from the outset. In all known wars, military units do not offer themselves up, in a clear line of fire, to their enemies. I know the press is drenched with this crap about using civilians. Perhaps they were. I don't exclude it. But it was in the nature of the battleground (fight in protected areas with cover/ or fighting in exposed areas, open farmland under constant drone surveillance linked to computerized firing units) and the war that Hamas conducted the war the way it did, i.e. with cover and the possibility of flight once a rocket had been launched. As to the missile attack from Grad rockets launched outside the TV studies, which Agadit makes much of. It was reported that one Hamas Unit ran into the street near that tower, fired off a rocket, and, in response, the IAF hit precisely a point 13 floors above ground level housing an Arab media network. The AIF didn't fire on the street point where the rocket was launched, but on the tower nearby, where people had reported the launching. There is no connection between the two. Human shields have nothing, furthermore, to do with background. Background. The IDF has consistently used them. Background should deal with the history of tensions between Israel and Hamas, and the Gaza Strip, not with technical details about how each side conducted its battles. That can be saqfely delegated to Cerejota, in an appropriate section on the technical side of the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"I'm an not sure I have understood your point" Ok, re-reading I was too much in a hurry, my point was : Let's not have the rocket-launch-sentence in the population paragraph, as the population paragraph serves as the background for multiple issues of the article. Have it somewhere else with due weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies then.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, the source is fine, but you're making too much of it, turning one incident into a phenomenon. Please take my advice above. When more info comes out about Hamas' fighting tactics, you or I or someone else can add it to the "Palestinian militant activity" section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. You are all right, I was not quoting sources as-is and did original research. I realize now it is my WP:POV. Still we should re-consider inclusion "of only" regarding area and "Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007)". It is what some call "leading" or WP:UNDUE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, it is relevant background that numerous sources have brought up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK it's fair, Nableezy. Could you please provide such sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut already did, but here you go:
Thank you Nableezy, this is an impressive research. It is clearly notable. Would you agree to remove "the only" about area and change child statistic to population under 18 to better reflect the sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean. Nableezy (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's be fair. It is WP:OR. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. What is 'the only'? And the numbers we use are from RS. Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about adding it, but again I am starting a discussion before I make any additions. Discuss. BTW I do plan to add more images to fill in the blank space, about 3 images and I will change the caption name to a better one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is NO consensus to add more photos. To many of us the article is already unbalanced in relation to photos. You will not achieve consensus for adding more photos that will unbalance the article even further. Please stop requiring us to state our opinions over and over again. We would like to be able to move on. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't your decision to make, and you do not speak for anybody but yourself. None of these pictures can be seen as controversial, maybe they are not all needed but they can certainly be discussed. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There are three pictures of property damage already, I support rather an image that would reflect the human cost, that is, Gaza casualties as they relate to the event in general. For example an image of bodies in rubble. (Please excuse me, I realize that is a callous thing to say.) RomaC (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
