![]() | 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 20 | â | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | â | Archive 30 |
BBC says: "The Israeli cabinet is set to back an end to military activities in the Gaza Strip... a ceasefire at a meeting later on Saturday, after which PM Ehud Olmert will address the nation, sources said."
It also gives 1,200 as the final Palestinian death count (for now...). The Squicks ( talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. I should think the article should go onto the main page when this occurs? Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas". This article is far from settled :(.
Superpie (
talk)
17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I shall never joke or laugh again Nishdani Superpie ( talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well one out of two isnt bad. Nishdani, lighten up. Failing to find the silliness of it all amusing would kill me inside. I salute your ability to cope without a smile, but I cannot. Superpie ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm, its over. Im going to wait until it actually happens before I go and add it. Superpie ( talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Subsection. Soaping in the cliché gallery.
Golda Meir (disputed) Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
â | There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. | â |
â | Let me say to you, the Palestinians: We are destined to live together on the same soil, in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battle stained with blood, we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes, we who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents, we who have come from a land where parents bury their children, we who have fought against you, the Palestinians -
We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We have no desire for revenge. We harbor no hatred towards you. We, like you, are people people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. We are today giving peace a chance, and saying again to you: Enough. Let us pray that a day will come when we all will say: Farewell to the arms. |
â |
Aba Eban used to remark The Palestinians never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity. Hamas effectively put a Veto on Oslo accords, Rabin used to say about Hamas: We will work for peace as if there is no terrorism; and fight terrorism as if there is no peace AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
â | In Israel, endemic governmental weakness and instability and deepening social fragmentation, combined with the spoiling capacity of small yet increasingly powerful settler constituencies, call into question the state's ability to achieve, let alone carry out, an agreement that would entail the uprooting of tens of thousands of West Bank settlers. The generation of Israeli founding fathers, perhaps, might have succeeded in carrying off such a withdrawal, though it says something that even they didn't try. Their successors, more factional chiefs than national leaders, are not so well equipped. -
The graver problem today is on the Palestinian side. If one strips away the institutional veneerâFatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, various secular political groupings, the Palestinian Authorityâwhat is left is largely empty shells with neither an agreed-upon program nor recognized leadership. The national movement, once embodied by Fatah and Arafat, is adrift. From its vestiges, the Islamist movement Hamas has flourished and, amid the flurry of negotiations between Abbas and Olmert over a putative albeit wholly theoretical deal, it cannot have escaped notice that the more practical and meaningful negotiations have been between Israel and Hamasâover a cease-fire, for example. Still, the Islamist movement cannot, any more than Fatah, claim to represent the Palestinian people or to be empowered to negotiate on their behalf. The rift between the two organizations, most visibly manifested in the increasingly deep split between the West Bank and Gaza, makes a two-state solution harder to achieve. Israel long complained it had no Palestinian partner and, at the outset, the complaint had the feel of a pretext. Increasingly, it has the ring of truth. |
â |
They conclude that "Obama could do worse than consider some simple advice. Don't rush. Take time, take a deep breath, and take stock. Who knows, fresh and more effective policies might even ensue. Now that would be change we could believe in." The Squicks ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Read the licensing before removal, further removal on licensing grounds will be considered vandalism. Al Jazeera has released these images as Creative Commons linsenced for share-alike, commercial and attribution (ie "by-sa"). We have to includes logos when they are in the material because the license requires it. Otherwise, these are fully lincesed.-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby - Al Jazeera is so awesome...are you kidding? Make a link your trying to POV the article. This ain't Pallywood you know.-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So your true colours now show, do they not Philistine fee Qalby?-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby, if you actually did your homework you would know that Hollywood, along with the rest of the American left deplores Israel and all that it stands for, and that, like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Prez of Iran et al, would like to see them wiped off the face of the Earth and wiped out of history and our memories. Which is ironic as Zionism and socialism are pert near the same thing. They just haggle over where the world's capital will be.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
AL Jazeera, the National Inquirer of the Arab world. Horay for Pallywood, that great and glorious Pallywood, yada yada.-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:Civil-- Tomtom ( talk) 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am my own person and I only edit via Tomtom9041, I have no other accounts/sockpuppets nor do I edit via my IP address. I do not troll.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Addressing journalists with his face masked by a checkered Arab scarf, he said that only 48 Hamas resistance fighters were martyred in the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Abu Obaida also said that Israel lost "at least 80 soldiers" in the fighting; however the Zionist entity has adopted the media blackout policy concerning its losses there.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=70784&language=en
What about this information on Wikipedia ?
