![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | â | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | â | Archive 20 |
(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo ( talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage ( talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"
![]() | The editor who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. A more experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future. Works without confirmed copyright status will be deleted within a week. |
![]() | This image does not have information on its
copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days from its upload date, (10 January 2009). Once a
copyright tag has been added, this template may be removed.
This image has been placed in a queue for experienced editors to look at. There is no guarantee this will occur before 7 days. If you would like to ask a question now please do so at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Remove this tag when you provide the information. |
-- 23prootie ( talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. -- vvarkey ( talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.
These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.
There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 ( talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.
Wikipedia is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Wikipedia is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas daily sends barrages into Israel, as its hooded thugs thump their chests and brag of their radical Islamic militancy. But when the payback comes, suddenly warriors are transmogrified into weeping victims, posing teary-eyed for the news camera as they deplore âgenocideâ and âthe Palestinian Holocaust.â At least the Japanese militarists did not cry out to the League of Nations for help once mean Marines landed on Iwo Jima.
If the daily cost of Palestinian lives for "resistance" in Gaza should cease, Hamas should have only the option of surrender, complete and unconditional, and Gaza either be granted an Egyptian protectorate (if one is available) or governance by an International Body (NOT the United Nations, but instead an "International Ruling authority for Gaza," set up as a multi-lateral government with full Israeli and Egyptian participation and an oversight by NATO or the G-8. This should include a rapid-deployment force made up of European soldiers from a small third-country, Austria or the Irish Republic perhaps. " Neither Hamas nor the remnants of the PLO should be included in this government, nor the irresponsible voters of Gaza who have repeatedly chosen violent thugs as their leadership. V. Joe ( talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For the quote from the rough equvalent of a PFC
âWe are fighting the Israelis,â he said. âWhen we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.â He continued smiling.
âWhy are you so happy?â this reporter asked. âLook around you.â
A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.
âDonât you see that these people are hurting?â the militant was asked.
âBut I am from the people, too,â he said, his smile incandescent. âThey lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.â
That quote is from [1], which is a NYT article from a Gazan Hospital. That is a death-cult to me. V. Joe ( talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Eye to Eye - by Gihad Ali
...
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.
-- http://www.al-awda.org/eyetoeye.html
Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WanderSage, V. Joe and Tundrabuggy. Your comments above, in which you suggest that images of dead Palestinian children "can certainly be a form of pornography," are reprehensible. I demand you strike them out at once. If your stomach-turning provocation is an attempt to goad other editors into personal attacks it will not succeed, rather I think editors will be steeled in opposition to the inhumanity of what you are suggesting. Shall we put the comments out more widely, for consideration, to see how the community responds? RomaC ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
no use appealing to the better nature of these 3 particular users, they are goading and we should ignore it. lets focus on the admitted fact above that "wikipedia does not censor" and then we agree that gazan casualty photos should and will be posted. Untwirl ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate copyright laws with a passion, and the issues here are a clear example of why the system is broken. However, the system exists, and we must respect it. Wikipedia will cease to exist if copyright holders sue us for continuous copyright violations. I understand all the due weight positions, but this is resolved by no putting pictures, it is not resolved by faking copyrights, using ambiguity, and otherwise trying to game the system. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipidea has a policy of not censoring any kind of image. For instance, Images of exlpicit sexual content appear in related articles. Why should graphic images be censored? The "graphic" nature is a vital part of the truth. I am shocked that the article does not contain one image of civilians wounded on both sides for comparison purposes. The UN and UNRWA have been concerned with possibilities of war crimes and use of forbidden weapons by Israel. Civilian injuries must be presented without censorship. Contrieng ( talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Make no mistake, the decision of including (or not) graphic images of human suffering in order to illustrate the article serves a political agenda. Including them to emotionally charge readers against Israel is just as pernicious as omitting them on the grounds that 'they are distasteful' in order to prevent readers from reaching a full extent of the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.
However I, as many others here, am deeply concerned about the double standarts presented by editors. If we should completely avoid those pictures, then for the sake of neutrality and consistency we should do the same with every other article that deals with sensible issues. And before any outcries of anti-semitism from people thinking I'm too making mention of the Holocaust page, I could cite the article for the Ossetia conflict last year, that too had a considerable toll of civilian casualties, of which not one picture was added to illustrate this point.
This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy ( talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English wikipedia not al jezeera et al.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[28] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ××׌ע ע×פרת ×׌×ק×â), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ٠؏زع؊ غز؊â) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]"-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts? Cptnono ( talk)
Most media outlets (CNN [2], NYT [3] just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?-- Omrim ( talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel is a political entity, a country; Gaza is a geographic name and denotes neither a country nor political entity. More accurate would be 2008-2009 IsraelâHamas conflict or 2008-2009 IsraelâHamas war. David Shankbone 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Please stop all the indenting, the paragraphs are only 5 inches wide on my browser.
