![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 10 | ā | ArchiveĀ 12 | ArchiveĀ 13 | ArchiveĀ 14 | ArchiveĀ 15 | ArchiveĀ 16 | ā | ArchiveĀ 20 |
10 pages of archived talk? In 1 week? These talk page blowouts are going to last as long as the real war, and be just as bloody. Personally, I'll be happier once both sides either grow up, or totally destroy each other. Maybe then the rest of us can have our planet (and wikipedia) back. Honestly, this whole thing is more complicated, more pathetic and attracts more fanaticism, hatred and firepower than that userbox deletion thing that I came across while perusing through through 'Hstoric Debates section. 202.12.233.23 ( talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The last few sentences in the lead claims the Supreme court ruled blocking reporters from enter gaza was illegal but the cited reference specifically states the court did not rule on this topic, instead making a suggestion of a compromise. I recomend the sentence be editted to reflect this. Does anyone have a different opinion or a source with more detail on the courts actual statement?
This source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3_dkukPxeaK15_zQviIWnwfKIpQ states it clearly: supreme court ordered journalists to be allowed in. The sentence appears to have been removed however. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have created this graph
to show dead and wounded. Please make any suggestions and upload it in the casualties sections.
Maxipuchi (
talk)
23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
MY EYES!!! :D This is too big and shiny, besides I restate my opinion that these types of charts are better for the end of the events,
fog of war and all that. But you guys seem intent on it so go ahead...--
Cerejota (
talk)
02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that Israel managed to kill hundreds of Palestinian militants without wounding any. And by "odd", I mean it makes me question the integrity of this data. ā PyTom ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this chart. I suggest another one broken down by the number of women, children, and elderly killed. Please see Half of Gaza dead 'children, women and elderly'. Jan. 11, 2009. RIA Novosti.
Please upload this to the Commons. It can be categorized in
Please see the upload link on the side of that page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
[1] This photo was taken by and submitted into public domain by user Tiflet. So it is free to use. This is to supplement not replace the photo from the Arabic Wiki. -- 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again Israeli airpower has been removed from the infobox. [4] The reason this time is given that "the total number of aircraft deployed is unknown". Yet, the claims removed are sourced: a reliable source [5] claims that 1,000 air sorties have been used by Israel, and that 60 F-16s have also been used. [6]
I previously brought this up at Talk:2008ā2009_IsraelāGaza_conflict/Archive_11#F-16 but it was archived as no one bother to explain his/her actions. VR talk 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Please leave the Hardware out of the infobox, it is ridiculous (I already said: it is ridiculous to include all hardware being used: F-15, F-16, Heron UAV's, AH-64 and AH-1 attach helicopters, Shaldag Patrol Boat, Super Dvora MK2 and MK3 Patrol boats, Saar 4.5 missile boats, Saar 5 missile corvettes, Merkava MK 3 and MK 4lbattke thanks, Tiger and Achzarit APC's - should I continue?) All are well substantiated, but do not belong in the infobox. If we include them we should also include Hamas' rockect arsenal (not only Qassams, but also Grads, Katyushas, and possible Fajr missiles, mortars, and the latest addition Surface-to-air missiles [7] - not exactly "home made weapons". If enything these are all, MAYBE belong in the article (I think generic names like "attack helicopters" and "artilery rockets" are jusy fine), but not in the infobox.-- Omrim ( talk) 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The statistics about the number of Palestinian policemen killed, and the number of Hamas militants killed shouldn't be added for a number of reasons.
First, the sources for the two figures are different, making the addition like comparing apples with oranges.
Second, the policemen are listed as "combatants". Most were not combating anyone when killed. They were simply sitting at the police stations, some were new recruits on parade. [8]
Thirdly, some have argued that the number be combined with civilians since policemen are generally civil servants. I argue to the contrary, however. Keep them separate so as to avoid confusion. VR talk 07:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1149129&p=1
Should this be implemented into the article? -- Johndoe789 ( talk) 07:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) āPreceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe789 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 07:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to make a quick comment because people keep bringing up CNN related issues for reasons that are a bit opaque. Remember that CNN in the US and CNN <insert other region> are not the same and have completely and I mean utterly different content when it comes to events such as this one. Anything about CNN must take that into account. This is en-Wiki not US-wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Information regarding Iran's involvement (if it exists) should not be kept out of this article if it comes up. There is some correlation according to a few sources. These are typically not balanced or concrete enough to warrant inclusion but I hope certain editors don't ignore it since it is such a disputed issue. A google news search (iran gaza -nuclear) comes up with a few interesting hits. Not saying it deserves a complete section or debate. I just wanted to throw it out there since it has come up in recent edits. Cptnono ( talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone has changed it so that it now says '550 fighters'. From what I remember, a discussion here decided that policemen were not fighters. What's more, the IDF is cited as the source for the 550. I don't agree that's a valid source - it could be propaganda designed to demoralise Hamas fighters. I propose returning it to what it was a couple of days ago:
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be best. I think "unknown" is neccessary, safer (in my view) to leave it in. Superpie ( talk) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just had a look at this page. It's obviously not getting as much attention as this one and as a result people are getting away with much more biased editing.
Pictures of anti-Israeli protests are continuously removed. There are pictures of pro-Israeli protesters throughout the article. There are even pictures of protesters calling for the release of Gilad Shalit, though this is unrelated to the particular incident.
There is an enormous list of "anti-Semitic violence" almost none of which can be linked directly with the current incident.