-- Ecl0 ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)... Militants and policemen: 48<small> (HAMAS)</small><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html Hamas declares victory in Gaza claiming it lost only 48 fighters]</ref>, 400-650 ...
How do we know that Ayman al-Kurd is a civilian? Hamas so far did not claim most of its combats. The second soccer player was claimed to be combat by Islamic Jihad. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Reproducing a notice that any administrator (which I am not) can give to individuals warning them of restrictions on editing topics within the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied.
If editors are unable to focus discussion on improving only the article, and unable to refrain from insulting other editors, they may be blocked and/or banned from editing some or all articles within this topic area. Avruch T 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "Hamas" to "Palestinians" and "militants", since the sources so attribute, and since Fatah, a Hamas rival, has announced that it fired 102 of the rockets and 35 of the mortar shells. Note that the Fatah statement casts further doubt upon the Israeli depiction of "Operation Cast Lead" as a war against Hamas. NonZionist ( talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a second problem with the section, however. It uses WP:UNDUE photographs and statistics to falsely insinuate that the Qassem rockets are a major menace and that the harm done by the Qassems is comparable to the harm done by Israel in the Gaza Strip. The section uses the same tactics employed by the IDF -- focus on the range and number of the rockets and keep the number of casualties buried.
I've been searching for an hour and I can't find the number of Israelis killed by Qassems since 2008. Few pro-Israel sources want to publish the information: The number is so low, it makes the victimology promoted by Israeli propaganda look ridiculous. Prior to 2008, the total number of Israelis killed was 13, according to the BBC -- less than the number of Palestinians killed in an average Israeli bombing raid. Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Centre has described these homemade Qassem rockets as "very primitive missiles" whose "main effect ... is psychological" [1]. "It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27" [2]. Shouldn't this information be included to keep the section balanced?
True, the rockets are the Israeli pretext for "Operation Cast Lead". But it's not our job to parrot or support Israeli war-propaganda. Just the opposite: We are obligated to present both the propaganda and the statements of reliable sources who reject the propaganda. Here is one such statement from a RS:
The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. .... If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamasâs thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israelâs conduct of the Gaza War [2].
NonZionist ( talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Such are the tracks in which the United States and Israel are trapped together when we think about Gaza. The world doesn't understand (or so we think) how wrong is the idea of proportionality. It is true, fewer Israelis have been killed by Hamas missiles than by other Israelis in friendly fire. .... [Israel] is assuring that the Palestianians (in the words of Moshe Yaalon, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in 2002) "are made to understand, in the deepest recesses of their consciousness, that they are a defeated people." The more relentless the assault, and indeed the more civilians you legitimately kill, the deeper the recesses of consciousness that you are able to penetrate. [3]
Thanks for the Mearsheimer analysis, non-Zionist. He only gets one thing wrong: the second-last paragraph, which is woolly-eyed. I've copied it for editors on the Background page, where it should be read and cited. This is scholarly, and not a matter of telling stories from op-ed blather. Nishidani ( talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences... The general results, however, are predictable on the basis of the ethnography: heterosexual marriage will be weakened; the birth rate will decline; the status of women as mothers will further erode; and young boys will be a much greater target of erotic attention by older males.
No reliable source is provided to substantiate the heading, and the two reliable sources that are provided contradict the heading. The heading, moveover, goes even further than the one unreliable source provided, inasmuch as it shifts the emphasis from "collaborators" to all "Palestinians". The attempt, perhaps, is to insinuate that Hamas is making war on "Palestinians".
The body of the section charges Hamas with executing Fatah members. Perhaps this is a hasbara attempt to sow strife between Hamas and Fatah. We now know that Fatah was fighting alongside Hamas [1] This casts further doubt on the charge made in this section. Should the entire section be removed, or should we present both the IDF charge and the source that tends to refute it? NonZionist ( talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fatah confirmed that its members had been fighting alongside Hamas during the war.
