Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

There are some facts that consistently censored from background section describing period after Hamas took control and before this conflict intensified by some "NPOV" editors. The fact of Gaza - Egypt land border existence is undeniable and important to blockade discussion. Rafah crossing was closed under Hamas rule after European Union border crossing monitors fled and after Hamas breach trial PA and Arab foreign ministers objected control of the border by Hamas. It reflects dynamics of blockade development. Quotes for inclusion:

Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as I said before I'm with you on this one. I'm not particularly good with words though because everything looks like numbers to me... As for the border control how about if we say something like
Arab foreign ministers, Palestinian officials, the EU and Israel are all opposed to the control of the Rafah crossing by Hamas....or something like that.
I've changed my mind on the monitors. How about if we say something like
Monitors from the European Union Assistance Mission left the area when the internal Palestinian fighting commenced and have not returned. ......based on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205131.stm and your source.
Other's may be able to fit it all together nicely. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't Israel maintain a de facto control over the Rafah crossing, and the Egyptians have to provide information on crossings for Israeli approval? I dunno. On the blockade question, one of the things I objected to in the last edit was it said that Egypt was blockading Gaza. That is inaccurate because the Gaza coastline, which should allow access to international waters, has been blockaded by Israel and the Gaza airport was destroyed by Israel. Anyway I expect other editors will chime in on whether they think info on the Euros who were at the Egypt border is relevant to the event and should be in the article, I don't think it is particularly important. RomaC (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding too. Israel has overall control at the crossing...in theory. In practice I'm not sure anymore and I haven't got time to find a good RS. Also, yes, let's be clear, Egypt isn't blockading Gaza strictly speaking...not that it makes any difference in practice. Having said that I did see a report that Egypt (not Israel) refused to allow humanitarian aid from the Iranian Red Crescent in....not sure how reliable it was. I think the monitors are only important in the sense that they were an essential component of the agreement as to how the crossing would be operated so I thought...if we're going to talk about the crossing they should get a mention. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Close, an Iranian ship with Red Crescent supplies attempted to reach Gaza, was turned away by the Israeli navy and is in international waters outside of Egypt's waters attempting to seek permission to dock in Egypt. Permission has not yet been granted. But Egypt did not prevent the ship from reaching Gaza, Israel did. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant this one. http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=339890&IdLanguage=3 Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Same one, by 'not cooperating' that means Egypt did not allow the Iranian ship to dock in Egypt. I first saw this here. Nableezy (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Another boat is stuck in Limasol. Cyprus said on Wednesday that it is waiting for UN guidance on what to do. See here AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's makes more sense now. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, you're approximately in the area. Go to Rafah, hire a small motorbike, buy a pizza, go to the border and tell whoever is there that you need to deliver it to someone in Khan Yunis and that a late delivery penalty will come out of your salary. Be prepared to provide a few slices to the border guards. Let us know what happens. Or better still let the BBC know what happens and then we can add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sold my bike, but still have an old Arai helmet & gloves. Peek me up at Taba Border Crossing :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Very wise because..."In 2006, 35,903 people were injured, and 414 killed in traffic accidents in Israel, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. Of the fatalities, seven percent were motorcycle riders, despite the fact that motorbikes comprise only 1.6 percent of the vehicles on the road, according to data from Israel's Ministry of Transportation."..from here...which does make me wonder whether the IDF should sell a couple of F16s and spend the money on road safety instead. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I usually get all of my info from CAMERA obviously, so this might be a good place to start. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1549 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I hear you all and performed following edit. I agree that Israel has a lot of influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. At lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Land access is correct, they control almost all land entry points. Much of the rest of the edit is not germane to this conflict, like what does Alan Johnson have to do with this conflict, did Israel say they are fighting Hamas to make Gaza safe for journalists? I dont think this edit is good, and I would suggest reverting it until you can find some consensus for it. Nableezy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And it just is not right, the border wasnt closed because EU monitors havent returned, the border was closed because Egypt closed it. I dont see the edit adding anything usefull and it just makes the paragraph look more complicated than it needs to be. Nableezy (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I think we both agree that Egypt-Gaza strip international land border formerly called Philadelphi Route is not under Israeli control since August 2005. EU border monitors were part of relatively Israel-free Rafah crossing operation. This arrangement worked pretty good in the past. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody agreed to that edit. I dont even know why you want to change what is there. What problems do you have with what is currently in that paragraph? Nableezy (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, with all respect, you entered this discussion in the middle and sounds like you out of date. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Tell me what you think is wrong with the current wording and what your proposed edit would add that is useful and relevant? Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Nableezy. I agree that Israel has major influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. For instance uninterrupted humanitarian aid, electricity and limiting embargo on fuel supply by Israel to Gaza strip. A lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. You're welcome with your opinion and wording suggestions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but I think the wording may be confusing you. It doesnt say that Israel controls the land, it says Israel controls access over land, like access through air or sea. Egypt controls one access point over land, Israel controls many more. So that part is correct. And there was not uninterrupted aid, electricity or fuel, hospitals had run out of fuel to power generators after power had been cut for over 72 hours at one point. If you have sources for Israeli Supreme Court rulings and whether or not they have been implemented by the government bring them here. I havent seen any, but then again I havent been looking. But the stuff you were adding with that edit was argument about why Egypt should close the crossing, and not entirely accurate arguments, whereas the original just puts forward a statement that is supported by sources and is a simple statement of fact, that Egypt closed the crossing. The edit you made didnt even touch on the arguments you are now making, but as to the arguments you are now making, this line:
With Israel controlling land, air and sea access and much of Gaza's economy, power, and water, only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis were allowed to enter the territory, while all exports were prohibited.
is correct and it indeed says that Israel was allowing humanitarian supplies through. Nableezy (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,I noticed you removed discussed background section changes. I agree that it needs more work and voiced my opinion and arguments repeatedly. With all respect you try to censor undeniable facts about background of this conflict and remove cited NPOV quotes without clear argument. I'd appreciate if you publish links to your changes in this discussion. IMO you work against consensus. I heard all the editors patiently and did not rush those changes. I'd be glad to argue about facts, but really do not appreciate edit waring or personal attacks. I understand there are about 8 hours of time difference between us. You are welcome to voice your opinion about points of confusion. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did remove it because there was no agreement for what you added. The diff shouldnt really be needed, just look at your diff you posted above and reverse it. I did not mean to insult you, the way you phrased your concern made me think that you were objecting because Israel does not control the land, not the land access. If I misunderstood your argument I am sorry. But I still think you are wrong and if you could please explain why you want to add that info and why it is relevant I would be glad to listen. Nableezy (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, I'd appreciate if you re-read this discussion carefully, noting Sean and RomaC opinions on inclusion of events that are important for blockade discussion. This is very complex issue and should be handled as such. No black and white here. I'd love to know your opinion on quotes so I could address your concerns. I really have no personal issue with you, still I disagree with fact censoring. Peace man, let me know what you think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are my objections, again:
This line: Amidst internal Palestinian fighting, Palestinian security sources urged all foreigners (especially Europeans and Americans), including aid workers of international organizations, to leave Gaza soil "for fears of new kidnappings", adds absolutely nothing relevant to this conflict. What does the internal Palestinian conflict have to do with anything beyond that it led to the current state where Hamas is in control of Gaza? Nothing at all that I can see. What does Alan Johnston have to do with this? Is there a single source relating his kidnapping to this conflict?
Next, this line: "Arab foreign ministers, Palestinian officials, the UN, EU and Israel are all opposed to the control of the Rafah crossing by Hamas." Again, what does it add. How is it relevant that the EU and the politcal opposition is in favor of control of the crossing by Hamas. What does that have to do with this conflict, it only has something to do with Egypt closing the border crossing, which we state much more clearly in the line you replaced:
"with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007."
Can you tell me why any of that edit should be included? Is there any way that the edit you made contains relevant information as regards this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, hope you agree that blockade had enormous impact on this conflict, after all it is stated casus belli. So far you are the only one in this discussion defending information censoring regarding this complex issue. Please explain AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We talk about the blockade already; what is it that your edit would add to the article that is relevant and useful? Nableezy (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Please re-read discussion. I already stated arguments: it reflects dynamics of blockade development... Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. Could we get back to quotes inclusion discussion? I really do not appreciate edit warring from your side. Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes.. Charles Stross stated that Information wants to be free What are your suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Alan Johnston is completely irrelevant to this. The only thing I can see anybody above agreeing to is including something on EU monitors, if you think that is really necessary the most weight that could be appropriate to this would be making the line in question read like this. "with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing after EU border monitors left[3] and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007.[4]" which I just did here. Nableezy (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let me address your concerns.

  • According to reliable sources Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.[1] I heard Sean's opinion and added another source to fix unaware reader confusion.
  • Claim that Egypt exclusively closed the border is clearly POV. Why would they do it? Unlike Möbius strip borders usually have two sides. The issue is more complex than that.

What do you think? Still concerned? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a border between and Egypt and Gaza, Gaza wants it open, so Egypt closed its border by itself. Fear of kidnapping has nothing to do with this article. Nableezy (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree, thank you for adding EU border monitors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with the Article

I am new to wikipedia (as an editor), but I have been following this article closely, and have noticed much of it is written in a manner not fitting of an encyclopedia. For example:

- In the Gaza humanitarian crisis: "Fear and panic are widespread" -- Have reliable sources documented this as fact? How can it be an encyclopaedic fact that fear is widespread. Why is this relevant to a Gaza humanitarian crisis? How would it be verified?

The source uses that exact wording. If it is not a reliable source or if it is given to much weight it should be adjusted.outCptnono (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


I just read the report, the exact wording is "People are living in a state of fear and panic". This is less of an encyclopaedic fact and more of a statement (by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Also, it is made in reference to the number of casualties, not the humanitarian crisis. Frankly, there are much more relevant facts about access to resources, etc, that should be included over such broad and ambiguous statements, IMO.Kinetochore (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinetochore, the statement is compiled from those two reports. UN Jan. 2 report:

There is a sense of panic, fear, and distress throughout the Gaza strip.

and UN Jan. 1 report:

People are living in a state of fear and panic.