These four images are similar enough I certainly don't think we need all four of them. One, at most, I'd say. Blackeagle (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is systemic consensus to add photos to articles. If relevant and reliable, then they should be added, even of casualties. There is consensus to do this, and this will be done, regardless of how much times you claim there is no consensus. The earth is not flat, and there is consensus to add pictures. --Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since 2 more Israeli-related pictures were added making it a total of 3, we now have an equal amount of damage-related pictures of both sides. Is that NPOV? No, it is now disproportionate justifying the need to add more Gaza-related pictures. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And so, the WP:POINT spiral of edit warring starts... No, we need to illustrate an encyclopedic article, not score points while turning wikipedia into yet another battlefield in the I-P conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not making a point. Making a point would mean if I decided to place all the images from my gallery on the page (which at times I am tempted to do). I am choosing to discuss which is what WP:Point encourages. There is an issue of proportionality that needs to be addressed which is the main point of my posting. Can you comment on that issue instead? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that proportionality in pictures is as important as it is in the text: illustration is not meant to convey editorial decisions but to illustrate. As it stands now, I think it is proportional enough, maybe we are missing ground combat pictures, pictures of destroyed rocket launchers. We also probably need to illustarte at least one of the "Incidents" --Cerejota (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that should work for everybody; Why not having just 1 photo of property damage in Gaza and 1 photo of property damage in Israel, and same for human casualties. If 1 image is placed in a relevant category, instead of trying to show how horrible other other side is, it is merely to demonstrate what the article is talking about, so if it tells about destroyed houses, an image of destroyed houses will be perfect. On both sides. And then we won't need to start putting dozens of images to balance things out to one side or the other. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are suggesting creates a false equivalence. There are over 1300 Palestinian deaths compared to 13 Israeli ones. For every one picture of an Israeli casualty, we should have ten pictures of Palestinian casualties. Tiamuttalk 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
In a linear proportion scale, it would actually be one hundred photos per each Israeli one. The thing is we lack the space. There are no pictures of Israeli casualties in this conflict, and we should continue to seek them, but we should include one at most two, along with 3 or 4 from Gaza. The text clearly shows the difference in casualties, there is no need to drive the point home with pharming (photo farm). Of course, the narrative battles will continue, I just think they are not really necessary. --Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nomad, by your reasoning should the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima article show three pictures of the 186,000 dead on the ground and, to be 'balanced,' also have three pictures of the blister on the bombardier's finger? There are asymmetrical wars you know, and I'm sorry but if that is not evident enough in this case then I am questioning whether some editors here still deserve to be afforded the assumption of good faith. RomaC (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:GFCA - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Except for a few editors, which have been subjected to rightful blocks for severe offenses, all of the editors here I consider to have a good faith difference on viewing the same event. What I am not sure is of the ability of all of us to write NPOV, to "walk a mile on the other's shoes". I see no evidence of bad faith, as it is generally understood in Wikipedia - but we must be careful not to go down the road of quid pro quo and WP:POINT that created the whole "allegations of apartheid" circus. I do think that we could use a little less disingeniousneess and consistency of argument - this conflict is assymetric, and this is a fact, and we should not hide this fact by undue weight considerations. Its really that simple.--Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has one picture of a victim (no pictures of the bombardier's finger). While I agree there's no need for an exact equivalence in images in this article, I don't think the article really needs more photos of any sort. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to get into an arms race where each side adds as many pictures as possible? The whole point of pictures in the first place is not to display morality. The only, only purpose of pictures is for illustration purposes-- to assist the reader in understanding a particular subject. The idea that "The Palestinian cause morally deserves to have 100 pictures for every 1 Israeli based picture" has nothing whatsoever to do with that purpose. It does not assist the reader in anything. Two, Three, Four, Five Six, Seven, (...) pictures on the same subject listed right next to each other do not serve for illustration purposes. This is an encyclopedia- not a blog or a picture book. The Squicks (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia-- This is what we want to emulate. Notice that every picture included is only included for informational purposes to assist in describing the events in the text beside the image. Nothing is included for purposes of 'morality' or 'porportion'. There is no gallery in the article. There are no "shock" images with blood and guts oozing everywhere. There are no images from unreliable sources.