It was also stated in the infobox too :"and 40-80 people executed by Hamas. [1] " which has unreliable sources: the says obtaining it's information from : "A political activist who says he supports neither Hamas nor Fatah, Independent sources, An independent source" and I could not find a reliable source for the info by googling the net. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Lordpezhman ( talk âą contribs) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As we are trying to cut back the length some, I want to ask editors about Attacks from outside Gaza section. I see here two news reports sourceed IDF that say shots were fired by an unknown gunman or gunmen from the other side of the borders with Syria and Jordan, no injuries. Do these belong here? If so, propose combining them with the Lebanon rockets information, because as it is the three incidents each have their own sections. RomaC ( talk) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This section was cleaned up. Thank you for the sources and clarified info. Cptnono ( talk)
please add Israeli troops complete Gaza withdrawal it was a part of the ceasefire agrement so it would be good to mention that the have compleated on their part full artical about the withdarwal on cnn [4] âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a lot of trouble with this paragraph:
I did a bit of editing by dropping some material that is not clear in the article, ie the accusation regarding the Italian group, which is not at all clear that they are talking about Israel and this conflict. More importantly however is the sentence "Criticism of the weapons has focused on their biological and carcinogenic effects." Following the reference leads us to a page entitled: Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metalâtungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects This report of a scientific study does not seem to me to be "criticism of the weapons" but rather a study. The article says (among other things) (my bolds):
This sentence regarding the carcinogenic effects of DIME in our article is followed by an Iranian government accusation. Of course we are all well aware that Iran has no axe to grind in this "conflict." I would like to scrap this business about criticism re carcinogens. As another editor has pointed out, the whole section hardly seems germaine to this article until and unless some real evidence is found, not just some speculation by one activist doctor. Perhaps we can scrap the whole section? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Alexandra C. Miller3, Steve Mog1, LuAnn McKinney1, Lei Luo2, Jennifer Allen, Jiaquan Xu and Natalie Page2
Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department and 1 Veterinary Sciences Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603 and 2 Molecular Oncology Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
I used the sourced alredy there to give a non povish version.
Brunte (
talk)
07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested version:
Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using Dense Inert Metal Explosive in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [331] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten that enter the body forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation. These explosives is packed with tungsten dust and have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects.[344] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict.[345] Brunte ( talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The DIME, Dense Inert Metal Explosive, have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using DIME in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [2] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim. [2] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that these explosives is packed with tungsten dust and the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation that enter the body. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects. [3] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim. [2]
The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict. [4]
Crap, somone have edit it down without discussion. Its impossible to do editing when ppl do larg edits witout using this side. As they ar sourced it cant be according to policy to remove text without discussion. I put it back untill it is discussed. Hopfully concensus style. lookat it/fix it later
Brunte (
talk)
10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"On Tuesday morning, Israeli bulldozers backed by tanks entered the central Gaza Strip and bulldozed agricultural lands. Meanwhile, Israeli warships shelled open areas in the north west of Gaza City. No casualties were reported."
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&Do=&ID=35135 Untwirl ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
source [6] quote from cnn.com
"More than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, the Web site of the Palestinian Authority's Central Bureau of Statistics said Monday."
I would like to see that mentioned in the artical
Kind regards -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)V
I have no idea where cnn get its inoframtion and i wasent even saying that its 100% corect i just feel it deserves mentioning in the artical -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V
"But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,â Gaza Director of Operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) John Ging to journalists in New York by video link, adding that two of those children died in an UNRWA school that was shelled on Saturday.
âAnother terrible tragedy, two little boys, two brothers, five and seven, indisputably innocent, but also now dead,â he added. âWhat we have now is people back out, trying to come to terms with what has happened.â
According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire.
- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29587&Cr=gaza&Cr1= -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I sent CNN a correction notice, let's see if they fix their mistake. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby you wrote
But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,â
isnot the same because according to cnn out of 1,300 dead 159 are childern 2 died at the school what you quote say isthat of 159 people dead 42 this are two difrent things -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V
I think the CNN writer misunderstood what Ging meant by "total" like I said above. I think it is a mistake on their part. Strangely enough the Gulf Daily News makes the same mistake, although they cite "Gaza emergency services" for the 159 number. [8] But Xinhua also took it to mean out of 159 "total people" (over the weekend). [9] Every other source I see just gives the whole quote. I still think it is mistake though and Ging meant 42 children died over the weekend out of 159 total people during that period. It is a problem for us that a lot of RS's are so lazy. I noticed the same thing during the start of the war when they use "F-16" as a lazy shorthand for "fighter jet" even when they obviously had no idea what type of plane it was. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
why would two nes agencys make he same mistake? i think thats what he said and they are quoting him âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Story from around an hour ago According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 894 civilians died out of the 1,284 total. The hamas controlled Health Ministry's total is 1,324. The Squicks ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this section really belong in the article? The stuff about suspected DIME usage doesn't really seem that notable as part of the conflict as a whole. It probably belongs on the DIME page, but here? Similarly, one allegation about the use of DU shells doesn't really seem notable at all. Can we just axe the whole section? Blackeagle ( talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Section has disappeared? RomaC ( talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid ( talk) has been making bold edits today, to the lead and throughout. I generally support bold edits but in the case of controversial articles it is better to look at archives and participate in Talk discussions. I don't want to get into multiple reverts so it would be good if other editors could get involved. Specifically in question is whether adding controversial content requires consensus first; or if controversial edits can be made first and the requirement for consensus passes to the undo. RomaC ( talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid ( talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid, suggest controversial changes here before edit them in article. It is specialy important for the first section. Await positive reactions and concencus. Then no editwar. Brunte ( talk) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I dispute this edit [12] . Guess it is originally a way for a waring part to ballance up the numbers of injured and dead. If physical or mental trauma is presented for only one part its nonsence. And it is not written acording to its source '80 Percent of Sderot Residents Suffer from a Form of Hysteria' "and some may suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) for the rest of their lives, but to date Baruch Hashem, the number of people who fall into this category appears low" I would like to speculate that far more ppl in Gaza suffer severe PTSD. As the edit is not in that context I suggest a remove. Brunte ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I gave this link a few days ago (I think) which has a Jerusalem Post story with the final Israeli casualties, counting shock seperately. [13] It counts four killed, 68 wounded and 295 treated for shock. I'd exclude shock victims from the usual counts of injured, like we now do in the infobox for example. But I think that there should be a mention of mental trauma. It is a real problem and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Here's an article that I posted here a while ago that talks about some of the effects on children on both sides. [14] I'm sure there's more out there. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
i think this page is long enough without including mental trauma or shock for either side, thats an npov and undue weight argument waiting to happen. :>) Untwirl ( talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
... will now continue at the ordinary talk page (here). Reasons:
SkÀpperöd ( talk) 15:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist ( talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[63][64] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[65][66][67][68][69][70] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[78][79][80] Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[81][82][83][84][85]
The Background section notes that "a blockade constitutes an act of war under international law. [105]." Can this refer to the Israeli "blockade"? Surely a country has the right to close its borders? Gaza also has no port. This sentance should also be removed. The firing of rockets by Hamas is also an act of war!? Chesdovi ( talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this per WP:NOR. If there are sources stating a scholary consensus regarding (1) that "war" (in law terms) is possible between Israel and the Gaza strip, and (2) that this particular blockade is a part of it, source and reintroduce. SkÀpperöd ( talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Many see Blockade of the Gaza Strip as Hamas casus belli but some forget that it was imposed by both Egypt and Israel. Egypt though did not get any rocket attacks yet, just gunmen firing. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And let's not forget, that the Hamas rockets was a reply to killing its people:was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground
Israel began bombing, hamas replied with rockets in a tit for tat fashion. And it's not only the BBC, look at the report by the pro-Israeli far-right Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which said:Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel.