This relates to the humanitarian crisis section cause those are extracted from the UN OCHA reports, where OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. As understood from the reports, all those horrible elements reported by the reports sums the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is a crisis as described by several WP:RSs. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


UN School

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [1]. Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

this is not repeated in any rs. Untwirl (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Unsurprising, since it's a new story. Globe and Mail is highly reliable; no reason not to put the info in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Does israel come clear from blame anyhow? The bombs killed civilians outside and wounding civilians inside a school? How does you suggest we change the article after this new fact Tundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the information that the attack landed outside the school was already added to the article yesterday, in this edit [2] Blackeagle (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Good. Much noice for nothing then. What is your intention with this Thundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) tb - your statement "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. " is implying that somehow israel would be released from culpability? would that also explain the un headquarters? Untwirl (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to deliberately target anyone for something to be considered a war crime. You can still fall foul of the principle of proportionality e.g. fire at a couple of guys, oops, kill tonnes of people. Anyway, never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


ok, first of all, this " Israel faced mounting international pressure for a ceasefire after incorrect preliminary reports indicated that the school itself was hit,and announced a three-hour "humanitarian truce" is completely OR, one report cited mentions that the 'lull', 'pause', whatever was came "amid growing international concerns about civilian casualties from Israel's military operations in Gaza and a day after Israeli forces fired on several U.N. schools in Gaza." i'm taking it out. as well as "the school itself - OR again.

the so called breaking newsstory from globeandmail has not been reported by other rs, hence "exceptional claims blah blah blah Untwirl (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

from the article "On January 6, 2009, Israel struck outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians.[5] "

i think we have enough rs for this fact that we dont need to use globe and mail Untwirl (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to take a citation to an RS out? What would you propose to cite for that sentence instead? Blackeagle (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
how bout this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't really seem like a substitute. The whole point of the Globe and Mail article is that initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed. Blackeagle (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
how did the children in the school grounds get injured? no one specified exactly where the mortar rounds landed. this is a straw man argument Untwirl (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
They were injured by shrapnel, "While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed." The article includes quotes from multiple individuals, both eyewitnesses and the UNRWA operations director, that the rounds landed in the street. I don't see how this meets the definition of a Straw man argument. Blackeagle (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent."
"the shell didn't actually hit the school building, like you said it did"
"therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified"
the fact remains that israel admitted that they fired at the school because they thought 'militants' were firing from there, which they later admitted was untrue. Untwirl (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're the one making the straw man argument here. I've never said anything to the effect of, "therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified". The fact that an Israeli government spokesman says something does not automatically make it true. Blackeagle (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
actually i was referring to the author of this section's original reasoning, "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school." as well as your "initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed" my point is where the rounds landed is irrelevant, and every other reliable source which doesn't print this 'story' obviously agrees. idf fired at the school. they admit it. period. Untwirl (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article, the facts are always relevant. If the rounds didn't hit the school, then we should say they didn't hit the school. "Every other reliable source", including the IDF statement, were all based on the initial, incorrect reports. Blackeagle (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
so do you want to say "fired on a school but hit just outside, killing 43 civilians"? what is your point? they fired at the school. people were hit by shrapnel inside the school grounds. is the shrapnel not part of the mortar, intended to hit a target?
and every 'fact' isnt relevant, thats why we discuss inclusion here Untwirl (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that not every fact is relevant, but everything in the article should be factually true, to the best that we can determine. As far as what to put in the article, I'd say something like: "On January 6, 2009, Israel mortar shells landed outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." Blackeagle (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
i would agree with ""On January 6, 2009, Israel tanks fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." the shells didn't just "land there", the school was intentionally fired on. and the source needs to be one of the dozens of more reliable ones we have Untwirl (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear that it was tanks that did the firing. Israeli tanks do carry mortars (they're about the only country in the world that mounts mortars on their MBTs) but they have other mortars in the service too. I think we ought to stick with "mortars" rather than "tanks".
The other problem is one of intention. Israel has said both that they targeted the school itself and that they targeted an area next to the school. I think we should either include both statements, say that Israel issued contradictory statements as to whether or not they targeted the school, or just stay away from intent and simply say that the shells hit close to the school and killed a lot of people. Blackeagle (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Globe article:

  • The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited "early reports" that "three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School ..." However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that "Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools ..." including the one at issue.
The good ol' U.N. Ever consistent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, but you seem to have missed this:


Kind of crap indeed, "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard... But we had seen it before" You could clearly see that IDF spokesperson released the discussed video before this incident happened and marked 29 Oct. 2007. see http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI Still Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Brunte (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That there is a lot of confusion, due to disinformation. Thank you for asking, Brunte. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Like this you mean ? WikiEN-l Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign governments :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Whatever Sean, now I'm Shin Bet agent :) Usually you're very balanced and neutral and in my eyes you earned a lot of credit with your suggestions. Let's not get into personal attacks. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of personal attacks or rudeness so we should be okay. It was just a joke (with of course a serious side). Personally I'm more concerned at them calling people like us 'intellectuals'. It doesn't give me a good feeling about their grasp of reality. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement ""On January 6, 2009, the IDF fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." is factually accurate. the debate over where the rounds landed is not relevant and the article (UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School)is misleading (ie. the un admitted nothing different from what they had said all along). Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement isn't accurate. The rounds didn't actually hit the school, the article should reflect that. The IDF has issued contradictory statements about whether or not they targeted the school. If you want to say something about whether the IDF intended to hit the school, we have to either acknowledge the conflicting statements. Blackeagle (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement is accurate. If they fire close enough to wound 43 people they must have landed the thing on the doorstep. The fact that it wasn't a direct hit doesn't mean that the school wasn't "Fired upon". Any army is obliged to fire their weapons in a manner that does not cause indiscriminate damage, this is the reason WP rounds are contraversial. There can be no doubt that the injuries in the shcool DID occur, and that Israeli mortar fire was the cause. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
exactly. the shrapnel (or whatever) that hit and injured people on the school grounds is part of the shell, regardless where the shell lands exactly. therefore, the school was fired upon, and hit, by mortar fire. Untwirl (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time of this "incident", it was not clear what happened. Israel's rules of engagement are that they return fire when they see where it comes from. They also may have specific military "targets" but that's another story. When the story first broke that they had hit a school, they assumed they had returned fire-for-fire, since those are the operating rules. When UNRWA and Palestinians claimed "No one was firing from this school" "It was a refuge for civilians" "We gave Israel the coordinates" and "We don't fire from schools," Israel released an earlier film demonstrating that gunmen indeed have and do fire from UNRWA schools. They did not pretend that this film was this incident. They were demonstrating that Hamas gunmen fire from schools. However, when it was finally acknowledged by some (not the UN!) that there was not a direct hit on the school, some people still want to give the impression that there was. It is most likely that there was fire from the area, and Israel responded. Indeed had the locals actually been in the compound, they would not have been hurt, since no one in the school was hurt. There is a huge difference between targeting a school (while aware of its coordinates) for no reason, and returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And they're all good points Tundrabuggy. I never said that Israel targeted the School, nor did I say they hit it. However there is no excuse for blind firing in the vecinity if an internationally protected target, there's no excuse for poor accuracy in civilian populated areas and there's no doubt that people were killed or injured by Israeli mortar fire at the UN school. Israel has an internationally recognized, proffesionally trained army. Simply saying a mistake was made is not good enough. Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Even schools are not internationally protected targets if there is hostile firing coming from it Article 51, paragraph 7, of Protocol I:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

In war, stuff happens. Hamas never made any attempt for accuracy, nor to avoid civilians, in its attacks against Israel. Are they excused because they don't have an "internationally recognized, professionally trained army"? What's with the double standard? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, lets be specific, like the guardian. note that israeli fired on the school, hitting just outside, and "most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

and your point about "returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school" is wrong, by israel's own admission and by the fact that people were killed on the playground. Untwirl (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, perhaps you can find a more recent source that says "playground" since that source is now acknowledged to be wrong. Where did Israel say that they did not avoid the school? Could you please ref the admission? Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that Israel killed 40 totally innocent people. If they didn't score a direct hit on the school, put that in, but it doesn't reduce the severity of the incident.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes 40 people were presumably killed in this incident for which we do not know the exact details. Point is, as usual, everyone rushes in (especially the UN) to accuse Israel before the facts are known. By the time the truth is uncovered, no one believes it. This doesn't just happen sometimes, it happens alot. As for the innocence of these individuals, someone must have been firing from the area, or it would not have drawn fire. 12.51.52.206 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
see circular argument Sean.hoyland - talk 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF see this incident as civilians used as human shield Caught in the crossfire in active war zone. IDF performs investigation of incidents as policy and publicly regrets such unthinkable loss. There are a lot of witness clips from Gaza of Hamas firing surrounded by civilians including kids on different occasions on Youtube, looks credible to me and Newsweek reporters. Did Hamas knew of UNRWA school GPS coordinates? Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from this location. After all Hamas did take part in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html ANALYSIS / Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives . "The incident in which some 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israel Defense Forces mortar shells hit an UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp Tuesday surprised no one who has been following events in Gaza in recent days. Senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower."

"What the officer did not say explicitly was that this is deliberate policy. Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives."

'Disproportional use of force' which when talking about 'legalities' of war, is one of the charges that has been brought against Israel. I don't care much for it, but I think that this information would merit prevalence somewhere in this article(yes i'm sure it won't be too hard finding a place for it). Cryptonio (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? As far as I can see, the 40 or 43 civilians killed are only mentioned as being in the school by the same RS that says that the shells hit the school. The updated RS which repudaites this DOES NOT say that the casualties were at the school. So I don't think it is correct to synthesize the old and new sources and say that Israel was thought to have shelled the school, later turned out it shelled outside the school, and still say that there were 40/43 casualties at the school. Also, the RS that analyzes the weapondry and casualties states that it is unreasonable to say that a few shells woudl kill 40+ people, because shells are not t hat powerful, so the whole casualty count becomes an exceptional claim. Dovid (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, pardon. that was not my intention when i posted that. although, am i missing something? where is this incident reported in the article now? I posted that link for its value on "disproportional use of force" material, not on whether the shell hit the school or not. The after facts seems to be correct. plus "UN: IDF officers admitted there was no gunfire from Gaza school which was shelled" - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html. good luck on the casualty count though. Cryptonio (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Although, why would the IDF admit to wrongdoing, if they did not hit the school? if the shells hit outside of the school, and they admitted to wrongdoing, does that means that the fire they reported on their troops did not come from OUTSIDE of the school neither?
"In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Gunness said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional."
Does 'from the school' means inside and outside too? and does 'on the UN site' also means inside and outside as well? Cryptonio (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot more on this here BTW. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292898771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . who knows whats going on, i don't. Cryptonio (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Other" section includes "reaction casualties"?

The deaths and injuries were sustained the West Bank? How exactly do they merit insertion here? Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Other" section is in fact a sub-section of the "Effects" section. Those deaths and injuries were a result of protests over the conflict in Gaza. I don't see a reason to remove it Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So do we add the injuries of Jews and Israelis as a result of protests here? I thought all that stuff belonged on the reactions page? Chesdovi (talk)
Well that's the question isn't it? There seems to be a fair bit of discussion and edit waring going on about this kind of stuff. I would suggest leaving it for now, maybe weigh into the other arguments with this and see what the consensus is. Whether it's in the "Effects" section, or the "Reaction" page matters little to me as long as the information is represented. Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Come on! Tertiary effects? There's the conflict, the protest about the conflict, and the injuries sustained in the protest to the conflict. The protest might be a significant event related to the core subject. Injuries sustained during protest are a detail that really has no bearing on the core subject. Remove it, the author was sloppy to even try this. Dovid (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. West Bank injuries should not be included if injuries to Israelis outside Israel are not included. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Reactions" is for that. Effects is for the immediate area of operations: southern Israel and Gaza Strip. BTW, did you just quid pro quo this? The ArbCom said some choice things on quid pro quo in the whole Allegations of apartheid debacle.--Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But injuries to Jews outside Israel are included (anti-Semitic attacks in Europe). Secondly, the West Bank is not "outside", but rather considered an integral part of the Palestinian territories.VR talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it more about how direct the correlation is? As I pointed out earlier, demonstrations are secondary to the conflict, events incidental to the the demonstrations are tertiary, which, especially post-conflict, are extraneous. So WHERE something happens is not so much important as to WHY it immediately happened. In the case of these injuries outside Israel, I'd like to hear thought as to whether the injuries themselves are attriucted to direct reaction to the conflict, or are they incidental to something else? Dovid (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian actions, former "Palestinian fightback" section

This is a big mess, very povish written. We need to take a close look at it.

Subsection 'Engagement with Israeli forces' and/or 'Rocket attacks into Israel' is a natural start followed with 'Preparation'. All adjusted to this new layout.

The sections 'lead' looks like a long justification for the israeli attack. Cut it away as POV or find a rationale for having a section with justifications.

