Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Graphic Nature of an Image

(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"

Wikipedia does not censor (as regards the snuff site comment), this was discussed above. Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's a matter of taste. Pictures of the body parts of Israeli infants strewn across a Tel Aviv street are not posted in the Second Intifada article, nor should they. WanderSage (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What photo of children are you referring to? That is a picture of slaughtered grown men, unarmed men. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a distasteful subject, visual representations of it will likely be distasteful. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose does it serve but to disgust? Anyone with any trace of humanity is going to be revolted by pictures of blown apart people, regardless of whether they are Nazis or schoolchildren. In this sense, it is POV as it appeals to raw emotionalism , while the purpose of this article is to describe and give context to the conflict in neutral detail. WanderSage (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be replaced. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not necessarily saying that it needs to stay, but the argument that it should go because it will 'revolt' some i think shouldnt be accepted. That a distasteful image is used in a article on about a military conflict in a densely populated area shouldnt be surprising. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the reader should form his opinions based on rational facts, and not highly-emotional imagery. Rabend (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah, so you're claiming that this picture isn't a rational fact, while the above picture of a group of Kassam rockets is one. Right!?? I call this information censoring, not rationality. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contest for which side is the cruelest, so stop trying to "win" all the time. I don't see a reason to post bloody images of qassam victims, since I don't try to win the world's sympathy thru sheer horror. The same goes to victims on the Palestinian side. These cheap tricks are degrading this site. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I'm just angry from some earlier discussions, so sorry. The fact is that even if there's a picture about Qassam's danger to house, we'll put it. It's not who win and who lose, it's that many in this world consider this a massacre, so the image is expected to be cruel and disgusting. Just as the other massacre images below. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, no problem. We are a little edgy over this war. Still, the fact that many consider this a "massacre", does not make it one. As you know, qassams/grads do not cause only property damage. They also kill. But I don't approve of posting a picture of a woman who was hit head-on with a rocket, her body parts all over the place. This doesn't help the neutrality/objectivity of this article, but rather mainly serves to shock the reader. The reader should be shocked by understanding the entire conflict, context and history included, and not by out-of-context horrors. Rabend (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually one of the less graphic photos depicting the carnage. There are photos of dead Gazan with dangling or missing body parts, you can't even out make out their faces. Being highly sensitive and squeamish myself, I would not have the brought up the pictures if the bodies were not intact. Articles discussing massacres/genocides/assaults wherever you call it, do have photos of the carnage, this is not the first and not the only. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The BobaFett85 captioned the picture with "...Hamas policemen..." where is he drawing this detail from? From his you know what. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely the fact that all the dead are in matching uniforms and wearing utility belts. WanderSage (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I translated the Arabic caption of the original image source, which also says "policement, and added the translation to the image. So I think it's safe to say they're policemen. cojoco (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can remember very well that those was the death of IDF attacking the Gaza police station. I'm not the one who put the "Hamas Policemen" claim, but I'll try to search for references that prove this claim. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-censored that image, but it is still available for the sic people who wants to view it. Ek!--23prootie (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia does not censor, it also does not assume the role of a tabloid or a porn site where people can put anything anywhere they like. That photo doesn't even have a correct copyright tag. Its liscensing below:

This image does not have information on its copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days from its upload date, (10 January 2009). Once a copyright tag has been added, this template may be removed.

This image has been placed in a queue for experienced editors to look at. There is no guarantee this will occur before 7 days. If you would like to ask a question now please do so at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Remove this tag when you provide the information.image with no license as of 2009-01-10 (CSD I4)

--23prootie (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How old are you?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?--23prootie (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is NOT censored. This can be found at WP:CENSOR. Such debates have taken place in the past:
  • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where extremely controversial cartoons were a subject of debate (here). In the end it was decided that the cartoons will be displayed in their full glory.
  • Another related controversy is recorded at Talk:Muhammad/images. Once again it was decided, that no matter whose faith was offended, the images would remain, and won't be hidden.
  • Hiding images. Anyone who finds the image distasteful can configure his browser to not display the image.VR _talk 09:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. --vvarkey (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.

These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.

There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only important Sir when the Jewish community is suffering, so we can put around FIFTEEN ugly pictures of the holocaust victims. But when it comes to ONE picture of Palestinians killed, we say "EMOTIONAL", "PROPAGANDA", "The CNN STRATEGY", "eik", and "how can my cute little baby/eyes see this picture". I'm sick of bullshit arguments. This is bullshit, not logical debating, plain bullshit. This is the same bullshit as several points made in previous debates like that the UNRWA and Amnesty International is "anti israel" or BBC Arabic is not qualified as a source, or we should not say that the Arabs term the conflict as a massacre because "it's off the limit". Really, this is just clear nonsense. It's the same bullshit argumenting method people like Alan Dershowitz's use when he's debating with Norman Finkelstein. ENOUGH is ENOUGH. This is not about systematic bias, it is about blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, those images from the Holcaust are in the public domain as well, also you cannot seriously compare the current crises in Gaza to the Shoah. If this is Genocide, it is the most inept genocide in history. Simply put, there are more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank then they were when Israel was founded. Hell, there are more Israeli ARABs in Israel then there were Arabs in all of Palestine in 1946. Also, unless you believe in the Nazi ideas of the Jews, Jewish Germans and Jewish Poles did not blow up buses in Potsdam, Vienna or Kiel, Germany was not surrounded by Jewish neighbors who sought to annihilate her (all Nazi complaints that France and the Soviet Union were dominated by Jews belong in Mein Kampf and not reality). The situations are not comparable, and if Israel was as aggressive as the Reich, they could've occupied and not given up Syria and Jordan by now, having crushed them in several wars. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of people murdered is already a quarter of the number murdered on 9/11. If we look at the proportion of the population, then it is fifty times larger. Do we not show pictures of 9/11? If so, what reason can we possibly have for not showing pictures of a slaughter that is fifty times larger? I know the answer: You do not want to "make Israel look bad". You want to protect Israel from criticism. What you do not see is that all of this protection has created a soulless sociopathic monster. NonZionist (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, consider your criterion for using the term "genocide". You tell us that it cannot be genocide if the victimized population increases. This means that everything depends on the birth-rate among the victims! By your logic, had the Jewish birth-rate been higher in the 1940s, we would be forced to absolve Germany of the genocide charge! For you, it doesn't seem to matter how many are being killed or tortured: As long as a greater number are being born, there is "no problem".

Finally, read the history of Israel. You will find that the Zionists wrote the book on terror in the Middle East. They blew up buses, trains, hotels, even ships loaded with Jewish refugees. Their reward for all of this terror was statehood. And they've been using state-terror ever since against the native population. NonZionist (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you bemoan terrorism so... then why do you propose that terrorism is acceptable agaisnt Israelis? I would like a citation about "Ships loaded with Jewish refugees." I guess the deeds of the Irgun 70-90 <sarcasm>years ago justifies blowing up buses filled with Israeli schoolchildren and teaching your children to strap on suicide vests. <endsarcasm>. Please additionally do not lecture me on History... Trust me, I have a good idea about much of it. I believe, however, that the Government of Israel won its independence in '48 and again over several decades of constant victory when attacked. V. Joe (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told not to use this as a soap box. I invite you to do the same. I appreciate your responses, V. Joe, but if you want to continue this interesting and productive dialogue, please do so on my talk page. You will find that your view of me, like your view of Palestinians, is based on false stereotypes. In reality, I oppose ALL terrorism. I especially oppose war, because war is MEGA-terror, and war fosters terror. NonZionist (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this issue becoming yet another controversy ? I really struggle to understand why on Earth anyone could seriously object to images on the basis of their graphic nature. Reality isn't propaganda. If we can get good images of the results of the actions of preferably both sides in this conflict we should probably consider ourselves honoured. And bear in mind that some of the external links are of a very graphic nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSED. I am opposed to the use of graphic images in regards to this conflict. The first reason is that the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime. The second reason is that these images are very rarely copyrighted, and the final reason is that they are both inflammatory and it is impossible to know which images are genuine from an ongoing conflict. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with Valentine Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with V. Joe as well. Rabend (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

V. Joe, regarding "the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime", can you supply a source to confirm that. I've not heard that before. I assume it's more complicated than that since there are photos of dead people in many articles in wikipedia as others have demonstrated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That claim is untrue, the photography of POW by their captors is a war crime, photography of the dead by journalists is most certainly not. And if there was a photograph of Israeli civilian dead I am near certain it would be included. Some of the people voicing these concerns are objecting to this because it makes 'their side' look bad, for that there isnt much a response, others are rejecting it because it is gory or otherwise objectionable, prior wiki decisions have determined that this is not a valid reason for not including images. If there is a copyright problem, that should end all debate until a free-use image is found, and the image with issue removed. But just because an image is gory, which should not be surprising in a war zone, is not enough reason to exclude it. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, my mistake, but I am certain that photography of war-dead or people who have died from disasters is often civil crime if not always a military one. It is certainly against the UCMJ (aw well of the code of the United States) here in the United States. I still am opposed to the inclusion of (these) images because of (#3). There is no way to tell from a photo, even by an expert (which I do not concede any of us here to be) the difference between a dead Hamas or Afghan or Chechen or Tamil Tiger or to tell whether said photograph is doctored or current. Additionally, it is very easy to pull the rifle out of the hand of a dead "victim" ad then pose them in a heroic or pathetic pose. This unfortunately is just as true about the equivalent of the 13-year old Hitler Youth (or Boy Scout) pulled into the field by a cruel or desperate government (movement) as it would be for a hardened veteran of Jihad who volunteered to fight for the Sheikh on battlefields from Grozny to Kabul. Likewise the difference between a career soldier and a reservist cannot be told by a corpse.

If you are suggesting that displaying these images would be in violation of us law, i think you have to back that up, because that is truly a showstopper to this whole conversation. As far #3, that is why we depend on your sources, if they say it was from that we take them for their word. Nableezy (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Current lack of images

Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.

