Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Unreliable source cited

How on earth can someone cite a sentence from a PBS show:

But WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way.

This is not a reliable source. I'll delete the referenced sentence in Wikipedia till noted otherwise. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? PBS is one of the most respected media networks in the US. The Squicks (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is patent nonsense, I'm reverting that change. The Squicks (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Darwish, I am sorry but this is like super-reliable. Its like quoting BBC, except better, cause PBS is not government run. --Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is not government run, its funded by a tax run by the government called the licence fee. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

However, for context, this should be included, if we quote: "The allegations have not been independently confirmed by reporters on the ground–the Israeli military has banned foreign media from the Gaza Strip in what the Foreign Press Association has called an “unprecedented restriction of press freedom.”" By reading the source, it is being made obvious that the article is providing balance with this sentence, and we should follow their editorial example. In fact, we are required to.--Cerejota (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! How much of the information in this article has been "independently confirmed by reporters on the ground?" Probably 2%. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this appeared in mind too. I'll add this information. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not in the US. I just thought it's yet another TV show. I apologize. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, at least I didn't know. Some people here in previous debates criticized BBC Arabic because it was written by "Arabs" :). --Darwish07 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that we take everything bad about the Israelis at 100% face value without any attempt to context, while bad things said about the Palestinians must have clarifications, context, etc and create drama and hand-wringing? The Squicks (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. For example in the lede, most things put there because of "Pro-Israeli" requests (the city names for places attacked for example) have one or two sources, while things that are there by "Pro-Palestinian" (for example Gaza massacre) require almost 10 sources, and even then there is no possibility of full consensus, just rough consensus by sheer reverting. I would offer that in any case it is pro-Palestinian things that are met with impossible-to-meet challenges, and the article itself, with out providing any input, is challenged as "non-neutral" with all-or-nothing demands that leave no room for consensus other than "my-way-or-the-highway".

And not to boast, but both are additions I created and added (well my original arab translation was machine generated so it was changed). I will defend just, sourced, and relevant content that makes me learn things about this conflict, regardless if editors percieve it benefits one side or the other. So far I have concentrated on the lede, title, and to a lesser extent structure and MoS, because the conflict is ongoing and the fog of war is thick. But I will give my opinion on the body.

(BTW, I do agree with you that section on the medical attacks is badly named, and there should be the response by the Israelis to this - its out there. However, it should remain and it is relevant: most editors who have criticized want it removed: an untenable situation, as these are verified facts. The reaosn the ISraeli view is not presented is because editors that might source it abstain because they oppose it altogether: when it comes to consensus, silence is acceptance.)

It is a fact of wikipedia that there is a significant pro-Israel bias, not for any sinister reasons, but because our definition of reliable sources excludes any press that might be sympathetic to the pro-Palestinian voice. The same thing happens to pro-Israelis in Arab Wikipedia, or so we are told. So protestations like this are disingeneous at worse, and uncurious at best... go out there and see that most articles on the I-P and A-I conflict are heavily biased as pro-Israel, even if they are NPOV and well sourced - a fact illustarted by the number of FAs that no pro-Palestinian editor accepts, and the lack of the inverse. The evidence simply doesn't support your assertion.

That said, I think the biggest problem this article and other I-P and A-I articles have is not POV-pushers - that happens all over wikipedia. Its that good editors from either POV get caught up in the Manichean "us v them" mentality of their E.I. and CAMERA controllers instead of following their instincts as Wikipedians and letting the facts speak for themselves. We can come together and build a featured article. There is no need to provide narrative if the facts are presented in a neutral, encyclopedic voice. We have other controversies that are equally passionate, like Abortion, which nevertheless have move forward because editors don't get caught up in the extremists and pov-pushers of their own side and instead move forward with. If it were for me, recent events wouldn't be covered in wikipedia at all if they are on-going, to allow less passion. But then I hate poke-cruft too, and we have Mudkip and crap...--Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Word. We have had editors claim that BBC Arabic is not reliable to give an Arabic name to the conflict, and it is unreliable because, and this is a rough quote: the BBC Arabic is written primarily by Arabs. It is not written by British journalists who happen to speak Arabic. And that Aljazeera suffers from this same issue. You can see it in the Archives (10 i think). That I saw that as an utterly racist assertion that Arabs are somehow incapable of accurately reporting even the name of something in Arabic should be understandable. Cerejota, small note, PBS is partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is in turn federally funded (see it on the newshour every night), though I agree its reliability is equivalent to the BBC (like i said, watch it every night). Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but a very quick stroll through some A-I articles shows the fallacy of "pro israeli" statement. Case in point the entire fourth paragraph relies heavily on publications that have been refuted in Wikipedia itself. --84.109.19.88 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'Blockade agreements' - Let's re-open some old wounds

I tried to make the section as neutral as I could- citing the disputed claims of both sides. Supposedly, the Israel government disputes the figures cited by BBC, The Nation, and The New York Times given that it has its own contradictory figures. I believe that there was a discussion about this somewhere in the talk page archives. Does anyone have any idea about what those figures are? The Squicks (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which figures you are looking for. Shabak - An official source has the following concerning attacks against Israeli civilians and hamas takeover of gaza: The increase in attacks between 2005 and 2006 (the year hamas assumed control of Palestinian legislative council) was 17% (1831 during 2005, 2137 during 2006). between 2006-2007 the increase is 41% (2137 during 2006, 3032 during 2007). During 2008 a high attack rate was preserved (in first 6 months 1828 attacks which constitute 60% of entire 2007). Starting 19-June-2008 (the low hostilities agreement) there is significant reduction in attacks, but by 30th NOV they have reached 2019, or 67% of total 2007 attacks [1]

these numbers are provided to show direct correlation between hamas seizure of power and attack intensity on israel, which led to the blockade in the first place. As for number of trucks entered during the period - I would assume OCHA is RS, more than either Israeli or news agencies. Certainly raw data can be compiled from the reports, if no one had done that already.--84.109.19.88 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I only skimmed the previous discussions on photos, so somebody please inform me if I'm just being clueless, but isn't there some verifiability criterion for photos and their captions, too? My question is prompted mainly by the horrifying picture of the dead baby. I mean, if there's a photo of a demonstration where a bunch of people are holding Palestinian or Israeli flags, I think "well, it's pretty obvious what this is, it would be hard to fake, and besides, why would anyone want to", so I won't be inclined to ask questions about its authenticity. But I look at this image and, honestly, I can't tell if it's a baby or a burnt plastic doll (which is a horrible thought, if it is a baby), and of course there's nothing in the photo itself that indicates that it has to do with this conflict at all. This may seem overly cynical of me, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and have to be cynical: in a conflict where public perception counts for so much, aren't we to consider the possibility that somebody on either side could burn a doll, or at least adopt an unrelated photo from another situation, in order to score PR points? Also, in this particular case the source of the image (International Solidarity Movement) says that the baby was run over a tank. I don't know much about tanks, but I would expect that in that case (and the horrible-ness just gets worse and worse) the baby would be, you know, crushed and covered with tread marks; which just whets my skepticism more. Answers? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The description says "...This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank.." that would explain the burning marks. Tire tracks are not always clearly visible. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(00)00234-6 ) --helohe (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

oh, there is already a discussion about the picture above. --helohe (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Request_permission_to_upload_photo

If a picture of a Palestinian baby is placed in the article, I wonder if it might be possible to try to find a picture of the Israeli baby who was reported to have been injured in a rocket attack. PinkWorld (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

A discussion regarding balance and proportionality has been started above at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Request_permission_to_upload_photo.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance and proportionality aside, shouldn't we try to find what where exactly this picture was taken so that we can report it on the image caption? Then it could say something like ... with this child dying on 13 January in the al-Nabkya market district attack so that the image makes more sense to readers. The Squicks (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The baby was killed in the attack on Zeitoun, discovered two days later when medics were finally allowed to collect the bodies. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I oppose this picture too. My condolences to her/his poor mother, but it adds nothing to the article. I prefer pictures showing the huge destruction of Gaza, the attacks on the police station that made ~30 dead bodies instantly on the ground, the 300 meter queue for people on The UNRWA stores begging for bread. This is the stuff that describes and shows the crisis, not a dead baby one. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not preference, it is about availability. And we use what is available for us. Shukran for opening the photo to a vote btw. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the picture adds nothing to the article. It shows the human cost of the war and some of the realities on the ground. I do not oppose the inclusion of other pictures. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is footage of the body in the hospital (needless to say I don't think the scene was staged), here is the link [2] starts at 2:20. Here is the description "In a report Thursday, the UN said thirty of the victims killed in the Zeitoun attack had been taking shelter in a home on orders from the Israeli military. More than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated there and told to stay indoors. Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.

Attia Barami: “The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I oppose this picture too. Please remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I advocate its removal too. It's sensationalist, not representative. -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy against "sensationalist" photos? That seems like a fairly subjective standard for the removal of cited information from Wikipedia.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose- Without re-going over "why" I oppose the inclusion of images of this sort V. Joe (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "sort" you are talking about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no vote taking place. This is a discussion. "oppose" doesn't suffice. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a consensus being attempted and it is absolutely correct that people express their opinions. I too oppose any sensationalist pictures. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the "National Enquirer" or some other equally terrible tabloid. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it's inappropriate to continue "voting" when people ask for discussion and have pointed out sections above where this issue is being discussed. The argument that the photo is "sensationalist, not representative" is weak. One-third of the casualties are children, often killed in their homes or in the streets while fleeing for their lives. The photo is a strong image. It makes me wince actually. But I don't think the fact that it provokes a reaction is grounds for non-inclusion. It's a document of the violence of war and its effects on children. This is an issue covered by a number of RS's in the article. Please consider engaging with some of the arguments being made above. Tiamut^talk 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One third are children, but how many are babies? -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think a vote is appropriate I am amenable to a vote. But I think it belongs in its own section, properly labeled so there can be no misinterpretations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Much of the discussion that occurs here indicates that we do not grasp the realities of the slaughter. We try mightily to avoid offending the killers, and we think that is what "NPOV" requires. If we could put ourselves in the place of the victims of this insane orgy of killing, we would begin to understand that be neutral, it is first necessary to be human, and to be human, it is necessary to have compassion for the victims. If photographs can awaken our decency and release us from our ivory tower, then include them. NonZionist (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This is an Encyclopedia. The photos shall not "awake our decency and release us from our ivory tower". That should not be the purpose of photos at wikipedia.--Fipplet (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up Encyclopedists: "They promoted the advancement of science and secular thought, and supported the tolerance, rationality and open-mindedness of the Enlightenment". Encyclopedias, are not written by robots; from the start, they have been written by human beings and they have promoted certain values. If the photographs can help to bring us down to earth and move beyond counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then we should include them. NonZionist (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, Encyclopedias should only provide us with knowledge, not make us human, not make us feel certain feelings. that is a result of knowledge. If it provides us with something, with a purpose besides "enlightening" us, then it isn't an Encyclopedia that can be trusted.