It would be great if people would keep an eye on the page. I know a few people are doing so already. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I wander over there from time to time to see if anyone is playing with my stuff over there. I'll broaden my lookingĀ :). Superpie ( talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is Eurovision really relevant to this article?! 80.176.88.21 ( talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No. Not remotelely. Superpie ( talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read the comments above and while agree that there are special and unique circumstances where horribly gruesome images may be permitted, I still don't think it adds anything to the article besides "shock value". It doesn't fully highlight the human suffering of the people of Gaza as oppose to Hamas. I would prefer if the image would show the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children, for example the incident in Zeitoun where children where left starving beside their dead mothers. I'm sure that would satisfy most of your violent fetishes. Also, there are several instances where an image might be gruesome and yet tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood) or PietĆ , for example.-- 23prootie ( talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, these pictures have not been verified as factual. After the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy where mainstream photographs were pulled as false and actual propaganda, we should have learned our lessons. In fact, already in this conflict mainstream media has had to apologize for putting out false images. We should not go this route. Photographs of protests, fine. Graphic and possibly false photos, NOT. (I could upload my photographs of Bigfoot .) Tundrabuggy ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
per above: Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. These photos are as relevant as Holocaust atrocity photos as others have pointed out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Are things really going to sink this low here, disputes over the images of the victims of war. I mean, think about it. It's quite disturbing. Yes, a discussion about balance is reasonable of course (and pretty tasteless) but many people keep ignoring WP:UNDUE and just assume some kind of equivalence of representation as if it's a right by default. It's been said so many times that this is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. That said, I really have no objection to a 1:1 ratio as long as the images relate directly to this event and faithfully represent reality. I don't think it should be 1:1 but if that's what it takes to get some reality into this article then fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a conflict between two equal powers as it has been portrayed here. Clearly one of the parties in the conflict is a punching bag. For this reason I suggest to rename this article the Gaza holocaust.-- tequendamia ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Would all of those who have concerns about the lead as it is now written please be sure to put your opinion on the appropriate page--here: Talk:2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza conflict/Lead. We are trying to determine if there is WP:consensus regarding the lead there and with the talk strewn all over hell it is difficult to get everyone in one place. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a wikipedia procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 ( talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wowowowowow! The only source I have seen listing Hamas as agreeing to a truce is the first one, which states it will comply with the first three hours. It doesnt say anything after that. I may have missed something but please advise, its deeply biased to describe Hamas having broken a truce they never agreed to. Superpie ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"A three-hour truce took place on 9 January as well. Palestinian militants violated the truce, firing three Grad rockets at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[168]
Hamas violated the humanitarian truce on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[169] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[170]"
Hamas is not breaking a truce, its continuing to fire through an Israeli ceasefire. The claims above are biased and unsubstantiated, neither make any mention of agreement between the two sides, only that the Israeli's have ceased firing. I am going to change the wording to reflect this if there is agreement? Superpie ( talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of video sites showing Hamas using ambulances for military purposes, thereby breaking the International humanitarian law. IDF has also noted that. Can you find notable sites reporting this? Rabend ( talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend, I'm sure you remember this from the archived discussion:
Is that the article Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men has now been replaced in Haaretz by one on Obama's views on the War. It's clear it's the same place where the old article was though, because in the comments section, readers are responding to the original Amira Hass article first. Besides which the original article has been reprinted on other sites. Tiamut talk 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [14]. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.
May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend ( talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Side by side and the world apart. While the[the pro-israeli] demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, [pro-Palestinians] demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda -- 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo ( talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
i agree that it doesn't belong here.
i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.
as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl ( talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here. Cptnono ( talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Israeli Troops Push Into Gaza City in Day of Fierce Fighting. By Steven Erlanger and Ethan Bronner. Jan. 11, 2009. New York Times.
The number is in the notes section of the infobox until more recent numbers from well-known media or wire services are found. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Placed the section here since it is awkwardly located n in the International reaction to the 2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza conflict article. The makers don't represent a international entity so it shouldn't be there but should it be here?-- 23prootie ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We should use the on-the-record number in the infobox not the 550 number in my opinion.
Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.
The multi-use wikicode for the ref is <ref name=afp2009jan10/>
Publicly, the IDF is saying "several hundred." In my opinion that is the number we should ascribe to them since that is the number they stand by publicly. Otherwise this 550 number sounds like original research. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should put a total number like 444+ in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilian dead. MoH has not made an estimate for the total number in awhile. That 444+ number came from a Wikipedia editor totaling up numbers for children, women, elderly, aid workers, etc.. that the MoH has given.
That total number is original research on our part. Plus that total does not include civilian men who were killed. Also, there is some unavoidable duplication between the numbers for women and elderly.
Readers can follow the references and decide. We let the readers decide what to believe. By the way, linked below is an article about the MoH source, and this article puts all these numbers in perspective:
I think it should just say "see notes" or "several hundred" in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilians.
I think using total numbers for fighters or civilians puts words in the mouth of IDF and MoH spokespeople. See the previous talk section.
That is original research on our part. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the most recent discussion over the inclusion of graphic imagery into the article from Gaza. I also weighed in with my opinion at one point, arguing essentially that images are used as documentary records and importantly as tools for "imagining."
By that I mean they are used to help viewers come to approach and understanding of events that are difficult to comprehend because of their extreme nature. I drew from the example of the WWII Holocaust because this is easily the most obvious example. The enormity of suffering during that period is incomprehensible to those who were not present. In an attempt to render it intelligible photographic representations have routinely been included in nearly all accounts of that moment in history. (One need only pause and reflect on how much of our collective "imagination" of the suffering during the Holocaust has been formed by graphical representations and semi-fictionalized film accounts to see the important role these media have played in conveying the weight of the Holocaust).
The current conflict has been characterized by the high number of deaths of civilians, especially women and children. During this conflict there have been instances where entire families have been wiped out with only one or two members remaining. Hundreds of children have been killed. The gravity of these incidents deserve a multimedia account to help render them in our minds. An accurate presentation of these events would not exclude that in my opinion and I am unmoved by arguments to exclude such representations based on their "graphic" or "distasteful" nature alone.
I am more concerned with issues of licensing, authenticity of images and the unqieu difficulties of assembling and formatting images in a slightly disorganized article of an ongoing conflict. Therefore my current proposal for addressing our contentions is the following:
This proposal resolves the issues of licensing and authenticity since the cited source would be responsible for determing both. Please discuss this proposal as a possible (temporary) resolution to our disagreement over image inclusions.