Wikipedia is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Wikipedia is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No Sir, we'll be "emotinal", "CNN Method Conspiracy Theoretic" and "propagandistic". You want our lovely Wikipedia to aid the terrorist organization Hamas by showing the pictures??!!!! --Darwish07 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first that you were being sarcastic. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images should not be censored at all. This is an article regarding war, any reader will expect images depicting this. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a place where war is a fun game for all and death something like we see in the movies. Removing or censoring these images is very wrong. Superpie (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I agree that the use of the term is somewhat inappropriate, but I think that these sort of images can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only that, putting in graphic pictures in the middle of this war is not appropriate. The pictures' legitimacy has not been established. Just as France 2 recently had to apologize for putting out pictures of an unrelated incident from 2005 and claiming it belongs to this conflict, the pictures MUST be verified before we use them at wiki. Putting up pictures of this nature now is mere propaganda and should be left to news agencies NOT wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

a) What is your definition of an "established" picture?

b) Where's the claim in Wikipedia guidelines that say we should not put a picture until the war is over?

c) How are you judging an image that's been everywhere on most of respectful news agencies by arrogantly calling it a propaganda?

d) Do you have references that prove that this particular image is a propaganda?

e) Are you trying to claim that we should get a report from the court or something similar to be sure that the picture is true? If not, why are you trying to mix things up by mentioning the Frace 2 case?

f) Do you prefer a picture of a Palestinian little girl with a rose in her hand giving it to an IDF soldier instead? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage and V. Joe, Do not even dare to call our precious dead children images "pornography", "neo-nazi" or "death-cults". Do you understand? I hope you both do, cause I'm willing to lose my account if you said those silly terms on our precious children again. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

V. Joe, I think you are projecting your own attitudes onto Hamas. Read the Hamas Charter. The charter defines Hamas as an organization devoted to RESISTING "Nazi-like behavior" of the people who have invaded Palestine over the last hundred years. By "Nazi-like behavior", Hamas means the kind of savage behavior we see happening today -- collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks on men, women, and children, etc.. Israel has been murdering Palestinians at a 40-to-1 ratio. Now, the ratio has increased to 300-to-1. It takes fantastic effrontery to believe that the victims of this slaughter constitute a "death cult". It seems to me that the party that does most of the killing is the party that puts its faith in death, and the people who stand up to that murderous system deserve our praise, not our condemnation. NonZionist (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ: I've said it once, and I've said it again. Hamas' own charter might call the Israeli's Nazis, but that doesn't make it so. Plus, again, Hamas has adopted the Fascist salute, desires to put all Jews (notice I did not say Israelis) into gas chambers, and desires the destruction of the Little Satan (Zionist entity/Israel) in order to get after the Big Satans (The United States, Great Britain, France and Russia more or less in that order) all in order to set up a Caliphate and Shariah law for everybody. This is all in Hamas' own charter. Israel's Constitution, as messy as it, has real elections, and although it is set up as a Jewish state, Israeli Arabs (Muslim or Christian or Druze) can vote, are allowed to serve in the Army (Like the Orthodox Jew, they are not drafted). Israeli Jews, on the other hand, are free to adopt any form of Judaism they wish, convert to Christianity, become an Atheist or even convert to Islam. Be a Gazan and convert to Christianity or Declare yourself an Atheist, I dare you. Gazan's can't even change branches of Islam. Do I think Israel has gone too far? Possibly... but I cannot see that they have had any choice. V. Joe (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the death-cult, a Hamas minister has himself said (and I can't find the quote ATM), but when I do, it will go to this talk page. "Israeli's say that they favor life for themselves and their children. We seek death." "You desire death, we desire death." V. Joe (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and "The Hun eats his own babies" -- or so the British believed in WW I. I ask you to question this kind of dehumanizing war propaganda. Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a giant concentration camp, and, in so doing, has created a situation where life is worse than death, but that doesn't mean that death is the ultimate aim of the 1.5 million imprisoned there! To imagine that it is simply demonstrates a willingness to engage in dehumanization. Your charge that tiny Hamas, with homemade rockets, is poised to take over the entire planet, is a complete departure from reality and an excursion into the realm of fantastic demonization. Of course, this is not the first time that silly fantasies have been used to justify genocidal behavior. The big killer needs to dehumanize and demonize his victims in every possible way, else he may inadvertantly notice that he is killing his fellow human beings. NonZionist (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ: This is what Hamas says is its goal. Of course they don't have that power, anymore than they have the power to extend crush Israel off the map. This is the fantasy of Hamas and it is certainly not my fantasy. As for myself, I am not Israeli, and have said so many times before, but I have said as many times that I support the right of the Israelis to exist as a Jewish state, and to exist without the threat of Hamas rockets destroying their Kindergartens, cinemas and taverns. I support the right of all to political self-determination, provided that they do not threaten their neighbors. I would support a two state solution if it would bring peace, by which I do not mean the demographic or actual destruction of the Jewish state. As Victor Davis Hansen has said

Hamas daily sends barrages into Israel, as its hooded thugs thump their chests and brag of their radical Islamic militancy. But when the payback comes, suddenly warriors are transmogrified into weeping victims, posing teary-eyed for the news camera as they deplore “genocide” and “the Palestinian Holocaust.” At least the Japanese militarists did not cry out to the League of Nations for help once mean Marines landed on Iwo Jima.

If the daily cost of Palestinian lives for "resistance" in Gaza should cease, Hamas should have only the option of surrender, complete and unconditional, and Gaza either be granted an Egyptian protectorate (if one is available) or governance by an International Body (NOT the United Nations, but instead an "International Ruling authority for Gaza," set up as a multi-lateral government with full Israeli and Egyptian participation and an oversight by NATO or the G-8. This should include a rapid-deployment force made up of European soldiers from a small third-country, Austria or the Irish Republic perhaps. " Neither Hamas nor the remnants of the PLO should be included in this government, nor the irresponsible voters of Gaza who have repeatedly chosen violent thugs as their leadership. V. Joe (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told not to use this page as a soap box. I invite you to do the same, V. Joe. I am familiar with Victor Davis Hansen, and I assure you he is not in any way a WP:RS. If you have been misled by his demonizing and dehumanizing propaganda, then I feel sorry for you. This kind of ethnic denigration is a precursor to genocide slaughter, something I most strongly oppose. If you disagree, please do so on my talk page. NonZionist (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For the quote from the rough equvalent of a PFC

“We are fighting the Israelis,” he said. “When we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.” He continued smiling.

“Why are you so happy?” this reporter asked. “Look around you.”

A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.

“Don’t you see that these people are hurting?” the militant was asked.

“But I am from the people, too,” he said, his smile incandescent. “They lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.”

That quote is from [1], which is a NYT article from a Gazan Hospital. That is a death-cult to me. V. Joe (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

you fail to consider the "the irresponsible voters" of israel "who have repeatedly chosen violent thugs as their leadership." have you forgotten so quickly that the man about to become prime minister advocated "mass deportation of Arabs from the territories," demolition of palestinian homes and "settlement" by jewish citizens, along with torture and murder of "suspected militants"? Untwirl (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people forget that "Give me liberty or give me death" is not an exclusively Islamic concept. Tiamut^talk 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Patrick Henry didn't blow up synagogues or call for the execution of all non-Protestant Virginians. He also didn't advocate the execution of George III or send assassins to kill the Prime Minister. Plus, Liberty, except in the form of submission to Allah is anathema to Muslims of the Hamas stripe. V. Joe (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Israeli elections are real, and with the exception of tiny splinter parties, no major Israeli party or faction calls for the murder of all Palestinians. BOTH major "political parties" in Gaza and the Palestinian territories demand the destruction of the "Zionist Entity" and "Palestine from the Jordan to the Sea." V. Joe (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Tiamut! One of my favorite poems ends with the line you quoted:

Eye to Eye - by Gihad Ali
...
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.
-- http://www.al-awda.org/eyetoeye.html

It's good to see that Palestinians have picked up the banner we Americans long ago cast aside. V. Joe misses your essential point: We Americans once had much in common with Palestinians who seek freedom and justice today. I'd like to see this commonality of values addressed in the article: I called for the article to address the long term strategy of Israel, and I see now that it should also address the VALUES of the victims. WHY do Palestinians continue to resist? WHAT are their values? To understand the "conflict" (slaughter), we need to understand the victims a lot better. NonZionist (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Vile

WanderSage, V. Joe and Tundrabuggy. Your comments above, in which you suggest that images of dead Palestinian children "can certainly be a form of pornography," are reprehensible. I demand you strike them out at once. If your stomach-turning provocation is an attempt to goad other editors into personal attacks it will not succeed, rather I think editors will be steeled in opposition to the inhumanity of what you are suggesting. Shall we put the comments out more widely, for consideration, to see how the community responds? RomaC (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Demand away, but as you've said, wikipedia does not censor. Pornography comes in more ways than just sex. I do not condone that, but it is an unpalatable truth. V. Joe (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

no use appealing to the better nature of these 3 particular users, they are goading and we should ignore it. lets focus on the admitted fact above that "wikipedia does not censor" and then we agree that gazan casualty photos should and will be posted. Untwirl (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No copyvio, no gaming the system

I hate copyright laws with a passion, and the issues here are a clear example of why the system is broken. However, the system exists, and we must respect it. Wikipedia will cease to exist if copyright holders sue us for continuous copyright violations. I understand all the due weight positions, but this is resolved by no putting pictures, it is not resolved by faking copyrights, using ambiguity, and otherwise trying to game the system. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The contentious image does have a copyright, and is on Wikipedia, but it is in Arabic. Can somebody who can read the original licence please transfer it to English Wikipedia, or, alternatively, delete the image if it is a copyright violation? The image on Arabic and English wikipedia are here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza_2008.jpg
• http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-2.jpg

cojoco (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand how this works. The fact that the image is on the Arabic Wikipedia means nothing. The image is not free. The person who uploaded it to the Arabic Wikipedia made a fair-use claim. If you, or someone else, is willing to make one here, go ahead. I'm not sure it'll stand. Otherwise, it'll be deleted. The description on the Arabic Wikipedia is irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately I have acquired more understanding of "how this works" as this discussion has progressed. You state that the person who uploaded it to the Arabic Wikipedia made a fair-use claim. How do you know this? How do you know that the image is not free? I would appreciate having an understanding of how you came to this view. cojoco (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The source of the image, linked from the Arabic Wikipedia, is al-Jazeera. It can also be found in other places too because its a photo from Getty. They do not release their photos for free. The person on the Arabic Wikipedia tagged the image with a fair use tag. It even says that in English and there's a big red copyright symbol indicating that. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipidea has a policy of not censoring any kind of image. For instance, Images of exlpicit sexual content appear in related articles. Why should graphic images be censored? The "graphic" nature is a vital part of the truth. I am shocked that the article does not contain one image of civilians wounded on both sides for comparison purposes. The UN and UNRWA have been concerned with possibilities of war crimes and use of forbidden weapons by Israel. Civilian injuries must be presented without censorship.Contrieng (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Make no mistake, the decision of including (or not) graphic images of human suffering in order to illustrate the article serves a political agenda. Including them to emotionally charge readers against Israel is just as pernicious as omitting them on the grounds that 'they are distasteful' in order to prevent readers from reaching a full extent of the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

However I, as many others here, am deeply concerned about the double standarts presented by editors. If we should completely avoid those pictures, then for the sake of neutrality and consistency we should do the same with every other article that deals with sensible issues. And before any outcries of anti-semitism from people thinking I'm too making mention of the Holocaust page, I could cite the article for the Ossetia conflict last year, that too had a considerable toll of civilian casualties, of which not one picture was added to illustrate this point.