Most people here seems to oppose the picture and there isn't really any good reasons to keep it. It is very graphic and, as I see it, disrespectful to the victim. I think we should remove it now.--Fipplet (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera offers its photos and footage under creative commons license

• It at their website here [3]. Shall we select some photos for uploading at Wiki commons? Tiamut^talk 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we need to arrive at an agreement as to which to upload to the article. Rabend (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Their CC license is "NC" which makes it incompatible with GFDL and the CC license used by Wiki Commons. Sorry but the content can't be used. Content in Wikipedia MUST be able to be used commercially. --Cerejota (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Says on the website: "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use." Also, on the license page, "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." These are videos not still photos, by the way... (but I suppose screen captures could be made?) RomaC (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The website footer says "Unless otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Please see licensing information accompanying each individual video. " When you click on a video it then says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", which can be used commercially. I think this makes the footage (and stills that are derived from it) compatible. 155.69.179.33 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have video editing software they can use to capture stills from the video available at the site. I used to, by my new computer still doesn't have such a program. We really need visuals for this article on the impact of the offensive on Gazans, so any help in getting stills from this material would be much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be easy, use the download link and open in VLC and under Video, Screenshot or what it says in English. — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm downloading the program now and will post photos in commons from it after I capture some stills. I'll try to put in a wide selection so that we can decide which ones we want to use. I encourage others with video editing programs to do the same. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an update ... I'm downloading the video for Day 18 and it looks like it will take all day. If others want to download other videos to take stills from them, don't do Day 18. We should split our efforts. Tiamut^talk 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ah crap, I forgot you were uploading day 18 footage. I took the screen shots for nothing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows movie maker takes stills, though quality isn't always great. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With Vista snipping tool, you can take snap shots while video plays making downloading unnecessary, but if size is an issue, you would have to download the video. I will upload an example --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[4] from day 13. Please tell me what you think --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fine. Please upload it to the Commons. Be sure to say exactly where you got it from, or it will be deleted. Name the date, location, and provide a short description too if possible. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A note, the whole site now says "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use. This means that news outlets, filmmakers and bloggers will be able to easily share, remix, subtitle or reuse our footage." which makes all of it kosher (i had to use that word, cannot think of another way to describe it, so please nobody take it the wrong way) Nableezy (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Halal? >:)--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my American life has weakened my ability to think in Arabic. But nicely done :) Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Its taking forever to download the video. I want to do it that way to get a high quality still from it. Falastine, your example looks okay to me, but I don't know what others think. Tiamut^talk 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a video snapshot someone uploaded: File:GazaZeitoun.jpg --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Free video and snapshot tools and categories

Snapshots from the free videos at http://cc.aljazeera.net can be uploaded to the Commons via commons:Commons:Upload, and categorized in these categories or their subcategories:

• commons:Category:War casualties
• commons:Category:War damage
• commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict
• commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties

Create more subcategories as needed. The Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository may eventually include photos and videos from various conflicts and wars. I sent them an email asking them to post some free images too.

Short videos can be uploaded too if they are converted to formats accepted by the Commons.

The template to use on the image or video page: Template:Cc-by-3.0

{{Cc-by-3.0}}

The direct upload pages if you already know know the license, and its copyright tag:

• commons:Special:Upload
• Basic upload form - This is good for uploading multiple images one after another. Paste in the basic info.

Some (mostly free) tools, help, and resources:

• commons:Help:Converting video
• commons:Commons:Media help
• commons:Category:Commons resources
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop --Timeshifter (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

commons:Special:Upload is not easy to use with specialized license tags. Please see:

• commons:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Special:Upload is not uploading for me

Fortunately, {{Cc-by-3.0}}, is found in the license selector menu at commons:Special:Upload. It is called "Attribution 3.0" in the Creative Commons part of the license selector.

For specialized license templates such as the one in the next talk section it may be easier to use this:

• Basic upload form

Everything else is uploaded by the normal upload page linked from the sidebar of all Commons pages:

commons:Commons:Upload --Timeshifter (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you ask them to post videos in lossy formats as well (the available ones are hundreds of MBs each) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVent (talk • contribs)

http://cc.aljazeera.net/contact is an online form for comments. It says

"Please use the contact form to provide us with feedback on the Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository. We'd love to hear how you're using our content and what sort of content you'd want us to consider adding to the Repository."

I left a comment there myself asking them to post photos too since they probably already know some of the best photos to be found in the videos and elsewhere in their archives. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Many more free photos from ISM (International Solidarity Movement)

Please see:

Flickr: ISM Palestine's Photostream.

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/ismpalestine

It says the photos are taken by ISM members. See

• International Solidarity Movement

All the photos from there that I have checked so far are licensed under

• http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

See commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0

The image license tag to use is

{{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}

Paste it into the image or video page on the Commons during or after uploading. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely nothing from ISM is acceptable. ISM makes the IDF look like an unbiased source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • We use pictures from partisan blogs and independent photographers all the time. For example, New antisemitism. If its free and relevant, we can include, in fact, we should. Unless it is proven beyond doubt to be staged and shooped, and then it should go into Pallywood, not here. --Cerejota (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on my understanding the application of Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy, I think you are wrong. 1) Photos from partisan blogs and independent photographers should not be used. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources notes, "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." 2) Just because it is free and relevant is NOT good enough to include it in wikipedia. 3) If something is NOT from a reliable source, the burden of proof should NOT be on those who object to material being included, but rather the burden should be ON those who WANT it included. I have created a section below to discuss this. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I *think* you are wrong. We allow for self-published photos all the time, in fact a huge quantity of the images that wikimedia hosts are from photos taken by users themselves. The restrictions on images, as I understand them and were explained a few archives ago, were that sourcing was more relaxed for photos than for prose. I am not entirely certain, and unless somebody who is sure can answer I would suggest the OR or RS noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And most RS images are copyright. Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong. I appeal to both good judgment AND some authority here to explain how the policies of Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability apply to photos. I would argue strongly, however, that good judgment should be applied in context. I can understand a difference in standards between someone taking a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge and asserting "this is the Brooklyn Bridge" and someone taking a picture of what looks like a dead baby and saying, "this is a dead baby that was killed at such-and-such an event". The latter would seem to demand a much higher threshhold of reliability. Don't you agree? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at New antisemitism. There are two pictures from a partisan blog, of non-notable people, in non-notable demonstration used to illustrate points in the article. WP:IMAGE is clear that images should be judged in terms of how they illustrate the text: if the text is reliable, then whatever is illustrated is reliable - regardless of origin. WP:NPOV does say that "due weight" considerations apply to images, so balance in images should exist. SO those are the only two content considerations. The rest is legalese (copyright) and technical stuff (formats/size etc) --Cerejota (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please ease up on the wikilawyering, Lawyer2b. The images are fine to upload and fine to use in articles where the images are relevant. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b wants to prove that he really earned his ID by hard work ;). --Darwish07 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Images are being uploaded. Palestinian casualty photos should be categorized in:

• commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Timeshifter (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-Check

Who and why removed the tag? I searched the edit summary and no dice in the explanation, and I will not go around comparing versions. We need that tag because significant neutrality issues have been raised that we are unable to fix so we need uninvolved set of eyes. I see no reason to remove the tag. --Cerejota (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, I think one the major problems with the article is about the presentation of IDF strikes. Note that the article baldy claims that Targeting of medical facilities and personnel has occured at the hands of the IDF. This does not seem right at all. The idea that the IDF deliberately searches out ambulances, clinics, and hospitals and destroys them in order to murder as many innocent people as possible... this is not a statement of fact. This is a higly controversial allegation made by one side against the other. The Squicks (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I see that someone changed the section that I created called Alleged abuse of medical facilities into Abuse of medical facilities. This is the same problem, only flowing the other way. Neither biased phrasings should be here. The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed with zero explanation by User:Dimorsitanos. Squash Racket (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now both sections use the term Alleged [...]. That's a start twoards a much stricter NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed header back to "Attacks on medical facilities and personnel". There is no doubt they have been subject to attacks, though whether or not they were intentionally targeted remains debatable. Tiamut^talk 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend re-added the word "Alleged". Could other editors discuss here please? There's a fundamental difference between attacks which Israel acknowledges making and the PR spin it puts out claiming Hamas militants are in the civilian buildings it admits to attacking. The fact that the buildings were attacked is not dispute, even though the reasons surrounding the attacks are.Tiamut^talk 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a problem given that the phrasing "Attacks on _____" subtly implies that those facilities were intentionally targeted. Think about it. A section titled "Attacks on their own citizens" that describes an incident where a failed Hamas rocket hit a Palestinian area would be equally biased for the same reason, the phrasing "attacks on" implies intent. We cannot imply intent here.