(PS. I noticed someone removed the pictures I included from the wiki Holocaust page. I want to emphasize again that I'm not trying to draw direct, general, parallels to the Holocaust nor am I trying to accuse Israel of a systematic, intentional genocide as was carried out in the Holocaust. as I noted above I've drawn a limited comparison to the Holocaust because of the notable use of multi-media approaches to developing an account of that period and the traditional inclusion of images into nearly all accounts of the Holocaust.) āPreceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the "Gaza Kill and Maim" series at cryptome.org?-- Chikamatsu ( talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
'This is one of the reasons the air attack was carried out as a surprise. The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded. . . It is not clear, for example, what advantage or military gain stems from the intentional killing of a hundred or more Palestinian policemen standing on parade. Reuven Pedatzur, 'The mistakes of Cast Lead,ā, Haaretz 08/01/2009
They are classified as terrorists and militants by the IDF's Hamas kill sheet. In fact they were part of the civilian administrative infrastructure's personnel. Police forces, anywhere, are not counted as part of the military. These were then civilians hit without warning, despite the frequent rhetoric about Israel's purity of arms, and the distinction between civilians and militants. Nishidani ( talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are incorrect Nishidani, in many countries, Burma, India, and Indonesia to name a few, the police are part and parcel of the military. Even to the point of being part of the Ministry of Defense. Then there is the fact that no countries police are exactly alike. For instance the police in the UK do not regularly carry firearms while the Carabinieri are heavily armed. Many police forces are in reality paramilitary forces, see Constabulary, gendarmerie and national guard. Plus many of the paramilitary forces operating in the Middle East and the world may maintain their own military police when the organizations themselves are considered terrorist organizations in the countries that they operate. The real question is are the "police" maintained by Hamas actually police or an extension of their paramilitary. Was this a way to legalise the continuous existence of armed Hamas combatants?-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the controversial nature of defining this, I, once again, say that "policemen" should be classified neither as militants nor civilians, but rather independently listed. VR talk 03:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Description from Arabic Wikipedia as translated by Google Translate: Copyrighted
ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł Ł ŁŁ ŲŁŁŁ Ł ŲŁŁŲøŲ© Ł ŲŗŁŲ± Ł Ų±Ų®Ųµ. Ł ŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲÆŲ±Ų¬ ŲŖŲŲŖ Ų£ŲŲÆ ŲØŁŁŲÆ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŁŁŲµŁŲ± Ų£Ł Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲŖŁŲ©. Ų¹ŁŁ Ų£ŁŲ© ŲŲ§ŁŲ Ų§ŁŲ“Ų®Ųµ Ų§ŁŲ°Ł Ų£Ų¶Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲØŲ·Ų§ŁŲ© ŁŲµŲ±Ų Ų£Ł Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł ŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ ŁŲ§ŁŲ© "Ł Ų¬Ų²Ų±Ų© ŲŗŲ²Ų© ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008" ŁŁ ŁŲŖŁŲ¶ŁŲ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł Ł ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ ŁŲ§ŁŲ© ŁŁ ŲµŁŲŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŲØŁŲÆŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų±ŲØŁŲ©Ų Ų§ŁŁ Ų³ŲŖŲ¶Ų§ŁŲ© Ų¹ŁŁ Ų®Ų§ŲÆŁ Ų§ŲŖ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŲ§ŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŁ ŲŖŁŲŲÆŲ©. Ł Ų¤Ų³Ų³Ų© ŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŲÆŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŁŲ§Ų±ŲØŲŁŲ©Ų ŁŁŲŖŲ£ŁŁ ŲŖŲŲŖ ŲØŁŲÆ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŲŖŲŲŖ ŁŲ§ŁŁŁ ŲŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŲ“Ų± Ų§ŁŲ£Ł Ų±ŁŁŁ. Ų£ŁŁ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§ŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų£Ų®Ų±Ł ŁŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų©Ų ŁŲÆ ŁŲ“ŁŁ Ų®Ų±ŁŲ§ ŁŲŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŲ“Ų±. Ų§ŁŲøŲ± en:Wikipedia:Fair use Ł en:Wikipedia:Copyrights.
ŁŁŲ“Ų®Ųµ Ų§ŁŲ°Ł Ų£Ų¶Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŁŲ§ŁŲØŲ Ų§ŁŲ±Ų¬Ų§Ų” ŁŲ¶Ų¹ ŲŖŲ¹ŁŁŁ ŲŖŲ“Ų±Ų ŲØŁ Ų³ŲØŲØ Ų§ŲŲŖŁ Ų§Ł Ų®Ų¶ŁŲ¹ ŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© ŁŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ.
[Ų¹ŲÆŁ] Ų£Ų³ŲØŲ§ŲØ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŲ§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ
Ų£Ų³ŲØŲ§ŲØ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŲ§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ
1. Ų¹ŲÆŁ ŁŲ¬ŁŲÆ ŁŲ³Ų®Ų© ŲŲ±Ų© Ł Ł Ł Ų¹Ų§Ų±Ł ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®ŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŁŁŁ 27 ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008 2. Ų±ŁŲ¹ŲŖ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ± ŲØŲÆŁŲ© Ł ŁŲ®ŁŲ¶Ų© 3. Ł Ų¹ŲøŁ Ł Ł ŁŁ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© Ł ŲŖŁŁŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ Ų¹Ų§Ų±Ł 4. ŲŲÆŲ« ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®Ł ŲŖŲµŁŁ ŁŲ«ŁŲ± Ł Ł Ų§ŁŲ£Ų·Ų±Ų§Ł ŲØŲ¬Ų±ŁŁ Ų© ŲŲ±ŲØ ŁŁŁ Ų£ŁŲØŲ± Ų¹Ł ŁŁŲ© ŁŲŖŲ§Ł Ų¶ŲÆ Ų§ŁŁŁŲ³Ų·ŁŁŁŁŁ Ł ŁŲ° Ų¹Ų§Ł 1967 5. Ų³ŲŖŲ³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŁ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© ŁŁŲ³ŁŁŲ© ŲŖŁŲ«ŁŁŁŲ© Ł Ų¹ŁŁŁ Ų§ŲŖŁŲ© ŁŲÆŲ¹Ł Ų±ŁŲ§ŁŲ© Ų§ŁŲŲÆŲ«.
ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ® Ų§ŁŁ ŁŁ
Ų§Ų¶ŲŗŲ· Ų„ŲŲÆŁ ŁŲµŁŲ§ŲŖ ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®/ŁŁŲŖ ŁŲŖŲ±Ł Ų§ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ ŁŲ§Ł ŁŁ ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŁŁŲŖ.
opyrighted
This work has rights reserved and non-licensed. , But it falls under one of the items on the fair use of the fair use of images or just use the audio file. In any case, the person who said this card says that the use of this work in the article "Gaza massacre in December 2008" is to explain in the article in the pages of Arab Aloueckebedea, hosted on maids in the United States. Profit Wikimedia Foundation, and qualify under fair use under U.S. copyright law. Any other uses of this image, may constitute a breach of copyright. See en: Wikipedia: Fair use and en: Wikipedia: Copyrights.
The person who added this template, please explain the reason for the suspension of the possibility that such use of the image to the fair.
Employment, equitable
1. The absence of a free copy of the history of battles today December 27, 2008 2. The pictures accurately low 3. Most of the dead in the picture in the fighting 4. It describes a historic event, many of the parties, the biggest war crime of the process of fighting against Palestinians since 1967 5. Will be used as a photo documentary information to support the version of the event.
History file
Click one of the links to the date / time to view the file as it was at this time.