For 3

"Gaza Massacre" (again)

This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English wikipedia not al jezeera et al.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should not represent the Arab name? What kind of argument is that? Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Not what I said or meant, what I meant was: Wikipedia is NPOV and that the title should also be NPOV. However, I have nothing against the how it is known in the Arab world being in the lead along with Operation cast Lead. I believe that there is plenty of precedent for that in wikipedia. I also remember Black Saturday Massacre being in the lead for awhile.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And having just checked, it still is.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[28] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]"--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because it was reverted after tundrabuggy put this in (multiple times). And I agree with you the title needs to be NPOV, that is why the title of the article is 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. No one is suggesting to use the arab name as the title, just having the arab name along with the israeli name. Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arabic wiki sucks as the system here! the problem o we know all why it sucks!! --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is the 29th quasi-racist statement I have read so far. Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians

Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk)

I would agree if we had 'civilian' totals, but all the sources say explicitly that the counts only include 'women and children.' That potential includes any women or children who are 'militants' and discounts any men who are 'civilians.' As it is, I think it would be incorrect to substitute the wording the sources use in relation to the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. In this kind of fighting it may be impossible to distinguish fighters from civilians, so that "women and children" are the best proxy for "civilians" which we have. The effect on neutrality may be hard to judge, as this may under-estimate the number of civilians. cojoco (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent but since the numbers are primarily estimates a few (at least percentage wise) off is not a concern. The deaths of women and children have historically been held in a different regard then those of men. I believe the consistent use of those terms impacts neutrality but still needs to be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.88.215 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009

But we have no idea how much off the numbers of 'women and children' would be with total civilian. Up to 100% of the women and children could conceivably be 'militants' and up to 100% of the men could be 'civilians.' If we can find a source for civilian then we should put that in its place, but we dont have any sources that give a 'civilian' casualty count. I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that. Reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceivable yes but not probable. All fun debate aside I don't think anyone truly believes the scenarios you laid out. Sources need to be used but turning an eye to what is reality while allowing an article to become increasingly less neutral is more of a concern than what exact term is used. Women and children are not the focus of this article. Women and children have a greater impact on the reader. There will be a proper place when we are not dealing with estimates and preliminary numbers. It should be there but not at such an extent. Also, is the breakdown of women and children often used in the casualty tables of other military conflicts? (not trying to be contradictory or snide with that last bit) Edit: "I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that." Totally reasonable by the way but I think we will start running into more encompassing numbers pretty soon. Sounds OK for now.

I dont even believe that the scenario is true, just trying to show that we cant say that 'women and children' == 'civilians.' I would ask anybody else with an opinion to either concur or object to the idea me and person above me agreed to, namely: 'a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that' Nableezy (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And once we have some sources that report the 'civilian' count, I'm all for having that as the standard without qualification. Nableezy (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The UN said that civilian casualties, defined only as women and children, were 62..." Was that you Nableezy? Are smiley faces bad form in discussion pages? In all seriousness, the article is getting updated with recent events but this section (along with several others) are running the risk of getting jumbled since the previous day's news isn't being integrated correctly/removed.67.170.88.215 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me like 2 weeks ago, I assume that has been updated with more recent stats. That line came from the first few days. Nableezy (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And looking at the current article, that line looks fine, it is clearly preface by 'On December 31' in the opening of the paragraph. But this seciont is seriously dated and needs more recent info, it as if everything that is in writing about civilian casualties stopped on Dec 31, so the reader looking at the graphs next to it would see this 62 number without any further follow up and assume that it represent the present numbers. This should certainly be remedied by adding more up to date information, or just replacing most of the info with up to date info. I dont think we need to know that as of Dec 31 62 were dead, and as of Jan 5 100 (i dont know the numbers just an example), we should just state that as of (most recent date were numbers are available) this many of these people were killed. Nableezy (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that line before the women and children discussion came up recently so I got a kick out of it when I did finally notice. I assume a section devoted to civilians will have to be worked on or tied in a little cleaner after the dust settles.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think someone who isnt coming up on 3rr should try to update and rework it now, with the beginning referencing how civilian is defined for each side and using the term civilian then on. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "civilian" is meaningless in an occupied population. The entire population has a legal right to resist occupation and aggression, and should not lose its civilian status when exercising that right. In WW II, were the members of the Resistance "civilians"? If I resist a criminal who breaks into my home and attacks my family, should I be condemned as a "combatant"? Whether or not I resist, I remain a victim, and that is the proper distinction to be made, the distinction between the aggressor and the victim. I think we are misled by the word "conflict" in the article title. This is not a conflict, but a slaughter. Viewing the victims of the slaughter as "combatants" adds insult to injury. The victims do not control the situation. Combat is something they may be forced into, not something they choose. NonZionist (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion on this subject but it is not neutral. Your views might be perfect for an editorial piece but not an encyclopedia. You can go ahead and change each instance of civilian with victim but it will cascade into bickering and back and forth reverts.Cptnono (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I completely agree with you, but for the purposes of this article, unless we can find a reliable source, and probably people would want multiple sources, that make this point, there is not really any way of doing this. But as a philosophical discussion, I do agree that in an occupying force killing somebody, regardless of the situation, would best be described as killing a victim of occupation. Nableezy (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun Casualties figures

Most media outlets (CNN[2], NYT [3] just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?--Omrim (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? The "Jenin Massacre" story all over again... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

52 dead confirmed with up to half being civilians fits the description of a massacre. That the IDF has committed atrocities seems to be something you cannot comprehend. Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Up to half being civilians", you said it. It still means there were PLENTY of militants hiding behind these civilians. Don't mix militants with unfortunate civilians. I would say that the militants are the ones who committed the atrocities by using the civilians. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If these are the updated figures then go ahead and update the article. Rabend (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article is illogical

Israel is a political entity, a country; Gaza is a geographic name and denotes neither a country nor political entity. More accurate would be 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas conflict or 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas war. David Shankbone 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See /Requested Move 4 January 2009. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a name for a geographical entity listed as such everywhere, a place which, under US sponsorship and auspices, held elections. In the elections, duly approved as properly conducted, a political entity, Hamas, won, and took over the administration of this geographical entity. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Gaza is a city and the 'geographical entity' is The Gaza Strip. The various issues with the title and introduction to this article are currently being thrashed out on their own talk page. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your title suggests that Israelis are at war with Hamas, which is highly inaccurate. It should be called Israeli assault on Gaza as it is an invasion and assault on an entire city of people whereby non-Hamas members are slaughtered in large numbers. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Falastine... I don't think so. Rabend (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal views and soap boxing aside, Gaza has been more commonly used to refer to this conflict than Hamas.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current name is more accepted. Rabend (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Please stop all the indenting, the paragraphs are only 5 inches wide on my browser.

2. The title should remain "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". we need to wait until the dust settles,which it will, and then we can d-i-s-c-u-s-s this like the rational people that WE ALL are.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - 1) it's a bit useless to ask people to structure their responses to satisfy your particular monitor settings; and 2) I thought the discussion above was quite rational. --David Shankbone 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The trouble with elections and democracies in general is that you can only vote for those who run or are allowed to run." Lyndon Larouche--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I object to your use of the phrase "only 5 inches wide" when you should be using metric units like sensible countries. I think this shows the inherent colonial, high-handed attitude of certain editors. I think we all know why they're called imperial units. I rest my case. Sorry, couldn't resist. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Touche--98.111.139.133 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The combatants involved are somewhat more than just Israel vs Hamas. Calling it the Israel Hamas war is too simplistic. Superpie (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As the original poster demonstrates, the political entities here are Israel and Hamas. Israel is openly targeting Hamas and Hamas is openly targeting Israel, so "Israel-Hamas" conflict would be appropriate. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not NPOV because it clearly suggests that Israel is targeting the entire region and not merely the Hamas entity. While some people may claim that Israel is destroying the entire region, that is not Israel's own position and therefore we must not put this label on Israel. Similarly, those who believe that Hamas is destroying the entire region would be wrong to call it a "Hamas-Gaza" conflict, despite all the evidence of Hamas terrorism. Hamas officially is only trying to destroy Israel, not all of Gaza. And Israel is officially only trying to destroy Hamas -- first by peacibly removing their tunnels and funding, and then by responding to terrorist rockets with military attacks on Hamas targets. Nowhere is Israel stating a goal of destroying Gaza, in fact quite the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And 'Israel-Hamas' does not represent the POV of the Israeli govt that they are only attacking Hamas? Read the /Requested Move 4 January 2009 discussion and you can find out why the name was selected. Besides this, Hamas is the government of Gaza, some would argue de jure, nobody would argue de facto, an attack on Hamas is an attack on Gaza. And everything is a POV, including the majority of your comment (and mine) Nableezy (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And 'Israel-Gaza' does not represent the POV of Hamas that they are only attacking Israel? How about 'Israel-Hamastan'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF figures

The IDF figures on Palestinian militants dead has been debated previously. The IDF claim that 550 were dead,[4] apparently contradicts the claim that 879 are dead, of whom 444 are civilians. The claim was made by an unnamed army officer in a "closed-door interview". Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal has declined to confirm the number.[5] I don't see why we have to continue to make the claim that 550 Hamas militants were killed inside the infobox (we should make it in the casualties section).VR _talk 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice Regent, you need to stop reverting sourced information because it doesn't adhere to your own personal biases. You've already broken the 3 revert rule many times over already today. This is not what Wikipedia is about. We've already discussed this (see archives), and have decided that until indpendent varifications are available, Hamas sources will be used for the civilan count, and IDF sources for the militant count. WanderSage (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I reject your criticism of me, and ask you to focus on the material.

"Hamas sources will be used for the civilan count" when are we using Hamas for the civilian count?

Where was it decided that we would use "IDF sources for the militant count", please point me to the discussion. Thanks.VR _talk 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do you think the Ministry of Health is centered? Ramallah? No, it's the Gazan Ministry of Health. And given the fact that Hamas' politcal rivals were killed or exiled in 2007, I'm hesistant to say that it is under the auspices of Fatah. WanderSage (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well actually the office of the Palestinian Helath Minister is in Ramallah.[6]

Satirical comments aside, the sources don't claim that the source is Hamas, but rather Palestinian officials. Do you have sources saying otherwise?