I suggest POV-tag on the section until its fixed. Brunte (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brunte, can you put your suggested revisions here first please. You are not a native English speaker and your edits require other editors going in to fix syntax, grammar and spelling. Thanks RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my English is bad. I moved around some of the text in section without change much of the actual text. I will follow your suggestion when i get time but as it is much work I wait untill thing settles little and we can work together better. Brunte (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rename to 'Palestinian response'

Support because it is an accurate term and it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive'.
NB. Some people say 'its not a response, Hamas has been firing rockets for years'. While Hamas has indeed, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian actions were a response to the Israeli actions. You can't seriously suggest that during this war/conflict Hamas fighters merely continued with whatever they had been doing during the previous months, and that they took no notice of the Israeli incursion.
An analogy: take an offenseve by allied forces during WW2. If the Nazis fought back to this, this would be their response. This would be despite the fact that they had been attacking allied forces for several years and that they began the aggression- that would not change the fact that it was a response.
It is the same here. This is an individual battle. The Israelis started this individual battle. The Palestinians responded to the Israelis. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support The "offensive" that began Dec 27 was unprecedented in scale and effect, and this article covers that event. I think "resistance" would be POV, but "response" is accurate. RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets a few days before the offensive. Was it a pre-emptive response? Or is every rocket fired after the offensive considered a response? What's the difference between rockets fired before and after? Before it was just because they like killing civilians, and after it had another reason? No, claiming the rocket fire is in any way a response to the "unprecedented" attack is unjustified, and ignores years of rocket fire. Claiming "The Israelis started this individual battle" shows your POV here. I can, just as legitimately, claim that the Palestinians started this battle, by firing dozens of rockets after the end of the cease-fire. okedem (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I made sub-subsection '# 2.3 Rocket attacks into Israel' to an own subsection outside '2.2 Palestinian defence of Gaza' (Palestinian response, militants activity etz) That would solv the problem I guess. Brunte (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A better idea is to merge all of it into Israeli offensive, palestinian actiom to defend themself against the israels actions, section for section. Call the section 'Israeli offensive and palestinian defence' or similar. Brunte (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can agre on that we then can do the merging which is little more worksome than renaming sections and moving already availible text Brunte (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that. okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Okedem's argument is not convincing, but if we use "Israeli Offensive" we should say "Palestinian Counter-offensive". "Counter-offensive" doesn't imply ignoring previous actions, but provides a correct chronology from the perspective of military history. For example, everyone knows that Japan attacked the USA first in WWII, but we still call further attacks in a given theater by the USA as "offensives" and the Japanese response as "counter-offensives", without this implying that the USA was responsible for the conflict. "Palestinian militant action" is a bit to OR, but I do not oppose it, I simply feel there are better alternatives.--Cerejota (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There's still a rather subjective determination of chronology here. Seeing how the Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets in a single day before Israel's main offensive, that could be seen as the initial event, and Israel's actions as the counter-offensive. Even if the words "counter-offensive" don't imply judgment, the chronology they're based on does. (By the public discourse in Israel, that major rocket attack after the cease-fire ended was what really created the support for the offensive. Without it, most Israelis would have been content to extend the status-quo - but that's just my impression). okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but lets base ourselves on how military historians view wars. For example, there is general agreement that WWII started when the Germans invaded Poland. However, in the Spanish Civil War there was heavy involvement of all the belligerents, including testing of military hardware and international brigades with tacit support of the a section of their home governments. There was the Auchluss of Austria and Bohemia. And then there was the treaty of Versailles. Ans the Soviets invaded Finland, and had a border war with the Japanese. And the USA didn't join the war (thus making it an European/Asian war) until the end of 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor (which itself is problematic, as there had been more or less open support on the part of the USA - including air combat - to the Chinese forces, both nationalist and communist). So even tho we have a generally recognized start of WWII as being the September 1939 invasion of Poland, there is a lot of non-fringe debate that questions this, see here: World_War_II#Chronology. So yeah, war is complicated thing. And I agree with the view that Operation Cast Lead was a direct response to rocket attacks, but rocket attacks from the view of any military historians are not an offensive, but harassment operations or some such. In strict terms, the Palestinian actions are defensive operations intended to stand their ground, but I do understand that the use of such terminology - which is completely neutral from the perspective of military science - can be seen as politically problematic; so the less scientifically precise Counter-offensive works. You see, its not about the political chronology, which is covered in the background section, but the military chronology. It is clear that the initiative here was held by the IDF - so its their offensive, and any response is either a defense or a counter-offensive, as there was no strategic retreat the remaining possible response.
That said, I see that you and Nablezzy both support the idea I floated at the beginning of the sections of merging the military actions into a single chronological section, rather than separating them out. I think this is sensible and much less prone to bias. --Cerejota (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that was Nableezy's suggestion. by the way, while we're talking Brunte has gone ahead and changed the sectioning. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The image File:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fairusebot we don't need your pro-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-Fatah POV-pushing around here. Please see WP:IAR. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Need some clarification about the UN school: Article now says no one was killed. Is that correct?

I have read the thread above. My understanding of the situation is that the shells hit outside the school, thus killing 43 people inside. At the time there were loads of tv images and interviews clearly suggesting, neutrally, that, however it happenede, a lot of people had died in the school?

However, the article now says no one was killed. Is that correct?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two different schools. In the edit warring and POV pushing it seems they underwent a Vulcan school meld.--Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The January 6 incident - According to the UN's very late admission, the mortar bombs hit the street outside the school, and no one inside was hurt. This is different from the incident reported under "Incidents", from January 17, in Beit Lahiya. okedem (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Reprisal attacks and revert by Nab

What do you guys think of the current Reprisal attacks in Gaza section? According to User:Nableezy, he said " This is unrelated to the conflict." This is what he: Removed

All the info is directly cited from the article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What he deleted was simply more detailed information regarding the reprisal attacks. I don't believe it is unrelated. Can we hold off on the reverts for now until we get some opinions? Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The numerous sources about this have reported this as returning to behavior prior to the conflict. And I thought you were taking a break from this article and that you never touch the actual article. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the article and sources, these events during and after the conflict. But the conflict is still classified as on-going correct? Yes, I said I would take a break. But I've been working on the reprisal attacks article for awhile and didn't know why it wasn't included here. Some editors are thinking of merging the article into this one but I'm not sure if that is a wise choice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Your initial post is misleading. I did not remove the section on reprisal attacks, I removed the sentence that relates to what the sources describe as old behavior from before the conflict returning after the conflict ended. That type of situation to me is unrelated to the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't old behavior, it occurred during the event. Let me rephrase: It happened during the conflict, not before. Can you provide the source that says different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I didnt say this was old behavior, I said it was behavior that existed before this event and has since resurfaced according to these reports (or old behavior that has since returned). This is why I say this: “After Israel ended its aggression in the Gaza Strip, the Health Ministry was surprised that Hamas militants returned to their old behavior, expelling medical staff and using medical centers as detention centers, and for torture and interrogation,” the statement said. (from maan news agency) Note the 'after Israel ended its aggression' not 'while Israel was engaging in its aggression'. Nableezy (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. Guys, this is lame. Since there is already an article on this, why don't we simply link to it, an use it's intro as the only mention here. This is peripherally relevant to the war (but still relevant) and that way we have the edit-war on the article actually about the topic, rather than here. I also suggest we use the {{seealso}} to link to Hamas-Fatah conflict for background. Wasup with that? Do I hear yea?--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The article has become a beacon very other non-conflict situations, like international reactions and global response. This section is directly associated with the conflict, in fact, it is part of the conflict. A simple link wouldn't do it justice. I don't see why we should delete, it's only a paragraph. If anything, it should be expanded. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I didnt even delete a paragraph, I deleted a sentence. What happened during the conflict could be relevant, what happened after as part of ongoing confrontation between Fatah and Hamas isnt. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, please realize that WP:SUMMARY is meant precisely for forking out content. For example, the "Timeline", which is central to the conflict, yet very large, has been forked out under WP:SUMMARY.

And no, the internal conflict of the Palestinian factions is not central to this conflict. It is patently peripheral, because the situation was ongoing before the war started, and will continue to happen long after. Perhaps the shooting of Palestinian collaborators with the Israelis is a small part of this war, as those might have been revealed due to actions in support of Operation Cast Lead, but Hamas is notorious for shooting Fatah people as "collaborators" (and Fatah has done the same to Hamas - sometimes with much more reason).

However, you miss the central point: this topic has its own article, where the information belongs. At most we should have the intro for that article, which pretty much covers it, and then link. WP:SUMMARY is useless if we do not have the discipline to accept that our pet points will not be discussed in the "front" article in the extent we want them to.--Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The conflict is in direct response to the war. I'm not denying Hamas and Fatah are notorious for shooting each other, and that they will continue to shoot each other, but this slaughter resulted because of the conflict. It's only a paragraph, reducing it to sentence would render the inclusion useless so we might as well delete it. I request opinions from people who do not belong in the same "camp." I mean that in the most cordial way possible, but it's important we diversify. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not belong in the same "camp" as Nablezzy - in fact, I have had some rather strong disagreements with him, and even kinda disagree in this matter. And its precisely that kind of "camp" thinking that gets us nowhere but nastyness. I have edited it to be what it should be: a summary of the sub-article.
You continue to miss the obvious point: this is not for this article, but for the sub-article. Is as if we discussed Roof-knocking in depth in here (and shit, "roof-knocking" as term was invented for this conflict). Summary-style is summary, d'oh.--Cerejota (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You're comparing this to roof-knocking? Hamas is killing off Israeli assets, how does that even remotely link to the importance of roof-knocking? Yeah, I definitely want some more opinions here lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You still don't get it: I do not object the inclusion of material in the appropriate article. And yes, roof knocking is much less important than intercine conflict, I am sorry for not being clear enough. However, still the use of less-than lethal weapons as part of a warning strategy is a relevant part of the Israeli military history of this war. Yet we (correctly as of now) I will say this, I might have over-shortened this, but not by much - this is really secondary stuff, in particular because not much RS can be found that is not repeating the same stuff.
BTW, has Israel released any info on missing assets? I know they have in the past released information on assets with IDF/Shin Bet/Mossad rank etc, but never for civilian informants.--Cerejota (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about roof-knocking, I don't care about roof-knocking. I doubt Israel will a comment about how they employ Palestinian spies seeing as how vindictive Hamas/Fatah are. We've been passing off every quote/fact said by Hamas/Fatah/questionable charities/etc as truth, I don't see how this is any different if you're trying to infer there is a factual issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uhh name one quote from Hamas or Fatah that we pass off as fact, or a single charity we quote at all. Or is the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC in that description as 'questionable charities'? Nableezy (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, have you read the article? We hand out free passes to Hamas/Fatah spokespeople and Palestinian civilian are given the mic from every "objective" media outlet while we scrutinize all sources from the IDF on a level not applied to the other side. By questionable charities, yes I'm referring to AI and HRW, and especially Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. There are criticism sections for all of those charities/advocacy groups, I suggest you read them.

Stop making this an argument and read what I wrote. I really don't want this to be another arbitration over a silly paragraph which can be easily solved. This is elementary man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Name one Hamas/Fatah comment that is not clearly presented as a Hamas/Fatah comment. I dont think I have to say anything about those questionable charities AI and HRW, lets not forget the UN or the ICRC too, they surely are in the anti-Israeli crowd and should be presented as such. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much that is the point: name what it is wrong, and I promise you I will fix it. I be honest, I am waiting for the fog of war to lift a little, so I do not do indepth reading of the article unless some other editors point out egregious crap. In fact, such things have happened and have been relatively quickly reverted. On the "questionable charities", WP:FRINGE criticisms are just that, fringe. We go by what the RS say. And we do not need arbitration, but perhaps wider community involvement? If uninvolved editors feel that HRW and AI are dodgy, I will accept that judgment. I see them as well respected by RS. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights is certainly more iffy, but I do not see any major areas in the article in which it is the sole source - and there is certainly a primary source aspect. For example, in the "Antisemitic Incidents" section of "international reactions" we use the JTA and INN - both equally iffy as the PCHR - because they are reporting on incidents not disputed by sources. The verifiability of a source is not subjective, but objective: if other sources say its true in this case then we can use.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Style and grammar edits

People are putting a lot of effort into debating what belongs into this article, which is great but the writing is being neglected a bit and some of it is downright atrocious. I’ve tried to clean up some passages. They’re still not great but hopefully a bit more reader friendly. I’ve desperately tried to NOT change the content and stay clear of anything that might be considered pov changes. So could someone kindly explain how Version 2 below is “pov as hell” compared to Version 1 below?