2. The title should remain "2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict". we need to wait until the dust settles,which it will, and then we can d-i-s-c-u-s-s this like the rational people that WE ALL are.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"The trouble with elections and democracies in general is that you can only vote for those who run or are allowed to run." Lyndon Larouche-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Touche-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The combatants involved are somewhat more than just Israel vs Hamas. Calling it the Israel Hamas war is too simplistic. Superpie ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As the original poster demonstrates, the political entities here are Israel and Hamas. Israel is openly targeting Hamas and Hamas is openly targeting Israel, so "Israel-Hamas" conflict would be appropriate. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not NPOV because it clearly suggests that Israel is targeting the entire region and not merely the Hamas entity. While some people may claim that Israel is destroying the entire region, that is not Israel's own position and therefore we must not put this label on Israel. Similarly, those who believe that Hamas is destroying the entire region would be wrong to call it a "Hamas-Gaza" conflict, despite all the evidence of Hamas terrorism. Hamas officially is only trying to destroy Israel, not all of Gaza. And Israel is officially only trying to destroy Hamas -- first by peacibly removing their tunnels and funding, and then by responding to terrorist rockets with military attacks on Hamas targets. Nowhere is Israel stating a goal of destroying Gaza, in fact quite the opposite. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The IDF figures on Palestinian militants dead has been debated previously. The IDF claim that 550 were dead, [4] apparently contradicts the claim that 879 are dead, of whom 444 are civilians. The claim was made by an unnamed army officer in a "closed-door interview". Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal has declined to confirm the number. [5] I don't see why we have to continue to make the claim that 550 Hamas militants were killed inside the infobox (we should make it in the casualties section). VR talk 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
{unindent) This is the latest info below quoted from: Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.
Please use this URL: [9] and not the Google one. They are the same AFP article, but the Google URL is not permanent and will likely disappear in a few days.
I think we should use the word "fighters" since that is what the IDF is publicly using. Hamas is not the only group fighting the Israelis in this war. I think we should use the public statements of the IDF, and not some secret third-person opinion of one IDF officer. Why use it? Every officer may have an opinion. What proof is there that this officer even exists? The IDF spokesman Jacob Dallal is a real person on the record.
See [10] for info on Doctor Muawiya Hassanein who is providing the Palestinian casualty numbers. He is not Hamas.
Here is more info on him from that article:
The latest numbers from him may currently be this article: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A916588 -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently a source is being used to quote the IDF saying that 650 Hamas "terrorists" have been killed. [14] I have only been able to find one source supporting this statement. The source also seems to be a bit biased. By contrast, Ha'aretz, just today used 400 as the definite number of Hamas operatives killed. [15] This was also stated by TIME. [16]
Given the above, I'm removing the 650 figure, and leaving the 400 one. VR talk 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You are again separating the cops from Hamas fighters, the IDF counts cops as Hamas fighters, also this may be the only source that says 650 but it is stated by official sources, you are trying to downplay the numbers, and also check a little more better the Net, they claimed 650 because there's half a dozens sources that says they confirmed 400 of the 900 dead to be definetly Hamas and they BELIVE half of the remaining 500 are also Hamas. You are the only one who is making a fuss over this. BobaFett85 ( talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried about the increasing repetition of facts. The article is already 186 KB long. According to Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb the article is way too long, as any article over 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided."
In this context it doesn't help when users add lengthy quotes into the article, or when they repeat information in the same section. Repetition also has POV implications, as repeating one sides arguments gives the appearance of more weight to that side.
In the last half hour, there are two examples of this:
Note I'm disputing Omrim's reasoning or whether such facts should be in the article, but rather I find it completely unjustified that a user should create such repetitions. To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point. Such actions need to stop, and we need to start summarizing if we are ever to get this article back at the 100 Kb borderline. VR talk 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Already did it for you. See if you approve my version. As per your arguments, I agree we are in short supply of space, but this hardly justifies a section where every single UN official who have blamed Israel on the issue is quoted, while the IDF version gets a line and a half down the section, and where the only UN official who said something which may be remotly interpreted as not anti-Israeli, is ignored. Summaries are fine, as long as they contain all the elements of each sides version. As of copyright issues, you are correct of course, and I shall pay more attention to the issue from now on. -- Omrim ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The repetitions have re-appeared. Moreover, as stated above, the IDF claim that the "Hamas figure" is grossly exaggerated is irrelevant. The casualty figures come from multiple sources and the one sourced here is, in fact, from a UN official. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Putting the attack on the journalists house under "media campaign" suggets it was an intentional attempt to harm journalists as part of the so called "media campaign". This is wrong. The entire sub-section should be moved under "notable incidents".-- Omrim ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, [19], the factions involved include:
The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."