[Changed] the causes of fair use
--
23prootie (
talk)
23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier in the conflict Israel had sent 10,000 soldiers on ground. [17] Now Israel has sent an unknown number of reservists, [18] so the 10,000 figure doesn't seem appropriate anymore. It is also unclear if the 150 soldiers wounded are still in battle or not. Therefore I've listed just the total number, as we have the Hamas total number of combatants. VR talk 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim has added "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated, pointing out that a week ago only three IDF soldiers were killed when a tank fired two rounds - which have a much larger impact than mortar rounds - into a building which was occupied by 50 IDF soldiers." to the report on the UNRWA school attack. The figure of 40 dead mentioned at the beginning of the section comes from John Ging, not from Hamas, according to the cited NYT article. Omrim's addition is therefore misleading and contradictory. I believe it should be deleted. However, if it is left in, it helps us to see the contemptuous attitude of the aggressor. NonZionist ( talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) And Nableezy, the 70 figure belongs to the Zeitoun incident, while we are discussing the UNRWA school. Only goes to show how terrible is this conflict, that we are even unable to keep track of terrible incidents, which each by itself, if happened out of the current context, would have gotten far more attention.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Under casualities, the following sentence (One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28) might not be accurate as there is nothing to indicate that Hamas was involved in the incident, on the 27th Dec a palestinian was killed by the border guards while trying to escape to Egypt, this incident might habe been in retaliation, a more accurate description would be to replace (Hamas gunmen) by (shots from the palestinian side) āPreceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
On a separate note two Egyptian policemen and and two Egyptian children were wounded yesterday by a bomb shrapnel. [19] VR talk 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody seems to think that there is no relevance to listing the quantities of aid that enter Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel. I have put the listing in twice, and each time, it disappears within a day. Since there are so many edits, it is difficult to identify who is doing this - whoever it is does not write comments.
If there is a valid reason NOT to have this information, I would like to hear it. I for one think it is relevant because much of the media coverage implies that aid does not get through, or is being restricted by Israel, which is clearly not true. -- Cbdorsett ( talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
My opinion: since a humanitarian crisis is going on in Gaza, to a greater or lesser extent (depends on who's being asked), and Israel is being blamed for it, I think that it's important to add another facet to the description of the situation, by supplying these facts. Thus, the reader has a chance to decide for himself the degree of the severity of the humanitarian crisis. Our job is to supply the facts (but in a succinct fashion, of course) Rabend ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes ago the graph of casualties was changed by User:Cflm001. The edit summary said this was a 'minor edit' with the graph being replaced by a 'vector version'. However, alongside, in the new graph the number of Palestinian casualties declined dramatically from 857 to 683. Multiple sources support the original figure and if User:Cflm001 had some evidence for the lower figure, I would welcome him to present that on the talk page. However, to change the figure with a "minor edit" edit summary suggesting just a change in format is, in my opinion, not entirely honest. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The cease fire between June till recently was not a Hudna (as written in the article), but a Tahdiya. Below source explains the differences and cites sources.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=0&IID=2224
I recommend you add this to the article.
Tuvia, Israel January 12th 2009
I think you're right. Through the period, Haaretz referred to its as a Tahidiyya (sp.?) and not a hudna, which tended to be reserved for Hamas's negotiating stance, according to which they would be prepared to make a 'hudna' for 25 years with Israel, if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. At least this is my strong memory of consistent usage by commentators in that newspaper. I see on checking wiki that the terms are defined differently however. Perhaps an Arabist could step in. Is the Israeli/Haaretz distinction consonant with Hamas usage? Nishidani ( talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this WP:OR from the article:
Hamas ideology does not allow a permanent cease-fire with a non- Muslim enemy, though a temporary truce up to ten years, called Hudna, is allowed. [1]
I replaced it with the source provided above, noting the difference between a tahdiya and a hudna and that this was a tahdiya and not a hudna. Thanks. Tiamut talk 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It fills the entire screen! I don't know how to resize it though. It wasn't like that last time I looked. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead is under attack by several editors who don't like both names for the conflict being used in the lead. A large number of different objections have been argued, all of which failed to get consensus. Now open attacking the lead has commenced, what is to be done? RomaC ( talk) 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and 2009.
I find it very troubling that Darshowitz, A Harvard Law School Professor of Criminal Law and Human Rights is not considered by many editors notable enough to have his opinion quoted in the legal section. On the other hand the Qatar Minister of Foreign Affairs, The secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza ARE notable enough to be considered experts in Int'l law, and thus are qouted in the section. Isn't that strange? Will someone care to explain?-- Omrim ( talk) 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Omrim ( talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Fellows, I'm restoring Israel Attorney General comments way IDF military goals are being legally approved during the conflict. Let me know if it violates any WP:* and feel free to make it more balanced. Thank You. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
With so many people making edits, it is impossible to see at a glance which edits are vandalistic and which are not. What we need is:
If the articles are stored in entry-sequence format, there would be no additional comparison overhead, since the composite diff would simply arrange the data in narrative sequence.
A tabular format could be used on the history page to present the new information. The composite diff could allow control over the number of versions compared simultaneously. NonZionist ( talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.
The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):
Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.
The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!
Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.
I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 ( talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.
Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting a response on number 6. Fundamentally, the issue is that if we go into individual cases of alleged violation on the Israeli side, then we must do the same for Palestinian militants. Any input from other editors on whether they would rather do both or neither? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone created the section. I'll take that as "both." Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is Dershowitz back in the article? I'll go ahead and remove him, and hopefully someone will be willing to discuss on this page, rather than just reverting.
Additionally, I was thinking that the Falk statement in the "By Palestinian militants" section should probably be removed. There are four things that trouble me about it: (1) Falk wrote it mostly as a diplomatic nicety, and it doesn't follow the spirit of his statement, (2) due to this, it is paired with an (awkward) explanation of Israel's legal position, which doesn't fit in the section, (3) as Special Rapporteur, his opinion about Palestinian violations of IL aren't relevant (his job is only to report Israeli violations of HR), and (4) we already have this viewpoint represented by the BBC, Israel and other sources. Speaking of which, who removed the Human Rights Council comment on the illegality of Hamas rockets and why? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
British Foreign Secretary says Gaza abuse allegations by both sides must be properly investigated: [22]. Notable and should be added. Fig ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 10 | ā | ArchiveĀ 12 | ArchiveĀ 13 | ArchiveĀ 14 | ArchiveĀ 15 | ArchiveĀ 16 | ā | ArchiveĀ 20 |
10 pages of archived talk? In 1 week? These talk page blowouts are going to last as long as the real war, and be just as bloody. Personally, I'll be happier once both sides either grow up, or totally destroy each other. Maybe then the rest of us can have our planet (and wikipedia) back. Honestly, this whole thing is more complicated, more pathetic and attracts more fanaticism, hatred and firepower than that userbox deletion thing that I came across while perusing through through 'Hstoric Debates section. 202.12.233.23 ( talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The last few sentences in the lead claims the Supreme court ruled blocking reporters from enter gaza was illegal but the cited reference specifically states the court did not rule on this topic, instead making a suggestion of a compromise. I recomend the sentence be editted to reflect this. Does anyone have a different opinion or a source with more detail on the courts actual statement?