Version1: Following its victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and the military conflict between Fatah and Hamas, Hamas assumed administrative control, with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing after EU border monitors left and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007. With Israel controlling land, air and sea access and much of Gaza's economy, power, and water, only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis were allowed to enter the territory, while all exports were prohibited. The blockade was partially bypassed by tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, some of which were alleged to have been used for weapons smuggling. Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens; while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations.
Version2: Hamas assumed administrative control of Gaza following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and its 2007 military victory over Fatah. In response, Egypt and Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza closing all border crossings in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel subsequently halted all exports and only allowed shipments into Gaza to avert a humanitarian crisis. Palestinian groups were partially able to bypass the blockade through tunnels, which Israel alleges were used for weapons smuggling. Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more. During this time period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians.

PS The bit about the EU monitors was added later. Some of the stuff I’m looking to improve are clarity, conciseness, passive/active voice, and endless sentences/clauses.--Andi Hofer (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'pov as hell' bit was about the 'In response, Egypt and Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza closing all border crossings in July 2007.' part. That seems to equate Egyptian and Israeli involvement in the blockade, I think the more verbose one is more accurate. That is all I really object to, the rest seemed fine. Nableezy (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, the sentence on Israel controlling airspace and waters as part of the blockade is missing in the second, though I think that could be phrased better as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure the original version does a better job at making that differentiation and the next sentences make it pretty clear which party is enforcing the blockade, but how ‘bout this:
“Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah border crossing when EU monitors left and Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza.”
I think this makes it clear that Egypt only closed off one access and the Israel closed off everything else. I don’t think it’s necessary to outline all modes of transportation. Any additional discussion of EU monitor issues or why Rafah was closed should probably be done in a separate sentence but that’s not really a discussion I’m involved in (though I have been reading it).

--Andi Hofer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence seems fine, but I do think it is necessary to mention airspace control and territorial waters control as part of the blockade. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Also this line: "its 2007 military victory over Fatah". I think that link should instead just say "conflict with Fatah" as it was so much more than a military conflict. Just my preference in wording though. Nableezy (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we're leaving way too much information out. The above example implies Israel simply closed the border arbitrarily, with the involvement of Egypt. Not to mention, according to Hamas' charter, they will fight for Israel's destruction and condone the killing of all Jewish civilians (Israeli or not). They also said in the event that the border is opened, which it was for a short time in 2008, they would attack. They delivered on the promise from what I remembered. Also, The Gaza Strip has 4x the access to Israel than it does to Egypt, that also should be mentioned somewhere. If we're going to skim the waters of the blame, then all sides must be posted. The article gives the impression that Hamas doesn't even exist. The last sentence is blatantly POV and false: Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens; while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations.

Plus it doesn't do the situation justice. Hamas would attack for months without response, then after crap like the Passover Massacre, Israel would respond in the way they should have originally and the whole world cries. Version 2 is POV hell solely based on that sentence.

Not to mention it doesn't clarify who is militant and who is civilian, an argument which is constantly disputes. Plus it doesn't clarify how many civilians Hamas has killed during the rocket attacks. The paragraph gives the impression that Hamas was throwing stones and Israel responded with nuclear bombs. Hamas was asking for a war: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, and it took more than a year for them to get a real one. Plus, many of the wars aren't necessarily in response to the rocket attacks, but the suicide bombings that accompany them. If we count those, 40 people have been killed in suicide bombings in 2008 (many more in from non-bombings) and 500+ since 2001. This paragraph should be written collaboratively and not by one person. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been written collaboratively, and we talk about the hamas charter, and every other word you wrote was irrelevant personal feelings. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And the sentence you brought up is both NPOV and true. Did Israel mention suicide bombings in its stated aims? I must have missed that, but Im sure you can provide a blog that does. Nableezy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Israel did mention it is. It mentioned ending Hamas' violation of the various truce/cease-fires and sovereignty. What, you think Israel is like "Ok Hamas, suicide bombings are ok but mortar and rockets are a big no-no." Saying "this is NPOV" means nothing, I said why it wasn't. And collaboratively doesn't mean two people with the same agenda. It means people from opposite spectrum, though many evil Zionists have left because of the vicious bandwagoning (not in this article talk however). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And saying it isnt NPOV, especially coming from you, is meaningless. And how many suicide bombing Hamas responsible for since the beginning of the blockade? Nableezy (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Check for yourself: Suicide bombings + blockade

I'm not just saying this isn't NPOV, I gave reasons. You are the one who is saying this is NPOV and telling me my complaints are meaningless. I'm just going to get an admin to arbitrate if you continue to put roadblocks whenever someone has a valid point that disagrees with the 2 person consensus. Maybe you should do it since you're so concerned about my meaningless opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel like. I cant take you seriously though so I am going to stop responding unless you say exactly what it is you would want to add or remove from the article. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Here, I'll black it for you so you have no excuse and no right to attack me and NOT assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just tell me what it is you want to add exactly, as in put what line you would change and how with sources. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to rewrite the entire paragraph LOL. Why would I waste my precious time for you to just stonewall me like you just did 30 mins ago? If you're goal is neutrality, I've given information to make the paragraph NPOV. You said my opinion is meaningless even after I bolded the info that you said wasn't there. I'm not going to jump hoops for something so simple unless you're actually going to respect my opinion. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, great. Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools in Effects section

I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too.[3] It gives the number of schools destroyed and damaged (37) plus closed as refugee shelters (18). Last night I didn't see much of this stuff but I noticed Nishidani's addition of mosques. Sound okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Friend, just noticed this. I put in 90 mosques last night because several hours earlier, trawling through dozens of articles, I saw that as a late estimate, forgot to saze the link, and now can't find it. Today I haven't either. Since I can't verify this, I hope it has been reverted to the earlier figure. If not, I'll do so myself.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I hadn't even noticed that. I just saw your summary at one point. But I notice that we still have the old source which says 20 mosques. I was about to update the effects article to say 24 but it uses the same 20 source. Do you have a source for the 24 number? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I originally saw that googling and got aln al-Jazeera clip mentioning 24 mosques damaged. Rechecking I see it is a video, which is not enough for me. Rechecking further I found some sites which give the following list of 27, but which comes from a site I don't trust (even if reprinted on anti-Islamicist sites), and confuses holy sites with mosques:-

I. The Masjid of the Martyr Imad Aqel in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in north Gaza, the bombing of the mosque by the Israeli warplanes on Dec. 28, 2008 resulted in the collapse of an adjacent house, causing the death of 5 sisters from one family and injuries of number of citizens who are living nearby.

II. Masjid Al-Saraya was completely destroyed on Dec. 28, 2008 through the air bombing of Al-Saraya governmental compound in the center of Gaza city.

III. The Israeli warplanes have targeted Majid Al-Abbas and the neighboring Al-Abbas police station in Gaza city on Dec. 28, 2008 that resulted in substantial damage.

IV. Masjid Al-Shifaa Mosque was bombed by air Dec. 28, 2008, inside the mosque were a lot of a relatives of ill persons and four of them were killed. The mosque is located near Al-Shifaa medical complex in Gaza city. The bombing created a state of confusion among the medical staff and teams who are working in the hospital, deepening the difficulties in the hospital after being subjected to significant damage by fragments of missiles and pieces of stones and cement. Israeli missiles turned the mosque to a pile of rubble. The two rockets that directly struck the dome of the mosque resulted in two large holes, the stones and the columns of the mosque scattered and spread out in adjacent roads, houses, and shops causing a lot of damage.

V Masjid al-Fadilah, Rafa, Palestine, Jan. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Khaled Omar)

Masjid Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq is located in Beit Hanoun town in the far north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli warplanes have fired several missiles towards the mosque on Dec. 29, 2008 causing complete destruction. The dead and injured had been recovered from under the rubble.

VI. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Ezz Al-Dien Al-Qassam martyr mosque in Abasan / Khan-Younis in south of Gaza Strip destroying it completely. The Israeli authorities did not mention any reason for this bombing.

VII. On Dec. 29, 2008: Bombing of Masjid Al-Ribat in Rafah resulted in seven 7 dead 3 of them are children.

VIII. Masjid Al-Abrar” in Rafah was bombed on Dec. 29, 2009 and again on Jan. 15, 2009. The mosque has been completely destroyed.

IX. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes have bombed Masjid Riad Al-Saaliheen mosque in the north of the Gaza Strip.

X. Around 3:00 AM at Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at dawn, the occupation warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Faruq Omar bin Al-Khatab in Al-Breij camp in the center of Gaza Strip destroying it completely.

XI. Masjid Abu Hanifa Nu’man located in Tal Alhawa south of Gaza city, was targeted with four missiles on Dec. 31, 2008, resulting in destroying it completely, the injuries of five women, and damage in a large number of adjacent houses.

XII. On Jan. 1, 2009 the occupation forces fired a rocket that caused damage to Masjid Khalil Al-Rahman in the Abasan area east of Khan Younis.

XIII. On Jan. 1, 2009 an Israeli bombing has targeted Masjid Al-Nasr, an ancient mosque in Beit Hanoun town in the north of Gaza Strip resulting in its destruction. The mosque was built in A.D. 736.

XIV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli warplanes targeted Masjid Al-Khulafa’ Al-Rashideen” in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in the north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli forces fired several rockets towards the mosque and destroyed it, and resulted in injuring several Palestinians and damage in several neighboring houses.

XV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli forces bombed Masjid Omar Bin Abdel Aziz in Beit Hanoun resulting in enormous damage in its buildings.

XVI. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli jet warplanes type F-16 bombed the mosque of the Martyr Ibrahim Al-Maqadmah in Beit Lahia town far north of Gaza with a large bomb weighting 500 kg when tens of worshiper were performing the prayers, resulting in a massacre with 16 people killed and dozens injured.

XVII. The Israeli warplanes at the dawn on Jan. 6, 2009 bombed Masjid Hasan Al-Banna in Al-Zaitoon neighborhood north of Gaza Strip resulting in destroying it completely. The bombing resulted in the injuries of several persons and the burning of a number of neighboring houses.

XVIII. At 9:00 PM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Taqwa in Al-Shiekh Radwan neighborhood north of Gaza city, and re-bombed it four hours later, resulting in the killing of 4 Palestinian civilians, the injuries of others, and resulted in the destruction of the mosque that was composed of four floors and the damage of about 10 neighboring houses.

XIX. About 11:50 AM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Noor Al-Mohammed located in AL-Jala’ street in Gaza city, causing complete destruction to the mosque, killing and injuring several Palestinians, and in damage to neighboring houses.

XX. On Jan. 7, 2009 at about 2:00 A.M., the Israeli warplanes bombed the police center in Bani Saheela east of Khan-Younis, resulting in destroying it and damage in the neighboring buildings including Masjid Hamza, with no injuries.

XXI. On Jan. 8, 2009 the Israeli forces fired artillery shells towards the houses of the citizens and Masjid Ibad Al-Rahman in Wadi Al-Salqa village.

XXII. Occupation forces destroyed Masjid Al-Ribat in Khan-Younis on Jan. 9, 2009.

XXIII. On Jan. 10, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Ssafa in Al-Breij camp resulting in partial destruction.