-- Darwish07 ( talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets
"...1,314 individuals have been killed (0.089% of the population)" in the casualties paragraph makes a point, but is it OR? Don't see the percentage in the sources. RomaC ( talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added that according the IDF, they were fired at from civilian buildings. Why was it reverted?-- Ortho ( talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, check portuguese version: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Chumbo_Fundido âPreceding unsigned comment added by Finoqueto ( talk âą contribs) 11:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox it is written that "Hamas rockets halted". Is this accurate? It gives the impression that the IDF destroyed Hamas's rockets. As far as I know Hamas fired some rockes on the day of the ceasefire to show that they still had the ability to perform rocket attacks. Perhaps it should be changed to "Hamas ceases rocket attacks" Sherif9282 ( talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to throw the data into the article somewhere or are we still waiting while the infobox gets more and more cluttered? Cptnono ( talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
See also: There was already a poll on the same issue preceding this RfC.
The big question is: should the image at right be included in the article?
There have been a couple discussions surrounding this image, so I'll do my best to accurately summarize arguments made by both sides. Note that proponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the first section and opponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the second section:
Those for the image have said:
Those against the image have said:
There have also been complaints that some are alleging political bias where there is none.
Anyway, to read more about this issue, see /Archive 20#Request permission to upload photo (especially the straw poll section, which has clear-cut positions from individuals), /Archive 20#Images of the dead, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?, and WP:AN#Have I been a jerk?.
All comments are welcome (particularly from outside editors). Refinement, clarification, and addition of points are also welcome. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If the debate is revolving around this picture only, why is user:brewcrewer removing all the photos of the casualities??? -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
i've been watching this for a while and i have always sided with inclusion of photos of palestinian civilian casualties, as that is one of the most notorious effects of this war. i also agree that there are many articles on wiki that show horrific photos of victims, both dead and alive, so concerns over the graphic nature of it didn't seem relevant. if, however, the photo isn't verifiable, well thats another story. i dont have much experience with the technical aspects here yet, so i'll leave that to the pros. i definitely agree that npov isn't achieved by presenting each side in a 1 for 1 fashion, as that gives undue weight to a less prominent factor.
Untwirl (
talk)
01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The photos of palestinian civilian casualties is hard to see but it should be there. It gives the hartbreaking true that war is awfull and civilian have been indirectly (?) massacred in a grusom way. Probably will bring the responsibles jail for warcrimes. The removal is without concensus and should be reverted. If the photo of the dead baby is claimed to be unverifiable it must be presented stronger indications first. Up to now its fair to use. Brunte ( talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I added two of the dead civilians. The baby still under discussion though I Support the inclusion Brunte ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
118.90.104.151 ( talk) 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good one. I support. 118.90.104.151 ( talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
These two pics was exactly the ones I put in [15] [16] but got reverted by Tundrabuggy Brunte ( talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I must echo Sean.hoyland's concern. This is an image of a sheet, not a body. I suppose we really must ask ourselves in this discussion, why should we have an image of a body, especially a graphic image. The answer I think is that it conveys the stark reality of death that has occurred. But, even more so in this case, that reality of death must be a widely accepted reality. Because if it was not, it makes it appear that we here at wikipedia are pushing one version of "reality" for some political reason. That, I think is perhaps why the inclusion of images of dead, naked Nazi concentration camp victims piled into a grotesque tower don't cause people to bat an eye (in the sense that they belong on the page). We have collectively come to accept that picture as an adequate representation of the millions that died under similar circumstances. There is a problem here with the image of the burned babies in that we have not collectively come to associate this conflict as generally resulting in the burning to death of babies, although that has obviously taken place at least once. I would argue though that if we are forced to pick only one image, I would opt for the picture of the dead girl's face for the following reason. It is evocative of the deaths of civilians (particularly children) during this conflict which has become a major issue in the worldwide press which I have no doubt has effect the course of the way the war was fought and ended. I can't actually tell who's under that sheet in the picture above so it is almost meaningless to me. It could be a Hamas soldier, or a Israeli soldier, an adult or a child.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
âA cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history.â
Support inclusion, at least until some other graphic material that actually shows what befell civilians or children is included. The fact that the illustrative pics have been systematically pruned, leaving only a few balanced snaps of skylines with smoke and rockets, in what was an assault of immense savagery when one considers that half of the dead and wounded were civilians, has tilted my position. It is simply not enough to have a bandaged kid on a bed. Personally, I would prefer photos like that one of the old man in a wrecked landscape in today's online Haaretz, or a panoramic shot of the rubbled landscape of the city. These are everywhere in wiki articles dealing with bombings. One cannot sanitise narratives of bombed cities, even when the city was part of enemy territory (Dresden, Falluja). Nishidani ( talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
General Question How is it that we can bring in a picture from a highly partisan group ( International Solidarity Movement) which includes a link to a blog Democracy Now? Just wondering. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
question is Guardian.co.uk a reliable source? -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What POV is being pushed other than the truth? About 200 to 300 children were killed. This is the largest group of civilian casualties and it should be visually illustrated. EnigmaMcmxc previously said, âthe image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - thatâs POV pushing if you like it or not.â This is probably the most ludicrous comment I have read here. If it is fact it is not POV. Children were killed as a result of Israeli military action. This is an undeniable truth. EnigmaMcmxc, your argument seems centered around the idea that it is advantageous to use less graphic images. I donât want this encyclopedia to anticipate reader response and water down the truth. Would you propose replacing an image of massacred genocide victims with one of hundreds of burial plots in a cemetery? Either way the readers still understands a lot of people died. You ask the question yourself, âwould I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?â The answer is yes. â Zntrip 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of respected groups as well as individuals who think it more than likely that they in fact they did. In fact if you read about what they do, falsification is a big part of it.