This source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3_dkukPxeaK15_zQviIWnwfKIpQ states it clearly: supreme court ordered journalists to be allowed in. The sentence appears to have been removed however. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have created this graph
to show dead and wounded. Please make any suggestions and upload it in the casualties sections.
Maxipuchi (
talk)
23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
MY EYES!!! :D This is too big and shiny, besides I restate my opinion that these types of charts are better for the end of the events,
fog of war and all that. But you guys seem intent on it so go ahead...--
Cerejota (
talk)
02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that Israel managed to kill hundreds of Palestinian militants without wounding any. And by "odd", I mean it makes me question the integrity of this data. ā PyTom ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this chart. I suggest another one broken down by the number of women, children, and elderly killed. Please see Half of Gaza dead 'children, women and elderly'. Jan. 11, 2009. RIA Novosti.
Please upload this to the Commons. It can be categorized in
Please see the upload link on the side of that page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
[1] This photo was taken by and submitted into public domain by user Tiflet. So it is free to use. This is to supplement not replace the photo from the Arabic Wiki. -- 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again Israeli airpower has been removed from the infobox. [4] The reason this time is given that "the total number of aircraft deployed is unknown". Yet, the claims removed are sourced: a reliable source [5] claims that 1,000 air sorties have been used by Israel, and that 60 F-16s have also been used. [6]
I previously brought this up at Talk:2008ā2009_IsraelāGaza_conflict/Archive_11#F-16 but it was archived as no one bother to explain his/her actions. VR talk 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Please leave the Hardware out of the infobox, it is ridiculous (I already said: it is ridiculous to include all hardware being used: F-15, F-16, Heron UAV's, AH-64 and AH-1 attach helicopters, Shaldag Patrol Boat, Super Dvora MK2 and MK3 Patrol boats, Saar 4.5 missile boats, Saar 5 missile corvettes, Merkava MK 3 and MK 4lbattke thanks, Tiger and Achzarit APC's - should I continue?) All are well substantiated, but do not belong in the infobox. If we include them we should also include Hamas' rockect arsenal (not only Qassams, but also Grads, Katyushas, and possible Fajr missiles, mortars, and the latest addition Surface-to-air missiles [7] - not exactly "home made weapons". If enything these are all, MAYBE belong in the article (I think generic names like "attack helicopters" and "artilery rockets" are jusy fine), but not in the infobox.-- Omrim ( talk) 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The statistics about the number of Palestinian policemen killed, and the number of Hamas militants killed shouldn't be added for a number of reasons.
First, the sources for the two figures are different, making the addition like comparing apples with oranges.
Second, the policemen are listed as "combatants". Most were not combating anyone when killed. They were simply sitting at the police stations, some were new recruits on parade. [8]
Thirdly, some have argued that the number be combined with civilians since policemen are generally civil servants. I argue to the contrary, however. Keep them separate so as to avoid confusion. VR talk 07:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1149129&p=1
Should this be implemented into the article? -- Johndoe789 ( talk) 07:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) āPreceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe789 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 07:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to make a quick comment because people keep bringing up CNN related issues for reasons that are a bit opaque. Remember that CNN in the US and CNN <insert other region> are not the same and have completely and I mean utterly different content when it comes to events such as this one. Anything about CNN must take that into account. This is en-Wiki not US-wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Information regarding Iran's involvement (if it exists) should not be kept out of this article if it comes up. There is some correlation according to a few sources. These are typically not balanced or concrete enough to warrant inclusion but I hope certain editors don't ignore it since it is such a disputed issue. A google news search (iran gaza -nuclear) comes up with a few interesting hits. Not saying it deserves a complete section or debate. I just wanted to throw it out there since it has come up in recent edits. Cptnono ( talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone has changed it so that it now says '550 fighters'. From what I remember, a discussion here decided that policemen were not fighters. What's more, the IDF is cited as the source for the 550. I don't agree that's a valid source - it could be propaganda designed to demoralise Hamas fighters. I propose returning it to what it was a couple of days ago:
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be best. I think "unknown" is neccessary, safer (in my view) to leave it in. Superpie ( talk) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just had a look at this page. It's obviously not getting as much attention as this one and as a result people are getting away with much more biased editing.
Pictures of anti-Israeli protests are continuously removed. There are pictures of pro-Israeli protesters throughout the article. There are even pictures of protesters calling for the release of Gilad Shalit, though this is unrelated to the particular incident.
There is an enormous list of "anti-Semitic violence" almost none of which can be linked directly with the current incident.