I also note that you have failed to tell me where in the archives it was agreed to use IDF as a source in the infobox for Palestinian casualties.VR _talk 04:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas-run ministry of health" [7][8]. Regarding the consensus on using IDF numbers, it's not my job to comb through the archive for you, but it is your responsibility to do exactly that before removing sourced information. WanderSage (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip, there numbers should be taken with that weight, the government of the gaza strip's ministry of health released those figures. We do not say the republican government of the united states made the following statement, we say the united states released this statement. The same should apply hear, it should simply be the ministry of health or the gaza ministry of health. Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage, neither of those sources mention the statistics under question. And yes, I know that Hamas is considered the government of Gaza, just as Nableezy pointed out that the Republicans are considered the government of the US (though that will soon change).

"it's not my job to comb through the archive for you," Then you can also not claim that "We've already discussed this (see archives)".VR _talk 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did a bit of combing. I found that at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#IDF_on_dead._.22several_hundred.22_fighters.2C_most_of_them_from_Hamas there was consensus to not have the 550 number (the off the record number) in the infobox, but have the earlier IDF number which it said "on the record".

There was also previous agreement to not combine policemen numbers with militant ones: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Combining_militants_and_policemen.VR _talk 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

{unindent) This is the latest info below quoted from: Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

In a closed-door briefing a high-ranking army officer said Israeli troops had killed more than 550 Palestinian fighters since the operation began, a senior military official told AFP.

Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal declined to confirm the number but said "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas, had been killed since Israel launched its offensive on December 27.

Please use this URL: [9] and not the Google one. They are the same AFP article, but the Google URL is not permanent and will likely disappear in a few days.

I think we should use the word "fighters" since that is what the IDF is publicly using. Hamas is not the only group fighting the Israelis in this war. I think we should use the public statements of the IDF, and not some secret third-person opinion of one IDF officer. Why use it? Every officer may have an opinion. What proof is there that this officer even exists? The IDF spokesman Jacob Dallal is a real person on the record.

See [10] for info on Doctor Muawiya Hassanein who is providing the Palestinian casualty numbers. He is not Hamas.

Behind the desk in his modest office hangs a portrait of legendary Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his successor Mahmud Abbas -- pictures that virtually disappeared from Gaza officialdom after Hamas seized power in the territory in June 2007.

Here is more info on him from that article:

The head of emergency services for the Gaza Strip, Hassanein is the sole person who keeps a running track of the ever-escalating death toll of Israel's deadliest offensive ever in the overcrowded enclave.

The latest numbers from him may currently be this article: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A916588 --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll be going back to the IDF figure of 300, as this is widely reported.[11][12][13]VR _talk 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is info from articles dated Jan. 11, 2009. So it is more recent info than the info from the other older article. So it should be put in the infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 300 number, but you're earlier contention that we should remove the militant category alltogether was absurd. The numbers didnt add up when you only listed police and civilians, as well. But everyone should be aware that these numbers are tentitive and the Civilian and Militants numbers added together are not going to total the "Total Killed" number we are using, and we shouldn't try to make them. I won't even touch your "Republican-led Government" analogy to the situation in Gaza, unless you're also willing to concede that Republicans have killed or exiled every single democrat in Washington and last week shot voters in the leg who had in the past supported them. Maybe I just didn't hear about it WanderSage (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The democrats have not attempted a coup, nor have they tried to subvert the peoples will by unilaterally modifying the powers of the legislature and stripping away the powers of the executive. And im sorry that you keep making this assertion that they should not be treated as the government of (at least) Gaza (i think they should be treated as the government of the PNA), but like it or not, in what was widely reported to be the 'freest and fairest' election the arab world had ever seen, Hamas won. Without intimidation or violence, and without the support of american, eu, saudi . . . support that fatah had, they won because more people voted for them. and if the democrats had attempted a coup, committed treason by conspiring with an outside power to attempt to subvert the will of the people, i bet quite a few would be in guantanamo right now. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

650

Currently a source is being used to quote the IDF saying that 650 Hamas "terrorists" have been killed.[14] I have only been able to find one source supporting this statement. The source also seems to be a bit biased. By contrast, Ha'aretz, just today used 400 as the definite number of Hamas operatives killed.[15] This was also stated by TIME.[16]

Given the above, I'm removing the 650 figure, and leaving the 400 one.VR _talk 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are again separating the cops from Hamas fighters, the IDF counts cops as Hamas fighters, also this may be the only source that says 650 but it is stated by official sources, you are trying to downplay the numbers, and also check a little more better the Net, they claimed 650 because there's half a dozens sources that says they confirmed 400 of the 900 dead to be definetly Hamas and they BELIVE half of the remaining 500 are also Hamas. You are the only one who is making a fuss over this.BobaFett85 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a better more recent article and source:

Discrepancies over number of Palestinian civilian deaths. Jan. 13, 2009. Jerusalem Post.

versus:

"IDF: More than 650 Hamas Terrorists Killed in Gaza". Arutz Sheva. 2009-01-12.

Arutz Sheva is obscure. Jerusalem Post is relatively mainstream and reliable. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the IDF claim out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV. I put this in the notes section of the infobox, along with the reference link:

Jerusalem Post: "IDF said it had established that at least 400 of the dead were known Hamas operatives, and that it believed 250 of the remaining 500 fatalities were also Hamas operatives."

I think this meets WP:NPOV better. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

I'm worried about the increasing repetition of facts. The article is already 186 KB long. According to Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb the article is way too long, as any article over 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided."

In this context it doesn't help when users add lengthy quotes into the article, or when they repeat information in the same section. Repetition also has POV implications, as repeating one sides arguments gives the appearance of more weight to that side.

In the last half hour, there are two examples of this:

• Omrim added the statement "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated." [17] Yet the paragraph right above it already says "According to IDF officers, the number of casualties reported by Hamas is grossly exaggerated." Why the repetition?
• Omrim added 'The report, by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, offered no evidence that the attack was deliberate, and Allegro Perched, a senior U.N. official in Jerusalem who helped draft the report on the incident for OCHA, added: "We are not making an accusation of deliberate action" by the Israelis.' [18] Yet the paragraph one below it, already makes the same point, albeit much more concisely, 'The report, by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs...did not make any "accusations of deliberate action" at this time.' Once again why the repetition?

Note I'm disputing Omrim's reasoning or whether such facts should be in the article, but rather I find it completely unjustified that a user should create such repetitions. To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point. Such actions need to stop, and we need to start summarizing if we are ever to get this article back at the 100 Kb borderline.VR _talk 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree no repetitions should be made. However, I undid your versions since none of the vesrion you edited (or more specifically - deleted) suggested that the reason is repetition, rather it suggested some unreliability of sources, which is not true. Also, by revision, I added BACK stuff which was removed with no discussion. Stuff well sourced and verified, much more accurate than someone's "summery" of facts which conveniently "misses" some relevant quotations in the source. I wasn't aware of the "summary" (it's hard to keep track and for that I apologize), and hence the repetitions. If anything, the "summeries" should be deleted, and not my exact quotations of sources. I, unlike some other users here, tend to rely on sources as accurately as possible, rather than harvesting what is convinient in each. Finally, such minor misunderstandings may be sorted out very easily and calmly in the user talk page. Running right away to the public discussion page to "show me off" is hardly a mature (or a productive) thing to do.--Omrim (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"If anything, the "summeries" should be deleted, and not my exact quotations of sources." Disagree completely. Adding quotations only serves to unnecessarily clutter up the space and increase the size of the article. It also creates a risk of copyright violations, esp. if the article looks more and more like a direct quotation from a source. On the contrary, concisely summarizing viewpoints is the way to go if the article is to be chopped in half (like it should be).

Regarding posting my messages here and not on your user page. I did say "To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point" did I not? My message was directed to users in general.

Also, I and most users on wikipedia prefer to bring up disputes about something on the article talk page, as opposed to user talk page so that we can form a consensus. I really don't know where you are getting the bit about "show me off".VR _talk 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The IDF complaint against Hamas is misleading, since the casualty figure -- 40 -- reported at the beginning of the section comes from John Ging, not from Hamas. The added passage seems like an attempt to shift the blame or focus away from the IDF onto Hamas. This is a standard diversionary propaganda tactic.

Further, I find the emphasis on "deliberate" tendentious. It is undeniable that Israel DELIBERATELY bombed and invaded the Gaza Strip, knowing that many innocent people would die for nothing as a result. If, in the course of robbing a bank, I spray the place with bullets and several people die, have I "deliberately" killed those people? Maybe not, but that hardly lessens the enormity of the crime. If we DO include the denial of deliberate action, then we should also indicate that the 20 Israelis who have been killed by random rockets were not killed "deliberately". And we should quote the Red Cross representative who found the four children. See quotes and cites at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_13#Red_Cross_Reaction

NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why state that the U.N. report offered "no evidence that the attack was deliberate"? One might, with equal justification, state that the report offered "no evidence that the attack was accidental". Either way, we are using a negative to make an unwarranted insinuation. As a prominent supporter of Israel and its wars once said, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". NonZionist (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has any further objections, I'm going to remove the repetitions which we agree shouldn't be made.VR _talk 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Already did it for you. See if you approve my version. As per your arguments, I agree we are in short supply of space, but this hardly justifies a section where every single UN official who have blamed Israel on the issue is quoted, while the IDF version gets a line and a half down the section, and where the only UN official who said something which may be remotly interpreted as not anti-Israeli, is ignored. Summaries are fine, as long as they contain all the elements of each sides version. As of copyright issues, you are correct of course, and I shall pay more attention to the issue from now on. --Omrim (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The repetitions have re-appeared. Moreover, as stated above, the IDF claim that the "Hamas figure" is grossly exaggerated is irrelevant. The casualty figures come from multiple sources and the one sourced here is, in fact, from a UN official. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, if the IDF claims that the numbers the MoH has provided are 'grossly exaggerated' it is indeed relevant. That the numbers have been accepted by a number of people, such as the UN should also be mentioned, but to not note that the IDF disputes the number would be incorrect in my view. Though, and I havent read the source since yesterday, this didnt seem like an official IDF release, rather some unknown officer. I think it would be best to say, an IDF officer (insert whatever word for claimed you want to use here) that the numbers as reported by Hamas, and accepted by the UN, is "grossly exaggerated." and I think grossly exaggerated should be in quotes. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And honestly I dont think it makes the IDF look any better for making this claim, in at least my eyes it make them look worse for questioning the reliability of the UN when they have refused to allow journalists in to verify precisely this information. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on media installations and journalists - under "media campaign"?