If we going to neutral and not imply that either claim is true-- that they were targeted or that they were not targeted-- than we should phrase it differently. What about something like "Danger to ______" or "__________ destroyed"? The Squicks (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As well, I'd like to ask: If Israel supposedly wants to destroy Gaza's heath care system and is deliberately targeting it as a total war strategy, when why would Israel be taking injured Palestinians into its own hospitals? It makes no sense. The Squicks (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that some other editor has changed it to Israeli attacks resulting in damage to medical facilities and personnel. That's much better, IMO. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the phrase 'attacks on medical facilities and personnel' does not imply that the attack was intentional, it only implies that there was an attack. The phrase 'alleged attacks on . . .' in my mind makes no sense, either there was an attack or there wasnt, and alleged should be used if only one of the parties, hamas or israel, is accusing the other of something that is denied. If there are RS stating that there was an attack on these facilities, then the title should be 'attacks on . .' and if there is only speculation then it should be 'alleged . . '. But there is no subtle implication that the attacks were intentional, if that was the intended implication then the name would have been 'intentional attacks . . .' To me the phrase 'alleged attacks' is the opposite POV equivalent of 'intentional attacks', where just 'attacks . . .' takes no POV. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has changed it back to Attacks on medical facilities and personnel and Abuse of medical facilities while refusing to comment and explain their reasons. ARRGH! As stated before, the phrasing "Attacks on ____" and "Alleged _____" are both POV and we must to fix this. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on is not POV. You keep equating "Attacks on" with "Alleged" in terms of POV, but what would be the equivalent of "Alleged" would be "Deliberate" or "Intentional". Attacks on its own does not carry with it any prejudice either way. Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not saying that the attacks were accidental. The implication, then, is that the attacks were deliberate. Bending over backwards to excuse and whitewash Israeli war-crimes does not constitute NPOV! If Israeli medical facilities were reduced to rubble, would we be using the word "alleged" to absolve the bomber and cast suspicion on the wounded victims? Yes, perhaps the victims are only hallucinating, or perhaps they blew up the clinic themselves, just to make Israel look bad! Since the victims do not have the IDF imprimatur, they are not a "Reliable Source", so let's shut our ears and cover our eyes and pretend that Israel did not "intentionally" attack Gaza and all of the victims died "accidentally" when they "deliberately" got in the way of Israeli bombs and bullets. NonZionist (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew

If anyone here speaks Hebrew, can they read this YNET article about allegations about improper use of text messaging (at least that what I understand the article is about)?

Sadly, I don't. However, is Israel now being accused of improper text messaging along with massacring babies and medical personnel? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Hebrew. So I don't know. For all I know, the Jews are sending each other erotic literature via texting for instant stress release. The Squicks (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) first, whats the point of this, second it is easy for anybody to get a reasonable translation of almost any website. why dont you let me google that for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently Hamas is sending civilians in southern Israel text messages warning them about rocket attacks? Isn't this notable enough to put in the article-- this means Hamas is trying to avoid civilians casualties just like the IDF does with its messages? The Squicks (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly non-notable in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless we add a humoristic, anecdotal section to this article.. Their "psych warfare" text messages are in such poor English/Hebrew that if this wasn't a war, it would be almost funny. Rabend (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Or you can see the photo in the article: http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/28102008/1788242/SMS_Wa&91;1&93;.jpg
There was an earlier message sent with bad Hebrew ( http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3648737,00.html ) which translates to: "Do rockets until all cities not to defend you shelters, qassam rockets, hamas" - something like that. http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-187322-00.html?tag=11-56-17 reports a new message that translates to: "The nazis commited the same horrible crime you are now committing in Gaza. And like the Nazi leaders were tried in Hague, so will you be judged in front of the International Court of Justice and come to your punishment" - it's a bit too literal of a translation... tried as in tried in court, come to your punishment - receive your punishment. It says that it's signed "The Hamas" and that this message was sent from England and that the police is aware of it and is dealing with it. It says the message was recieved by thousands of subscribers (cellphone subscribers - it doesn't specify if it effected just one cellphone company's clients).--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this notable? It's a novel instance of propoganda/psychological warfare. This may be the first time in history that text messaging has been systematically used for that purpose. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I was completely mistaken. These text messages were sent as a matter of psychological warfare against Israeli civilians. In that case, I agree with Jalapenos here. The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So it matters which side is doing what to determine notability? I think it is non-notable either way. Nableezy (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this qualifies for psych warfare, albeit an unsuccessful attempt, since these messages are sent to 10000s of civilians. Additionally, Hamas reports about kidnapped soldiers. Again, they are largely unsuccessful, but i see them as tactics. Rabend (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

HORRIBLE article

As a neutral reader of this article, all I can say is that it's way too long, biased toward different point in different sections and contains incorrect informations and useless ones as well. Trying to correct mistakes goes nowhere as fanatics are trying to restore what they wrote every 2 seconds. Perhaps when the conflict settles down someone will trim the article and fix its neutrality. --66.36.140.174 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as another reader trying to stay neutral I'm not sure I understand who you mean by 'fanatics'. The editing is certainly polarised, that's for sure but if you have specific instances that you can identify with 'diffs' that demonstrate the action of a 'fanatic' it would be very useful to see them. Naturally you need to compare the edit made to the associated reference cited to check whether the edit is verifiable first. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that it's gone somewhat awry lately. Turning, again, more into "let's add evidence that Israel is evil" instead of a succinct, objective article. Really discouraging. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I think you're faulty in here. If all the facts are properly cited, then the facts speak for themselves. If the facts put Israel in a bad sight, it's not the problem of the editors who cited those facts. Also remember that my imperialistic analysis says that a huge number of the details are actually from Haaretz, Ynet (badi'ot ahronot), Arutz Sheva, IDF statements, Livni statements and lots of other pro-israeli sources. Sources from Hamas and Arab media are close to null. Really my point is, why blaming the facts if most of the cited references are on the pro-Israeli side? --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree that it's a matter of the existence of facts. It's a matter of selective reporting of facts. You have more than enough facts to support either claim that both Israel and the Palestinians are committing war crimes, or whatever anyone wants to suggest. However, it seems that one side is more intent on posting whatever they can to prove that the other is pure evil. Posting more evidence does not mean that this is what's going on real life. It only reflects, in this case, the unbalanced intent and activity of one side. Rabend (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think Rabend has a point. The article is very much in danger of suffering from NPOV drift resulting from sampling errors due to the polaristion of editors. And the longer it gets the higher the risk as Rabend alluded to. It's kind of inevitable I guess especially if things like entire sections aren't being properly discussed on the talk page before being added. It's clearly true that different camps are focusing on their own areas of interest rather than there being a shared common interest of improving the quality of the article. Maybe I'm overstating it and generalising but I do think 'less is more' needs to be considered for this article at some point. Not a very helpful comment I suppose... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, point to specific issues and let's try solve them together. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove anything that makes Israel look bad. Simple as that. In fact, probably best not to mention casualities at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)..hell, let's delete the article. What war ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sean, that was helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a lot better than my first idea which was to replace the article with a redirect to a picture of a kitten. More seriously though, if you want a serious suggestion, I think what would be useful would be for an experienced Wiki editor to take a step back, look at the article from a distance in the cold light of day rather than the hot fog of war, try identify the key features that should be included or split off to separate articles and propose a hign level structure that could be discussed and agreed. The article is mushrooming at the moment. Maybe it's not the right time yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article isnt that bad. At least as far as im aware, my work is limited to only a few parts of the article. I can only suggest you get involved, bring conflicts to the talk pages and dont give up because there are some reverthappy editors out there :). Infuriating though it is. Superpie (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Massacre

I wonder if the implication in the lead that "Massacre" is only prevalent as a description in the arab world needs adjusting. It seems to be used in plenty of non-Arab countries including non Arab Islamic ones but also places like Bangladesh: [5], London: [6], [7], Auckland NZ[8], Australia [9] although that one may be a blog, and by all sorts of people like George Galloway etc. --BozMo talk 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you cited two "opinion" sections (first Independent article and the Australian "source").

The other Independent article doesn't use the phrase "Gaza massacre" for the whole operation only refers to a specific incident. The New Zealand "source" is a press release of Unite Union, NOT an article.

Try with something more convincing next time. Squash Racket (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps you could think a little deeper before asking me to be "convincing". We are discussing prevalence of a description not trying to establish a fact, since what the article mentions is prevalence of a description. That a description is used in opinion sections of prominent Western papers means that it is used in places outside the Arab world (and you can find immediately another ten countries on Google, excluding ones like the Jersusalem Post who put the phrase in inverted commas) I just got bored listing them). I make no claim that the people who have used this expression outside the Arab world are NPOV individuals, just that they are not part of the Arab world. The implicit limitation to the Arab world is poor. --BozMo talk 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should know that "opinion" sections and press releases don't count as reliable, neutral sources. Bring more convincing, meaning higher quality references than these. Every single time we try to establish common usage of a name/phrase we do this based on reliable sources, not blogs and the like.
Or do I miss something here? We could bring low quality sources to establish the term "Gaza Holocaust". I think you should "think a little deeper" as you suggest regarding to where this would lead. Squash Racket (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what I said, please think more. Reliability of sources depends on what you are trying to establish. When you are simply discussing the usage of a term opinion pieces which use it are significant. When we are discussing "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World" then notable opinion pieces outside the Arab world using the expression are relevant.

The term "Gaza Massacre" occurs on more than 20,000 UK websites including the British Communist party, opinion pieces in major newspapers. Of course loads of these, perhaps all of these are non-NPOV sources. These are not neutral sources but neither are they arab. It also appears in a lot of Asian (non-Arab) websites not as a quote but as a description. It also appears in opinion pieces written by Palestinian sympathisers. To limit noting its usage to the Arab world is no longer accurate. I am not suggesting that we call what is going on the Gaza Massacre based on the present media description but that we widen what the article says from "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World" to something like "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World and by some commentators elsewhere".--BozMo talk 13:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to waste anymore time here, the article is quite messy anyway. What I know is this: whenever we try to establish common usage of a term/phrase/name on Wikipedia, we only use reliable, neutral sources, not partisan references, blogs, press releases, etc. especially in heated, controversial topics like this. And once again: with your new method the term "Gaza Holocaust" too can easily be established.

But I guess your suggestion will be popular around here. Squash Racket (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Reliability of sources depends on what you are trying to establish." That is not true. I think reliability of sources depends on the reliability of sources. Please think more. Squash Racket (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, life is short. I am happy waiting and reviewing later and as you say the article is pretty rough. --BozMo talk 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi BozMo. I agree, that the phrase is being used beyond the Arab world. Earlier, there was a bit of discussion of how we could demarcate the set of people/countries that are using this phrase. For example, this phrase seems to be quite common in Iran and in Turkey and, as you say, in parts of South Asia none of which fit into Arab world. Nevertheless, 'other commentators elsewhere' is a bit unwieldy, especially since 'other commentators' have also used other names for this conflict. Lets keep thinking about this and perhaps a review later will change the terminology to something more accurate. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, I have also seen numerous non-Arab sources using the term "Gaza Massacre." This should be a matter of as you say, adjusting the phrasing. But frankly, if you look at the Talk archives, you'll see that it has been a constant struggle to note in the article that even Arabs are using the term. Countless challenges, ranging from it's OR to it's not NPOV to attempts to dismiss based on the application of capitalization or quotation marks to coordinated wikilawyering to repeated unilateral reversions by editors who should know better have come and gone over the last days. Somehow Wiki policies have sort of prevailed here, but the shell-shocked editors who've been holding the fort might be wary of provoking another wave of attacks by adjusting the phrasing. In any case, the term is most widely used in the Arab World, I'm just satisfied that much has survived. RomaC (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not think it matters what anybody besides the Israelis and the Arabs, more specifically the Palestinians, are calling this. We use Arabs because the Arabs as a group are involved in this, as evidenced by the Egyptian-Franco ceasefire negotiations, the meetings of the Arab League, of which the PNA is a member, the representation of the Arabs in the UNSC by Libya, and that the name in Gaza will almost certainly be the name in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Amman . . . I don't think it as at all relevant what it is being called in Iran, Malaysia, Antarctica or whatever. Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

from the article: "Similar claims were made by Arab media and Palestinian sources during the 2002 Battle of Jenin but were later proved to be false.[citation needed]" I found the citation.