It would be great if people would keep an eye on the page. I know a few people are doing so already. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I wander over there from time to time to see if anyone is playing with my stuff over there. I'll broaden my lookingĀ :). Superpie ( talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is Eurovision really relevant to this article?! 80.176.88.21 ( talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No. Not remotelely. Superpie ( talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read the comments above and while agree that there are special and unique circumstances where horribly gruesome images may be permitted, I still don't think it adds anything to the article besides "shock value". It doesn't fully highlight the human suffering of the people of Gaza as oppose to Hamas. I would prefer if the image would show the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children, for example the incident in Zeitoun where children where left starving beside their dead mothers. I'm sure that would satisfy most of your violent fetishes. Also, there are several instances where an image might be gruesome and yet tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood) or PietĆ , for example.-- 23prootie ( talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, these pictures have not been verified as factual. After the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy where mainstream photographs were pulled as false and actual propaganda, we should have learned our lessons. In fact, already in this conflict mainstream media has had to apologize for putting out false images. We should not go this route. Photographs of protests, fine. Graphic and possibly false photos, NOT. (I could upload my photographs of Bigfoot .) Tundrabuggy ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
per above: Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. These photos are as relevant as Holocaust atrocity photos as others have pointed out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Are things really going to sink this low here, disputes over the images of the victims of war. I mean, think about it. It's quite disturbing. Yes, a discussion about balance is reasonable of course (and pretty tasteless) but many people keep ignoring WP:UNDUE and just assume some kind of equivalence of representation as if it's a right by default. It's been said so many times that this is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. That said, I really have no objection to a 1:1 ratio as long as the images relate directly to this event and faithfully represent reality. I don't think it should be 1:1 but if that's what it takes to get some reality into this article then fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a conflict between two equal powers as it has been portrayed here. Clearly one of the parties in the conflict is a punching bag. For this reason I suggest to rename this article the Gaza holocaust.-- tequendamia ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Would all of those who have concerns about the lead as it is now written please be sure to put your opinion on the appropriate page--here: Talk:2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza conflict/Lead. We are trying to determine if there is WP:consensus regarding the lead there and with the talk strewn all over hell it is difficult to get everyone in one place. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a wikipedia procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 ( talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wowowowowow! The only source I have seen listing Hamas as agreeing to a truce is the first one, which states it will comply with the first three hours. It doesnt say anything after that. I may have missed something but please advise, its deeply biased to describe Hamas having broken a truce they never agreed to. Superpie ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"A three-hour truce took place on 9 January as well. Palestinian militants violated the truce, firing three Grad rockets at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[168]
Hamas violated the humanitarian truce on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[169] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[170]"
Hamas is not breaking a truce, its continuing to fire through an Israeli ceasefire. The claims above are biased and unsubstantiated, neither make any mention of agreement between the two sides, only that the Israeli's have ceased firing. I am going to change the wording to reflect this if there is agreement? Superpie ( talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of video sites showing Hamas using ambulances for military purposes, thereby breaking the International humanitarian law. IDF has also noted that. Can you find notable sites reporting this? Rabend ( talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend, I'm sure you remember this from the archived discussion:
Is that the article Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men has now been replaced in Haaretz by one on Obama's views on the War. It's clear it's the same place where the old article was though, because in the comments section, readers are responding to the original Amira Hass article first. Besides which the original article has been reprinted on other sites. Tiamut talk 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [14]. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.
May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend ( talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Side by side and the world apart. While the[the pro-israeli] demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, [pro-Palestinians] demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda -- 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo ( talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
i agree that it doesn't belong here.
i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.
as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl ( talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here. Cptnono ( talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Israeli Troops Push Into Gaza City in Day of Fierce Fighting. By Steven Erlanger and Ethan Bronner. Jan. 11, 2009. New York Times.
The number is in the notes section of the infobox until more recent numbers from well-known media or wire services are found. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Placed the section here since it is awkwardly located n in the International reaction to the 2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza conflict article. The makers don't represent a international entity so it shouldn't be there but should it be here?-- 23prootie ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We should use the on-the-record number in the infobox not the 550 number in my opinion.
Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.
The multi-use wikicode for the ref is <ref name=afp2009jan10/>
Publicly, the IDF is saying "several hundred." In my opinion that is the number we should ascribe to them since that is the number they stand by publicly. Otherwise this 550 number sounds like original research. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should put a total number like 444+ in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilian dead. MoH has not made an estimate for the total number in awhile. That 444+ number came from a Wikipedia editor totaling up numbers for children, women, elderly, aid workers, etc.. that the MoH has given.
That total number is original research on our part. Plus that total does not include civilian men who were killed. Also, there is some unavoidable duplication between the numbers for women and elderly.
Readers can follow the references and decide. We let the readers decide what to believe. By the way, linked below is an article about the MoH source, and this article puts all these numbers in perspective:
I think it should just say "see notes" or "several hundred" in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilians.
I think using total numbers for fighters or civilians puts words in the mouth of IDF and MoH spokespeople. See the previous talk section.
That is original research on our part. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the most recent discussion over the inclusion of graphic imagery into the article from Gaza. I also weighed in with my opinion at one point, arguing essentially that images are used as documentary records and importantly as tools for "imagining."
By that I mean they are used to help viewers come to approach and understanding of events that are difficult to comprehend because of their extreme nature. I drew from the example of the WWII Holocaust because this is easily the most obvious example. The enormity of suffering during that period is incomprehensible to those who were not present. In an attempt to render it intelligible photographic representations have routinely been included in nearly all accounts of that moment in history. (One need only pause and reflect on how much of our collective "imagination" of the suffering during the Holocaust has been formed by graphical representations and semi-fictionalized film accounts to see the important role these media have played in conveying the weight of the Holocaust).
The current conflict has been characterized by the high number of deaths of civilians, especially women and children. During this conflict there have been instances where entire families have been wiped out with only one or two members remaining. Hundreds of children have been killed. The gravity of these incidents deserve a multimedia account to help render them in our minds. An accurate presentation of these events would not exclude that in my opinion and I am unmoved by arguments to exclude such representations based on their "graphic" or "distasteful" nature alone.
I am more concerned with issues of licensing, authenticity of images and the unqieu difficulties of assembling and formatting images in a slightly disorganized article of an ongoing conflict. Therefore my current proposal for addressing our contentions is the following:
This proposal resolves the issues of licensing and authenticity since the cited source would be responsible for determing both. Please discuss this proposal as a possible (temporary) resolution to our disagreement over image inclusions.