Side Note: Morally, this bombing was much worse than the Gaza war since only two NATO people died while over 500 civilans died (and that's not even counting the Serbian military deaths). Way less proprotionate. The Squicks (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not normally make moral points in wikipedia. I do however make editorial points - the concept that the facts of a matter need to be presented in a balanced fashion. The facts of the 1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia are not analogous to this situation here. To begin with, that article is about a part of wider conflict, and in fact is pretty biased towards the NATO POV - using it as a model is using a broken tire to model your new tires. That said, the nature of that conflict was entirely different to this one: NATO was enforncing international law (not only its own raison d'etat), the conflict was not a decade old (the one this topic is about is more or less 100 years old), NATO attacked a State (Israel attacked a de-facto Government), and NATO was not defending its territory from attack (that is the causus belli cited by Israel - and Hamas justified their atatcks ont he issue of the blockade), and it was politically entirely different. For example, Yugoslavia/Serbia never claimed that the majority (or a significant minority) of the casualties were civilian - which is not the case here - explicit claims are made in reliable sources by the UN, the Gaza Government, human rights organizations etc that this is a salient fact of the conflict. Israel's response to this should be included for balance, but no reliable source is saying that the UN is lying. Thats what it boils down to, what are the RS (with consideration to their biases) saying?--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
wiki requires pics and text to follow undue weight policy:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

that is, the proportion of the casualties represented in reliable sources must be reflected in the article. 100:1 may sound ridiculous to many editors, but that is what wiki requires. for illustration purposes, i think it would be informative to have one photo of damage by a grad rocket hit, but the most notable aspect of this conflict in reliable sources is the huge number of palestinian civilian casualties, mostly children. that is what should get the most 'page time' in text and photos. Untwirl (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is misread, please read it more carefully. It is saying that WP aims to give all sides a fair share of RS, i.e., if there conflicting RS, the wight of presentation of one of the conflicting sides should not be out of proportion to the each side's RS. In others words, it is about the BACKING of the disputed content, not the SUBJECT of the disputed content. Let's use turtle/gopher metaphor again, but this time with 4+4=8 or =10. We can't simply say give equal weight to the two points of view. RS backs up the 4+4=8, there is no RS on =10, so leave out the =10 POV. If there was a small amount of =10 RS (hah!), we could include a small amount of content (words and pix) for =10 while leaving the bulk of the content and pix around =8. The way you misinterpret the policy, it goes to the proportion of SUBJECT not the proportion of BACKING (RS) for the content. By your argument, we would need to have more discussion and pix of the =10 POV because 10 is a larger number, 8 is a smaller number. It is hard to get an exact count on teh RS for each POV in I-P, but clearly there is a great deal of RS for both, so the content needs to cover both POV in very close way. Dovid (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not at all what WP:Undue means. The Undue weight policy is in place to prevent fringe views from taking over articles. Undue weight would be rewriting the Evolution article from the intelligent design POV. It has nothing to do with casualty counts. If it did the majority of the WWII article would be on the Soviet Union and China because their casualty totals dwarf those of every other nation. Clearly that is not the case. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are quite serious issues of bias and undue weight with regards of WWII articles, in particular around the fact that it is focused mostly on the history of the conflict on the part of the Western Allies - largely ignoring the huge war in China, and to a lesser extent the Soviet counter-offensive - precisely the examples you cite! Systemic bias is rampant in Wikipedia, with many redundant articles, povforking/coatracking, geospecific articles with titles that are not geospecific, too much sourcing form Anglo-American sources and not enough form equally reliable sources world-wide, and all kinds of stuff we could spend hours writing about. The spirit of WP:UNDUE is not as protective of mainstream views versus "fringe" views, but actually a guide on how to deal fringe views, without giving them undue prominence, as clear encyclopedic content. The view you express is a relatively recent development in Wikilaw (circa 2006) with the birth of WP:FRINGE - 3 years or so after WP:UNDUE. That said, WP:UNDUE has been misused and mis-cited here, because most of the views presented have not been WP:FRINGE views, but easily verifiable ones. What we are dealing with here is straight up WP:NPOV matters, in particular "Balance" and "Impartial tone". --Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Rather than some sort of numeric equivalence, what we should be trying to create here is an article that clearly and concisely describes the conflict from a neutral point of view. That's not an easy thing on a subject like this, but it's how Wikipedia works. Blackeagle (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