XXIV. On Jan. 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM, the Israeli warplanes of type F16 have bombed with many missiles “Dar Al-Fadeela” mosque that follows the house of virtue orphans which includes elementary private school, the college of Dar Al-Da’wa for human sciences, and a computer center. That is located in Taha Hussein street in Khirbit Al-Adas neighborhood north-east of Rafah. This causes the complete destruction of the house Dar Al-Fadeela.

XXV. Masjid Bilal bin Rabah in Rafah south of Gaza was destroyed completely in the first week of the war against Gaza, the photos of the destruction of this mosque were displayed in a lot of media around the globe.

XXVI. Masjid Al-Salateen in Jabaliya was targeted by a bombing on Jan. 14, 2009.

XXVII. On Dec. 28, 2008 Masjid Al-Estiqamah in Rafah city was significantly damaged as a result of bombing in adjacent areas by Israeli warplanes. The mosque is located in a densely populated residential area causing the damage in tens of neighboring houses. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Attacks on schools in Gaza are referenced several times throughout the article yet the attack on the Israeli school in Beersheba was just removed. Realistically, the editor had a point that it may not belong in the "Effects" section. It jumps out at me though since it might (not sure myself) have been possible to work it in in properly if the editor chose to do so and other schools are mentioned in all sorts of random places throughout the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Follow-up: Just saw it referenced in another section of the article very well. Maybe the editor knew that already when deleting the info from the effects section.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dump?

Sorry, but could smoeone tell me whats the point of dumping the above couple of screens in here? Dovid (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

clarity on casualties

I just saw in the 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah Smackdown article (aka "Reprisal attacks") a sourced claim of 400 Fatah members killed. This is a huge number, but my question is if this is included among the casualties of the conflict? This is important to clarify, via sources, if this is actually done. I mean, thats nearly a third of the deaths reported for the entire conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally! A good title for that article: 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah smackdown it is. Cerejota, you're a genius. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just calling them as I see them. Do remember I call this Operation Cats Lead--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't actually know the exact number of casualties in any of the wars. IDF says 900 people were killed in the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict, ~250 of whom were civilians, whereas the Palestinians say 1200+ people and more than 1/3 of them civilians. I personally would average it out giving an IDF more weight considering the long long history of Palestinians emblishing casualties, and occasionally offering false numbers. As far as I know, Hamas is still going around Gaza City and offing everyone who they believed collaborated with Israel, so the numbers will probably go up if and when major media decides to report it. I'm in favor of including the casualties, but there aren't a whole lot of disputes regarding actual numbers because everyone is so focused on this war. Either we wait or put it in with a warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Deja vu: Rather than getting into OR value judgments (I have made them too, but I will not repeat them) of the accuracy or lack thereof of casualty figures, we should have a range with sourcing. I even made a mockup example. If there are notable middle ranges we should report those too. That is a simple wikipedian solution. Averaging out is OR and SYNTH.
Now, this doesn't answer my question, which is if the Fatah casualties are counted.
This is significant. Let me do a little fresh OR: IDF figure is ~900. Highest source from Palestinian MoH is ~1,300. The source we have on Fatah casualties is 400. This happens to be the exact difference between the IDF and the MoH. Get it? However, there is no source I can find for this. This would be a significant thing. I am trying to activate the CAMERAtrons and Intifadacons to get the info :D. Cause the POV guys always seem to have a better way to find sauce. --Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
NOT funny, Cerejota. Condescending accusations and insults (even if couched in 'jokes') do nothing to improve the encyclopedia and certainly not the atmosphere. Please quit it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Get. A. Sense. Of. Humor. --Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, please. We understand that you find the whole thing funny, but others (as witnessed by the recent WP:AE) apparently don't. Please discontinue these explicit and implicit statements and jokes. Thanks a lot, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What? You? I know you liked it. Tell your boy to get offended by serious crap, not lameness. That said, I will control myself - or at least try. Lets do this, you will be my cop. Since I know you like the gallows humor, if you tell me to quit I'll trust you. Deal? --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it: Gaza's gallows humor. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't care about the jokes, but it should go both ways. A couple of days ago I made light of how the Muslim world is so full of tolerance and understanding, and Nableezy or another use took it personal and interpreted as me being anti-Muslim/intolerant. So, if insults laced with humor are allowed, let me know. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wasnt me, I do you the courtesy of keeping whether or not I think you are a racist to myself, and I hope you will reciprocate. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I just searched through your talk page and found this: You brought up my religion when it serves no relevance. Do not post here again. You have shown yourself to be an ignorant fool... Thanks for the courtesy.  ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Did I call you a racist? Nableezy (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no. My story had nothing to do with race...you're denial "wasn't me" contradicts the evidence I provided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well if you read on you would see that i stopped reading after 'You seem to idolize the UN, AI, etc...like their ideas come straight from the Quran', so i did not know you had been making light of how the Muslim world is so full of tolerance and understanding, so my comment was not in response to that, I hadnt read it before now. But have a nice day. Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find you funny Wikifan, when you try. I would like that you didn't setup strawmen which such frequency tho... its better when we discuss what we actually said. If you note, I was an equal opportunity sarcastic asshole: CAMERAtrons and Intifadacons. Both. And I made CAMERA to be the Robotrons and the Intifidah to be the Decepticons. And not even that worked. I still got called for detention. --Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Robotrons? What the hell are Robotrons? It's "Autobots"! Who's with me, people? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
True, to true. I had a rare flashback to the pre-cable dubbed cartoons days in my sweet tropical world 2.5 paradise. SOmething got lost in translation and confusion on all the manga. You guys had Mazinger Z tho, right?--Cerejota (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh? Unless I need a reboot on logical fallacy lessons, this: "I honestly don't care about the jokes, but it should go both ways. A couple of days ago I made light of how the Muslim world is so full of tolerance and understanding, and Nableezy or another use took it personal and interpreted as me being anti-Muslim/intolerant. So, if insults laced with humor are allowed, let me know. LOL." does not contain a strawman. But whatever, let's get back on point. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, the UNHRC have just issued another statement by Falk which talks about 'massive violations of indenting policy...'. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Reboot needed. I meant in general, not just now. Although, you just setup a strawman! OMG. You setup a strawman to reply that you didn't setup a strawman, which itself is a strawman. Now I need a reboot. But yeah, better go back to regular programing...--Cerejota (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the good news is that Falk has offered to retract his severe and massive violations accusation if you agree to follow standard remark indenting policies on talk pages. At the moment your fear of the colon key suggests that you may have subconscious health concerns. I suggest a high fibre diet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How was that a strawman? I'm not arguing against anybody. A strawman is when you take the weakest argument from an opponent and knock it down. This has nothing to do with fallacies and everything to do with facts, LOLOLOL. 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

International law

The International law section is messy, too long (it was never significantly cut back when other sections were), and it contains factual inaccuracies. Frankly, it's quality is an embarrassment to the article (apologies to all those who worked on it, including myself). The problem is that it's a very charged section POV-wise, and I doubt any serious change to it will last for long, which is probably why it's in the shape it's in. I have a suggestion (and if this violates some WP policy that I'm unaware of, somebody just point that out and that will be the end of it). We form a committee among editors active in this article: say, one person considered pro-Palestinian, one person considered pro-Israel, and one person considered centrist. We all agree to accept whatever they spit out, thus granting it consensus. They spit out a high-quality section, and the article is improved. Any subsequent changes to the section will require consensus. Thoughts? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the pro-Palestinian editor, if that's okay with everyone. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd support that, seriously. It might help. Call it role play, advocating on behalf of the opposing team. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I can be the pro-Israeli editor. I actually like the logo for Kach so that's a start...--Cerejota (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously though, Brewcrewer and Cerejota, are you on board? How about Nableezy and you two as the committee? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, what I'd really like is to get Wikifan and NonZionist working together. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No need because Israel and Palestine have agreed on a single secular state, single nationality (Laotian...they need the people), single solution while we were discussing the population density question. It's all sorted. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would pay to see Wikifan and Non-Zionist agree on the color of the sky. Srsly. At least Wikifan has made an effort as of late. Non-Zionist remains mostly a troll, which is bad because sometimes he is right.--Cerejota (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I endorse this idea. But we must know, the reason why the international law section is so POV is because they're hasn't been an actual trial. Moral supremacists like Richard A. Falk, who was recently appointed by the UN to "prosecute" in the media, has reduced any possibility of a legal process to shame. Save for a total rewrite, I personally think it should be either deleted, merged, or have its own allegations/criticism type article. Leaving it here as-is with the same title gives the false impression that it's met the acceptable criteria, which it blatantly has not. Also, be prepared for some major backlash. I don't think the pro-Pal's are gonna let this one go LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Jalapenos, I guess another approach might be to go way back to one of the early versions of this section which were pretty pithy (e.g. this one) and build on that in a baby steps way. I think less is more here. Focus on the key statements and their rebuttals, add a few specific examples. Wikifan, if you are indeed a Wiki fan you know it's better to fix the mute button on your soapbox because it's malfunctioning and leave out the personal views as far a possible. It's counterproductive. I'm just saying. Not always easy I admit. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not soapboxing. That type of writing would never fly in a "pro-Israel" article. There's nothing to build Sean, we aren't lacking information. The process isn't fair because there hasn't even been an investigation. Everything is so emotionally charged with the pictures and the crying grandmas that it makes it extremely difficult from logical perspective to believe this has anything to do with the law, especially when accused doesn't get a voice. I suggest we move into a different article or delete it. It shouldn't be in this article, period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, I agree the version you brought is better than the current one, but it's far from high-quality, and I fear any attempts to improve it would spin out of control and we'd end up back where we are now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough Jalapenos, it was just a thought.
Wikifan, I understand what you mean. I agree that it probably needs it's own article but it should still have a summary here even if it's very short. Fairness, logic, the emotional weather, giving the accused a voice doesn't come into it. This is just an encyclopedia. There are no trials or justice in Wiki, just information. Statements by major international bodies on this issue are notable for an encyclopedia and of course we need some counter arguments for balance. Personally I'm not interested in the details for this article, just a broad overview with links to the relevant legal terms because they're technical. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So do I have your support for the idea? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's practical. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Sounds too complicated for me. Cryptonio (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Cryptonio

Your edit to the International law section:

An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz, describes Israel rationale of using “enormous firepower “ in Gaza in order to minimize military casualties in Israeli’s ranks. One senior military officer stated that for the Israeli army “being cautious means being aggressive… From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground ... I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock. Maybe someone there will sober up before it continues." It was not clear whether such strategy amounted to “deliberate policy” by the Israeli army. One possible reason given for the enforcement of the strategy, was the mentality that “heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals.” This information correlates charges and accusations against Israel that it used “disproportionate military response” in Gaza.[350] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalapenos do exist (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz...", followed by a picture-perfect WP:SYNTH paragraph, in an already messy section? You've got to be kidding me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this attention...there are already established ways in how to respond etc. You are acting like a child. Cryptonio (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, he isn't. He is calling your bluster - perhaps using a section to call out was not a good judgement, but its not childish either. Describing Haaretz as "Jewish" is as relevant as describing "The Times" as "Anglican": Haaretz is a RS by any measure of the term, and while like with Al-Jazeera one should be careful to see what is being quoted, it is generally solid when reporting. And then the song by A Flock of Seagulls that follows isn't that koshalal either.--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I believe the established way to respond to an edit one disagrees with is by bringing it up on the talk page, which is what I did. So, do you want to defend the edit? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit was necessary because in no other place in this article the subject matter was discussed. When the Israeli military says its using 'enormous firepower' in order to save their own soldiers, it is to expect less caution when avoiding civilian casualty, which the Israel has said its one of its priorities. The comments, were from actual senior officers in Gaza. This does not sound all that complicated to me. More sources of course can be brought up, I just don't know if you'll be kind enough to accept them and READ them as well. Cryptonio (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And removing other people's comments from the talk page, as you did here is a big no-no. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It read Cryptonio. So i figured it was up to me to leave my name as a title that i did not created. That was a childish behavior. Here are some sources. I forgot to mention about Israel's threat to use disproportionate force in return to Hamas attacks.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1506825.htm
"Critics said Israel had responded disproportionately, in its air and ground offensive in heavily populated areas, to cross-border rocket attacks over eight years that killed 18 people. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed in the Gaza campaign. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-beehner/did-israel-use-disproport_b_154452.html
"The targeting of civilians, whether deliberate or not, violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As such, Hamas sprinkles its militants around population centers as a form of deterrence but also to maximize world outrage when Israel responds with overwhelming force and ends up killing scores of civilians. What's remarkable is that time and again Israel falls for the bait. Regardless of how many Hamas fighters it kills or what kind of signal it sends to Syria and Iran, world perception is what ultimately matters, not body counts. And the tide of public opinion seems to invariably side with the underdog, regardless of who's to blame." Cryptonio (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a song by A Flock of Seagulls. No SYNTHs allowed... Frankly, if we are going to OR, there is a lot of wishful thinking going arounf on the part of the federalist wing of the international human rights NGOs. The legal fact is that international law today only applies to countries that accept its regimes. Among those who in general do not are Israel and the USA. Decrying them for violating treaties and agreements they do not subscribe to is moot. We should be careful in giving WP:UNDUE to partisan information on the applicability of international law to thios conflict. If it applied, a tribunal would have been setup, as it was done in Yugoslavia or Sierra Leone. And the interpretation of Geneva that some make would make it seem as if war is banned. I wish it were, but this is both impossible and not true. --Cerejota (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
According to your 'fog of war' theories, who knows if Israel will ever be tried or not? SYNTH? there was only one source in there, but i there is more. What part of it was not proved by the article itself? Cryptonio (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456535626&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
"On December 27, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the secretary-general recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law."
The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."
A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel.
Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response."

I removed the sorry thing. It should stay removed.--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What was your reason? fog of war? It was a reliable source and it contained information from the article. Cryptonio (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a misrepresentation of a RS.--Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Cryptonio (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Density in Airstrike warning/roof knocking section

This is a low priority and other density discussions should continue in other places. Is the mention of population density needed here? It is well sourced and belongs somewhere just maybe not in this exact section. Not a big deal just seems like it is better in other sections. Any thoughts?

"Amnesty International and the United Nations reported that in the densely populated areas of Gaza there were no "safe" places for civilians.[146][147]"Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I never noticed that the AI and UN statements weren't actually said in the context of airstrike warnings; I always assumed they were. So yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be in the roof knocking section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What about this: "Telephone calls from IDF personnel, or leaflets dropped by airplanes to people throughout Gaza ordering evacuation from their homes prior to bombings were widely reported. While in some cases homes were bombed immediately after the calls were made, others were not. Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." from this OCHA report is not said in the context of air strike warnings? I dont think it has to be put as 'no safe places' though that is a direct quote from the source, but there certainly is a source relating the roof knocking to a civilian panic and distress (some would say 'psych. war') and relating them by explicitly invoking the population density. Also as a note, not to harp too much, the % youth that was removed from the background, with good reason i think, has not been put into the casualties sections. Would you object to me putting that in there or not? Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nableezy. The UN source you bring is not the one currently in the article. Since your source does speak of the airstrikes, I agree that a short quote from it should be in the article, but I think the quote should be from the part about people leaving their houses and staying on the streets and with relatives, not from the part about "panic and uncertainty". Generally the article doesn't deal with states of mind (not even in the Ps.W. section!), but with actions that cause or are caused by those states of mind (including fleeing).
Re the youth quote: I don't know what quote you're talking about, but I doubt I would object to putting it in the Casualties section, as long as it was done well, and I think you're a good editor, so there you have it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) My bad, youth quote was directed to Cptnono, he was involved in the quagmire up above. Nableezy (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be my bad on the removal without reinsertion of the youth %. Please do insert the line as fit. I should have done it myself when but was focused too much on fixing the original line and was a little hasty. I completely agree with the inclusion of psy-war since it is sourced and that was a discussion a handful of us were having earlier today. No argument from me there. On to my concern now: I think the "no safe place" line is fine (albeit an exaggeration from my POV) since it seems properly sourced and is a somewhat valid point. It is only loosely related to warnings to civilians though. It really doesn't even come across as overt POV here or anything like that. It just doesn't flow well since it is not a great fit and should be used in a more relevant section of the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: Upon rereading: "Telephone calls from...as well as neighboring houses" is actually a really great fix and addresses what needs to be addressed. We will need to change the section title back to "Warnings" for format purposes but sounds good. I could see how other editors could argue that it gives too much attention to the "plight" of the residents of Gaza butI'll let others argue that after we get it a little closer to being fixed.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-upx2: mentioning any positive effects of the warnings should quell any unnecessary debate while sticking to all of the facts.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I did too much typing and not enough thinking beforehand. Struck through the fluff so you can catch my drift a little better. Apologies for the sloppy and poor discussion page etiquette.Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request

It is hard to believe that IDF spokesperson would do such a thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is your source where Israel rescinds that comment? Cryptonio (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get real. His has lawyers you know. I've googled and found 3 references:

I do not think this is a reliable source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get working. Google Israel's rescue, explanation or flat-out denial they did such a thing. Cryptonio (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. Actually it is better to see how this incident was reflected in other RS in order to achieve better encyclopedic value to this article. I did not see any IDF press release, maybe you? At best we could say Xinhuanet by unclear author reported that ... BTW Xinhuanet already published Hamas press releases before: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-03/04/content_755607.htm AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit, I don't know of any reason to doubt that Xinhua is generally a reliable source, but you raised an interesting issue. I did some checking, and couldn't find any other RS stating the incident as fact. I found several RS's stating the incident as an allegation by a Gazan speaking to Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. B'Tselem on its own is not a reliable source. It seems to me then that the alleged incident should best be described "So-and-so told Israeli human rights group B'Tselem that a Palestinian farmer was shot on January 18...". If other RS's can be found that refer to the incident as fact, we should also refer to it as fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBC simply say "Medics in Gaza said a Palestinian farmer was killed by gunfire." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AlJazera reports: After the incident, Israeli forces opened fire, killing a Palestinian farmer, Palestinian medical workers said. MX44 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have this pesky little thing called verifiability... :D--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, thank you for checking. So no IDF press release? MX44, Thank you for the link. I think you cite another "farmer" incident, but apparently by the same source: Hamas employed MoH official Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein, he is medical worker alright. Cerejota (talk) thank you for providing verifiability. While, apparently, there is nothing surprising with "(Hamas) medical workers report farmer killed", on Jan 18 and this allegation was reported also by BBC and B'Tselem. From other hand "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" clearly presents red flag. IDF spokesperson would not state something that out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. How BBC and B'Tselem managed to miss this apparently important press release? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:

  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included...

So what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem? Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
btw- cerejoGaza? i think you should apologize for that and try to remember to be civil. Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
agad - you need to apologize and strike it, not just delete and pretend it didn't happen. Untwirl (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is copy-paste accident, thank you for noticing. I'm really sorry Cerejota (talk). This is honest mistake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl (talk), it was not my intention. can we return to "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" quote? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

no prob - accidents happen. did you see my example? "if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem?"Untwirl (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This quote has a name of Italian known author, quoting "anonymous" Palestinian doctor. I fully agree with you there is to much of ""anonymous" reports in this article. If you want to remove it - go ahead. It is irrelevant to this discussion subject.
To the point, I'm not really sure that unnamed Xinhuanet author really quotes IDF response. There is no evidence about this claim of responsibility by IDF in war crime. This is highly unusual. You should consider process that IDF has for press releases in atmosphere of "bracing for slew of lawsuits"[6]. Everything IDF is saying is being filtered by Judge Advocate General. Why no other source confirms it, while reporting "medical sources" allegations? Do you see my point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources that is all I have to sya about this - I mean, if it did happen, it will be trivial to find sourcing --Cerejota (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see we on the same page, Cerejota. So if there is no other sourcing, please balance this "Ceasefire violations" quote and credit it clearly to Hamas sources. I personally would remove it completely, since "farmer" incident happened while Hamas initially "vowed to fight on". It's also acceptable to move "farmer" Jan 18 incident to Incidents section, where it rightfully belongs. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Sean's source was also about the separate, later "farmer" incident. In our (Jan 18) incident, the guy who said he saw it was not a medic, but the brother of the person allegedly shot. Like I said, I haven't found any source other than Xinhua that speaks of it as fact, though a few sources attribute it to B'Tselem "as heard from the brother". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So is there WP:consensus to remove first paragraph of Ceasefire violations section? Any other suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am all for consensus, but we have this AFP (also mentions "8 year old girl"), I think there is an attribution issue. Sources clearly mention "medics" as the source of the information, and we should say so.--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, I agree to what you say. Also according to IDF there were exchange of gun fire on Jan 18. "Medic" is wishy washy for "Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein". Is he mentioned accidentally in both Jan 18 and Jan 27 "farmer" allegation cases?
Anyway, use "medics" and add "8 year old girl" but let's move it to Incidents. Agreed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks I need your opinion how to move forward. First paragraphs is out of context in Ceasefire violations since it happend while militants fired rockets and Israel launched retaliatory air strikes (AFP link). We did not find sources for Israeli army said they shot the farmer. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the source is: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm


it should not be removed - it should be attributed to xinhua. if edits reported by only one source are to be removed - then the unnamed doctor's estimate of casualties should be removed as well. i'm sure there are others ... i think this type of requirement will open pandora's box. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

what about "Hamas fired grad rockets from Media Office Building. [163][164]"

the video shows a reporter saying she heard a loud noise and thinks that a rocket was fired from the building. how does her untrained opinion on a noise with no visual verification qualify as an exceptional source? Untwirl (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed. The atmosphere for reporters in this area and conflict, is not the best one to get ALL media outlets to report on everything that its happening. Taken this, then will Al Jazerra be disqualified as well, we knowing that is one of the few media outlet permitted inside of Gaza? BTW I was not rude, you were the first to say 'get real' - I simply took exception.
Say that, Israel has not denied the incident yet, or yet to provide their side of the story, then go ahead and specify that, but remove it because Israel has yet to acknowledge that did something? I apologize, but we are not under obligation to neither wait for an acknowledgment from Israel or remove reliable information that gives Israel an unwarranted black eye.
Say, fairness? Dubious remorse in my honest opinion... Cryptonio (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Cryptonio, thank you for bringing up fairness into discussion. I hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After this long discussion I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267161730&oldid=267155196 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

i think you acted too soon. there are only you and possibly cerejota that agree with this removal. consensus could best be reached by attributing the statement to xinhua. using your own logic, israeli govt's censorship policy would never allow israeli media to report such a thing, therefore the only sources that could repeat such a statement would be foreign. this is not an opinion piece. unless youre suggesting that all material from and links to xinhua should be removed, then i dont see a problem with "according to" prefacing any contentious material that is reported by what we have considered a reliable source for this article. Untwirl (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that is was in the wrong section. I did not remove, I moved it to Unilateral ceasefires where it belongs from timeline point of view. It happened on Jan 18 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus on either of your edits. If you agree with what Blackeagle stated, then your objection to Ceasefire Violations is mute. More importantly you don't have the authority to discredit reliable sources. I would like to re-read where in this conversation it was 'proved' the incident never happened, or that the quote from the Israel military was a lie. In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning when it clearly said that the IDF had shot a farmer?
if you ignore what was just asked of you, just simply explain where in this discussion was proved that the article you are questioned is a lie, or as you put it, it wasn't a fact. Cryptonio (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Your current line of thought does not merit an argument about what is actually in questioned before reverting your unilateral edit. I, was who reverted your edit. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, This edit was discussed here for two days. Many agreed that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I assumed silence as WP:consensus, but was mistaken. Cryptonio, so you still say that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" is a fact worth publishing? Could you explain you position? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I sure can Agada. "In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning, when [subsequent incidents] clearly said that the IDF had shot a[few] farmer[s]?
And also, "many agreed" sounds too complicated for me, perhaps because the discussion was so simple. You first objected on grounds that Xinhuanet is not a reliable source, the claim is fine, but what is not right is not to substantiate that exact claim.
You then argued that the statement made is not per IDF "standard", which is fine, except that you objected on grounds that the whole incident did not occoured. The burden is not on truth sake's but on credibility.
You are not looking for consensus, rather for the removal of this media reported bit.
If you are not working for consensus, how do you expect you'll get the section deleted? Cryptonio (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No WP:consensus

It was clearly established that there is No WP:consensus on the subject. I argue that first paragraph of Ceasefire violations should be removed.