According to this source, [21], in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:
I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if a I write up a section that covers the different groups that make up the Palestinian resistance to this Israeli offensive? I'd like to cover their names, political affiliations, numbers (if known), weaponry, tactics, objectives, etc. None of that is covered in the article yet. Perhaps someone might be interested in making a similar section for the Israeli political and military forces involved? Tiamut talk 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Coincided with the school shift. This was elided. When I raised the topic, it was suggested Muslims don't go to school on Saturday. I did a brief check, others may be better at googling reliable sources.
(1) Israeli jets kill âat least 225â in strikes on Gaza, Sunday Times 28/12/2008 Sunday Times 'Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors. Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames. December 28, 2008
(2) Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturdayâs attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school. TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ETHAN BRONNER Israelis Say Strikes Against Hamas Will Continue, New York Times 27/12/2008
(3) I run into the street and everybody is running, children and grown-ups, all looking to see if their relatives and friends are alive. It is the time for children to go to school for the second shift, after the first shift finishes at 11.30am. A Palestinian in Gaza chronicles life under Israeli bombardment by Fida Qishta guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December- Nishidani ( talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
does anybody else find it amusing that we have for the most part gotten along and tried to achieve consensus on such a heated topic, but once a certain editor shows up we get a totally disputed tag? I swear im laughing, not crying. Nableezy ( talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this tag. User:Jaakobou has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. For a recent example see here. There is already an activediscuss and current war tag on this article and, in my opinion, that is sufficient. Many of us have worked hard on this article to achieve consensus and this tag is disrespectful of that effort. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I find that this paragraph is objectionable, and I will explain why.
in line with this, "The Vatican sought to downplay the cardinal's remarks... [so] the Vatican spokesman, Reverend Federico Lombardi, called Cardinal Martinoâs choice of words 'inopportune'."
I think my wording is better. No estimate of total civilian dead has been made by the MoH. See this revision of the article: [22]
I think that is better than
I showed the ref in the above previous version. Looking at that article it does not say 380, nor does it give a total. It was just discussing the number of women and children dead:
This article is the source of the current breakdown: http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12514
The article says it is from the Palestine News Agency - WAFA. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please look at some of the IP edits, and see what I mean. It is hard enough to reach consensus with registered users. There are only so many hours in a day.
Plus who knows how many sockpuppets are among the IPs using them to avoid 3RR. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel has changed its story yet again, according to the Jerusalem Post:
"We are still sticking by our official position that according to our initial inquiry, the whole thing started when terrorists fired mortar shells from the school compound [at soldiers]," Capt. Ishai David told The Jerusalem Post. "The IDF returned fire to the source, and the unfortunate result was the death of innocent civilians," David said.
-- TOVAH LAZAROFF (2009-01-12). "IDF denies errant shell hit UNRWA school". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-12.
UNRWA continues to contradict the Israeli account. A news article at antiwar.com ( "Israeli Military Changes Stories Yet Again on Gaza School Attack". antiwar.com. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-01-12.) tracks the conflicting accounts and provides additional sources. Can I add this information in the UNRWA School section? NonZionist ( talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jaakobou's mentor dropping by. Over at ANI I edit conflicted with Sandstein. Was attempting to suggest a content request for comment on the lead and whether it violates WP:UNDUE. Anyone object to requesting a few more eyes on the matter? Respectfully, Durova Charge! 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the broader section discussing the weaponry and tactics being used by Israel and by the Palestinian resistance? Should I just start a section on the tunnel system to put into such a section once its developed? Tiamut talk 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As discussed in the archives, this should be in its own article or in an article on the IT/cyber response to this offensive. It trivializes what is happening here to paste to the end of this article. I've removed it. Tiamut talk 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
i thought the same thing when i saw it. thanks for removing it. Untwirl ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12515
Someone may want to find other media reports on this, and note it in the Wikipedia article. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need a formal mediation? If so, why? (not being sarcastic, asking honestly) The Squicks ( talk) 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this update by ××××׊××¨× in the Israeli plans for a military option section. I guess it probably needs better refs given it's potentially controversial nature. The existing ref simply asserts that it is the case. Anyone up for a ref hunt ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some of you editors who have been fervently working on this take at look at this fork? It's talk page still needs the tags and categorization. The article itself also needs much work. The Squicks ( talk) 06:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this conflict a part of the "Campaigns of the War on Terrorism"? So far, I haven't seen any sources that use the highly specific term "War on Terrorism" in relation to this conflict. VR talk 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone expressly stating that the Israeli operation is a part of the War on Terror, except for the Israeli Government and some high-profile columnists. I don't think the columnists' analyses are notable enough for this article, but the Israeli gov't's statement might be an important part of its stance on the conflict and perhaps should be stuck into the part where we report Israel's stance. I think if any other countries have made or end up making the connection with the WOT, that should be included: if the country is less significant, e.g. Georgia - in the "Reactions" section; if the country is more significant, e.g. the U.S. - in the lead. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is surreal. This needs to go into the article.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0113/breaking13.htm