dovid - no one is saying that since 1300 is larger than 13 then the larger number wins. i dont even get that. especially since, in your example, the number ten is set up an an obviously incorrect sum. ip - i'm not talking about rewriting the article from a fringe point of view, nor am i saying casualty totals are the most notable aspect of every war. cerejota - i suppose the fringe point of view that i am speaking of is that of editors who think there must be tit for tat in casualty pics. one of the most widely reported aspects of this particular 'conflict' is the large number of palestinian civilian casualties, so the claim that for the sake of balance pics should be equal contradicts the weight or proportion of those two components. i am reminded of someone's earlier example of having an equal number of pics of the bomber pilot's blisters as of the destruction of hiroshima. granted this is an extreme example, but kinda funny so i repeated it. Untwirl (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I'm glad you agree with me that the "pro-10" argument is ridiculous, but that's my point. The guideline cited is more about focusing on the mainstream versus the fringe. It would not match that guideline to dump lots of pictures of harm to Palistinians only because there are more pictures only because they had more on the receiving side in pure numbers... that does not a "balance" make. Dovid (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to all who answered me; Are you serious? Since when is Wikipedia about showing enough grotesque pictures to try and balance out any tragedy?! The images are supposed to demonstrate sections of the article, so if a section talks about killed Palestinians, there should be a picture to show that, and when the section talks about destroyed school in Israel, a picture should be demonstrating this same school. It's not about how many died where. I am really sorry but what you guys said up there (like Tiamut and RomaC just for example), what you said is complete nonesense. Exactly what The Squicks said. I can't believe this is really being discussed here. And I am not going to start giving out my theories about what kind of propaganda is being pushed here because it's useless. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know there have been a lot of renaming discussions, but this is too confusing...

The use of conflict in the title fails to differentiate this war/invasion/fight/offensive/military engagement from other articles like 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, Gaza–Israel conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict ETC ETC.

I think it's important to recognise both that there is a long running 'conflict' but also that this is a particular event within the conflict.

I'm not necessarily proposing to rename it right now, but I'm wondering if poeple agree with this logic and that conflict is eventually going to have to be replaced.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Conflict is excessively vague. War is not appropriate either, since this ddid not involve two armies. Israeli offensive on Gaza or Israeli assault on Gaza are the best options, IMO. Tiamuttalk 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This article shouldn't be names 'conflict'. I personally prefer Operation Cast Lead, but since it isn't used commonly enough in world media, I think 2008-09 IDF operation in Gaza is the best name.
Anyway, now that the operation is over, I believe another discussion about the naming should be started. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The one thing Al Jazeera English and Jerusalem Post have agreed on is to call this a "war", with a small "w". Sample the sauces:Al(l that) Ja(a)z and Jpost.

Titles are the one area where we can do some OR - of course based on sources and a general consensus. I think it is fair to say that if wikipedia calls this the "2008–2009 Israel-–Gaza war", no puppies will die, nor would the world end. Am just sayin' we have a unique opportunity to reach solid consensus over what should be a trivial matter, and we should do it just to feel good about ourselves. Then we can go back to being the self-rigtheous POV pushing CAMERA/Electornic Intifada meatpuppets we are all supposed to be. I do oppose an IDF focused article name because the assymetry of the military operations is fact to be reflected in the content, but should not be the focus of the topic. We write for history, and history will not see this event as, say, Operation Summer Rains but more like the Invasion of Grenada: a mostly one-sided conflict that marked a significant political and military shift in the countries involved, in the regions involved, and in the world in general. The nature of this shift is still being sorted out for this conflict, but this ain't your regular "police action" or tit-for-tat, and everyone who is somebody, what we call around here "relevant notables", agrees. I think people are focusing too much on the "letter" of the reliable source consensus, rather than the "spirit" of it. The spirit is saying, call it what you will, but this here event, is no small potatoes. --Cerejota (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada is a good example. Similarly, going by the naming of this article, Invasion of Poland (1939) should be renamed 1939 German-Poland conflict.--Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure Grenada is the best example. Reaching into the memory banks, I recall that IoGrenada was pretty much called that form the start in many (possibly most) news accounts. On our subject, I think the jury is STILL out, though it seems to be heading toward IoGaza, sometimes "Military Action In Gaza." Let's hang loose, and see if a sort-of-world-consensus takes shape. We can always redirect many names here, there's no urgency. And whether it is small potatoes or big is likely going to be dependant on what else happens in the region over the next 18 months. Dovid (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "Date In Front" is a relatively new convention, born in part out of the need for machine readability, in part for disambig in categories. I prefer it for this reason, being a professional db guy. However, Invasion of Poland (1939) was started way before these conventions started in emerge in 2006-2007, and hence has the old convention of parenthesis disambiguation for dates, which is still in use, and still generally valid if deprecated (ie, no one is getting blocked for using it, nor is there any particula rurgency to "fix" old-style). However more and more articles are using "Date in Front". We still use parenthesis disambiguation for other things like biographies (see John Smith) etc.--Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I still dont think the years are necessary, there is no disambiguation here. Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate the years because for some reason I can never reach this article by typing its name in the search box, but they may be necessary. Invasion of Gaza may not need years, but if we go with Israeli offensive on Gaza or Israeli assault on Gaza, it could be confused with Operation Hot Winter in February-March 2008, which was smaller in scale and did not involve ground troops entering deep into Gaza (and as an aside, IMO, was a kind of test run for this offensive) but still resulted in significant casualties. Tiamuttalk 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Even Invasion of Gaza probably ought to have a year attached to it, since it could also refer to the 1956 or 1967 wars. In fact, those are probably more deserving of the title "invasion" than this is, since they involved the capture of the entire Gaza strip with the intention to stay for the long term rather than being a temporary incursion. Blackeagle (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those invasions were parts of larger wars: Six-day war and the Suez crisis (Both strangely titled articles, by the way.) But if we do need a year, do we have to put both years in the title? It's the hyphen that really annoys me more than anything. Tiamuttalk 01:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are the most common names for those conflicts, so I don't see what's so strange about it. The hyphen is definitely annoying though. Unfortunately this conflict wasn't scheduled for our convenience. Blackeagle (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
first result in google israel gaza 2009 Nableezy (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] The year thing (2008-2009) is foolish since some editors keep insisting on the claim that it started on December 27, lol. Some of us have given up trying to have the article make sense, and are stuck with simply trying to make it fair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i think invasion of gaza seems like the one i've seen most on the news or headlines. and it seems the most straightforward as well. Untwirl (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion seems like an inaccurate term to use in the title. This was more than an invasion. This was a bombing campaign, a targeted assassination campaign, a blockade, and other things as well as an invasion. Personally, I would go with "war". If you follow the logic that Hamas is the de facto government of a soverign state, than this is clearly a war-- something done between two governments. The Squicks (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed "war" is best description (see total war definition) to what happened and as other mentioned cited as such in RS both in "western" world and in Arab countries. I'd suggest "Hanukkah" Gaza war to reflect "Cast lead" and not to drag two whole years into 3 weeks of military action. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if war is the right way to describe it. This is only three weeks of a larger conflict that has been going on for much longer. This is more on the scale of a battle, or at most a campaign, rather than an entire war. In any case, we have to reflect the name that's already out there rather than coming up with our own, even if we could come up with a more accurate one. Blackeagle (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"Gaza war" no "Hanukkah", why? Cause no reliable source says so. I am trying hard to find alternatives that are RS and convey the historic significance of the event while meeting WP:MILMOS neutrality (ie no Operation names). We do not do balnce by doing OR, we do balance by making editorial decisions around RS.--Cerejota (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It was mentioned here "Cast lead" Dreidel is from "For Hanukkah" song. It what kids sing during Hanukkah season when this war took place. It was a joke, you could disregard it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Figures in Lead