(PS. I noticed someone removed the pictures I included from the wiki Holocaust page. I want to emphasize again that I'm not trying to draw direct, general, parallels to the Holocaust nor am I trying to accuse Israel of a systematic, intentional genocide as was carried out in the Holocaust. as I noted above I've drawn a limited comparison to the Holocaust because of the notable use of multi-media approaches to developing an account of that period and the traditional inclusion of images into nearly all accounts of the Holocaust.) āPreceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the "Gaza Kill and Maim" series at cryptome.org?-- Chikamatsu ( talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
'This is one of the reasons the air attack was carried out as a surprise. The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded. . . It is not clear, for example, what advantage or military gain stems from the intentional killing of a hundred or more Palestinian policemen standing on parade. Reuven Pedatzur, 'The mistakes of Cast Lead,ā, Haaretz 08/01/2009
They are classified as terrorists and militants by the IDF's Hamas kill sheet. In fact they were part of the civilian administrative infrastructure's personnel. Police forces, anywhere, are not counted as part of the military. These were then civilians hit without warning, despite the frequent rhetoric about Israel's purity of arms, and the distinction between civilians and militants. Nishidani ( talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are incorrect Nishidani, in many countries, Burma, India, and Indonesia to name a few, the police are part and parcel of the military. Even to the point of being part of the Ministry of Defense. Then there is the fact that no countries police are exactly alike. For instance the police in the UK do not regularly carry firearms while the Carabinieri are heavily armed. Many police forces are in reality paramilitary forces, see Constabulary, gendarmerie and national guard. Plus many of the paramilitary forces operating in the Middle East and the world may maintain their own military police when the organizations themselves are considered terrorist organizations in the countries that they operate. The real question is are the "police" maintained by Hamas actually police or an extension of their paramilitary. Was this a way to legalise the continuous existence of armed Hamas combatants?-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the controversial nature of defining this, I, once again, say that "policemen" should be classified neither as militants nor civilians, but rather independently listed. VR talk 03:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Description from Arabic Wikipedia as translated by Google Translate: Copyrighted
ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł Ł ŁŁ ŲŁŁŁ Ł ŲŁŁŲøŲ© Ł ŲŗŁŲ± Ł Ų±Ų®Ųµ. Ł ŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲÆŲ±Ų¬ ŲŖŲŲŖ Ų£ŲŲÆ ŲØŁŁŲÆ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŁŁŲµŁŲ± Ų£Ł Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲŖŁŲ©. Ų¹ŁŁ Ų£ŁŲ© ŲŲ§ŁŲ Ų§ŁŲ“Ų®Ųµ Ų§ŁŲ°Ł Ų£Ų¶Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲØŲ·Ų§ŁŲ© ŁŲµŲ±Ų Ų£Ł Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł ŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ ŁŲ§ŁŲ© "Ł Ų¬Ų²Ų±Ų© ŲŗŲ²Ų© ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008" ŁŁ ŁŲŖŁŲ¶ŁŲ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ł Ł ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ ŁŲ§ŁŲ© ŁŁ ŲµŁŲŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŲØŁŲÆŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų±ŲØŁŲ©Ų Ų§ŁŁ Ų³ŲŖŲ¶Ų§ŁŲ© Ų¹ŁŁ Ų®Ų§ŲÆŁ Ų§ŲŖ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŲ§ŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų§ŁŁ ŲŖŁŲŲÆŲ©. Ł Ų¤Ų³Ų³Ų© ŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŲÆŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŁŲ§Ų±ŲØŲŁŲ©Ų ŁŁŲŖŲ£ŁŁ ŲŖŲŲŖ ŲØŁŲÆ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų¹Ų§ŲÆŁ ŲŖŲŲŖ ŁŲ§ŁŁŁ ŲŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŲ“Ų± Ų§ŁŲ£Ł Ų±ŁŁŁ. Ų£ŁŁ Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§ŁŲ§ŲŖ Ų£Ų®Ų±Ł ŁŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų©Ų ŁŲÆ ŁŲ“ŁŁ Ų®Ų±ŁŲ§ ŁŲŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŲ“Ų±. Ų§ŁŲøŲ± en:Wikipedia:Fair use Ł en:Wikipedia:Copyrights.
ŁŁŲ“Ų®Ųµ Ų§ŁŲ°Ł Ų£Ų¶Ų§Ł ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŁŲ§ŁŲØŲ Ų§ŁŲ±Ų¬Ų§Ų” ŁŲ¶Ų¹ ŲŖŲ¹ŁŁŁ ŲŖŲ“Ų±Ų ŲØŁ Ų³ŲØŲØ Ų§ŲŲŖŁ Ų§Ł Ų®Ų¶ŁŲ¹ ŁŲ°Ł Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© ŁŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ¹Ł Ų§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ.
[Ų¹ŲÆŁ] Ų£Ų³ŲØŲ§ŲØ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŲ§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ
Ų£Ų³ŲØŲ§ŲØ Ų§ŁŲ§Ų³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŲ§Ł Ų§ŁŲ¹Ų§ŲÆŁ
1. Ų¹ŲÆŁ ŁŲ¬ŁŲÆ ŁŲ³Ų®Ų© ŲŲ±Ų© Ł Ł Ł Ų¹Ų§Ų±Ł ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®ŁŲ§ Ų§ŁŁŁŁ 27 ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008 2. Ų±ŁŲ¹ŲŖ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ± ŲØŲÆŁŲ© Ł ŁŲ®ŁŲ¶Ų© 3. Ł Ų¹ŲøŁ Ł Ł ŁŁ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© Ł ŲŖŁŁŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ŁŁ Ų¹Ų§Ų±Ł 4. ŲŲÆŲ« ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®Ł ŲŖŲµŁŁ ŁŲ«ŁŲ± Ł Ł Ų§ŁŲ£Ų·Ų±Ų§Ł ŲØŲ¬Ų±ŁŁ Ų© ŲŲ±ŲØ ŁŁŁ Ų£ŁŲØŲ± Ų¹Ł ŁŁŲ© ŁŲŖŲ§Ł Ų¶ŲÆ Ų§ŁŁŁŲ³Ų·ŁŁŁŁŁ Ł ŁŲ° Ų¹Ų§Ł 1967 5. Ų³ŲŖŲ³ŲŖŲ®ŲÆŁ Ų§ŁŲµŁŲ±Ų© ŁŁŲ³ŁŁŲ© ŲŖŁŲ«ŁŁŁŲ© Ł Ų¹ŁŁŁ Ų§ŲŖŁŲ© ŁŲÆŲ¹Ł Ų±ŁŲ§ŁŲ© Ų§ŁŲŲÆŲ«.
ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ® Ų§ŁŁ ŁŁ
Ų§Ų¶ŲŗŲ· Ų„ŲŲÆŁ ŁŲµŁŲ§ŲŖ ŲŖŲ§Ų±ŁŲ®/ŁŁŲŖ ŁŲŖŲ±Ł Ų§ŁŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ Ų§ ŁŲ§Ł ŁŁ ŁŲ°Ų§ Ų§ŁŁŁŲŖ.
opyrighted
This work has rights reserved and non-licensed. , But it falls under one of the items on the fair use of the fair use of images or just use the audio file. In any case, the person who said this card says that the use of this work in the article "Gaza massacre in December 2008" is to explain in the article in the pages of Arab Aloueckebedea, hosted on maids in the United States. Profit Wikimedia Foundation, and qualify under fair use under U.S. copyright law. Any other uses of this image, may constitute a breach of copyright. See en: Wikipedia: Fair use and en: Wikipedia: Copyrights.
The person who added this template, please explain the reason for the suspension of the possibility that such use of the image to the fair.
Employment, equitable
1. The absence of a free copy of the history of battles today December 27, 2008 2. The pictures accurately low 3. Most of the dead in the picture in the fighting 4. It describes a historic event, many of the parties, the biggest war crime of the process of fighting against Palestinians since 1967 5. Will be used as a photo documentary information to support the version of the event.