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently contains the image of a boy holding an anti-semitic sign. This image was inserted by User:Mbz1. This is part of a set of three images. The description below one of them -- which succinctly summarizes the event according to the photographer ( User:Mbz1 herself (/himself) ) -- reads: "A hamas supporter is driving the car full of kids yelling, and not looking at the road ahead of her (endangering the kids in a car and people on the road) at pro-w:hamas anti-w:Israel rally in w:San Francisco. She was driving back and forth quite a few times.The sign on the car reads: "Jews are terrorists"
Are we seriously supposed to insert this image or one of its cousins into the article? There is no independent verification that this image was indeed taken at a demonstration or even in San Francisco. Nor is it clear why this person(in the car) or her views are notable .. was she a prominent speaker or an organizer? Did most of the demonstrators agree with her (almost certainly, not!).
I suggest this picture be removed immediately. Jacob2718 ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I took the image in San Francisco myself. I removed her license plate number from the image to protect her privacy. I've never said that most speakers were agree with her (they probably were), but this image is important because it show how easy to get from anti Israel demonstration to anti semetic demonstration.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I don't understand why we have so many pictures of pro-Israeli protests and the effects of rocket fire from Palestinian militants, and ZERO pictures of Palestinian victims of this assault. Tiamut talk 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It is image of pro w:hamas supporter, and not pro-Israeli supporter. That's right you cannot understand anything.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Tariq and Tiamut... You need to stop. This talkpage is not a forum for continuing your disputes from elsewhere. The subject of this page and discussion is improving the article, and that's it. Avruch T 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict with Avruch)
I would draw editors' attentions to this section, which is totally inadequate, though no easy thing to draft properly. For one it implies that the blockade was imposed when Hamas came to power, which is untrue. The blockade of Gaza preexisted the elections which turned over the administration to Gaza. There are many other elements, but in reading sources, it would be helpful if this was kept in mind. Nishidani ( talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
these statements:
"It pointed Arab media reports that civilians had, back in 2006, taken shifts serving as "human shields" of the Barud residence.[444]
Hamas continues to hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to human rights group, B'Tselem holding Gilad Shalit hostage is a war crime, since "international humanitarian law" prohibits "hostage taking". B'Tselem also said that the denial of Red Cross visits to the prisoner was a "blatant violation of international law".[450]
are not relevant to this conflict. both of these sources refer to events happening two or three years ago. i propose they be removed. Untwirl ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
if the article notes the gaza conflict as a cause of this action then it probably deserves a brief note in this article. otherwise it is a separate, although disgraceful, issue. the argument that the jewish nature of israel is not to be diluted with non-jews is probably also used by "settlers" participating in pogroms such as this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043795.html Untwirl ( talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is much ado about nothing. I am 100% certain (well, 99.9%)that the Supreme Court will overrule it. It has happened in the past with other not-so-notable Israeli politicians who used their memberships in the electoral committee to make a small political fortune. As far as I recall, the last time the Supreme Court upheld such a decision, was when the committee disqualified Kach and Kahane Chai from taking part in the election.-- Omrim ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? This isn't the place for emotional discussion about the conflict, or for critical comments of Israel. Everyone editing this page should be here to discuss the article, and ways to improve it, and nothing else. The issue of Israeli Arab political disenfranchisement is real, but not party to this article subject. Avruch T 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Gaza conflict. These 2 parties were banned by the court in a process that started weeks before the war. Also, their banning happened because of their anti-Israeli charters where they don't even recognize Israel, and they support Palestinian terror against Israel and etc. They were ruled out because they are anti-Democratic, anti-Israeli parties that have no place in Israel's democracy. It's the same if an Anti-American party would try to run in the US elections. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 07:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If anybody wants to follow up on this and has time, I suggest creating an article Disqualification of political parties, or perhaps Disqualification of political parties in democracies, since I suppose in dictatorships any such individual action isn't notable. Some wikisurfing led me to interesting info on Spain, Turkey and Thailand, in their "List of poloitical parties in X" articles. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | â | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | â | Archive 20 |
(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo ( talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf site. WanderSage ( talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"
![]() | The editor who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. A more experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future. Works without confirmed copyright status will be deleted within a week. |
![]() | This image does not have information on its
copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days from its upload date, (10 January 2009). Once a
copyright tag has been added, this template may be removed.