'No Jenin massacre' says rights group
By Paul Wood
BBC
3 May, 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin. The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
...
Much of the controversy about Jenin has concerned the number of dead with the Palestinians claiming hundreds and the Israelis saying less than 45, and all of them fighters. Human Rights Watch says at least 52 Palestinians died of whom 22 were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed wilfully and unlawfully the report says. Palestinian civilians were used as human shields and the Israeli army employed indiscriminate and excessive force, the report says.

My PoV is chomping at the bit to say something. I wonder if there is any way to connect the section on accusations of massacre to sections related to international and humanitarian law. PinkWorld (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

That line should be removed as utterly irrelevant to this. This article is not about Jenin, even if the line is utterly inaccurate as regards to Jenin. Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit summary and edit

Please take a look at this: [10]. I object to the edit summary and the edit itself. What Rabend removed were not "sob stories", as he put it, but facts regarding the circumstances under which these facilities were hit, the number of people they served, and the reactions of people concerned by their destruction. Rabend also in a subsequent edit added the word "alleged" before "attacks on medical facilities and personnel", even though there is no evidence to suggest that these attacks did not happen. In fact, Israel admits to hitting some of these places, in one case calling the clinic to warn people to evacuate.

I would ask other editors to intervene here to restore what has been deleted and to restored a neutral title to the section, not one that makes false equivalences. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these were the "sob stories" deleted:

• On January 12, a Palestinian doctor attempting to evacuate the wounded from a building hit by missiles in Jabaliya refugee camp was killed when a third missile was fired at the site by an Israeli helicopter.
• Barry Morgan wrote to the Israeli Ambassador to London asking for an explanation as to why Israel had attacked the Shij'ia Family Health Care Centre which served 10,836 families, who had "effectively been removed of any hope of medical provision and support."
• Patients and workers were given only fifteen minutes to evacuate, before the bombing.
• No warning was given prior to the bombing. The well-known center, which served 100 patients a day was clearly marked as a medical facility, and is located in the middle of a residential area, with no government or military facilities are nearby. Tiamut^talk 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever restored the material. I hope that Rabend comes here to discuss his edits to this section before attempting to delete the material again. Tiamut^talk 16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am here. I don't think this article should include every bit of information available about every incident. Should I include the stories of the civilians hurt in today's Grad attacks in Be'er Sheva? Or rockets landing in a (thank god it was empty at the time coz everyone's in shelters) kindergarten in Ashdod?

"The kindergarten was home to 28 children ages 2-5. No military constellation can be found anywhere near it. The attack traumatized the children and parents alike, and perhaps they will suffer from long-term PTSD as a result. The kindergarten teacher described the horrific consequences of the attack, saying that it will take long months to repair the damages. etc etc."

And this is just one incident. Do you want me to do the same for the rest? Stick to succinct facts. This is an encyclopedia. Not a "60 Minutes" report.

And the doctor getting killed is indeed sad, but I doubt the helicopter recognized him as medical personnel and decided that he should thus die. He happened to be there. If a nurse in Sderot was hit today by a Qassam exploding in her house, should I include it as well? And Barry Morgan(?) writing to the Ambassador is notable enough? This article needs to be shorter, providing very relevant facts out of the inifinty of facts there are out there. Rabend (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add whatever material you think is relevant to the article. If other editors disagree with your additions, they can challenge them on the talk page.

Please do not remove relevant and notable material added by others, particularly without discussing your deletions here.

If you feel Dr. Barry Morgan, who represents the clinic, and asked for an explanation from the Israeli ambassador, is somehow not notable, make your case here first.

There are no justifications for the other removals you made.

Finally, there is a tonne more material that should be added to this section, due to Israeli attacks on Al-Quds hospital today. Gaza: Destruction to medical facilities "unacceptable" and Israelis shell hospitals and UN HQ. I will be adding more to this section in the hours and days to come. I expect that you will refrain from making deletions of relevant, reliably sourced and notable information. Tiamut^talk 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will edit material that is not relevant enough for this article. If you want, you can start your own private blog documenting all the horrible one-sided atrocities committed by the merciless murderers. I'll be happy to read it and finally learn the truth. This, however, is an encyclopedia. We do not have the volume for all the details of all the incidents that ever occured. I will not post the horror stories of those injured by Hamas militants, as they are not integral to this article. I expect you to do the same. Rabend (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As (un)luck would have it, indeed a hospital nurse and her 7-year-old son were hit by a Grad missile today. The son has a piece of shrapnel in his head, and he's in serious condition. I doubt he'll ever be the same. No, this is not note-worthy enough for WP. Rabend (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, we ought to include both. Personally, I find the Hamas attacks on completely civilian Israeli schools, hospitals, children's playgrounds, and so on to be more morally upsetting than Israeli attacks on Palestinians facilities of that nature that Hamas turned into their staging grounds with civilian human shields. But all civilian death is a tragedy, regardless or whatever side. And all civilian deaths are relevant to this article. The Squicks (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, all civilian death is a tragedy, but I sincerely doubt that "Archbishop Barry Morgan wrote to the Israeli Ambassador to London asking for an explanation as to why Israel had attacked the Shij'ia Family Health Care Centre..." is important enough to be included in an encyclopedic entry. We can't include everything. We have to, unfortunately, apply a threshold of importance for inclusion. This will leave some of the descriptions out. For both sides. Isn't this reasonable? Rabend (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The information about the Doctor's death I find to be notable, but the removal of the other info seems to be a good faith effort to tighten what is presently an extremely long article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle about keeping a narrow focus. As well, the Effects on Israelis section needs copy editing (the material is fine, it's just not written very clearly). But I personally think that the letter from Morgan is notable, since it has been covered in the news and since it involves the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection warning

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

Article is semi-protected for two weeks. --Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This page is very close to getting protected for edit warring. Please make sure to discuss edits here. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think edit protection is needed. That will simply stifle article development. What is needed are more admin eyes on this page, looking for edits that are made in bad faith. There are lots of them, and we could use help isolating them and making sure that those making them understand that such shenanigans won't be tolerated. Tiamut^talk 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many bad faith edits going around. Rabend (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of edits are in good faith. Personally, I strenuously oppose protection. The Squicks (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It id bad enough that registered editors do edits without summaries or talk page discussion etc, which in a controversial article I consider the signs of vandalism, to have anon SPAs with all the duck signals of meattery and socketry and an uncanny grasp of the intricacies of 3RR and slow edit warring to continue un opposed. I am all for anons editing, I am also for anons returning the favor and respectind the BRD process. Its quid pro quo. Of course, we can let them open so that the statistical analysis tools tells me who are the socks and puppets. :D Less drama is better, I say. --Cerejota (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection from anonymous IP edits

I believe semi-protection needs to be returned until the war is over. The number of IP edits has increased greatly in the last few days. Many are vandalism without edit summaries, discussion, etc..

Wikipedia:Protection policy: "administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption – for example, due to media attention – when blocking individual users is not a feasible option."

Can someone make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I don't have time at the moment. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested.--Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a comment. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1,000 Casualties it's officially a war now

With more than 1,000+ casualties the article should be renamed 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War. Kermanshahi (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a war, it's a massacre. But if you prefer more "neutral" wording, might I suggest 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza. Tiamut^talk 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Swedish newspapers seem to call it "Attack on/in Gaza" "Israel's attack on/in Gaza", don't know about other countries. If their headlines etc take notice to the one-sidedness of the conflict. — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it also fits quite perfectly the criteria for a siege, as in the Siege of Jerusalem But we won't be able to say so until academic sources settle on terminology.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good and there already is a Siege of Gaza, so either Second Siege of Gaza (though I'm guessing there's been other)or Siege of Gaza (2008–) (2008– to indicate still ongoing) — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By happenchance, I read Arrian's account of that late last year (Book 2). The wiki page on Alexander's siege is not much chop, and should be on User ChrisO's list of things to do. Artillery was fundamental there as well. Thanks for the link fix, and this reminder Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

this is a battle within a war in my view. And comments like that Tiamut are not useful. Superpie (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is of course welcome, but it's a fact that many people in the world view this as a massacre, a fact recorded in the lead of this article. It's not the description that's inflammatory, but the actions of the ground. Tiamut^talk 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is likewise welcome, but massacre is an emotive and judgemental term, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre". This is unquestionably a conflict between Israel and elements within Gaza, its for the reader to review the evidence and deduct the currency of "massacre" as a description, not for a few editors to decide from the go. Superpie (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reminds me. We need more pictures of those 'elements' within Gaza because we only have the victim from the Zeitoun incident and the baby so far which may not be enough information for a reader to make an accurate assessment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie, I expressed my personal opinion, one that is shared by millions of people, that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a massacre. You are free to disagree with that position and express you own opinion. I did not however suggest we name the article "Gaza Massacre". If you are really interested in minimizing unconstructive discussion, rather than responding by pretending that I am suggesting something I am not, you would focus on the merits and demerits of my actual suggestion for the title, and not my opinion, expressed in passing. Tiamut^talk 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my private moments, I think of the phrase 'eine grosse fröhliche Jagd' as pretty close to what's going on. But back to editing. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a war, it's a massacre. But if you prefer more "neutral" wording, might I suggest 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza. Tiamuttalk 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)" Tiamut, I will not apologise for reading into that comment and noting the unusefulness of suggesting the merits of it being known as a massacre. Dont lace your comments with opinion and get huffy when somebody takes exception.