History file
Click one of the links to the date / time to view the file as it was at this time.
[Changed] the causes of fair use
--
23prootie (
talk)
23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier in the conflict Israel had sent 10,000 soldiers on ground. [17] Now Israel has sent an unknown number of reservists, [18] so the 10,000 figure doesn't seem appropriate anymore. It is also unclear if the 150 soldiers wounded are still in battle or not. Therefore I've listed just the total number, as we have the Hamas total number of combatants. VR talk 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim has added "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated, pointing out that a week ago only three IDF soldiers were killed when a tank fired two rounds - which have a much larger impact than mortar rounds - into a building which was occupied by 50 IDF soldiers." to the report on the UNRWA school attack. The figure of 40 dead mentioned at the beginning of the section comes from John Ging, not from Hamas, according to the cited NYT article. Omrim's addition is therefore misleading and contradictory. I believe it should be deleted. However, if it is left in, it helps us to see the contemptuous attitude of the aggressor. NonZionist ( talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) And Nableezy, the 70 figure belongs to the Zeitoun incident, while we are discussing the UNRWA school. Only goes to show how terrible is this conflict, that we are even unable to keep track of terrible incidents, which each by itself, if happened out of the current context, would have gotten far more attention.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Under casualities, the following sentence (One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28) might not be accurate as there is nothing to indicate that Hamas was involved in the incident, on the 27th Dec a palestinian was killed by the border guards while trying to escape to Egypt, this incident might habe been in retaliation, a more accurate description would be to replace (Hamas gunmen) by (shots from the palestinian side) āPreceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
On a separate note two Egyptian policemen and and two Egyptian children were wounded yesterday by a bomb shrapnel. [19] VR talk 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody seems to think that there is no relevance to listing the quantities of aid that enter Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel. I have put the listing in twice, and each time, it disappears within a day. Since there are so many edits, it is difficult to identify who is doing this - whoever it is does not write comments.
If there is a valid reason NOT to have this information, I would like to hear it. I for one think it is relevant because much of the media coverage implies that aid does not get through, or is being restricted by Israel, which is clearly not true. -- Cbdorsett ( talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
My opinion: since a humanitarian crisis is going on in Gaza, to a greater or lesser extent (depends on who's being asked), and Israel is being blamed for it, I think that it's important to add another facet to the description of the situation, by supplying these facts. Thus, the reader has a chance to decide for himself the degree of the severity of the humanitarian crisis. Our job is to supply the facts (but in a succinct fashion, of course) Rabend ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes ago the graph of casualties was changed by User:Cflm001. The edit summary said this was a 'minor edit' with the graph being replaced by a 'vector version'. However, alongside, in the new graph the number of Palestinian casualties declined dramatically from 857 to 683. Multiple sources support the original figure and if User:Cflm001 had some evidence for the lower figure, I would welcome him to present that on the talk page. However, to change the figure with a "minor edit" edit summary suggesting just a change in format is, in my opinion, not entirely honest. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The cease fire between June till recently was not a Hudna (as written in the article), but a Tahdiya. Below source explains the differences and cites sources.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=0&IID=2224
I recommend you add this to the article.
Tuvia, Israel January 12th 2009
I think you're right. Through the period, Haaretz referred to its as a Tahidiyya (sp.?) and not a hudna, which tended to be reserved for Hamas's negotiating stance, according to which they would be prepared to make a 'hudna' for 25 years with Israel, if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. At least this is my strong memory of consistent usage by commentators in that newspaper. I see on checking wiki that the terms are defined differently however. Perhaps an Arabist could step in. Is the Israeli/Haaretz distinction consonant with Hamas usage? Nishidani ( talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this WP:OR from the article:
Hamas ideology does not allow a permanent cease-fire with a non- Muslim enemy, though a temporary truce up to ten years, called Hudna, is allowed. [1]
I replaced it with the source provided above, noting the difference between a tahdiya and a hudna and that this was a tahdiya and not a hudna. Thanks. Tiamut talk 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It fills the entire screen! I don't know how to resize it though. It wasn't like that last time I looked. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead is under attack by several editors who don't like both names for the conflict being used in the lead. A large number of different objections have been argued, all of which failed to get consensus. Now open attacking the lead has commenced, what is to be done? RomaC ( talk) 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and 2009.
I find it very troubling that Darshowitz, A Harvard Law School Professor of Criminal Law and Human Rights is not considered by many editors notable enough to have his opinion quoted in the legal section. On the other hand the Qatar Minister of Foreign Affairs, The secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza ARE notable enough to be considered experts in Int'l law, and thus are qouted in the section. Isn't that strange? Will someone care to explain?-- Omrim ( talk) 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Omrim ( talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Fellows, I'm restoring Israel Attorney General comments way IDF military goals are being legally approved during the conflict. Let me know if it violates any WP:* and feel free to make it more balanced. Thank You. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
With so many people making edits, it is impossible to see at a glance which edits are vandalistic and which are not. What we need is:
If the articles are stored in entry-sequence format, there would be no additional comparison overhead, since the composite diff would simply arrange the data in narrative sequence.
A tabular format could be used on the history page to present the new information. The composite diff could allow control over the number of versions compared simultaneously. NonZionist ( talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.
The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):
Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.
The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!
Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.
I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 ( talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.
Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting a response on number 6. Fundamentally, the issue is that if we go into individual cases of alleged violation on the Israeli side, then we must do the same for Palestinian militants. Any input from other editors on whether they would rather do both or neither? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone created the section. I'll take that as "both." Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is Dershowitz back in the article? I'll go ahead and remove him, and hopefully someone will be willing to discuss on this page, rather than just reverting.
Additionally, I was thinking that the Falk statement in the "By Palestinian militants" section should probably be removed. There are four things that trouble me about it: (1) Falk wrote it mostly as a diplomatic nicety, and it doesn't follow the spirit of his statement, (2) due to this, it is paired with an (awkward) explanation of Israel's legal position, which doesn't fit in the section, (3) as Special Rapporteur, his opinion about Palestinian violations of IL aren't relevant (his job is only to report Israeli violations of HR), and (4) we already have this viewpoint represented by the BBC, Israel and other sources. Speaking of which, who removed the Human Rights Council comment on the illegality of Hamas rockets and why? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
British Foreign Secretary says Gaza abuse allegations by both sides must be properly investigated: [22]. Notable and should be added. Fig ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)