The respected Anti-Defamation League [21] says of them:
Discover the Networks#Programs, a conservative "Guide to the Political Left" describes them thus:
NGO Monitor says of them that
Here you will find the story of the manipulation of photographs in relation to Rachel Corrie. Perhaps ISM totally innocent of falisification of photos; since they have not been convicted of it in a court of law; but they are hardly what one would call a neutral party. Anything taken from them would have to be considered potential propaganda. Hardly fit for WP. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is clear that there is not consensus for this picture and people are not changing their opinion. Is their any oppoistion to considering this matter closed for the time being? Nableezy ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Summary In conclusion, I'd like to summarize the two major points that have been argued.
fire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 20 | â | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | â | Archive 30 |
BBC says: "The Israeli cabinet is set to back an end to military activities in the Gaza Strip... a ceasefire at a meeting later on Saturday, after which PM Ehud Olmert will address the nation, sources said."
It also gives 1,200 as the final Palestinian death count (for now...). The Squicks ( talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. I should think the article should go onto the main page when this occurs? Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas". This article is far from settled :(.
Superpie (
talk)
17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I shall never joke or laugh again Nishdani Superpie ( talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well one out of two isnt bad. Nishdani, lighten up. Failing to find the silliness of it all amusing would kill me inside. I salute your ability to cope without a smile, but I cannot. Superpie ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm, its over. Im going to wait until it actually happens before I go and add it. Superpie ( talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Subsection. Soaping in the cliché gallery.
Golda Meir (disputed) Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
â | There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. | â |
â | Let me say to you, the Palestinians: We are destined to live together on the same soil, in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battle stained with blood, we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes, we who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents, we who have come from a land where parents bury their children, we who have fought against you, the Palestinians -
We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We have no desire for revenge. We harbor no hatred towards you. We, like you, are people people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. We are today giving peace a chance, and saying again to you: Enough. Let us pray that a day will come when we all will say: Farewell to the arms. |
â |
Aba Eban used to remark The Palestinians never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity. Hamas effectively put a Veto on Oslo accords, Rabin used to say about Hamas: We will work for peace as if there is no terrorism; and fight terrorism as if there is no peace AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
â | In Israel, endemic governmental weakness and instability and deepening social fragmentation, combined with the spoiling capacity of small yet increasingly powerful settler constituencies, call into question the state's ability to achieve, let alone carry out, an agreement that would entail the uprooting of tens of thousands of West Bank settlers. The generation of Israeli founding fathers, perhaps, might have succeeded in carrying off such a withdrawal, though it says something that even they didn't try. Their successors, more factional chiefs than national leaders, are not so well equipped. -
The graver problem today is on the Palestinian side. If one strips away the institutional veneerâFatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, various secular political groupings, the Palestinian Authorityâwhat is left is largely empty shells with neither an agreed-upon program nor recognized leadership. The national movement, once embodied by Fatah and Arafat, is adrift. From its vestiges, the Islamist movement Hamas has flourished and, amid the flurry of negotiations between Abbas and Olmert over a putative albeit wholly theoretical deal, it cannot have escaped notice that the more practical and meaningful negotiations have been between Israel and Hamasâover a cease-fire, for example. Still, the Islamist movement cannot, any more than Fatah, claim to represent the Palestinian people or to be empowered to negotiate on their behalf. The rift between the two organizations, most visibly manifested in the increasingly deep split between the West Bank and Gaza, makes a two-state solution harder to achieve. Israel long complained it had no Palestinian partner and, at the outset, the complaint had the feel of a pretext. Increasingly, it has the ring of truth. |