I think the lead paragraph on casualty figures is quite problematic. Apart from reporting both sides, we need to report data as it is reported by reliable sources. As far as I can see, most reliable third party news sources do not take the IDF casualty count seriously and use the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figures. For example, here is the BBC which states: "About 1,300 Palestinians, including 400 children, were killed in Israel's 22-day assault, while 13 Israelis died, some as a result of Palestinian militant rocket fire." If Israel questions these figures, we can have a line mentioning that, but not the majority of the paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob2718, Unfortunately there is no "reliable" data about casualties from Gaza side of this conflict. Right now we just do not know. Hamas government of Gaza continues to refuse to release list of casualties. BBC and others just repeat Hamas claims, which some see as "bias". There is independent Italian source which after investigation on the ground claimed that there are only 500-600. The point is that casualties numbers and percentage of civilians are being disputed. Do you suggest removing IDF estimates? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is not an 'independent Italian source'. There is one Italian journalist who after several hours made his own estimate for a newspaper, based on two comments by unknown people in Gaza.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Italian journalist is a reliable source even if you don't like what he says, and we have plenty of material in the article based on anonymous Gaza sources speaking to reliable sources. Obviously though, if his figures are quoted in the media less than the Palestinian MoH figures, then he should receive proportionally less coverage in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
They are quoting 1 doctor. 1 doctor. 1 doctor. That is not the number the UN, ICRC, HRW, or AI are quoting. That does not measure up the MoH numbers, it can be in the article as a report from 1 doctor, but not given the same prominence as the official government numbers. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the main problem with this doctor is notability. does he count casualties in his profession? if not, i don't see how his estimate is any better than that of a civilian who might estimate by how many bodies they saw in the street. Untwirl (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be notable. Notability applies to the subjects of articles, not to sources/references. Blackeagle (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, maybe i used the wrong term. but there is a policy/guideline that specifies that if someone is relied on for facts in an article they should be somewhat of an expert or experienced with the area they are speaking on. my point remains that if the doctor wasn't involved in the counting of casualties then his estimate is no more valuable than "that of a civilian who might estimate by how many bodies they saw in the street" and shouldn't be used to support an official tally. Untwirl (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is WP:Reliable Sources. As far as this particular source goes, the problem seems to be that we're really dealing with two layers of sources here: Corriere Della Sera, the Italian newspaper, and the Palestinian doctor that the Corriere Della Sera reporter used as his source. I don't think there's much dispute that Corriere Della Sera is a reliable source. It's the most widely read newspaper in Italy. Since Corriere Della Sera is a reliable source, we can be pretty sure that there is a Palestinian doctor who said these things.
What people seem to be objecting to is the use of the Palestinian doctor who is the original source of the claim. The Reliable sources policy really doesn't help us here. Evaluating the reliability of newspapers and academic journals is one thing, but evaluating the Palestinian doctor's credibility is really beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia. For one thing, he's an anonymous source. For another we don't really have the capability to asses his credibility even if we knew who he was. All we really have to go on is that the Corriere Della Sera reported found him credible enough to use his statements in a story. Blackeagle (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What people are objecting to is the inclusion of this single estimate right next to the official numbers of the government ministry. Nobody has said this cannot be used because of reliability, but to put this next to the MoH numbers which have been quoted by everybody (UN, HRW, ICRC, AI) seems a goin a lil overboard. The numbers that should be treated as 'official' are the ones from both governments, at least until some independent body verifies. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Lorenzo Cremonesi doesn't base his assessment only on the doctor he interviewed (who argued pretty forcefully for the estimate he gave the journalist), but also on his visits of several Gaza hospitals, which he found mostly empty. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Cremonesi, nor am I in a position to, I'm just pointing out what he's basing his assessment on. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aight fine, I am not disputing the reliability of the source, I just want to ask you do you think that estimate should be given the same weight as the official estimates of the Gaza MoH? Nableezy (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, it should given weight in the article proportionally to its weight in the media, which I think is considerably less than the weight of the MoH figures in the media. So, to answer your question, yes. I mean no. It shouldn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