This image has been placed in a queue for experienced editors to look at. There is no guarantee this will occur before 7 days. If you would like to ask a question now please do so at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Remove this tag when you provide the information. |
-- 23prootie ( talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. -- vvarkey ( talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.
These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.
There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 ( talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.
Wikipedia is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Wikipedia is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Wikipedia is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas daily sends barrages into Israel, as its hooded thugs thump their chests and brag of their radical Islamic militancy. But when the payback comes, suddenly warriors are transmogrified into weeping victims, posing teary-eyed for the news camera as they deplore âgenocideâ and âthe Palestinian Holocaust.â At least the Japanese militarists did not cry out to the League of Nations for help once mean Marines landed on Iwo Jima.
If the daily cost of Palestinian lives for "resistance" in Gaza should cease, Hamas should have only the option of surrender, complete and unconditional, and Gaza either be granted an Egyptian protectorate (if one is available) or governance by an International Body (NOT the United Nations, but instead an "International Ruling authority for Gaza," set up as a multi-lateral government with full Israeli and Egyptian participation and an oversight by NATO or the G-8. This should include a rapid-deployment force made up of European soldiers from a small third-country, Austria or the Irish Republic perhaps. " Neither Hamas nor the remnants of the PLO should be included in this government, nor the irresponsible voters of Gaza who have repeatedly chosen violent thugs as their leadership. V. Joe ( talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For the quote from the rough equvalent of a PFC
âWe are fighting the Israelis,â he said. âWhen we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.â He continued smiling.
âWhy are you so happy?â this reporter asked. âLook around you.â
A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.
âDonât you see that these people are hurting?â the militant was asked.
âBut I am from the people, too,â he said, his smile incandescent. âThey lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.â
That quote is from [1], which is a NYT article from a Gazan Hospital. That is a death-cult to me. V. Joe ( talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Eye to Eye - by Gihad Ali
...
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.
-- http://www.al-awda.org/eyetoeye.html
Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WanderSage, V. Joe and Tundrabuggy. Your comments above, in which you suggest that images of dead Palestinian children "can certainly be a form of pornography," are reprehensible. I demand you strike them out at once. If your stomach-turning provocation is an attempt to goad other editors into personal attacks it will not succeed, rather I think editors will be steeled in opposition to the inhumanity of what you are suggesting. Shall we put the comments out more widely, for consideration, to see how the community responds? RomaC ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
no use appealing to the better nature of these 3 particular users, they are goading and we should ignore it. lets focus on the admitted fact above that "wikipedia does not censor" and then we agree that gazan casualty photos should and will be posted. Untwirl ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate copyright laws with a passion, and the issues here are a clear example of why the system is broken. However, the system exists, and we must respect it. Wikipedia will cease to exist if copyright holders sue us for continuous copyright violations. I understand all the due weight positions, but this is resolved by no putting pictures, it is not resolved by faking copyrights, using ambiguity, and otherwise trying to game the system. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipidea has a policy of not censoring any kind of image. For instance, Images of exlpicit sexual content appear in related articles. Why should graphic images be censored? The "graphic" nature is a vital part of the truth. I am shocked that the article does not contain one image of civilians wounded on both sides for comparison purposes. The UN and UNRWA have been concerned with possibilities of war crimes and use of forbidden weapons by Israel. Civilian injuries must be presented without censorship. Contrieng ( talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Make no mistake, the decision of including (or not) graphic images of human suffering in order to illustrate the article serves a political agenda. Including them to emotionally charge readers against Israel is just as pernicious as omitting them on the grounds that 'they are distasteful' in order to prevent readers from reaching a full extent of the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.
However I, as many others here, am deeply concerned about the double standarts presented by editors. If we should completely avoid those pictures, then for the sake of neutrality and consistency we should do the same with every other article that deals with sensible issues. And before any outcries of anti-semitism from people thinking I'm too making mention of the Holocaust page, I could cite the article for the Ossetia conflict last year, that too had a considerable toll of civilian casualties, of which not one picture was added to illustrate this point.
This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy ( talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English wikipedia not al jezeera et al.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[28] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ××׌ע ע×פרת ×׌×ק×â), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ٠؏زع؊ غز؊â) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]"-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts? Cptnono ( talk)
Most media outlets (CNN [2], NYT [3] just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?-- Omrim ( talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel is a political entity, a country; Gaza is a geographic name and denotes neither a country nor political entity. More accurate would be 2008-2009 IsraelâHamas conflict or 2008-2009 IsraelâHamas war. David Shankbone 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Please stop all the indenting, the paragraphs are only 5 inches wide on my browser.