I have already commented on the issue of a name for this article elsewhere and in my view, the 2008-09 Gaza/Israel conflict does the job fine. Yours is biased because it ignores the role of rocket firing in bringing about the conflict. Ok? talk) 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'War On Gaza'? 'Massacre'? Here we go again, with people refusing to accept the fact that there is a difference between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian combatants/miliants and asking the article to make them be the same. Sigh. This is not a "War on Gaza". This is a "War in Gaza". in Gaza and not on Gaza. This is a war between Hamas and the IDF taking place inside the area of the Gaza strip. This is not a war between the IDF and every last man, woman, and child living in a certain area (which would be an extermination campaign and not actually a war).

These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate. Look at basically any article based off of The Troubles, where Irish civilians were in danger from British soldiers, or the Second Chechen War, where Muslim civilians/Russian soldiers, or the 2008 South Ossetia war, where Georgian civilians/Russian soldiers, and so on. There are so many instances where we could use inflammatory language and we have sources for them but we stay neutral. The Squicks (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

its not just Hamas and Israel fighting though is it Squicks talk) 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we too stay neutral, bearing in mind the Israeli philosopher Anat Biletzki's point that that impartiality between Gaza and Israel brings us back to comparing the numbers. Over 900 people, out of a population of 1.5 million, have been killed in Gaza. That is equivalent to 180,000 Americans being killed--in two weeks. Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Since Israeli hospitals have fortified bomb shelters and since Hamas agents shooting rockets at those hospitals are incompetent (as one user once put it, "I made a better rocket in my 5th grade science class"), there have been very little suffering so far. That somehow makes it morally right? Would you suggest that the nurses and doctors along with their patients work outside so that the international body count can be more even? The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But enough soapboaxing. I'd like to point out This article in today's The Economist that makes the distinction right in its headlines: The war in the Gaza Strip and How the Israelis might end their assault on Hamas. Note that the IDF has an assault "on" Hamas. It is fighting "in" the Gaza Strip. The Squicks (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a really important distinction that is not getting across enough. The war is against Hamas militants, and is taking place (unfortunately) in Gaza. Indeed, it is not a war against Gaza. Rabend (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the POV stated by the Israeli government through numerous proclamations, but I honestly dont see it as true. The very first attack was on a police station, sure you can call it a Hamas police station, but it was in fact a Gaza police station. Israel has decimated the infrastructure of Gaza, destroyed multiple schools, the entire governmental structure, and wiped out near the entire electrical grid. That Israel makes the claim that it is attacking Hamas and not Gaza should not be presented as the title, it should be presented as the POV of the Israeli government. Nableezy (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would draw parallels to the Iraq War, where the stated POV of the Bush administration was that this was not a war against Iraq or Iraqis, but against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime. I seriously doubt that anybody in all seriousness can question whether that was a war on Iraq or a war on Saddam Hussein. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What I said was a general statement, and not regarding the article. If Israel was truly fighting Gaza and not just the Hamas, Gaza would no longer exist. All the damage you mentioned was either part of the Hamas infrastructure/militants, or collateral damage due to militants firing from there. Had Hamas fought only outside heavily populated areas, I doubt there would have been heavy casualties. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm putting it out there, since I am very familiar with Israel and the morals of the IDF. Rabend (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? "If Israel was truly fighting Gaza and not just the Hamas, Gaza would no longer exist." What????? Are you you saying that if Gaza was the target, it would have been obliterated by now? ---Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, I took that to be a suggested name for the article for using "War in Gaza" rather than "War on Gaza" or "Gaza War". Though I think the point about fighting outside of populated areas is incorrect because of the fact that the Gaza Strip is the 6th most densely populated place in the world. How many open areas are there to conduct any type of defense? Also, as you rightly said, Israel possesses the capabilities to completely and totally wipe out the entire Gaza Strip, probably enough to wipe out the entire Middle East. Who in their right mind would assemble in an open area and challenge that clear military supremacy. Hamas does not have tanks, they do not airplanes, the do not helicopters, they do not have an type of accurate surface-to-air missile, they do not have any effective anti-tank weapons. That such a situation would turn into urban guerrilla warfare should have been obvious to an eighth grade history student. Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So due to its military inferiority, Hamas had to take this war into its population centers (I probably would have done the same), and that's why we can't avoid civilian casualties in this conflict. Rabend (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont think Hamas has taken the war anywhere. They live in population centers, and one day Israel attacked them (not going into any justifications/legality arguments/whether it was an attack or counterattack) where they were, which were population centers. And as one of the stated goals was destroying the Hamas infrastructure, that translates to destroying Gaza infrastructure as Hamas is the government of Gaza. But whatever, I was just trying to say we shouldnt call it 'War in Gaza' Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They should not have made their bases and hid their ammo in these population centers. They knew a war was coming, they boobytrapped every other home in Gaza and tunneled everywhere. This could have been avoided. Let's just hope for better times... Rabend (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think calling it a war against Hamas is something of a simplification, there are many militant elements in Israel which this article notes later on, but not in name. Thoughts? p.s. Calling it the war on Gaza is quite inaccurate, I read somebody suggesting the Economists choice of term "war in Gaza" which fits much better. Superpie (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By definition, an attack on Hamas is an attack on the Gaza Strip. When a nation attacks the governing body of another, for our purposes we'll say territory, they are by definition attacking the territory. Too many times I have seen people try to make the distinction, as if Hamas had never won an election, as if they are not both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. When the US attacked government structures in Iraq they attacked Iraq. When the Israelis attacked the government structure of Gaza, they attacked Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this notion. Secret motives aside, I do believe that the Iraq invasion had the potential of helping the Iraqi people free themselves from a dictatorship. I don't think the US was aiming to be in a war with Iraq. Only with its leadership and army that supported that leadership. Rabend (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

People, I know its hard to let go, but it turns out once more Cerejota's crystal adamantium balls (handle with care) were right. We should rename to "2008-2009 Gaza War". I won't gloat anymore except to say that ALL the media in the middle east, including Israeli media, is calling it so (besides massacre). There is near unanimous agreement that what we have here is a momentous historical milestone, that marks a new phase on the I-P conflict. It is time we listen to what the reliable sources are saying: yes, "assault", yes "massacre", yes "war on hamas", yes "war on Gaza", yes "Palestinian lovefest". The reality is, and has been since the weeklies came out last Friday, that this is now known as Gaza War. Man, even the damn protests for and against int heir propaganda call it the Gaza War. I implore all of you to consider and ponder the sources, specially the more thoughful, less newsy ones (le monde diplomatique, the economists, etc), and call this by the name historians are calling it, in the fashion they call Capital W War. Examples abound Pacific War (how can you make war on an ocean?!?!?), Six Day War (how can you make war on a week sans Sabbath?), Phoney War (I mean, historians have a weird sense of humor!!!) etc etc etc. "Gaza War" doesn't imply action, it implies historicity, it implies encyclopedic value. Lets not fight the wars here for a second, and ponder that. Thanking you in advance... --Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If this 2008-2009 conflict is a war, then what was the previous eight month (sorry, 6 month. Wishful thinking Superpie (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) ceasefire, peace? Calling this a war is inaccurate. Superpie (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And if this is a war then why did it get bumped from "In the news" to make room for the Golden Globe Awards? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But I should say that I'm okay with the "Gaza War" title. I mentioned that a few days ago on the Lead page. Although I'm not quite sure that we can say what historians will call it in the future. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The title "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War" is neutral and acceptable. 2008-2009 Gaza Massacre, 2008-2009 War on Gaza, Second Siege of Gaza, 2008-2009 Gaza Holocaust, and so one are not acceptable at all. The Squicks (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could direct everyone to that lifeline of evidence freedictionary.com, war is thus defined: "a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." and so on, so forth. We dont call the Israeli–Palestinian conflict a war do we? Conflict is more accurate, gives greater suggestion to the true chaotic nature of this event. Atop this, its definition is very similar to war so I see no real argument in terms of defined meaning, only potentially suggested meaning and conflict ties to the established norm already noted in describing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Superpie (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my issue with the present title: "conflict" denotes, usually, a series of battles, incidents, massacres, killings, etc etc etc, of a more or less chronic nature. It is aslo used in the media to refer to any armed confrontation between organized groups, be them state or para-state. For example, there is the Arab-Israeli conflict. But inside this historic conflict we have the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the 1982 Lebanon War/2006 Lebanon War. Likewise, we have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inside of which we have many discreet incidents. This is the first that is an actual War in the most classic sense: there are two sides, both well armed, and both with regular troops and weaponry. This isn't an intifadah of suicide bombers, sniper towers, kids with rocks, and riot police. This is War. It is a consequence of the unilateral withdrawal. Historians will mark this as a phaseshift.

BTW, am ok with Israel-Gaza War if that is a compromise, but like Gaza War better because its shorter and the RS use it way way way more, so it has "well known name" going for it.--Cerejota (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't call it 'Gaza War' because there already was a 'Gaza War': At the Siege of Gaza. The Squicks (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?--Cerejota (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't feel to me like a "war", as I'm expecting something more intense and all-encompassing than one country's operation against a militant organization with many civilians getting in killed in the way. But I'm willing to go with it, since indeed it does seem to be the term used most commonly. Additionally, the 2006 Lebanon War is remarkably similar in many ways, and it too is a "war". Rabend (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Temporal Context"?

This entire section is garbage. Most of its sources are highly biased opinion articles or ideological websites. We even cite Wikipedia itself as a supposed source (WTF?!). The idea that 'The United States has long made war against the Palestinians' is highly biased and is stated baldy as a fact without a specific reference. Must we refuse to distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian militants in this section? This is highly controversial.