  • The events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.
  • Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included

I'm new here. Let me know if I understand it right. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you have presented, does not go into details about the incident that is currently presented in Ceasefire Violations. Notice then, that not much information is known about this incident as a whole. This same source "AFP", does not discredit 'at all' what is stated in the Xinhua article. Now, since your source does not provide much information about the incident, neither an Israeli response, why would you want to discredit, what appears to be the only other news article that apparently covered this story? You have my consensus, that you have found another source on this matter. But you continue to ignore the argument that is presented to you. i will add the "AFP" article as source to the first paragraph in Ceasefire Violations. Cryptonio (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not consensus, the problem is WP:V. I insist and concur with Agada, Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. I have yet to find verification that the IDF admitted the shooting. If we do, it stays, if we don't, it goes. We do find verifiability that the incident happened. So the incident stays. Simple. --Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think that events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Wikipedia states as a fact that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer", quoting in my view in this particular case Hamas source - Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein. Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The argument was made about having information included in the article that only had ONE person as source and was in itself an Exceptional Claim( so high-quality sources needed is muted).
You want me to find 'verification' about something that is included in the article, that i DID NOT write? you are looking for MORE sources? how many sources will satisfied you? do we have to work towards your satisfaction in this matter?
Cerejota, you are entitled to disavowed Xinhua as a source. Don't get ahead of yourself. Cryptonio (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


"Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?
Cerejota, can you repeat again, what is that you concur with Agada on again? Agada just saw the light from the same tunnel you are about to travel through. Cryptonio (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?" So, Cryptonio, are you claiming that Hamas has enough cash to bribe the Chinese government? That the Chinese government would favor Hamas over it's second larges arms supplier? Blackeagle (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You made me look this up. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel," Cryptonio (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant, but it's funny how absurd conclusion (like murder justification) could be drawn from solid statistics. See: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4728/1231958480954uo4.jpg AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't find that image funny, I find it offensive (and the math is incorrect, too). May we please refrain from gender-based jokes? Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit I suggest you strike your "funny" bit of misogynism above. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, my wife and daughter approved this joke, but I'm sorry if you find it offensive. Being male I love woman in general, and thank God for their existence, assume good faith. BTW statistics in the picture look credible to me ( and my wife ), but I'd be glad to be corrected. To the point.

  • I'm still waiting for confirmation that Israeli army said they shot the farmer, otherwise this "fact" should be removed.
  • I insist to move January 18 morning "farmer" incident to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph.

Cognitive relativism has its limits. Any suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To this point, it could very well be, that the article has the appearance of standing on just one leg(as per some 'crafty' rationale) but is the actual position of the article, or its merits what should be debated? To that point, we here in Wiki select the latter, and to that point, whether 'cognitive relativism' is employed or not(as per some witchcraft) is not open for debate. Cryptonio (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I understand and agree with Agada's point. Israeli army said they shot the farmer would be Israel claiming they were responsible for a war crime. "Oh sure, we saw this farmer plowing his field and so we shot him. What's the big deal?" Israel might acknowledge that it shot a 27-year old man (or whatever -- just using example) who Palestinians claim was a farmer "just checking his field". So the point is, this statement is a redflag statement, like admitting to murder, out of character etc etc as Agada pointed out above. It requires "exceptional sources" ... one Chinese (if generally reliable) source does not qualify. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War crime? who is judging Israel's actions? We are not discussing Israel's actions in this matter(even the supposed absent 'explanation' for their actions). What a reader believes warrants further action against Israel is not of ANY importance here. Furthermore, even the 'gravity' of the action itself is of no concern here. Notice that in here, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ijkYFQac8SjkWN53E259A5P2Cr2w, which is the second source mentioned, it does not include other accounts of occurrences that is not related to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. It does not, for example, mentions that an old man died of an heart attack peacefully. So, the article implies, by its nature, that Israel's actions had something to do with the farmer's death. The example that you give to Israel's side of the story is of no bearing on this matter either, for there hasn't been any Israel explanation on this matter, which is perhaps the reason why 'some' might object to this article, who's both sources, albeit being the only ones to be presented, are reliable sources. On Israel's admittance of murder, should we bring up examples where Israel in fact admits to murder?
A source that counters Israel's 'fathom' explanation of this matter has not yet been written. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Using the argument that, "Since Israel has yet to deny or confirm this incident, or giving their version of this matter, the article CANNOT be true, or factual"... Cryptonio (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Cryptonio. Please reread verifiability. In any case the problematic phrase get only 3 hits using google, so Wikipedia is in the good company, reporting this 'fact'. Could you explain your reasoning why January 18 morning events should not go to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, where events of that morning are described? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, your talk page is read-only. How did you do it and is it intentional? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dim but I've never fully understood this dispute. It's not exceptional for the IDF to shoot people in the security buffer zones around the Gaza strip. It's covered by the military rules of engagement under which their soldiers operate there. I'm just saying it's not especially unusual. Anyway, that probably doesn't help much. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree Sean, enough is enough (talk to non-talk-able). I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267995438&oldid=267995015 Hope it is balanced and neutral and better reflects reality.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean I need to stress IDF open-fire orders do not permit shooting unarmed farmers even in buffer zone. Another question is were there reports of IDF ground forces in Khan Yunis (translated park/stay for nigh here) area? AFAIK infantry and tank troops entered only to north of Gaza strip, but maybe I should be corrected. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The IDF have shot unarmed people in the buffer zone. For example [4]. Maybe the soldiers were prosecuted for it.... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean you might find it surprising, but if law is broken people get prosecuted by law. And indeed there were precedents in the past. I hope you do not suggest that IDF open-fire orders do permit target unarmed people? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't be surprised at prosecutions when there are clear breachs of the law but the law is often applied weakly/loosely at borders when security comes before everything else for various pragmatic reasons. I would be extremely surprised if the IDF rules of engagement allowed the shooting of knowingly unarmed people mainly because the average soldier wouldn't obey such an order. However, the fact is that unarmed people are shot. That's what happens in these situations. It happens here too. If it was up to me there wouldn't be any borders anywhere, no visas, no passports. Problem solved....sort of. We can then all go and live somewhere nice like Laos, Oman or maybe all move to Oregon. It's quite roomy. Anyway, off topic... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
But Sean's comment is all about WP:OR while Agada's point is not. IDF rules of engagement do not permit shooting unarmed civilians, thus it would be highly unlikely ie "out of character" and "against an interest they had previously defended" (ie "we do not target civilians") and thus would fall under the "Exceptional claims require exceptional ("high quality") sources. (Note the plural) [5] -- just stressing the point for the benefit of Cryptonio. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It does not follow that the rules of engagement saying something makes it highly unlikely that a soldier does the opposite. Somebody making a claim that is in opposition to what the IDF has said does not qualify as an exceptional claim. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit Agada, but also addressed your concerns:

"The first death after the ceasefire was a Palestinian farmer who was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis, on the morning of 18 January. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching land occupied at that moment by Israeli ground troops. There has not been an Israeli report addressing this matter in furtherance. [7] [8] "

Cryptonio (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

EDITor Evb-wiki has not been seen in this talk page or has addressed this subject matter. His edit for this reason can be taken as vandalism. Will revert. Cryptonio (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, thank you for addressing my concerns. There is still one left. Let's look on the Gaza strip map and Ground invasion section. According to reports Israeli tanks cut the strip along Karmi - Netzarim east-west road north of Deir Al-Balah. Israeli ground activity were reported in Gaza city and its suburbs to the north of this road. Though there were reports of air strikes in south Gaza strip and specifically in Khan Younis, I have not seen any reports of ground troops in the area. Should I be corrected? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I do this only per your request. If you strongly feel as this is a point that should be made, bring up more information and state your concerns for us to read. I do not do this to stop you from advancing your argument, simply because it seems to me as you live near that area etc. and will know more about it than me, in particular. I understand this is a logistic challenge.

Tuesday 6 January 2009 - "The sharp spike in the number of civilian casualties came as Israeli troops and tanks moved into Gaza's second largest city, Khan Younis, for the first time today supported by intensive artillery strikes as the military pledged to press on with its attack." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestinians

Sunday 18 January 2009 - "A Palestinian civilian was killed by Israeli forces near the Gazan town of Khan Younis after mortar bombs were fired from the area, medical workers said, identifying him as a civilian.

He was the first fatality on either side of the frontier since Israel halted its 22-day-old Gaza offensive at 2am, saying it had achieved all its objectives but that a troop withdrawal was contingent on Hamas ceasing its fire." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0118/breaking2.htm Cryptonio (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for research. I stand corrected. However, currently the same Khan Younis incident currently reflected twice, both in last sentence of second paragraph Unilateral ceasefires and first paragraph Ceasefire violations. Israeli Army admission quoting Gaza medic is clearly a red flag according to verifiability, thus should not be included. From logic and relevancy point of view the incident should belong to Unilateral ceasefires. After all it's the place where January 18 morning events are described. Anyway daily clashes, and the fact that in accordance with Hudna tradition Hamas cease-fire was week long it looks that we should rethink article organization. In my opinion it looks like Continued negotiation all along. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As per your request, the incident is now mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in Unilateral Ceasefire. The red flag you raised comes from the article which you said was from a reliable source and was included by you to the second paragraph of Unilateral Ceasefire. Pardon for taking so long in agreeing with you that this is where the article belongs, although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter. Cryptonio (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, it looks that we mostly agree. I respect your right to challenge my position and really appreciate your understanding. After all this is not personal, we both want to deliver encyclopedic value. The way to compromise passes through initial disagreement and careful evaluation of each others arguments. Please respond to argument supported by other editors that Israeli Army admission quoting Gaza medic is clearly a red flag according to verifiability, thus should not be included. The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That the Israeli army shot a farmer, is not all that exceptional in a war. That the army's defense was that the farmer was getting closer to a controlled perimeter, is not exceptional. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, just because Israel denies everything that in the eyes of some(and most disappointing, in their own eyes as well) is questionable, it does not mean it must be taken out because someway is not verifiable. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, in time of war. It was shown that the Israeli army itself has in the past admitted to have committed acts that in their own eyes was illegal(although i'm not concerned about the legal aspect of this case). So if, there is precedence, the burden of truth is made less heavier. And have you heard, Israelis are human beings! Cryptonio (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I fully agree that IDF admitted its mistakes in the past and civilians were killed in Crossfire. IDF see such cases as mistakes that unfortunately happen during war and publishes official investigation reports. For instance see the doctor incident. IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. Everything is routed via IDF spokesperson office. Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on inclusion of all refs gathered and use NPOV wording let the reader decide. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an IDF receptor. I say this with all the freedom in the world and with all due respect. It is not in my interest to read the novel "The world according to Israel/IDF". I am not a member nor a subscriber of anything to do with accepting everything that Israel says. Yes, they have their objectives, they have their goals, they have their own responsibilities. I share some of those goals with quite a few Israelis(their numbers are huge!) whose voices are but muted from inside Israel. Yet, I do not speak for them, for their voices are louder than mine. Yes, let the readers decide whatever you think they have to decide. Let them NOT decide as well, if they choose so. I am only interested in wiki, and blaming everybody but myself, if anything. Please, repeating that Israel does not kill without a 'fair' cause won't help in this case. Is not a matter of whether certain truths are self-evident or falseness lives beyond its means, is a matter of including information a reader might find interesting. thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but you're getting way off-topic here. Nobody suggest using IDF only sources. There is such thing as free and independent press. I think we should preserve NPOV and use all refs available. Don't you agree with red flag argument according to verifiability? My point is IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. So far we all found 3 hits if this admission using Google, including this article, one blog and Xinhua article. This does not stand verifiability. We should aim for encyclopedic value. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
A reliable source deserves at least a first look. Let the masses decide. What do you think? Cryptonio (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, so far editors located 3 refs describing January 18 morning incident : Xinhua, AFP and UN Jan 19 report (brought by Darwish07 here). All 3 of those references are clearly reliable source. I fully agree to include all references to this incident with NPOV wording and let the reader decide. IMO we mostly agree. What do you suggest? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Last point i'll be making about this point in our conversation Agada. How is it POV to state wording that is included in one of the reliable sources, that for it to be reliable, it must have a history of NPOV wording on its content? Cryptonio (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I will add this as ref though. plus revert your edit as well. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/979146.html .