Putting the attack on the journalists house under "media campaign" suggets it was an intentional attempt to harm journalists as part of the so called "media campaign". This is wrong. The entire sub-section should be moved under "notable incidents".--Omrim (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be moved under "notable incidents" too. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not our job to judge Israeli "intentions". We should report the ACTIONS, and the actions harm journalists. Killing off journalists is just as odious as other forms of censorship -- more so, one might think. Once again, the word "intentional" is used to whitewash an Israeli atrocity: There seems to be "no problem" with killing people, as long as we call the slaughter "unintentional". In truth, Israel has quite INTENTIONALLY initiated an unprovoked genocidal military aggression against the Gaza Strip, knowing full well that many innocent people would be killed or injured as a result. All of the killing that follows from that initial action should be deemed "intentional" as well. NonZionist (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree then, I'll move it to it's proper place. Where no changes will be made (I'll move it as is), and as Nonzionist said, not intentional agenda will be implicated (such as "genocidal" intentions, and killing journalists as a method of "censorship").--Omrim (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine in either section, and don't object to its being placed under "Notable incidents". Question: where should I put information about the arrests of journalists mentioned here 2 J'lem Arabs to be charged with violating IDF censorship? Tiamut^talk 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This should go in the media section, I think, since the arrest is a derivative of the IDF's censorial policy (i.e. you report what we say you can't report -> we arrest you), which is already dealt with at that section.--Omrim (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Omrim. I added it as a subsection of that section, entitled "Arrest of journalists". Tiamut^talk 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We need more information on the different Palestinian factions involved in the fighting

The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, [19], the factions involved include:

• the Qassam Brigades, affiliated with Hamas
• the Abu Ali Mustapha Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with the (secular, leftist) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Other sources: [20])
• the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with (secular) Fatah
• Saraya al-Quds, affiliated with Islamic Jihad

The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."

According to this source, [21], in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:

• The "An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades"
• The "National Resistance Brigades", affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
• the Popular Resistance Committees
• a previously unknown group called the "Eagles of Palestine"

I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut^talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing. Even though they are considered under Hamas, I am not entirely sure that they aren't a separate entity. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom sees them as separate, List of designated terrorist organizations, so does Hamas itself, and so does the RS consensus as per wikipedia having a separate article. The United States sees them as the same, as do some other countries.--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The official websites of Islamic Jihad's `military arm` al-Quds_Brigades, as well as Popular Resistance Committees's An-Nasser Salahuddin Brigades, have both officially announced their participation, respectively here and here. Alas, it is only in Arabic. The ArWiki entry has them included by the way. --Almasvault (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if a I write up a section that covers the different groups that make up the Palestinian resistance to this Israeli offensive? I'd like to cover their names, political affiliations, numbers (if known), weaponry, tactics, objectives, etc. None of that is covered in the article yet. Perhaps someone might be interested in making a similar section for the Israeli political and military forces involved? Tiamut^talk 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The original mentioned the first strike

Coincided with the school shift. This was elided. When I raised the topic, it was suggested Muslims don't go to school on Saturday. I did a brief check, others may be better at googling reliable sources.

(1)Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza, Sunday Times 28/12/2008 Sunday Times 'Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors. Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames. December 28, 2008

(2) Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturday’s attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school. TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ETHAN BRONNER Israelis Say Strikes Against Hamas Will Continue, New York Times 27/12/2008

(3) I run into the street and everybody is running, children and grown-ups, all looking to see if their relatives and friends are alive. It is the time for children to go to school for the second shift, after the first shift finishes at 11.30am. A Palestinian in Gaza chronicles life under Israeli bombardment by Fida Qishta guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December-Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of things that were mentioned in the intro forged by discussion on the lead page have since been removed, rather stealthily, and without discussion. Tiamut^talk 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Their argument is weak, they just can't assume that everyone live their lives the way Westerners do. Muslims would take Thurs and Fri off not Sat and Sun. Still, the articles themselves should suffice.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is unclear at best. They claim "children on the way home from school" and "policemen parading" were the "principal victims" in the second paragraph. Then in the fourth they say "most of those killed were security men" and "but an unknown number of civilians were also among the dead." The only further mention of children were the children that were playing outside of a school: "One perfectly aimed missile demolished the Hamas-controlled Rafah police station. But the building next door was a school and several pupils were on the street outside when a huge explosion sent shards of shrapnel and concrete hurtling in all directions." Four teenagers were said to be in the morgue, including one fourteen year old. One man was said to have taken his dead 7 year old home to bury in his back yard. This is not a clear-cut article. If children going home from school were the "principal victims," I should think we would have heard considerably more about it! Not merely the mention of four or five children. Would need to see what the next day, less a little of the surprise and fog of war, has to say about it.

With their vandalism, the pro-Israel editors expose themselves. That is one of the few good things that come of this futile effort to reach consensus with fascists. What is to be done? The vandals have overwhelming force. Should we simply let them have their way, so that wikipedia becomes just another occupied territory? What choice do we have? Our one consolation is that evil self-destructs. Give it enough rope and it hangs itself. The collapse of the U.S. financial system will eventually affect Israel, at which point the Zionists may see the fallacy in making enemies everywhere. In the meantime, we who oppose fascism need a place where we can save the reports they censor and suppress. NonZionist (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey NonZionist, may I borrow a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I left mine at the Secretly Controlling The World With Our Big Nose conference, and I got a feeling you might have a spare or a dozen. Rabend (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not your big nose that's the problem: It's your insanely destructive and ultimately self-defeating fascist ideology. Your attempt to cloak this poisonous ideology behind ethnicity is the equivalent of a terrorist hiding behind civilians. Even as a non-Jew, I find your tactic deeply offensive. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a fraudulent work, but some people seem to be using it as a manual. Like an earlier generation of fascists, they will do great harm, but they CANNOT prevail. NonZionist (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut out the crap both of you. And Rabend, that is the second time you have alluded to the Protocols while in dialogue with an interlocutor you disagree with.Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever mentioned them before. Rabend (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I believe it's the second time he has done so with respect NonZionist's comments. So that's twice. I wonder, how many times did NonZionist specifically accused Israel in "genocidal" and other hidden motives? It is getting harder and harder to ignore (I'll keep trying though). Yet, I am relieved to know that our "big nose" is not the problem...--Omrim (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Rabend's line 'Secretly Controlling The World With Our Big Nose conference' was pretty funny. I don't think funny comments necessarily have the same status as unfunny comments. I hope we don't lose our sense of humour here. Things a bad enough already. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

totally disputed

does anybody else find it amusing that we have for the most part gotten along and tried to achieve consensus on such a heated topic, but once a certain editor shows up we get a totally disputed tag? I swear im laughing, not crying. Nableezy (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me but I was wondering why the initial Hamas rocket attacks are under "Ceasefire ends" but the Timeline and Initial bombardment sections start with Israeli actions. This seems POV in itself. Rmhermen (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this tag. User:Jaakobou has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. For a recent example see here. There is already an activediscuss and current war tag on this article and, in my opinion, that is sufficient. Many of us have worked hard on this article to achieve consensus and this tag is disrespectful of that effort. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which editor to which you are refering. V. Joe (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This tag was placed by User:Jaakobou. See this diff. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you V. Joe (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been unlucky enough to be witness to the mortifying of reason on other wiki pages. It is not my values or ideals, neither my personal agenda that has been at fault when seeing how certain editors have derailed 'due process' in those aforementioned pages. It has been, if anything, the ignoring of 'stronger logistical values'. That, is not happening in this page, and for that my conviction is made stronger. Cryptonio (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In Line with This... (Under reactions)

Hi all, I find that this paragraph is objectionable, and I will explain why.

in line with this, "The Vatican sought to downplay the cardinal's remarks... [so] the Vatican spokesman, Reverend Federico Lombardi, called Cardinal Martino’s choice of words 'inopportune'."

The first way I find this objectionable is prose. Simply put, it is awkwardly phrased.

The second objection I have is that it is, if not strongly POV, it does suggest evidence not on the record.

My proposal is to rewrite this paragraph to something like this. Vatican spokesman Frederico Lombardi called Cardinal Martino's choice of words "inopportune." That way the reader can judge what the Vatican's remarks mean. V. Joe (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Rabend (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Total of Palestinian civilian dead

I think my wording is better. No estimate of total civilian dead has been made by the MoH. See this revision of the article: [22]

"No source has made an estimate of the total number of civilian dead. 491 is the total of the following reported dead, and does not include civilian non-elderly men."

I think that is better than

"One source claimed at least 380 civilians dead,<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090112/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel</ref> however other sources claimed 491 dead,"

I showed the ref in the above previous version. Looking at that article it does not say 380, nor does it give a total. It was just discussing the number of women and children dead:

"Figures from Palestinian medics indicate at least 909 people have been killed. The health minister in Gaza's Hamas-run government said close to 400 of those were woman and children."

This article is the source of the current breakdown: http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12514

"RAMALLAH, January 12, 2009 (WAFA)- On the seventeenth day of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, the death toll reached 905 Palestinians, 280 of whom are children and 98 are women, 97 are elderly and 12 medical personnel are among the fatalities. The number of injured mounted to 3860, including 1333 children and 587 women. An estimated 413 are considered critically injured."

The article says it is from the Palestine News Agency - WAFA. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WAFA is saying of 905, 378 are children and women. Something in the vicinity of a third. The two thirds refers to therefore men, 527, who are in turn to be broken down into Hamas militants and male civilians. The IDF's 'over 500' figures earlier cited would identify all men killed as Hamas militants, implying there are no male civilian casualties?Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IDF estimates don't add up. There aren't that many men who have been killed according to the WAFA numbers. See:

IDF: More than 650 Hamas Terrorists Killed in Gaza, by Maayana Miskin. Jan. 12, 2008.

Paratroopers destroy terrorist tunnel. Jan. 12, 2009. Jerusalem Post.

"Based on intelligence and information obtained by the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, the IDF has determined that at least 400 of those killed are known Hamas operatives. The IDF further believes that among the remaining 500, at least half are Hamas operatives."

That is where the 650 number comes from.

As you said; 905 dead minus 378 women and children equals 527 men. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(after Edit conflict) There are several possible answers to the apparent counting problem, here are a few, and I guess the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The IDF claims there are 200[!] bodies of Hamas militants "hidden" in the Shifa Hospital morgue, bodies Hamas does not allow to be buried as to not lower morale. If this is true, and many of these dead are not counted officially, it can make a big difference.

You assume all Hamas casualties are 18+ men. Hamas has in the past "employed/used" both youngsters and women in fighting, and it's quite possible the IDF counts (correctly or not) some of them as Hamas operatives.

In general, the "fog of war" in a place that probably lost all it's statistic infrastructure (and much of it's communucation infrastructure) is so great, that I doubt anyone can give a semi-based "body count". DGtal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, we can't just "add" numbers, especially from different sources. Just like you said that "the IDF estimates don't add up" someone else could argue that it is "the MOH numbers that don't add up". We should keep both, rather than trying to reconcile them mathematically, and state to the source.--Omrim (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let us just state the numbers and the sources, and let the readers decide. Anything else is original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandals are back. Can semi-protection be returned?