So do you agree with this statement: it should not be in the lead, and it should be presented for what it is the, the report of a paper in Italy (or whatever description is more appropriate)? Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That was two statements. Re second statement: all estimates should be attributed to the person/body making the estimate, so no problem here. Re first statement: any mention of civilian/combat casualties should mention that the figures are disputed; encyclopedias aren't supposed to be naive, we know that the precise figures are very difficult to obtain and that both sides have an interest in pulling them a certain way. Whether Cremonesi's estimate should be mentioned when talking about the dispute - yeah, probably. At least until there's another, more notable independent estimate. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the original paragraph with the correct quotes of Palestinian and Israeli figures. WP:NPOV requires us to quote both parties' counts, and just because Israel did not release an own count for overall casualties it does not mean that the counts they did give should not be in there. Also the remnants of the paragraph (after the deletion of the Israeli figures) were factually incorrect, not all 1300 (Palestinian count) are claimed to be civilian casualties by the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzo Cremonesi's original article in the Corriere is here: «Così i ragazzini di Hamas ci hanno utilizzato come bersagli» Interestingly, the part mentioning Israeli special forces - disguised as Hamas combatants - hiding amongst Palestinian civilians was not mentioned in the Israeli press? :-D MX44 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the point here is what do reliable sources around the world report. Here is what sources say BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed" Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead" Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials." AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"

as you can see the estimate that is universally quoted (and I've given sources from all over the world) is the Palestinian ministry of Health estimate. Hence, we should do the same. If the IDF questions it, we can have a line about that, but the paragraph as currently written gives way too much way to the IDF estimate which is not repeated widely by neutral reliable sources. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Video

What about looking in commons:Category:Al Jazeera Video Footage from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to find possibly neutral video to include in the page? Given it is (or will be uploaded) in the correct widescreen screen ratio. One could also cut the video, to make it neutral.--Kozuch (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There was almost no news presence in Gaza during the battles, so this will be hard to find on the "ground." There's plenty from the IDF on their YouTube channel, which I think fair use would allow, but it would end up being somewhat one-sided. Dovid (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes there was a news presence, apparently the IDF forgot that al-jazeera already had a few journalists inside Gaza before sealing out the rest of the world press. Nableezy (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Woah, I didn't know someone had uploaded all those videos. I feel pathetic for getting lazy after uploading one. What do you mean a neutral video? Most of the videos don't have commentary so they are all pretty neutral. Thanks for bringing the videos to our attention BTW. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please indent! Neutral is more than just non-commentary. An interview-style video is by its nature POV, not straight reporting. What you saw, not what you heard.Dovid (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA

In sharply worded report, former legal advisor to UN agency says group must redefine oxymoronic labeling of Palestinians with Jordanian, Lebanese citizenship as refugees. YnetNews. Hope someone picks up the glove. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this article. Palestinian refugee would probably be a better place for it. Blackeagle (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the main point that Israel stresses here is:
During the recent fighting in Gaza a number of UNRWA institutions were bombed by the IDF, which claimed that terrorists had fired at forces from within or near the UN compounds. The agency's employees took a clear-cut stance against Israel during the war.
Lindsay's report warns that the agency has deteriorated increasingly over the years since its establishment...
He suggests UNRWA make operational changes and "halt its one-sided political statements and limit itself to comments on humanitarian issues; take additional steps to ensure the agency is not employing or providing benefits to terrorists and criminals"
As Israeli, for instance, I'm shocked by press release of Zeitun incident, reporting it as fact, without any investigation and while not doing "any allegations".
From other hand, unfortunately clear continues cases of war crimes of which Hamas government claimed responsibility did not get any "urgent investigation" call by UNRWA.
The sad thing is that UNRWA is one of main factors that has no interest in resolving "Palestinian refuges" issue from 60 years ago and creation of Palestinian state. UNRWA budget would be in danger in such scenario. Considering the fact that grandchildren of Nakba refugees in Gaza live in de-facto Palestinian state - UNRWA should get out of Gaza, there is no justification for its existence there.