The 'Iranian part' and the 'American Part' have the same problems, only from opposite ends: One uses biased pro-Palestine sources to make an original research synthesis and the other uses biased pro-Israel sources to make an original research synthesis. The Squicks (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire section needs to go too. Any attempt to reduce the size of this article surely needs to look at this before removing sourced info about attacks by the IDF. The section has already proved fertile ground for some ninja edits, it's taking up space that could be more usefully used to describe what is actually happening in Gaza and most importantly it's removal wouldn't damage the article. What about if the people who produced this move it over to a separate article if they want to continue working on this aspect of the Israeli actions and it's context ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about the international reactions to this conflict. Wouldn't information about the United States' reaction belong in there? The Squicks (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anywhere it should be in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article I guess. I was going to mv it to my /tmp but I see you have already abducted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I copied the whole section from the history and put it in User:Sean.hoyland/tmp. If whoever created it has a warm feeling of kinship towards the text it's there if you want it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my fellows, how we limit most coverage of notable punditry to a sub-article? Say, I dunno, Commentary on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I am just saying that we need to give the quote farmers some land to sow, amirite? Main article should be for the heavy stuff, like the leadership of both sides. --Cerejota (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordination of efforts for the Al Jazeera CC material

..is there any ? Who is doing what ? Are enough people working on it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on Day 18, but I'm having difficulties getting non-blurry frames. Any suggestions on how to get a clear shot from the video? Tiamut^talk 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am uploading images, but for some reason they are not working. first attempt [11] second attempt [12].--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about video but I'm sure someone here does. Tiamut, is it about the same quality as Falastine's here because that seemed fine ? Which day are you doing Falastine ? I checked if anyone had put these videos out to bittorrent sites because that would significantly speed up the download but it seems not. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the recent stills from 1/13 (Day 18) footage. I will guess I will have to try again later to upload them.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about Al-Jazeera's images. Where are they getting them? Is the media embargo still effective? Its an important question to ask. V. Joe (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia article. "As of January 14, Al Jazeera, whose reporter Ayman Mohyeldin was already inside Gaza when the conflict began, is the only international broadcaster with a journalist reporting from inside Gaza."--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aljazeera had a limited media presence within Gaza before this began, BBC has 1 reporter as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat working now. [13]Please check the quality, it is not as good as the first one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. They are very helpful. I have gotten help there several times. I have also helped edit some of their resource pages. I recently helped a guy from Turkish Wikipedia to get an SVG map of Syria by asking there. He had asked me for help on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

War On Gaza Day 13

Okay, I've watched this one because the description said the following which looked high priority to me.

• Various shots of Israeli helicopter bombing Gaza.
• Various shots of smoke raising from building.
• Various high angle shots to Gaza strip.

However, the video doesn't actually contain that material. It contains handheld footage shot at a hospital of casualities coming in. Seems callous to say this but I would assign this video a low-ish priority if we need to assign priorities. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ...oh, and I emailed them to tell them they are spreading filthy lies with their inaccurate description and asked for an amendment. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

they've updated the description. see, they're nice people. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Details on humanitarian ceasefires

"A three-hour ceasefire took place on 9 January as well. Three Grad rockets were fired from Gaza at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[192]

Hamas continued to launch rockets throughout the Israeli ceasefire again on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[193] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[194]"

The above has been removed from the text regarding humanitarian ceasefires. Im happy with that, however does anyone wish this information to remain? If so, could they rewrite it in a manner more keeping with the tone of the section that Hamas has continued to fire through Israeli ceasefires rather than "on this day -this happened", "and on this day -this happened". Else I will try to do so at a later time (I think others could do it better, as I would leave it out though I can imagine many would think it worth noting). Thanks Superpie (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. This indeed helps shorten the article. Rabend (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

someone keeps changing the lead

i restored it to the consensus based version Untwirl (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was user Doright claiming it is OR in this edit [14] Nableezy (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF is not a reliable source for civilian count

The worst source to go to for a Gaza civilian count is the people who killed them and have a reason to lower the number. In addition, IDF doesn't count the bodies (running them over with tanks like they are nothing is what they have done), Palestinian medics are the ones collecting the bodies, counting them. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda. It should not be in the infobox at all.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither it is a mouthpiece of Palestinian propaganda. Dude, we are working towards a good article, no need to get yer undies up in a bunch. :D That said, the IDF should never be the sole source, but their views are centrally notable to this topic. Same as Hamas. --Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because I didn't say Hamas, I said Palestinian medics (with the Red Crescent and other health organizations), who actually count the bodies. Whether or not they report back to Hamas and the numbers are released through the MOH, they are 1000 percent more reliable than the IDF. The infobox should contain the count based on the Palestinian sources. You can say "IDF claims that 250 civilians killed" elsewhere in the article. Yuu really need to lay off the WP policy citations btw. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, WP:CHILL its not a policy, its an essay. Read it, laugh, cry or ignore it. But please, unless you give me an specific reason as to why I should do something, do not try to tell what I should or shouldn't do. We are people with minds, not robots to order around... That said, I mentioned Hamas because it is the rough equivalent of the IDF. In the case of the Palestinian Red Crescent, the equivalent is Magen David Adom. I do agree that the Red Cresent is more reliable than the IDF for these figures, but they are at the same leven with regards to notability (ie the coverage the encyclopedia should give to their views). And of course, we should always verify.--Cerejota (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is your reason. The constant citation of essays are annoying. chill? I am chill, don't order me to be calm. Now to the important point, should we put the Hamas number of IDF deaths if there is one? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is a rough equivalent to the Israeli government, and their figures should be treated as the figures of the government of Gaza. I personally think the figures on both sides should be cited explicitly, as in the IDF says x militants and y civilians, the MoH says z civilians Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. Attribution is a principle whenever there is controversy.--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My goodness. Are you stating that Hamas is unconditionally reliable wereas the Israeli government is unconditonally unrealible? This doesn't just contradict NPOV, this blasts NPOV into a million pieces. The Squicks (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said that? I for one said that they are equally reliable, or equally unreliable, and as such should be explicitly cited whenever each sides stats are used. Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My goodness gracious who said that? I agree with Nableezy, they are equally reliable, or equally unreliable. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, IDF's views on civilian deaths should definitely be in the article. However, I don't think they should be in the infobox. Does that sound fair Falastine fee Qalby?VR _talk 04:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed to that earlier in the thread. Thanks for doing the change. Can you see if you can resolve the dispute above at Zeitoun incident? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that another user has kept the infobox from being censored, and restored the IDF count. Good. I strongly oppose censoring it. The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers the Hamas, the IDF and a third source claim should be presented since they have as much importance as the actual numbers, like in the "Jenin massacre" it is important to see what each side claims and what is the actual number. --62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the criterion we should adopt on what to include in the Infobox is: "which figure do notable third party neutral sources quote when they discuss casualties". As far, as I can make out, notable third parties tend to quote the Ministry of Health figure and almost no neutral sources quote the IDF figure. Here are a few references: 1)UNRWA (from Jan 13) which quotes the number of children killed as 311 (which already exceeds 250). 2)Foxnews: (from Jan 9) quotes a figure of 257 children dead and quotes a UN official who says this is credible. 3)San Francisco Chronicle (same story as above) 4)Economist (Jan 15) states that 400 women and children have died. 5)Al Jazeera claims half the total casualties are civilian. 6)Human Rights Watch (press release) again quotes the Ministry of Health

As far as I can see, the Ministry of Health figure is the figure that is repeated and taken seriously by international organizations worldwide. As someone pointed out above, in a war both sides tend to release inaccurate reports. There is no reason for us to reiterate these reports unless third party, neutral and notable sources take them seriously. For that matter, some Palestinian organizations have claimed that they killed "50 Israeli soldiers". This figure is not in the article and rightly so, for it is not taken seriously by third parties. The IDF figure for the number of civilians dead can go in the text but definitely not in the Infobox. If someone would like to include it there, please produce some neutral, notable reliable sources that quote this figure. thanks Jacob2718 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have both the Hamas number of Israelis and the IDF number of palestinians. We don't know how many civilians/soldiers have died, but we do know how many civilians/soldiers Hamas/IDF/Palestinian MoH claim have died. I think it will be more accurate if we include all claims, not as facts but as claims.--Fipplet (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we write: 670 according to MoH, 250 accoding to the Israel Defence Force and then people themselves can judge what source they find reliable.--Fipplet (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Please look at my post above. In this conflict, both sides have made several claims and we cannot just reiterate each claim blindly. We must examine which claims are widely reported and disseminated by neutral third party sources. This article would descend into a morass if we started reporting every claim made by each side. If you would like to include the IDF figure in the Infobox, as I said, please find multiple, neutral reliable sources that have reported this figure. Jacob2718 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Elements in Indonesia

"Elements in Indonesia are seeking to put together a coalition such as the one put together after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[419][420]" - what are "elements in Indonesia"? Besides, the two references have nothing to with the facts stated by this sentence. --JensMueller (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Definite weasel words, that portion should be removed. 67.42.114.117 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove. Its dubious. Superpie (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TL; DR

Yeah, it is ridiculous, thank you to whoever put the tag in there. Nao, some suggestions:

1. Better summarize the sections that already have sub-pages (like international reactions which is huge inspite of there being a sub-article in clear contravention to the purpose and practice of the summary style), and do not add new material to the summary unless it is really, really, really, as in "no one objects because its d'oh"-level consensus. Continue the edit war on the sub-article :D.
2. "Background" section is longer than any other section, and it can't be summarized into a separate article, by definition it is a core section and there are more than a few articles covering the background. I suggest moving content to the many see also on the top, maybe with a reordering. Maybe this weekend I will propose some stuff, unless some of you step up and do it. Or rewriting the SYNTH mess it is until this is over and we have stronger reliable non-synth narratives.
3. A general cleanup for redundancy ahs to be done: there are almost 500 sources, and there are incidents and events covered three or four times. This is also a result of POV-pushing: we do not need to segregate the actions of the Israelis and the Palestinians so much: attacking a hospital and attacking from a hospital have a hospital in common, which should be how they are grouped.
4. I propose a few other sub-articles be spun-off: Casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize the tally and information on casualties; Media coverage of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize the highlights; Controversial incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - summarize, probably listing the top two or three in lede style.
5. In general I recommend we follow the great WP:SUMMARY example of 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which I was heavily involved in the structuring and discussions and which is a great example on how to handle controversies successfully.