â |
They conclude that "Obama could do worse than consider some simple advice. Don't rush. Take time, take a deep breath, and take stock. Who knows, fresh and more effective policies might even ensue. Now that would be change we could believe in." The Squicks ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Read the licensing before removal, further removal on licensing grounds will be considered vandalism. Al Jazeera has released these images as Creative Commons linsenced for share-alike, commercial and attribution (ie "by-sa"). We have to includes logos when they are in the material because the license requires it. Otherwise, these are fully lincesed.-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby - Al Jazeera is so awesome...are you kidding? Make a link your trying to POV the article. This ain't Pallywood you know.-- 98.114.235.212 ( talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So your true colours now show, do they not Philistine fee Qalby?-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby, if you actually did your homework you would know that Hollywood, along with the rest of the American left deplores Israel and all that it stands for, and that, like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Prez of Iran et al, would like to see them wiped off the face of the Earth and wiped out of history and our memories. Which is ironic as Zionism and socialism are pert near the same thing. They just haggle over where the world's capital will be.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
AL Jazeera, the National Inquirer of the Arab world. Horay for Pallywood, that great and glorious Pallywood, yada yada.-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:Civil-- Tomtom ( talk) 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am my own person and I only edit via Tomtom9041, I have no other accounts/sockpuppets nor do I edit via my IP address. I do not troll.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Addressing journalists with his face masked by a checkered Arab scarf, he said that only 48 Hamas resistance fighters were martyred in the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Abu Obaida also said that Israel lost "at least 80 soldiers" in the fighting; however the Zionist entity has adopted the media blackout policy concerning its losses there.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=70784&language=en
What about this information on Wikipedia ?
-- Ecl0 ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)... Militants and policemen: 48<small> (HAMAS)</small><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4288511/Hamas-declares-victory-in-Gaza-claiming-it-lost-only-48-fighters.html Hamas declares victory in Gaza claiming it lost only 48 fighters]</ref>, 400-650 ...
How do we know that Ayman al-Kurd is a civilian? Hamas so far did not claim most of its combats. The second soccer player was claimed to be combat by Islamic Jihad. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Reproducing a notice that any administrator (which I am not) can give to individuals warning them of restrictions on editing topics within the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied.
If editors are unable to focus discussion on improving only the article, and unable to refrain from insulting other editors, they may be blocked and/or banned from editing some or all articles within this topic area. Avruch T 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "Hamas" to "Palestinians" and "militants", since the sources so attribute, and since Fatah, a Hamas rival, has announced that it fired 102 of the rockets and 35 of the mortar shells. Note that the Fatah statement casts further doubt upon the Israeli depiction of "Operation Cast Lead" as a war against Hamas. NonZionist ( talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a second problem with the section, however. It uses WP:UNDUE photographs and statistics to falsely insinuate that the Qassem rockets are a major menace and that the harm done by the Qassems is comparable to the harm done by Israel in the Gaza Strip. The section uses the same tactics employed by the IDF -- focus on the range and number of the rockets and keep the number of casualties buried.
I've been searching for an hour and I can't find the number of Israelis killed by Qassems since 2008. Few pro-Israel sources want to publish the information: The number is so low, it makes the victimology promoted by Israeli propaganda look ridiculous. Prior to 2008, the total number of Israelis killed was 13, according to the BBC -- less than the number of Palestinians killed in an average Israeli bombing raid. Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Centre has described these homemade Qassem rockets as "very primitive missiles" whose "main effect ... is psychological" [1]. "It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27" [2]. Shouldn't this information be included to keep the section balanced?