2. The title should remain "2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict". we need to wait until the dust settles,which it will, and then we can d-i-s-c-u-s-s this like the rational people that WE ALL are.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"The trouble with elections and democracies in general is that you can only vote for those who run or are allowed to run." Lyndon Larouche-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Touche-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The combatants involved are somewhat more than just Israel vs Hamas. Calling it the Israel Hamas war is too simplistic. Superpie ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As the original poster demonstrates, the political entities here are Israel and Hamas. Israel is openly targeting Hamas and Hamas is openly targeting Israel, so "Israel-Hamas" conflict would be appropriate. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not NPOV because it clearly suggests that Israel is targeting the entire region and not merely the Hamas entity. While some people may claim that Israel is destroying the entire region, that is not Israel's own position and therefore we must not put this label on Israel. Similarly, those who believe that Hamas is destroying the entire region would be wrong to call it a "Hamas-Gaza" conflict, despite all the evidence of Hamas terrorism. Hamas officially is only trying to destroy Israel, not all of Gaza. And Israel is officially only trying to destroy Hamas -- first by peacibly removing their tunnels and funding, and then by responding to terrorist rockets with military attacks on Hamas targets. Nowhere is Israel stating a goal of destroying Gaza, in fact quite the opposite. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The IDF figures on Palestinian militants dead has been debated previously. The IDF claim that 550 were dead, [4] apparently contradicts the claim that 879 are dead, of whom 444 are civilians. The claim was made by an unnamed army officer in a "closed-door interview". Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal has declined to confirm the number. [5] I don't see why we have to continue to make the claim that 550 Hamas militants were killed inside the infobox (we should make it in the casualties section). VR talk 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
{unindent) This is the latest info below quoted from: Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.
Please use this URL: [9] and not the Google one. They are the same AFP article, but the Google URL is not permanent and will likely disappear in a few days.
I think we should use the word "fighters" since that is what the IDF is publicly using. Hamas is not the only group fighting the Israelis in this war. I think we should use the public statements of the IDF, and not some secret third-person opinion of one IDF officer. Why use it? Every officer may have an opinion. What proof is there that this officer even exists? The IDF spokesman Jacob Dallal is a real person on the record.
See [10] for info on Doctor Muawiya Hassanein who is providing the Palestinian casualty numbers. He is not Hamas.
Here is more info on him from that article:
The latest numbers from him may currently be this article: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A916588 -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently a source is being used to quote the IDF saying that 650 Hamas "terrorists" have been killed. [14] I have only been able to find one source supporting this statement. The source also seems to be a bit biased. By contrast, Ha'aretz, just today used 400 as the definite number of Hamas operatives killed. [15] This was also stated by TIME. [16]
Given the above, I'm removing the 650 figure, and leaving the 400 one. VR talk 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You are again separating the cops from Hamas fighters, the IDF counts cops as Hamas fighters, also this may be the only source that says 650 but it is stated by official sources, you are trying to downplay the numbers, and also check a little more better the Net, they claimed 650 because there's half a dozens sources that says they confirmed 400 of the 900 dead to be definetly Hamas and they BELIVE half of the remaining 500 are also Hamas. You are the only one who is making a fuss over this. BobaFett85 ( talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried about the increasing repetition of facts. The article is already 186 KB long. According to Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb the article is way too long, as any article over 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided."
In this context it doesn't help when users add lengthy quotes into the article, or when they repeat information in the same section. Repetition also has POV implications, as repeating one sides arguments gives the appearance of more weight to that side.
In the last half hour, there are two examples of this:
Note I'm disputing Omrim's reasoning or whether such facts should be in the article, but rather I find it completely unjustified that a user should create such repetitions. To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point. Such actions need to stop, and we need to start summarizing if we are ever to get this article back at the 100 Kb borderline. VR talk 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Already did it for you. See if you approve my version. As per your arguments, I agree we are in short supply of space, but this hardly justifies a section where every single UN official who have blamed Israel on the issue is quoted, while the IDF version gets a line and a half down the section, and where the only UN official who said something which may be remotly interpreted as not anti-Israeli, is ignored. Summaries are fine, as long as they contain all the elements of each sides version. As of copyright issues, you are correct of course, and I shall pay more attention to the issue from now on. -- Omrim ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The repetitions have re-appeared. Moreover, as stated above, the IDF claim that the "Hamas figure" is grossly exaggerated is irrelevant. The casualty figures come from multiple sources and the one sourced here is, in fact, from a UN official. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Putting the attack on the journalists house under "media campaign" suggets it was an intentional attempt to harm journalists as part of the so called "media campaign". This is wrong. The entire sub-section should be moved under "notable incidents".-- Omrim ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, [19], the factions involved include:
The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."