Please look at some of the IP edits, and see what I mean. It is hard enough to reach consensus with registered users. There are only so many hours in a day.

Plus who knows how many sockpuppets are among the IPs using them to avoid 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

i though only registered users were allowed to edit this article, that not the case? Nableezy (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the history, and you can see the IP edits. I hope semi-protection is returned and only registered users are allowed to edit. This is common for highly-contested articles in the news. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Attack on UNRWA School

Israel has changed its story yet again, according to the Jerusalem Post:

"We are still sticking by our official position that according to our initial inquiry, the whole thing started when terrorists fired mortar shells from the school compound [at soldiers]," Capt. Ishai David told The Jerusalem Post. "The IDF returned fire to the source, and the unfortunate result was the death of innocent civilians," David said.
-- TOVAH LAZAROFF (2009-01-12). "IDF denies errant shell hit UNRWA school". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-12.

UNRWA continues to contradict the Israeli account. A news article at antiwar.com ("Israeli Military Changes Stories Yet Again on Gaza School Attack". antiwar.com. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-01-12.) tracks the conflicting accounts and provides additional sources. Can I add this information in the UNRWA School section? NonZionist (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the context of this article about the entire conflict, what we have about that incident is more than enough. We can't just list every single news item about it, unless a very dramatic new piece of evidence comes up. Rabend (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, might I suggest adding it to the article on the Al-Fakhura school incident? Tiamut^talk 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. NonZionist (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment?

Hi, Jaakobou's mentor dropping by. Over at ANI I edit conflicted with Sandstein. Was attempting to suggest a content request for comment on the lead and whether it violates WP:UNDUE. Anyone object to requesting a few more eyes on the matter? Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the process intense solutions, like RfC or mediation etc., are not going to be successful while this is an ongoing high profile event. Personally, I think if we can keep the partisan chatter to a minimum the people here will do a fairly good job of working out their differences. I have a very high level of confidence in the ability of some of the editors here, and a number of them have worked together (or in opposition to eachother) on a number of other articles where basic issues have been resolved. Avruch ^T 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly would welcome that, because I for one would like for somebody to rationally explain if this is WP:UNDUE and how. There are a few editors how have inserted unilateral changes repeatedly over the past few days over this, so I would welcome more eyes to look at it. Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my being frank but when Jaakobou, who has a long history of antagonizing with unwavering pro-Israeli editing, launches a wikilawyering campaign to try and change a lead arrived at after many discussions, fails and so takes to unilateral reversions, well, what that calls for is a few more eyes on Jaakobou. RomaC (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC, too. Jaakobou tried several wikilawyering techniques, after that, he changed the lead completely on his own by adding funny stuff that everyone slammed. I've reported about his vandalism edits yesterday on: /Lead#Vandalism_of_the_lead_by_User:Jaakobou. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with RomaC. To be frank (again, wow so much frankness) I think Jaakobou's judgement has been somewhat compromised by the unfolding events. I'm sure he's not the only one. That's understandable but it's wrong and unhelpful. For example, to suggest that supporting the carefully (and painfully) discussed 'Gaza Massacre' sentence somehow equates to supporting Hamas is, well, I'm not sure what to say....a tiny bit inflammatory. As a 'radical atheist' I suppose (to quote Douglas Adams) who supports the consensus, I for one didn't take very kindly to the 'you are either for us or against us' attitude. I've been more of an NPOV observer than a contributer although I, like eveyone else have strong feelings on these issues and my impression is that the majority of editors are working very hard indeed to stop the conflict spilling over to this article. Jaakobou isn't one of them I'm sorry to say, at least not right now. I think more eyes on the matter with respect to WP:UNDUE wouldn't hurt either. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too agree, but Jaakobou's mentor and other admins with whom he regularly conducts off wiki chats are ready to jump in to defend him whenever problems emerge. No matter how many editors complain about his editing and no matter how matter policies he violates, he always manages to get away with it. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Tiamut. Please refrain from characterizing my participation in partisan terms: I have contributed three featured pictures about Palestinian culture and and assisted a good article drive. I am not an administrator, nor am I here to jump in and defend him. A suggestion for formal dispute resolution is pretty far from that. He opened an ANI thread recently, which was closed as a content dispute. If any actual policy violations occurred on his part that would have been a very good time to bring them to the attention of the general administrative community. When Jaakobou was blocked before I didn't obstruct it; it's been a long time since he's needed that, but if there's something blockable he's done since then you're free to raise a new admin board thread. If a situation can be resolved without blocking--through dispute resolution and other regular processes--then of course that's better. I try to be fair (not always quite getting it perfect). With respect, Durova^Charge! 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian resistance tactics - the tunnel network

• Hamas Tunnel System Rivals Viet Cong's Cu Chi Underground

Where is the broader section discussing the weaponry and tactics being used by Israel and by the Palestinian resistance? Should I just start a section on the tunnel system to put into such a section once its developed? Tiamut^talk 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A new header under this article seems appropriate. Perhaps entitled "tactics" or something. LittleNuccio (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"infamous Cu Chi tunnels"...Fox news, you've gotta love'em. That's priceless. I didn't get the impression they were "infamous" in Viet Nam. Oh dear.... I don't think it's appropriate for tunnel related information to be regarded as necessarily related to 'Militancy and political violence' by default. I've already seen some edit warring by people who simply refuse to accept that the tunnels are also used for civilian goods to supply Gaza. Perhaps your focus is just the military aspect of the tunnels in which case perhaps my comment isn't relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Infamous- They were infamous to U.S. Troops and French Union troops in Viet Nam and the French-Indochina War. As an American news network, Fox may reliably expected to have an American prospective (CNN, ABC, etc). Fox is a little more honest about its biases, is all. The Viet Nam war was and is important to American History and how Americans view foreign policy and the world. V. Joe (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the use of the tunnels, lets be honest, most goods have both military and civil purposes. Food can be used as rations for the troops, trucks can be used to transport both good to market and soldiers to the battlefield, etc. In the case of the tunnels, I imagine the Egyptian authorities know precisely where they are and traffic of non-civilian goods and militants are probably restricted. I wouldn't be surprised to see some shooting on that side of the border as well. V. Joe (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Raid Gaza! does not belong in this article

As discussed in the archives, this should be in its own article or in an article on the IT/cyber response to this offensive. It trivializes what is happening here to paste to the end of this article. I've removed it. Tiamut^talk 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree--Omrim (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep.VR _talk 10:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

i thought the same thing when i saw it. thanks for removing it. Untwirl (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does someone keep adding it? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

European MEPs Enter Gaza through Rafah Crossing January 12

http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12515

"GAZA, January 12, 2009 (WAFA)- Luisa Morgantini, Vice President of the European Parliament, and the eight Members of the European Parliament’s delegation entered, Sunday, into the Gaza Strip, through Rafah border crossing. ... "

Someone may want to find other media reports on this, and note it in the Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Do we really need a formal mediation? If so, why? (not being sarcastic, asking honestly) The Squicks (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think medication might help more. I think formal mediation simply wouldn't work right now. If vandalism and unwillingness to engage and cooperate can be held at bay somehow then the article will keep moving in the right direction...and I don't mean being hopelessly biased towards the righteous side of righteousness, I mean it's quality will improve. Which side is the righteous side of righteousness by the way ? It's not clear from the article so I'm not sure who I should be supporting. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then should we remove the Click [here] to create the mediation request for this article. notice on the top of this page? The Squicks (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand mediation requests don't kill articles, people kill articles. My understanding is that mediation doesn't halt work so I don't see it's presence as harmful. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'whom to support' goes, I'm in a conundrum. Morally, Israel has every right to respond to a continuous direct military attack on its citizens by a hostile foreign nation. This is justifiable under law. But just because they have the right to respond does not mean that they should. I personally believe that it is in Israel's material best interests to have a secure, stable Palestinian state at its boarders. And that will only, only', happen when Israel goes toward accepting the Arab Peace Initiative- which means taking diplomatically with Hamas. Hey, I hate the-people-who-stone-gays-in-the-21-century as much as the next progressive minded American. But Arafat and Fatah killed many- many- innocent people too, and we had no qualms talking to him. We talked to Gerry Adams too. And the equally sick scumbag Ian Paisley. And Qaddafi. And (...) The Squicks (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Get on a plane now and start knocking heads together. ahhh...I remember those bizarre days of Jerry Adams on telly but with no sound allowed because of government restrictions. Seems such a long time ago now. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised people didn't try to dub him in with Received Pronunciation- the sharp, Prussian-bred Gestapo officer like tone of voice- to make him sound more evil. The Squicks (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than willing to create a mediation request but I have no idea what to put in it. The only think that comes instantly to mind is that this article pays so much attention to the Vatican "concentration camp" controversy. That material is best suited for another article. It also personally peeves me to no end how viscous the criticism has been and I barely see it as notable, but I'm a Catholic in the Israeli peace camp- so what would you expect me to think? The Squicks (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a mediation request for that kind of thing. You can hammer it out here in the talk page if other editors share your WP:UNDUE concerns. I don't really have a view on it personally although it does seem quite long given the amount of to-ing-and-fro-ing we had getting UN statements in. Israeli peace camp ? Careful now. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, someone coming "from the outside world" and letting us know what looks too long or not notable or whatever. We need a little of that kind of objective perspective. We all have been so continuously involved in this article, that we probably can't see the (burning) forest for the trees.. :) Rabend (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at this point is both useless, and potentially obstructive. As long as we have a ban on anaonymous I/P editors, or one-off edits by newly registered people that look like gaming the system, the article should be allowed to develop as it has. It helps that we have administrators around to deal rapidly with potential incendiary moments, which have been however relatively rare. This will be thoroughly reviewed, trimmed down, once the conflict ends, and drastic choices will have to be made, which will require mediation and various venues for conflict resolution. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to agree with Nishidani here, mediation would cause more trouble than it is worth... The article will probably look a lot better after this has calmed down and as Cerjota has said previously, when the fog of war has lifted. The fullest of details, although the controversy will not ebb anytime soon will be years in the future before arriving in the Media and fully explored by Historians and experts. V. Joe (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alon Ben David

Regarding this update by חובבשירה in the Israeli plans for a military option section. I guess it probably needs better refs given it's potentially controversial nature. The existing ref simply asserts that it is the case. Anyone up for a ref hunt ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I read about this in The Atlantic Monthly. I can't find the link, though. The Squicks (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Al-Fakhura school incident

Could some of you editors who have been fervently working on this take at look at this fork? It's talk page still needs the tags and categorization. The article itself also needs much work. The Squicks (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

War on terrorism

Is this conflict a part of the "Campaigns of the War on Terrorism"? So far, I haven't seen any sources that use the highly specific term "War on Terrorism" in relation to this conflict.VR _talk 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too have seen no such sources, though I do recall Israeli leaders justifying this offensive in the name of fighting "terror". Whether they have further linked it to the "war on terror", I'm sure some have. I don't think however, it is fair for us to uncritically adopt that perspective here. I object the infobox from the "war on terror" series, both here and at the Lebanon War article, but that's another story. Tiamut^talk 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli claims do not justify the infobox. I too do not find the infobox justifiable. Imad marie (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For interest I've just posted this question on the talk page for the 2006 Lebanon War article. The reason being that I don't understand how the decision on whether to put a 'part of the war on terrorism' link is made. If this 'part of' thing is assigned to that war I assume at some point someone will suggest adding it to this article. Maybe it's already been discussed and maybe I'm the only editor who doesn't understand how it works.