"This pattern of response - to cast doubt about the very information that arrives from Palestinian sources about the circumstances of the killing, to avoid accepting responsibility for an unfortunate event, to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy, and to create a demonic image of the adversary as someone who is capable of purposely causing bloodshed among his own people so as to achieve diplomatic gain, or as someone who does not hesitate to stage a horrifying arena of death so as to besmirch Israel's name, repeats itself every time tragedies of this nature occur. "

This..."to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy"...is the only thing missing in order for you to leave the article alone. Cryptonio (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-ceasefire attacks have no place but the violations section

Per Agada kind request, I'm moving below discussion here. My complain is that there's no room for debate that incidents done after the official ceasefire declaration belongs to the violations section, and in no where else. It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of 18 January. This is stated very clearly. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:

Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January

And in the UN 19 Jan. report:

One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.

The violations should be stated in their chronological occurrence order, without saying any statements of who broke the cease-fire first, and let the readers decide for themselves. This is basic editing, I can't see how this could be even discussed. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall aright, Israel established the cease-fire unilaterally, and said it would nevertheless continue to respond to provocation from the other side. Not knowing the details of this "farmer incident," it is hard to be certain of this. And frankly, considering that the UN said very clearly that Israel made a direct hit on a UN school some three days after UNWRA spokesman claimed to have acknowledged that it hadn't, it strikes me that the UN is not really an unbiased source of information. They seem to have taken a side. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OR Tundrabuggy, and POV OR at that: in general, we recognize the UN as a neutral reliable source for reports, mostly because when they do a mistake they retract it. The fog of war is thick and those will happen. So your argument is unconvincing in this respect. As to the actual events, all we have is the uncontested fact that a farmer was shot on the 18th. As I said before, there is probably nothing to it other than fog of war errors, but it happened, and we report. WHy it happened, and the circumstances it happened, are not known at this point, but that is irrelevant, as is any speculation you or I can engage. You'll be surprised to know my views on the incident might be closer to your views on it, but they don't matter, because we are not RS.--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK folks, I hear you all. Thank you for your opinions. Let me state current situation. The January 18 morning incident have already 3 reliable sources gathered by editors and currently described twice both Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph and Ceasefire violations. It's called redundancy. Cryptonio agreed during this discussion that event of January 18 morning are currently described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph of this article and it is correct context for NPOV quote describing the indecent. All references should be included for increased encyclopedic value. Fog is thick, let the reader decide. Still first is clearly POV and different reliable sources describe different events as first incident. Thus first is not a part of NPOV lingo. I deleted "first" description from January 20 events as soon as I learned January 18 morning events and expect same NPOV approach for January 18 morning description. Cerejota stated during this discussion that IDF admission does not stand verifiability so I also removed it. Carefully balancing all editors concerns, fixing redundancy, preserving NPOV I performed following edit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this summary.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No folks. No one provided a reason for why on earth an incident after the cease-fire shouldn't be in the violation section beside saying over and over and over "that was consensus". I've seen no logic provided for such consensus.
  1. Why should we differentiate between 18 January attacks and the attacks following 18 January even if it's clear in the reference language that the attack happened after the cease-fire declaration?
  2. It's false logic to say .. Oooh, we don't want redundancy, so this shouldn't be in "violations" .. This is absolutely meaningless, cause everyone knows there will be no redundancy if we moved the incident from "unilateral ceasefire" to "violations" as should logically happen. The redundancy claim is absolutely bogus.
Please no one reply saying Crytonio agreed to do so, Agada + Cryptonio does not define consensus. I've seen no logic provided for their reasonings beside "Cryptonio agreed that 18 Jan. events are on the unilateral ceasefire section". I'm sorry, Cryptonio "agreement" -- without logic and references -- isn't worth a shekel in here. Please, let's talk by POV-free logic and references. I'm waiting for references asserting that post-ceasefire 18 Jan. events should be in "unilateral ceasefire" and never on "violations" sections. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You weren't here to defend the edit that you yourself added(I don't care for your reasons). And Cryptonio is on record as saying..."although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter." Since you are here now, and hungry like a beast looking to devour everything on sight, I hereby wash my hands of this matter, and deliver the 'case' Agada into your care. Cryptonio (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You're portraying me as if I'm "hungry like a beast" to just debate with other editors, I assure you I am not. I just asked for logic for this case, which isn't provided yet (unless I'm mistaken). Yes, I wasn't there on the original debate but I was told that there has been "consensus" on the issue, so I went above looking for logic for such consensus (so I can understand other editors point of views) but I didn't find any. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, as I mentioned, how can unilateral ceasefires be violated? I think the whole "violations" section is OR. There is no agreement between the parties, so in any case "violations" would be journo speak and not "violations" in the legal sense. --Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this "violation" term is OR. Let's call it "Attacks during the unilateral cease-fire" or something similar. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks and Dudes :) Congrats on 4th ref on January 18 morning incident. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer got back into this article. Dear editors, please address my concerns. I think description of this incident requires urgent NPOV review. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, just be bold and remove the statement if it wasn't supported by a WP:RS or fix the language itself if it's severely biased. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Material moved from Incidents during ceasefires to unilateral ceasefire has left text in the former section out of date order: "The same day, another farmer was reportedly shot dead by the IDF while approaching his farm in Jabalia, while two children were killed when ordinance left behind by Israeli troops in Gaza City exploded;[269][270] however, according to UPI, officials reported that two children died on 19 January, playing with a Hamas mine.[271]" The "same day" refers to 18 January. That's why it says "another farmer". Please can the sources be checked so that the necessary amandments may be made. Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the paragraph now. I also removed the unexploded ordnance incident since it is not an "attack" by any of the sides, or that's what I understand. Any concerns about that? --Darwish07 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Darwish. As I have not followed the disscusions here and subsequent re-arrangement of material, it was too confusing for me to deal with this. Chesdovi (talk)
Chesdovi, nice to meat you, welcome into discussion. I agree Jabalia incident reported to happen on 19 January, clearly before 20 which still some reliable source describe as first. Whatever is first I think that as more refs as possible better.
Darwish07, Edit waring is not bold.
  • I clearly disagree with current description because it is clearly prefers Palestinian sources. The information should be cross referenced and wording NPOV, as Cerejota puts it the fog of war is thick.
  • I'm really sorry that current version lost some of references gathered.
  • Inclusion of unverified data makes me uncomfortable.
  • I also regret loss of "ordnance" incident. It demonstrates how description could be different between different sources.
Is this your definition of damaging? I also urge to review current structure of aftermath. It was decided under initial illusion that cease fire will hold. It looks like Continued negations all along with all the media spin type action in the Cairo. Maybe we could extract it into external article will all the incidents. With almost daily clashes the list gets bigger and bigger. Just my shnekel though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, What's this "Palestinian sources" and "unverified data" thing? The Jabalia 19 Jan. "another farmer" incident and Palestinians firing mortars to Israel is reported by the UN:

On 19 January, a Palestinian farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire east of Jabalia. The same day, Palestinian militants fired a number of mortars towards Israel and also shot at Israeli troops still inside the Gaza Strip.

And as you already know the 18 Jan. incident is also reported by the UN:

One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.

Even so, the incident is balanced by an IDF statement saying the farmer was approaching occupied land. I understand your concerns, but you're debating a reputable WP:RS source with an WP:OR thesis. Unfortunately whether those OR concerns are right or wrong doesn't matter here at all. Meanwhile, I don't have strong opinions about the unexploded ordnance accident, I just thought it was a war aftermath instead of an attack. The problem is that there was also 2 childrean in Gaza dead by ordnance as reported by the UNICEF:

Two Palestinian children were killed on 20 January by unexploded ordnance in Az Zaitoun in Gaza Governorate

Do you feel a need to report all of those under the post-ceasefire incidents section? I don't feel so, but I'm waiting your opinion. Thanks for the civil discussion. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Darwish07, I do not tell that sources are not reliable and I'm not sure what part of my argument is OR. I clearly respect both UN and Xinhua as reliable sources, but in my opinion both directly quote Gaza emergency chief.
  • My main concern is to "Israeli army said" remains red flag - IDF admission does not stand verifiability.
  • It's worth mentioning Crossfire describing January 18 and 19 events.
  • All the references gathered should be included, including both versions of unexploded ordnance incident.
Generally again, there is no cease fire on the ground instead there are daily clashes. Palestinian ceasefire offer expired after one week. We should make structural adaptation of aftermath incidents. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, I thought you meant the 18-19 Jan. incidents mentioned on the UN reports when you said "unverified data". I do not have strong opinions about the "Israel army said the farmer was approaching occupied land" part. Ironically, I thought it's good for balancing the article by giving the Israeli view. I agree with your points on general, just take care for NPOV wordings and chronological order. Peace. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for completeness, I meant by the "WP:OR" part calling incidents reported by the UN "unverified data". --Darwish07 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Darwish07, Thank you for understanding. I fully agree NPOV wordings and chronological order. I'm not an native English speaker, so I'd appreciate if you could balance the article wording addressing my concerns. I think that Continued negotiations breaks chronological order between Unilateral ceasefires and Incidents during ceasefires and in my eyes causes some confusion and unneeded arguments. How do you think we could address this issue? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, Thanks for such care. Unfortunately, this part of the article is not my current field of interest in the war. I'm mostly involved in revealing the people's suffering, whether caused by Israel or Hamas, from different humanitarian reports. In those reports, the 18-19Jan. incidents just catched my eye, so I added it. I'm sure someone will jump-in and fix the organization of this part in the short term, espicially the copy-editting gurus once the conflict settles down a bit. --Darwish (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. Sometimes arguments on this talk page feel like entering the wrong room. I really appreciate it. I'm sure that with time the article will balance itself and unverified data will no longer be included. This conflict inflicts a great suffering on people on both sides of the border and sometimes light in the end of violence tunnel in not in sight. I'm sure that you'd like to see Wikipedia as source of encyclopedic knowledge. I'd appreciate if you take some time and address points I made by improving the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395602714
  2. ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/2008525125823983496.html
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205131.stm
  4. ^ Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.7
  5. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wgazaschool29/BNStory/International/
  6. ^ http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3654464,00.html
  7. ^ First Palestinian shot dead after Israel's unilateral ceasefire
  8. ^ [6]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_31&oldid=1155085553"