According to this source, [21], in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:
I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if a I write up a section that covers the different groups that make up the Palestinian resistance to this Israeli offensive? I'd like to cover their names, political affiliations, numbers (if known), weaponry, tactics, objectives, etc. None of that is covered in the article yet. Perhaps someone might be interested in making a similar section for the Israeli political and military forces involved? Tiamut talk 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Coincided with the school shift. This was elided. When I raised the topic, it was suggested Muslims don't go to school on Saturday. I did a brief check, others may be better at googling reliable sources.
(1) Israeli jets kill âat least 225â in strikes on Gaza, Sunday Times 28/12/2008 Sunday Times 'Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors. Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames. December 28, 2008
(2) Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturdayâs attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school. TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ETHAN BRONNER Israelis Say Strikes Against Hamas Will Continue, New York Times 27/12/2008
(3) I run into the street and everybody is running, children and grown-ups, all looking to see if their relatives and friends are alive. It is the time for children to go to school for the second shift, after the first shift finishes at 11.30am. A Palestinian in Gaza chronicles life under Israeli bombardment by Fida Qishta guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December- Nishidani ( talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
does anybody else find it amusing that we have for the most part gotten along and tried to achieve consensus on such a heated topic, but once a certain editor shows up we get a totally disputed tag? I swear im laughing, not crying. Nableezy ( talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this tag. User:Jaakobou has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. For a recent example see here. There is already an activediscuss and current war tag on this article and, in my opinion, that is sufficient. Many of us have worked hard on this article to achieve consensus and this tag is disrespectful of that effort. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I find that this paragraph is objectionable, and I will explain why.
in line with this, "The Vatican sought to downplay the cardinal's remarks... [so] the Vatican spokesman, Reverend Federico Lombardi, called Cardinal Martinoâs choice of words 'inopportune'."
I think my wording is better. No estimate of total civilian dead has been made by the MoH. See this revision of the article: [22]
I think that is better than
I showed the ref in the above previous version. Looking at that article it does not say 380, nor does it give a total. It was just discussing the number of women and children dead:
This article is the source of the current breakdown: http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12514
The article says it is from the Palestine News Agency - WAFA. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please look at some of the IP edits, and see what I mean. It is hard enough to reach consensus with registered users. There are only so many hours in a day.
Plus who knows how many sockpuppets are among the IPs using them to avoid 3RR. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel has changed its story yet again, according to the Jerusalem Post:
"We are still sticking by our official position that according to our initial inquiry, the whole thing started when terrorists fired mortar shells from the school compound [at soldiers]," Capt. Ishai David told The Jerusalem Post. "The IDF returned fire to the source, and the unfortunate result was the death of innocent civilians," David said.
-- TOVAH LAZAROFF (2009-01-12). "IDF denies errant shell hit UNRWA school". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-12.
UNRWA continues to contradict the Israeli account. A news article at antiwar.com ( "Israeli Military Changes Stories Yet Again on Gaza School Attack". antiwar.com. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-01-12.) tracks the conflicting accounts and provides additional sources. Can I add this information in the UNRWA School section? NonZionist ( talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jaakobou's mentor dropping by. Over at ANI I edit conflicted with Sandstein. Was attempting to suggest a content request for comment on the lead and whether it violates WP:UNDUE. Anyone object to requesting a few more eyes on the matter? Respectfully, Durova Charge! 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the broader section discussing the weaponry and tactics being used by Israel and by the Palestinian resistance? Should I just start a section on the tunnel system to put into such a section once its developed? Tiamut talk 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As discussed in the archives, this should be in its own article or in an article on the IT/cyber response to this offensive. It trivializes what is happening here to paste to the end of this article. I've removed it. Tiamut talk 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
i thought the same thing when i saw it. thanks for removing it. Untwirl ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12515
Someone may want to find other media reports on this, and note it in the Wikipedia article. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need a formal mediation? If so, why? (not being sarcastic, asking honestly) The Squicks ( talk) 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this update by ××××׊××¨× in the Israeli plans for a military option section. I guess it probably needs better refs given it's potentially controversial nature. The existing ref simply asserts that it is the case. Anyone up for a ref hunt ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some of you editors who have been fervently working on this take at look at this fork? It's talk page still needs the tags and categorization. The article itself also needs much work. The Squicks ( talk) 06:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this conflict a part of the "Campaigns of the War on Terrorism"? So far, I haven't seen any sources that use the highly specific term "War on Terrorism" in relation to this conflict. VR talk 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone expressly stating that the Israeli operation is a part of the War on Terror, except for the Israeli Government and some high-profile columnists. I don't think the columnists' analyses are notable enough for this article, but the Israeli gov't's statement might be an important part of its stance on the conflict and perhaps should be stuck into the part where we report Israel's stance. I think if any other countries have made or end up making the connection with the WOT, that should be included: if the country is less significant, e.g. Georgia - in the "Reactions" section; if the country is more significant, e.g. the U.S. - in the lead. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is surreal. This needs to go into the article.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0113/breaking13.htm