• Hi, I'm sure this has come up and been discussed at length before but does anyone know/remember the details of how it was decided that this war would be treated as part of the war on terrorism ? It's probably in the archives but there appear to be rather a lot of them. I'm interested in the decision procedure that is normally used to identify an event as being part of the war on terrorism. Are there guidelines for example, criteria that have to met in order for a particular conlict to get the 'part of' header. Is it a systematic-ish process or a consensus following discussion ? Any advice/pointers gratefully received. Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should think that it is part of the WOT. Hamas is a terrorist organization (according to most civilized countries) and Israel is fighting their rocket barrages. That is a fight against terrorism. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim to give an objective comment, but from the Israeli view Hamas is an important part of the "Axis of evil" (or maybe more precisely Axis of terror) and fighting it is part of the global War on Terrorism. DGtal (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation, unless we find RS that supports this claim then the infobox is not justified. Besides, most civilized countries do not consider this war as fight against terrorism and some have expressed their concern over Israel's use of extensive force. Imad marie (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmm (ignoring your civilized country comment)....well this is why I've asked because to me it's not at all clear who gets to distinguish between resistance and terrorism when the 'part of' get's assigned, the UN ? Since it's presumably not a trivial matter I assume/hope there is a set of sensible criteria somewhere e.g. casuality ratio for 'terrorist' vs 'civilian' must stay withon a certain range or else it gets a 'part of wars of aggression' link instead. heh. Just kidding but you see my point. I would be opposed to having a 'part of' link there unless the criteria for including it are agreed standards in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone expressly stating that the Israeli operation is a part of the War on Terror, except for the Israeli Government and some high-profile columnists. I don't think the columnists' analyses are notable enough for this article, but the Israeli gov't's statement might be an important part of its stance on the conflict and perhaps should be stuck into the part where we report Israel's stance. I think if any other countries have made or end up making the connection with the WOT, that should be included: if the country is less significant, e.g. Georgia - in the "Reactions" section; if the country is more significant, e.g. the U.S. - in the lead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Olmert claims that he embarrased Sec. State Rice by having Bush override her.

This is surreal. This needs to go into the article.

Israel's prime minister claimed yesterday that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was embarrassed by orders to abstain from voting last week on a UN truce resolution for Gaza that she helped arrange.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he called President George W. Bush to seek an abstention from the US, a key Israeli ally at the United Nations.

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."

Olmert said he argued that the United States should not vote in favor, and the president then called Rice and told her not to do so.

"She was left pretty embarrassed," Olmert said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0113/breaking13.htm

--John Bahrain (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further coverage of the "unusual rebuke" in the NYTimes today:

In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.

Ms. Rice did not respond to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, which were unusual even in the context of the secretary’s occasionally bumpy relationship with the prime minister, according to the official.

Privately, Mr. Olmert has said Ms. Rice sometimes had to be reined in for getting ahead of the president on policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

--John Bahrain (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the report here: Olmert says called Bush to force change in U.N. vote. I agree it's notable and should be mentioned. The question is where? Should we have a section on diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, where we could include this, the UN security council resolution, the Un human right council resolution, the Egyptian iniatiative etc.? Tiamut^talk 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all this go in the 'International Response to' page and not this page? The Squicks (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

anti-semitic Image

The article currently contains the image of a boy holding an anti-semitic sign. This image was inserted by User:Mbz1. This is part of a set of three images. The description below one of them -- which succinctly summarizes the event according to the photographer ( User:Mbz1 herself (/himself) ) -- reads: "A hamas supporter is driving the car full of kids yelling, and not looking at the road ahead of her (endangering the kids in a car and people on the road) at pro-w:hamas anti-w:Israel rally in w:San Francisco. She was driving back and forth quite a few times.The sign on the car reads: "Jews are terrorists"

Are we seriously supposed to insert this image or one of its cousins into the article? There is no independent verification that this image was indeed taken at a demonstration or even in San Francisco. Nor is it clear why this person(in the car) or her views are notable .. was she a prominent speaker or an organizer? Did most of the demonstrators agree with her (almost certainly, not!).

I suggest this picture be removed immediately. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the image in San Francisco myself. I removed her license plate number from the image to protect her privacy. I've never said that most speakers were agree with her (they probably were), but this image is important because it show how easy to get from anti Israel demonstration to anti semetic demonstration.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is a useless image, it should be removed. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand why we have so many pictures of pro-Israeli protests and the effects of rocket fire from Palestinian militants, and ZERO pictures of Palestinian victims of this assault. Tiamut^talk 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is image of pro w:hamas supporter, and not pro-Israeli supporter. That's right you cannot understand anything.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking generally, but thank you for your thoughts. Tiamut^talk 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree to keep the image?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I agree with other editors that the image is problematic and it's inclusion here places undue emphasis on a minor phemonenom among protesters (which are a minor subject of this article to begin with). Tiamut^talk 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV so much as the fact that (with foreign photographers unable to get into Gaza) there simply aren't as many free-licensed pictures of Palestinian suffering as there are of Israeli suffering. An amateur/freelance professional photographer (those two groups take most of the photos on Wikipedia, am I right?) who wants to go to Ashkelon or Sderot and take pictures can do so, but the same isn't true of Gaza City or Jabaliya. So the only potential source of photographs is from Palestinian users of the English Wikipedia who are a) Photographers and b) Willing to stand in the open at places Israel is bombing so they can take photographs of the bombing. Cynical (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't understand? You seem to have followed this page and participated in a thread or two that discussed images specifically. And you still don't understand? Or do you feel much better implying that there is a pro-Israel conspiracy than acknowledging the real reason? -- tariqabjotu 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariq, was that directed at me or at Tiamut? Cynical (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going answer that question, because it's not in any way ambiguous. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Tariq doesn't like me much and the feeling is mutual. In any case, anyone reading the comments can see who is talking about "pro Israel conspiracies", and it ain't me.

My point was that there should be no pictures in this article, until we can find a balanced selection, something brought up in the previous discussions on this subject. But since Tariq prefers to assume bad faith, rather than focus on article improvement, we are left with crappy comments, irrelevant to this discussion. Tiamut^talk 15:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. The photo insets are the poorest on the page, and will have to be worked out consensually later. I've no doubt anti-Semitism exists among protesters. I've no doubt people think that placing an antisemitic image next to images that register protests makes an effective comment on those protests. Just as when 100,000 people protested in Rome against the war in Iraq, 5 thugs or mugs shouted 'May 100,0000 massacres of (our) Italian troops in Iraq occur'. The newspapers never commented on the 100,000. They commented on the snapshot of the minority, and that has, since then, become the standard political device for challenging the bona fides of anyone who participates in a protest over the use of Italy's troops abroad. It would be quite easy, I suppose to rummage for an image of Channel 2's, Yonit Levy, and a photo of the petition of 32,000 names asking for her to be sacked because she betrayed some emotion on Israeli tv at the sight of Palestinian victims? There's tons of prejudice around, on all sides, and to cue in the protests with antisemitism is begging far too many questions.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... sure. Your line of attack is nothing new to me: Imply accusation of ulterior motives by exaggerating the article's content. Let someone infer that accusation. Claim you were not implying that. Ask someone to assume good faith.

I'm not interested, Tiamut. Your position on this conflict is visible from a mile away; don't expect me to not call you out on it out of fear you'll drop the AGF card. -- tariqabjotu 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered being an Israeli government spokesperson? They need people with your facility at doubletalk. Tiamut^talk 15:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it, Tiamut. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariq and Tiamut... You need to stop. This talkpage is not a forum for continuing your disputes from elsewhere. The subject of this page and discussion is improving the article, and that's it. Avruch ^T 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what a talk page is, thank you. Nothing I said here is particularly off-point. (P.S. This should probably be moved to another place or indented in response to something, because it's confusing here.) -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should yes, but he's an admin, and he has singled me out for criticism more than once, over things he infers in my statements. I'm sick of it. Tiamut^talk 15:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture was replaced. "If they are removed, I'll put them back" is the specific comment on User:Mbz1's Talk page. I removed it again with a call for User:Mbz1 to discuss with other editors here. RomaC (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What other editors? As was said here: "There are much more Muslims on the NET than Jews in the world."--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Worst. Argument. Ever. There are numerous reasons as to why this point is irrelevant and presumptive, but I will simply say that an image should illustrate something mentioned in the article and in proportion to its relevance to the topic. Antisemitism, as far as I can tell, is at the fringe of pro-Palestinian protests and deserves, at best, a line about it in the text of the article. Not a whole image. It seems like you're trying to make a point with some of the images you have been adding and it's becoming increasingly disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK agree that the argument was stupid. Sorry. Cannot agree that I'm trying to make a point. The point is made over and over again by pro-hamas supporters. I only document it with the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did Yahoo news search for this subject, and please do not tell me it is a minor, non-excisting problem. There should be a section in the article about it with at least one image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cynical's comment actually was of a technical nature, shading however into irony, and didn't warrant the comment it received, implying 'bad faith'. Tariq, your position on all I/P articles is visible from a mile away as well, so let's drop the personal remarks, and threats about AGF. For the record, as it now stands the page has

• Two images of qassam rockets in Israel (top of article = Israel the victim as first impression)

• One generic image of smoke over Gaza, which could be read either way (neutral)

• One on UN deliberation 1860 calling for a ceasefire (neutral)

• Two images of protest, balanced pro-Israel and pro-Palestine from San Francisco.(neutral)

• One from the third world (Islamic protest) (the usual Arab street), which can be read as anti-Arab or pro-Arab depending on one's prejudices.