Of course, we can also choose to have this unreadable behemoth... --Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've an odd affection for this ugly, ugly baby only editors involved could hope to make sense of. Superpie (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of a seperate Casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. That's an open invitation to have a long and pointless list of attacks citing Palestinian sources with no real encylopediac value. It's also manifestly contradictory to Wikipedia principle. Do we have a list of people killed by the PLO? Or a list of people killed in the Russian invasion of Georgia? The Squicks (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree with your view, based on experience on the practice in Wikipedia, and the dramtics of manifestly contradictory are manifestly incorrect. Go ask any editor with more than a couple hundred mainspace edits. Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War, Casualties of the September 11 attacks for example. It is a textbook use of the WP:SUMMARY style, the usual way we split-up huge articles. We have to split, and the usual way is to take sections and turn them into articles, as was done with the "Timeline" and "international reactions". When people ask me not to quote essays, this why I do it: it seems people are not aware things like WP:SUMMARY exist. --Cerejota (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. My use of "mainfestly" was rather silly. (I must also confess that I laughed out loud when I found that the first "casualties of" page that comes up in Wikipedia searches was Casualties of Retail, the celtic rock aor album. Ah, such is Wikipedia...) The Squicks (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also take umbrage with 2-- the idea of shortening the Background section. By definition, that section needs the expanded context. As other editors have pointed out, its manifestly unfair to only mention the immediate lead up to the war (I guess I'm calling this stuff a "war") and to aviod mentioning the overall changes in the blockade/missile issues. The Squicks (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, there are a gazillion articles that already cover that topic, and we prominently cover it. This article here is for events that transpired after Operation Cast Lead began. The Cease-fire is the immediate event that preceded it (what you call "blockade/missiles"). Now, it is important to point out to our readers that this is the case, but not to the point most of the article is background, rather than about the events it is supposed to be about. This is self-evident to any person whose goal is a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

yes to what Cerejota just said and I was looking at you when I said "I think what would be useful would be for an experienced Wiki editor to...". Nice work! Sean.hoyland - talk 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[Since "silence =/= consensus" seems to be the guideline we are using here, I want to make it clear that I agree completely with 1, 2, and 5.] The Squicks (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not seems to be the guideline we are using here, it's how Wikipedia works: WP:CONSENSUS says explicitly: Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Please don't be one of those Nomic people who think the rules mean what they want them to mean. I am all for IAR and SNOW and less BURO, but say you are IAR and SNOWing, don't play it like the rules support you. Conversly, don't claim/imply something strange and unusual and (g-d forbid!) un-wikipedian is going on, when in fact the letter of the rules is being followed. People apparently hate it when I cite rules and generally accepted essays, but I wouldn't be forced to do it if people actually read those things, instead of thinking they know what are the rules. I have caught a few making claims that contradicted the words of the rules, just after telling me I was wrong for defending them. Lastly, anything we say here is ultimately useless unless we edit the article, and consensus is ultimately whatever is stable in the article. Which is something many have trouble grasping. --Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you misunderstand me. I am well aware of WP:SILENCE. I was just wondering whether or not- given the constant frentic pace of the editing on this page (witness the constant edit conflicts)- we were using it here or if we were going to ignore it (which I why, thus, I typed "the guideline we are using here"). Note that, when we have different editors in different time zones, its certainly tempting to believe that "You have not replied in less than 12 hours, therefore you agree". I want to kill that temptation. The Squicks (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, hold it everybody. The problem is that we have too much information here. So yes, creating separate articles is a good idea, but we need a concrete proposal on how to prevent the information partitioned out from coming back in. How do we do that?VR _talk 05:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Page semi-protections? The Squicks (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see a lot of anons making the edits. It's editors who, with very good intentions, just get a bit emotional sometimes. I suggest that each we get consensus for a structure of the article, then allocate a particular amount of KB (space) to each section. Then we enforce this by saying that any edit that violates the space allocation will be reverted. I know it sounds a bit radical.VR _talk 06:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The quality of their edits is what is at stake not the quantity: however you just have to compare the article when there is semi-protection with when there isn't. General quality hits the drain and edit wars start over stupid crap. And most of those anons are SPAs, probably puppets of the meaty or socky kind. Investigations are on going, I am told. At least one of the IPs seems to be connected to a well known I-P/A-I conflict articles editor, and at leats one seems to be a banned user. Lets see if these bear out, and then pursue the proper channels. I already requested indef semi. --Cerejota (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

probably puppets of the meaty or socky kind... at leats one seems to be a banned user. Lets see if these bear out Could you be more specific as what IPs are doing what? I'm confused here. The Squicks (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fleshing Out References

I clicked some of the references for this article in order to add more information (title, author, date, etc.) to them. My findings are below.

Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Jan 4, 2009
Updated Jan 5, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733174237&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel rejects EU calls for immediate cease-fire
Radio Netherlands
05 January 2009
Last updated: Monday 05 January 2009
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6122316/Israel-rejects-EU-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire

Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza
Marie Colvin, Tony Allen-Mills and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
Times Newspapers (? - Copyright 2008 Times Newspappers Ltd)
28 Dec 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece

Israeli Troops Mobilize as Gaza Assault Widens
By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers
28 Dec 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
ABC News - Copyright © 2009 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195

Palestinians say Gaza death toll now 1,010
CNN
14 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/14/israel.gaza/index.html

חיילי צה"ל נפצעו היום באורח קל
יום שבת, 10 בינואר 2009
14.1.2009
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1414914
(I can only hope that I got the title of the article and the date of publication.)

http://www.nrg.co.il links are in Hebrew. Can a Hebrew speaker get the article information from them, please? Thank you. PinkWorld (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Israelis, Hamas clash near Gaza City, witnesses say
CNN
updated January 11, 2009
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.gaza/?iref=mpstoryview

Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed
CNN
15 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html

IDF: Civilian deaths less than 25% of total
By YAAKOV KATZ
14 Jan 20090
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Two Egyptian Children, Police Injured in
Israeli Air Strike Near Gaza Border
By VOA News
11 January 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm

Hamas: 120 police dead, 95% of security buildings demolished and hundreds of civilians slain
Ma`an
29 Dec 2008 http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34375

Three Palestinian soccer players killed in Gaza violence
RIA Novosti
14 Jan 2009
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090114/119490704.html
PinkWorld (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Policemen

Previous consensus on talkpage ([[15]]) was that police casualties should be left alone, and combined neither with civilians nor militants/fighters.

I don't see that this consensus has changed, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can we re-reach an agreement on this?VR _talk 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From HRW: Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. [16]
My understanding of this would be that police are presumptively considered civilian, and it would have to be presented as an Israeli claim that the police are in fact considered militant. I would suggest leaving it police separated with a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities. I would argue that were not engaged in hostilities, as all of these came prior to the ground assault and nobody has accused the police of firing rockets, so I can't see how they could have been engaged. But I know that will lead to howling about 'cmon they are hamas police' so Id rather just avoid the issue for now. Nableezy (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I support them being treated as neither civilians nor militants. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see here Nableezy (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I support them as the verified reliable sources treat them. --Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute... we have no consensus as to whether or not they should be counted as civilian or as miltants. The reliable sources are deeply divided and frequently disagree. If we as editors create our own 'consensus' to label them all as innocent civilians as Nableezy has suggested, that means that were waving our hand and ignoring what a large chunk or reliable sources say. That simply is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And if we are going to bring up international law, isn't it a war crime for Hamas police officers to decide to wear civilian clothes and use civilian buildings for their bases? The Squicks (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said "I would suggest leaving it police separated with a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities." And HRW is a RS. I know this has been discussed on the RS noticeboard before. And we have pictures of dozens of dead policemen in uniform, and no it is not a war crime for police to wear civilian clothes, have you ever heard of "plainclothes detective" Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(double edit-conflict... jeez) I don't think it's fair to label policemen, especially 40 who didn't even begin their duty, as equals to fighters of the Izz ad-Din Qassam, al-Quds, or al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades or local Hamas militiamen. However, Israel claims that some were part-time rocket launchers, but their basic argument is anyone or anything associated with Hamas is fair game. So to go by the sources, we should simply state that they were policemen, but Israel claimed they were... whatever they claim they were. Simple as that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Four points: (1)Yes, I obviously read what you wrote. You said you were going to leave a note that police are considered civilian unless they are involved in hostilities, and I said that we should- instead- treat policeman as policeman without any other labels. (2)Stop putting your words into my mouth. I did not claim that Human Rights Watch is not an RS. Don't lie and say that I did. (3)I pointed out that the concept "Who is a civilian" is a matter of controversy amoung sources, and people simply ignored me. (4)If policemen are being targeted specifically, and they disguse themselves as ordinary people to hide- isn't that unacceptable? If someone was shooting at me while walking down the street, they are at fault. If I ducked in front of a group of children after shots started to be at fired, both of us are at fault. The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since you established that you can read, please read this; what I said is sourced to a RS, HRW. I was responding to Cerejota about HRW being a RS, it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW. And everything else that you said was strictly your opinion without any type of supporting facts. So to clear up what I did say. I did not claim you said HRW was not a RS, so to claim that I did was a lie. I suggested labeling them as police with a note, sourced to HRW, which you say is a RS, that police are considered civilian if they are not engaged in hostilities. I specifically said I did not want to list them as civilians. Is there anything else I left unclear? Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can read, than you should have been able to read that Cerejota did not claim that HRW is not a reliable source either. ARGH! Again, I think that we should treat policeman as policeman without any other labels. No labeling of them as "civilians" in endnotes, which is what you want. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And everything else that you said was strictly your opinion without any type of supporting facts... Well, if I just google the terms "Gaza police" the first article that shows up says that "Hamas, the militant group that has controlled Gaza since mid-2007, has an estimated 20,000-strong security force composed of police; Protection and Security, a unit similar to the U.S. Secret Service; and Internal Security, an intelligence and interrogation squad with a rising reputation for brutality. Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." The Squicks (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I just said above "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW." Why do you insist on reading half of what I write? And I didnt say label them as civilians, I said to present the sourced information that 'policemen are considered civilians under international law unless they are engaged in hostilities'. I did not say to label them as civilians in the end notes. I did not say that they should be presented as not engaged in hostilities. I did indeed say that their status should be elaborated on, without taking a stance as to whether they are civilians or combatants. I do not see why that is so difficult to understand. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, great, "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion"... so you'd rather insult what s/he wrote as not being a good enough response in your eyes and put words in their mouth as well. The Squicks (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, reading half of what I wrote, the other half, in case you didn't notice, was "based on me giving the source HRW." Stop assuming you know what I think because you obviously do not know what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, by saying "it wasn't even really a response but rather an assertion based on me giving the source HRW" you're forgetting that he never did explicitly claim that HRW is not an RS... (...) Look, since this is getting close to a 4chan style argument- let's just forget it. There's no point in all in this.