Editors of this article should consider UNRWA bias and those facts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a language issue here, because I really do not understand the above.Dovid (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, this is all irrelevant to this article. Nableezy (talk)

Friendly Fire in the Info Box

To note that 13 israelis have been killed in such a prominent place without a mention of the fact that it was friendly fire is misleading. I believe that it should resemble the First Gulf War page, which has the number because such a statistic was uncovered. There is no reason, since we have the secondary sources to back the information up, to keep that from being on this page, in the info box. 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bordello (talk • contribs)

Usually friendly fire is quoted in soldiers context. 4 of 10 soldiers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That has no place in the infobox, if we did that then we should put in the infoboxes of all the other war articles how many of those soldiers died in friendly fire incidents, it has already been said that four died due to friendly fire in the casualties section.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Boba. I put the astericks there because the friendly fire number is known and available through secondary sources. For an example of such inclusions, see First_Gulf_War and the Al-Aqsa_Intifada, where friendly fire is mentioned in the infobox. The reason why such a statistic is in the infobox is because these wars were well-documented, and the numbers are known. Friendly fire should be mentioned, if it known to have happened, just like how casualties are separated into two columns for this article: each side has a tally of those who they have lost, they should also be some accountability for those who are responsible for the losses. Other wars, unfortunately, are not covered even this accurately: See Ituri conflict, and Second Congo War for examples of a lack of secondary sources for clear responsibilities for casualties in the infobox.
There are good moral justifications for this: First, accuracy. The friendly fire number is correct, and shouldn't be covered up (you hear the "thirteen casualties" all the time and don't hear that four of them were friendly fire deaths half as much, which would lead a casual listener, who doesn't dig deeper, to assume it was Hamas (it's happened numerous times to me in real life; it is easily assumed, and by including it, this mistake is easily preventable). This misunderstanding should be stamped out for the sake of truthfulness. Second, causes of death should be put into distinct categories like these because we do not know the motives behind the killings. For example, whether the IDF wanted those soldiers dead (and I don't think they do) or if this was a complete error is unknown and perhaps unknowable. What is known is that they were killed by fellow Israeli soldiers. Please do not revert this until you present a justification, or find a known standard I am not aware of. Thanks.
Bordello (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should mention it. BTW there were reported cases of Palestinian civilians death from Qassam rockets which sometimes "friendly" fall also inside Gaza. Please see Girls die as militants' rockets fall short. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5400712.ece AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the civilian breakdown yet? It is in the casualties section and the infobox does not need to separate women and children from other civiliansCptnono (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, Moved it to new topic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#InfoBox_civilians_break_down AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The First Gulf war is one example, and just that, ONE example. The Second intifada is not, it doesn't tell about friendly fire anywhere, if you mean palestinians killed by palestinians it wasn't friendly fire but killing of Fatah members by Hamas members and vice versa. And foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces is also not friendly fire, those were mostly foreign demonstrators in the Gaza strip killed by Israeli soldiers. Except for the First Gulf war and MAYBE, but I doubt it, a few other articles there is hardly any article with a breakdown of friendly fire casualties in infoboxes. Check out the Iraq war, Vietnam war, or Second World war, did they give a friendly fire breakdown in the infobox? Maybe in the casualties section, but not in the infobox. I am all for it to be mentioned in the casualties section, but not in the infobox.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with that. All we need in the infobox is the numbers, we can explain them in the text. Nableezy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Hamas claims responsibility for rockets attack on Israel". Xinhuanet. 2003-03-04.
  2. ^ "Hamas says yeshiva attack 'normal response' to IDF Gaza op". Haaretz. 2008-03-08.
  3. ^ "Mazuz: Israel bracing for slew of lawsuits over Gaza op". Ynet. 2009-01-11.
  4. ^ "Sweden: Hamas not welcome". Ynet. 2006-03-05.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Al-Arabia-Grad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_27&oldid=1079505395"