Not one of the havoc within the Gaza strip. Draw your own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current selection of images is not representative of the event. RomaC (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, you should be unsurprised to learn that I don't consider your analysis of my political positions as worth even a grain of salt. I have been called both a Zionist and an Arab nationalist on this project, testifying to the fact that, as in the real world, people will make wild accusations of bias that reflect not their target's bias, but their own biases. I was instrumental in improving two contentious articles related to this region to featured status, and that doesn't happen with a bias "visible from a mile away". I have opinions on this issue, and many other political issues, but, as we are all requested (but some do not do), I do not let them interfere with my writing and I do not trumpet them on the project. In fact, on this issue, my political stance is not particularly disruptive anyway.

In light of that, anyone can play that image game.

• Two images of qassam rockets in Israel; shows how weak and powerless the Hamas rockets are (top of article = Palestinians as helpless victims)

• One image of smoke over Gaza, which, in comparison to the previous image of damaged trees, shows disproportionate force (pro-Palestinian)

And so on. (Also, Tanzania is not the Islamic world.) If you want to see bias either way, you can see it. I think, as the article stands now, the images are fine given the body of images we currently have at our disposal. You are making the same absurd mistake Tiamut is making; implying there is bias surrounding the fact that there are no images from inside Gaza, when the real reason, as stated numerous times, is that we do not have any free images from there. We don't have pictures of bloody Israelis either. -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For interest, I think the smoke over Gaza image was loaded by חובבשירה Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points I suppose. 1) the user has 1 therefore maybe more. 2) if someone by default assumes political motives and assigns a score as a kind of metric of the 'bias' of an image they might reach the wrong conclusion about the motives of an editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is from Flickr, and that person does not have any more relevant pictures (I already checked). My descriptions of the image was purely hypothetical, and not necessarily held by me. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Disclaimer duly noted. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict with Avruch)

tariqabjotu Thanks for reminding me of what I learnt as a 14 year old. Dar es-Salaam is an Arabic term, and that is on the image. The population demonstrating is in all probability an Islamic one. I don't want to see bias one way or another. I analyse and make deductions, and I give my reasons why I think, based on that analysis, there appears to be bias. In reply you have given your personal opinion or impression, and dismissed what was an attempt at dry analysis as an 'absurd mistake', and drawn me into a dispute you have with another editor. Please just reply to the numerical analysis, which is based on rather simple calculations of relative weight. Thank youNishidani (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I misread your comment referring to "third world (Islamic protest)" as "Islamic world...", but beyond that I see no reason to respond. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. As it stands the ratios indicate the highlighting of Hamas weaponry, and damage to Sderot, then. As a minor courtesy, though I will not take it badly if you do not care to respond, I would appreciate if you struck out the suggestion I had made an 'analysis' of your 'political opinions'. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more balanced set of images, myself. Images of used rockets, and rocket damage, don't represent the scope of events. Obviously if there are no images available, that's that. There must be some, somewhere, though - even if some enterprising editor has to ask for an image to be relicensed. Keep in mind, also, that we aren't absolutely limited to free images - I'm not an image policy expert, but there is some allowance for fair use. Avruch ^T 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Background

I would draw editors' attentions to this section, which is totally inadequate, though no easy thing to draft properly. For one it implies that the blockade was imposed when Hamas came to power, which is untrue. The blockade of Gaza preexisted the elections which turned over the administration to Gaza. There are many other elements, but in reading sources, it would be helpful if this was kept in mind.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

with regard to "specific incidents" heading

these statements:

"It pointed Arab media reports that civilians had, back in 2006, taken shifts serving as "human shields" of the Barud residence.[444]

Hamas continues to hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to human rights group, B'Tselem holding Gilad Shalit hostage is a war crime, since "international humanitarian law" prohibits "hostage taking". B'Tselem also said that the denial of Red Cross visits to the prisoner was a "blatant violation of international law".[450]

are not relevant to this conflict. both of these sources refer to events happening two or three years ago. i propose they be removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I reccommend moving this information to the main page on the conflict rather than just deleting it. The Squicks (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

sound fine to me - although they are probably already there. i'd rather let a more exp editor handle that. if anyone is game . . . Untwirl (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel bans Arab parties from coming election

• Israel bans Arab parties from coming election.
• Can we cover such developments in this article, and how and where? Tiamut^talk 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are probably better places for this type of information, since it isn't directly related to the current conflict. Avruch ^T 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You think so? I guess I'm having trouble looking at it objectively, since the decision directly impacts my so-called rights in this so-called democratic state. Sorry, I have to say I'm just more than a little bitter. Tiamut^talk 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the "Only Democracy In The Middle East" is bombing neighboring democracies -- first Lebanon and now the Gaza Strip and soon, Iran -- while disenfranchising those of its own citizens who have politically incorrect genes. How is this not fascism?! NonZionist (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist:

1. Please read my comment from the subsection above, and then

2. Please stop commenting in this article/discussion. Your incessant racist SOAPing is offensive and disruptive to our collaborative effort.

Rabend (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT "collaborative effort"? I don't see how it is possible to collaborate with people who give primacy to an ideology of war-making and ethnic division. There has to be some common ground for collaboration to be possible. Where IS this common ground? I love freedom. I am anti-fascism and anti-war. I believe that all are created EQUAL. I believe that all should have EQUAL rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. DO we have any common ground? NonZionist (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Raben, TY, I apologize for feeding. I also am going to attempt to lower my blood pressure.

I think that this event should be barely noted in this article (if at all) and should instead get its own article. Please keep in mind that this is not a done-deal by the Israeli government and the appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court might lead to the cancellation of this act.

Let us please agree to dump the term "fascism" when applied to the Jewish state or in any article not associated with Mussolini, Nazi Germany or Franco. I don't even like it in a talk page V. Joe (talk)

Let us please agree to use whatever terms are appropriate. A "fascist" system is characterized by suicidal military aggression, censorship, centralization, ethnic supremacy, nostalgia for a distant golden past, dehumanization, demonization, and the primacy of the state over the individual. Seventy years ago, fascism resulted in tens of millions of deaths. Deleting this word from our vocabulary deprives us of the ability to identify the fascist disease and prevent new outbreaks. NonZionist (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to this article. Try to stick to things that are actually a part of this conflict, and not random things to make Israel look bad.

And to the point - there are limits to what parties can run. A classic case of a democracy defending itself - an anti-democratic party, for instance, should not run, as the case of the Wiemar Republic showed us. Regarding a party that directly opposes the nature of a country (Jewish, in this case) - perhaps also justified to prevent its running. Meaning - the entire state, the system, the democracy, is built upon certain rules, certain assumptions and justification. In this case, it is the nature of Israel - both Jewish and Democratic. Actually, I believe (and hope) that the supreme court will reverse this decision, as it did before the last election. These are actual feelings in the Arab public, and it is in everyone's best interest to keep as many people as possible in the democratic system, and not operating outside it, feeling ousted. But this discussion is irrelevant for this article. okedem (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

if the article notes the gaza conflict as a cause of this action then it probably deserves a brief note in this article. otherwise it is a separate, although disgraceful, issue. the argument that the jewish nature of israel is not to be diluted with non-jews is probably also used by "settlers" participating in pogroms such as this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043795.html Untwirl (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tiamut's link suggests that one of the indicate consequences of the war is that a large minority of the Israeli electorate is to be disenfranchised because of their ethnic origins. That is quite unbelievable. I agree with Okedem's point. I don't think the Supreme Court would uphold the electoral commission's proposal. But this does not blind one to the fact, itself of significance, that an Electoral Commission could even make that kind of decision in a democracy. But it is a reliable source, and will have to eventually go into some section on aftyermath, consequences.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is much ado about nothing. I am 100% certain (well, 99.9%)that the Supreme Court will overrule it. It has happened in the past with other not-so-notable Israeli politicians who used their memberships in the electoral committee to make a small political fortune. As far as I recall, the last time the Supreme Court upheld such a decision, was when the committee disqualified Kach and Kahane Chai from taking part in the election.--Omrim (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? This isn't the place for emotional discussion about the conflict, or for critical comments of Israel. Everyone editing this page should be here to discuss the article, and ways to improve it, and nothing else. The issue of Israeli Arab political disenfranchisement is real, but not party to this article subject. Avruch ^T 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rabend (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Gaza conflict. These 2 parties were banned by the court in a process that started weeks before the war. Also, their banning happened because of their anti-Israeli charters where they don't even recognize Israel, and they support Palestinian terror against Israel and etc. They were ruled out because they are anti-Democratic, anti-Israeli parties that have no place in Israel's democracy. It's the same if an Anti-American party would try to run in the US elections. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• This information is very notable and should definitely be covered. However, I doubt this article is the right place. You can try Arab citizens of Israel, elections in Israel, Democracy in the Middle East etc.VR _talk 10:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody wants to follow up on this and has time, I suggest creating an article Disqualification of political parties, or perhaps Disqualification of political parties in democracies, since I suppose in dictatorships any such individual action isn't notable. Some wikisurfing led me to interesting info on Spain, Turkey and Thailand, in their "List of poloitical parties in X" articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt and a few other pseudo-democracies, so i dont think we would need to have an article specifically about banning in democracies. But I think that article should certainly exist. Nableezy (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) First, I cannot even imagine the idea that a party or an individual could be disqualified from appearing on a ballot in America, so that claim that an 'Anti-American' party would be disqualified is beyond comprehension to me. David Duke has held public office here, and has run in many presidential elections. If the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA were to gain the signatures required to be on the ballot, that they call for the destruction of the current capitalist system would be irrelevant, they would without question be allowed to run. And I do dispute that this has nothing to do with this conflict, the source says that, at least, it 'reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip.' The source is certainly drawing a connection, maybe not that the current conflict caused this ruling, but that they are related. I think this deserves mention in the article. Not an entire section, but I think it should be mentioned. Omrim, I hope you are right that this is a temporary situation, but I think that until that happens it merits inclusion. And if we have sources linking this particular case of disenfranchisement to this conflict, I would say that it does in fact belong in this article. But that is just my opinion, and as this article is already quite large, I will of course yield to consensus. Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to mention it don't make it appear as if it is done and can't be changed. It is taken to the supreme court of justice (bagatz - the high court of justice - loosely translated) and it is expected to be denied - that they WILL be able to run. Don't show it like politicians don't have to abide to the laws when they don't want to. This is not the first and not the last problematic decisions politicians make. The supreme court makes sure they aren't contradicting the laws of Israel and it being a Jewish-Democratic state. The banning of parties can be done if those parties are against the state but there's a thin line between wanting to change the state and supporting Hamas which wants to obliterate Israel entirely. If someone will support Hamas he or she will probably won't be allowed to run - the problem is banning a party because of one individual which is the problem here as I gathered - one person or two were suspected of supporting Hamas and are for the destruction of Israel. --62.0.156.213 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sources specifically says that the Israeli Supreme Court can overturn these decisions and has indeed done so in the past, and that should be included in this. Nableezy (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)