Anyways, your main point is whether or not to include the endnote: "International law considers non-combatant police officers to be civilians" or something like that. I disagree, but I don't really feel strongly enough about it to remove it or to push for removing it. The Squicks (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, forget it, I did not mean to insult you and I did not mean to insult Cerejota (and Im pretty sure Cerejota wouldnt get insulted at that, but I leave it Cerejota to decide if there was an insult there). As you can see for RS noticeboard, there are those who dispute that HRW is a RS so I felt the need, on my own, to link to the relevant discussion on that noticeboard. And as regards the end note, I would say also include the rest of the statement (unless engaged in hostilities) so that we make no decision as to their civilian/militant status. So long as we do not say 'they were engaged in hostilities and thus combatants' or 'the were not engaged in hostilities and thus civilians' I think that avoids any NPOV issues while giving the reader further explanation as to why we are not including them in either group. Nableezy (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need to complicate things for no reason. Regardless, the reason why I disagree is that the placing of such an endnote would give the subtle impression that the Hamas police should in fact be considered civilians. To use an example, it would be like if an article about the prophet Mohammed with a section discussing the Aisha controversy in a fair and neutral way had an endnote to the first paragraph saying "Medical convention considers relations with underage girls to be pedophilia." It's a somewhat strained analogy, but you see what I'm getting at. Sure, the endnote's information is technically 100% true. But it's 'begging the question' in a way given the nature of how the article places that information. The Squicks (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has just suddenly occured to me that you're a Muslim. I want to make it emphatically clear that I just picked that analogy to illustrate a point. I'm sorry if it is offensive or insulting. That's not my intent at all. I just am trying to say that a single sentence endnote off of a sentence can seem like begging the question, even if that's not what the article and its authors want at all. The Squicks (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

all good Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, so we basically have consensus to treat policemen as such, without categorizing them as "civilians" or "militants".I'll change that ASAP.VR _talk 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the above consensus, BobaFett85 keeps reverting and inserting the edits against the above agreement. I have invited him to join here, so far he hasn't.VR _talk 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Individuals placement

where should this be placed User talk:Yousaf465

I would urge you to move it to the main article, if not, certainly below the UN and other reactions. Superpie (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving attacks on UN

I think moving these two events from where they currently are to controversial events would make more sense.

   * 2.4.2.1 Al-Fakhura school
   * 2.4.2.2 UN headquarters

Thoughts? Superpie (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just moved Al-Fakhura to controversial incidents. Yes, the UN head quarters should also be moved.VR _talk 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also moved aid back to the section with the medical and humanitarian crises. I don't think it belongs in the section discussing Israeli and Palestinian military tactics.VR _talk 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Rabend (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians revisited

The infobox is still cluttered even though decent sources are coming in. It is time to modify it. Civilian can be used and "women and children" can be used in the casualties section where appropriateCptnono (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper tag

I have reverted his latest.

Squash: understand that {{POV}} is fully redundant with {{activediscuss}}, down to inclusion in the appropriate neutrality categories etc. The removal is not a removal of the neutrality issues, but tidying up and consolidating into a more useful tag, that presents the same information: {{pov}} is meant for articles whose only issue is POV. That is not the case here, as has been made abudantly clear.

Furthermore, since there are POV matters, we need a POV-check tag, because we want to resolve that matter. I can barely understand you placing a pov tag, I simply cannot phanthom why the pov-check tag is being removed. Please don't.

Lastly, in your edit sumamry you claim "see talk" but I don't see any explanation on your part of why you insist on this. Please feel free to do so here.--Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The template that I originally inserted says: The neutrality of the article is disputed. Let's say that kind of reflects reality. Someone changed it afterwards without discussion to "the article is nominated for neutrality check" which to me sounds a bit strange, so I added back the original, simple statement.

I referred to the talk page for current POV disputes (not for a section about the template itself) just as the template asks for this. If you think "activediscuss" highlights the problems enough, I'm just wondering why do you "nominate" the article for POV check instead of simply adding the "neutrality is disputed" tag. Squash Racket (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The {{active-discuss}} tag was palced by an administrator to replace the {{edit ninjas}} and {{pov}} then in place, because he argued and it was taken as consensus, that the templates were redundant. So you didn't place the {{pov}} tag, you reverted the change an admin made weeks ago and was consensus. ANother user did the same thing that you did, and was reverted and a thread opened here in which all consensus was that placement was vandalism, and {{active-discuss}} was better.
2. You seem to not understand: {{active-discuss}} covers POV disputes (and adds the article to the same categories as {{pov}} does. That means adding {{pov}} resolves nothing, because the warning is already there. This is, in English, "redundancy".
3. {{pov-check}} is a maintenance tag intended to invite other uninvolved users to constructively comment on neutrality issues. We should all be working towards resolving neutrality disputes, and this is a way to promote that goal. So it is not redundant, but serves a different purpose.

I hope this explains it all, however, be aware this was discussed before throughly and a result of consensus. --Cerejota (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit my comments, so please refrain from that. Thank you.

Here's the diff for the clean addition of the template when I arrived here. I don't really think it' relevant what happened weeks before that.

Quote for the tag {{neutrality}} that I inserted:

# The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.(...)This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject.

Squash Racket (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOVE

If you don't care about the opinion of your fellow editors who have been here discussing and shaping this article for weeks, then so be it. Again, for the second time, {{active-discuss}} does exactly the same thing as {{pov}}. Redundancy is not good. Could someone else please tell him so?--Cerejota (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see no serious difference between {{pov}} and {{povcheck}} except for the wording of the latter to me sounded a bit strange ("nominated"). Both invite editors to comment on the POV issues of the article. But it's OK, I didn't revert your edit before you presented your reasons and the issue is not decisive. Move on. Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an invisible difference, they put the article in different categories. {{active-discuss}} puts the article in the same categories as "pov", so "pov" is redundant.--Cerejota (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Split-off "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire"?

The article is getting too long and too detailed in certain parts. May I suggest creating an article 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire from section 1.1 "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire" to reduce the size of that section?

Opinions? Comments?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 09:19

Might be an idea, will there not be quite a lot of overlap between that and the blockade article? Superpie (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article for that 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is my point about the background section being too long: it has material that goes in other articles. Its recentism at its worst, and why all of these conflict articles are an open sore in encyclopedic quality.--Cerejota (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict makes no mention of the truce. I'll start the article and try to trim the section here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 11:56

Ok, I started the new article but I haven't removed any of the content here. Anybody want to tackle that?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 12:19

Unwise, Pedrito, to do anything until a satisfactory précis of the material has been done. I suggest thosed interested and capable review the new page, make a succinct synthesis of it, and then post it here for review. If it comes up to snuff, we can then pop it in here. This is no easy task. Editing out material directly here, as several editors of different POVs jump at the task of 'slimming' this section down, is likely to be chaotic. Some method and consensual work is required.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but the article he started is full-sized and well-sourced, and of a non-current event. I see what he did here, but this is quite literally a Snowball. I challenge anyone to AfD that article with a straight face. The slimming takes negotiation and care, but not the new article, it is not even WP:SUMMARY, as it is beyond the scope of this article, and not even a POV fork, in that It is quite frankly a key article that someone finally got written. You see, thats why wikis are superior, that kind of crap just happens. The funny thing is that it does illustrate how ridiculous the background section had gotten in terms of size: it is the size of a regular article. If people don't get it slimmed down, I will start thinking POINT, its just defeats all common sense to have a background bigger than the original article. like having a lede the size of the article. --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, took a deep breath and cut up most of the "Background" section... Let's see how long this lasts. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 14:13

Okay. The precis's the right length, only it's almost all deceptive, indeed unrecognizable as an approximate account of the background. (Reinhart's The Road to Nowhere is reliable as a general guide). The best thing at this point is to refine the forked off page, Pedrito: there are quite a few good academic sources to replace the journalistic crap, and wait till things quieten down in here to rework this precis. No criticism intended. It is, by the nature of things, impossible to get a reliable precis from a page which is, itself, incomplete, full of holes, even if substantial in volume. Work for the coming months then. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Killed and wounded - in the box

"3 top soccer players" - top? you mean professional? it should be changed.
"Among the wounded there were 1,600 children and 678 women" -I still don't understand this one - if from the 5,100 wounded this is the confirmed ones, shouldn't it be like "***Among the 670 reported civilian fatalities 519 are confirmed as". "Among the 5,100 wounded there were confirmed: 1,600 children and 678 women" - isn't that phrasing better?--62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be changed to 3 athletes.VR _talk 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrests and other things - should this be included somwhere in the articles about the conflict?

155 arrested for rioting http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647869,00.html
Israeli citizen offers the Iranian embassy copies of Israeli papers http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656848,00.html
That the reporters were released to house arrest http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656756,00.html
71 Palestinian illegal residents arrested, some released some still in custody http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654528,00.html
500 Palestinian illegal residents arrested http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653465,00.html
Hamas executes 6 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651845,00.html
5 arrested for rioting in Nazareth http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649149,00.html
suspected in mall shooting http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649055,00.html
--62.0.140.228 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you only reading ynetnews.com ? It seems like a potentially flawed research strategy. Never mind.. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked for one incident and Google took me to ynet news. Also they are a news source with current English translations (I don't know if word for word) of reports, also it is a website that is linked to a newspaper. Those are some of the things I found there and I wondered if it is relevant in one of the articles about the conflict or not. If they are, I can research other news resources... --62.0.140.228 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bunching of pictures in International Reactions

If somebody with some talent in images could fix this it'd be great. I've... Somehow got rid of one for the time being, but its of the UN security council in sesh and it is interesting. Thanks Superpie (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things

There was a specific exchange here that bothered me so I started typing a reply when I realized that what I wanted to say applied to this discussion generally. I said to someone the other day that you can't have a good article with a bad talk page. If this article is going to improve, it needs to start here.

I don't want to point fingers or single anyone out but it does really feel like battle lines have been drawn here. This talk page feels very unwelcoming. I don't consider myself to be either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I've spoken a little here but I've been really choosy about where to comment. I have avoided saying what my feelings are about specific issues because I thought it would make one side or the other feel like I was the enemy.

The article's text is always changing. A lot of what’s there now won't be next month. You can get some kind of plurality in one of these little fights and put something up on the article but if you want it to last, you need to find a real consensus. All of our work is meaningless without that. A real consensus only comes when you account for the concerns of those who disagree, not when you find an excuse for why you didn't.

I think that, at least for a little while, I won't be editing this article. I'm just leaving this message for the benefit of the people who will. I think that you're all well-meaning people. And I have faith that things can improve. Above all, I think that we’ll get the article we deserve. So good luck. Peace.

And don’t tell me to see WP:SOAP! --JGGardiner (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright Ghandi ;). Noted though :) Superpie (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, one down. just kidding. come back... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Friend. If we get 'the article we deserve'? I think, unless you are a subtle ironist, which I by no means exclude as a possibility, you intended to say, 'the article readers deserve'. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)