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently contains the image of a boy holding an anti-semitic sign. This image was inserted by User:Mbz1. This is part of a set of three images. The description below one of them -- which succinctly summarizes the event according to the photographer ( User:Mbz1 herself (/himself) ) -- reads: "A hamas supporter is driving the car full of kids yelling, and not looking at the road ahead of her (endangering the kids in a car and people on the road) at pro-w:hamas anti-w:Israel rally in w:San Francisco. She was driving back and forth quite a few times.The sign on the car reads: "Jews are terrorists"
Are we seriously supposed to insert this image or one of its cousins into the article? There is no independent verification that this image was indeed taken at a demonstration or even in San Francisco. Nor is it clear why this person(in the car) or her views are notable .. was she a prominent speaker or an organizer? Did most of the demonstrators agree with her (almost certainly, not!).
I suggest this picture be removed immediately. Jacob2718 ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I took the image in San Francisco myself. I removed her license plate number from the image to protect her privacy. I've never said that most speakers were agree with her (they probably were), but this image is important because it show how easy to get from anti Israel demonstration to anti semetic demonstration.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I don't understand why we have so many pictures of pro-Israeli protests and the effects of rocket fire from Palestinian militants, and ZERO pictures of Palestinian victims of this assault. Tiamut talk 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It is image of pro w:hamas supporter, and not pro-Israeli supporter. That's right you cannot understand anything.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Tariq and Tiamut... You need to stop. This talkpage is not a forum for continuing your disputes from elsewhere. The subject of this page and discussion is improving the article, and that's it. Avruch T 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict with Avruch)
I would draw editors' attentions to this section, which is totally inadequate, though no easy thing to draft properly. For one it implies that the blockade was imposed when Hamas came to power, which is untrue. The blockade of Gaza preexisted the elections which turned over the administration to Gaza. There are many other elements, but in reading sources, it would be helpful if this was kept in mind. Nishidani ( talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
these statements:
"It pointed Arab media reports that civilians had, back in 2006, taken shifts serving as "human shields" of the Barud residence.[444]
Hamas continues to hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to human rights group, B'Tselem holding Gilad Shalit hostage is a war crime, since "international humanitarian law" prohibits "hostage taking". B'Tselem also said that the denial of Red Cross visits to the prisoner was a "blatant violation of international law".[450]
are not relevant to this conflict. both of these sources refer to events happening two or three years ago. i propose they be removed. Untwirl ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
if the article notes the gaza conflict as a cause of this action then it probably deserves a brief note in this article. otherwise it is a separate, although disgraceful, issue. the argument that the jewish nature of israel is not to be diluted with non-jews is probably also used by "settlers" participating in pogroms such as this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043795.html Untwirl ( talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is much ado about nothing. I am 100% certain (well, 99.9%)that the Supreme Court will overrule it. It has happened in the past with other not-so-notable Israeli politicians who used their memberships in the electoral committee to make a small political fortune. As far as I recall, the last time the Supreme Court upheld such a decision, was when the committee disqualified Kach and Kahane Chai from taking part in the election.-- Omrim ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? This isn't the place for emotional discussion about the conflict, or for critical comments of Israel. Everyone editing this page should be here to discuss the article, and ways to improve it, and nothing else. The issue of Israeli Arab political disenfranchisement is real, but not party to this article subject. Avruch T 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Gaza conflict. These 2 parties were banned by the court in a process that started weeks before the war. Also, their banning happened because of their anti-Israeli charters where they don't even recognize Israel, and they support Palestinian terror against Israel and etc. They were ruled out because they are anti-Democratic, anti-Israeli parties that have no place in Israel's democracy. It's the same if an Anti-American party would try to run in the US elections. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 07:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If anybody wants to follow up on this and has time, I suggest creating an article Disqualification of political parties, or perhaps Disqualification of political parties in democracies, since I suppose in dictatorships any such individual action isn't notable. Some wikisurfing led me to interesting info on Spain, Turkey and Thailand, in their "List of poloitical parties in X" articles. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)