True, the rockets are the Israeli pretext for "Operation Cast Lead". But it's not our job to parrot or support Israeli war-propaganda. Just the opposite: We are obligated to present both the propaganda and the statements of reliable sources who reject the propaganda. Here is one such statement from a RS:
The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. .... If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamasâs thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israelâs conduct of the Gaza War [2].
NonZionist ( talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Such are the tracks in which the United States and Israel are trapped together when we think about Gaza. The world doesn't understand (or so we think) how wrong is the idea of proportionality. It is true, fewer Israelis have been killed by Hamas missiles than by other Israelis in friendly fire. .... [Israel] is assuring that the Palestianians (in the words of Moshe Yaalon, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in 2002) "are made to understand, in the deepest recesses of their consciousness, that they are a defeated people." The more relentless the assault, and indeed the more civilians you legitimately kill, the deeper the recesses of consciousness that you are able to penetrate. [3]
Thanks for the Mearsheimer analysis, non-Zionist. He only gets one thing wrong: the second-last paragraph, which is woolly-eyed. I've copied it for editors on the Background page, where it should be read and cited. This is scholarly, and not a matter of telling stories from op-ed blather. Nishidani ( talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences... The general results, however, are predictable on the basis of the ethnography: heterosexual marriage will be weakened; the birth rate will decline; the status of women as mothers will further erode; and young boys will be a much greater target of erotic attention by older males.
No reliable source is provided to substantiate the heading, and the two reliable sources that are provided contradict the heading. The heading, moveover, goes even further than the one unreliable source provided, inasmuch as it shifts the emphasis from "collaborators" to all "Palestinians". The attempt, perhaps, is to insinuate that Hamas is making war on "Palestinians".
The body of the section charges Hamas with executing Fatah members. Perhaps this is a hasbara attempt to sow strife between Hamas and Fatah. We now know that Fatah was fighting alongside Hamas [1] This casts further doubt on the charge made in this section. Should the entire section be removed, or should we present both the IDF charge and the source that tends to refute it? NonZionist ( talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fatah confirmed that its members had been fighting alongside Hamas during the war.
It was also stated in the infobox too :"and 40-80 people executed by Hamas. [1] " which has unreliable sources: the says obtaining it's information from : "A political activist who says he supports neither Hamas nor Fatah, Independent sources, An independent source" and I could not find a reliable source for the info by googling the net. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Lordpezhman ( talk âą contribs) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As we are trying to cut back the length some, I want to ask editors about Attacks from outside Gaza section. I see here two news reports sourceed IDF that say shots were fired by an unknown gunman or gunmen from the other side of the borders with Syria and Jordan, no injuries. Do these belong here? If so, propose combining them with the Lebanon rockets information, because as it is the three incidents each have their own sections. RomaC ( talk) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This section was cleaned up. Thank you for the sources and clarified info. Cptnono ( talk)
please add Israeli troops complete Gaza withdrawal it was a part of the ceasefire agrement so it would be good to mention that the have compleated on their part full artical about the withdarwal on cnn [4] âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a lot of trouble with this paragraph:
I did a bit of editing by dropping some material that is not clear in the article, ie the accusation regarding the Italian group, which is not at all clear that they are talking about Israel and this conflict. More importantly however is the sentence "Criticism of the weapons has focused on their biological and carcinogenic effects." Following the reference leads us to a page entitled: Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metalâtungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects This report of a scientific study does not seem to me to be "criticism of the weapons" but rather a study. The article says (among other things) (my bolds):
This sentence regarding the carcinogenic effects of DIME in our article is followed by an Iranian government accusation. Of course we are all well aware that Iran has no axe to grind in this "conflict." I would like to scrap this business about criticism re carcinogens. As another editor has pointed out, the whole section hardly seems germaine to this article until and unless some real evidence is found, not just some speculation by one activist doctor. Perhaps we can scrap the whole section? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Alexandra C. Miller3, Steve Mog1, LuAnn McKinney1, Lei Luo2, Jennifer Allen, Jiaquan Xu and Natalie Page2
Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department and 1 Veterinary Sciences Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603 and 2 Molecular Oncology Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
I used the sourced alredy there to give a non povish version.
Brunte (
talk)
07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested version:
Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using Dense Inert Metal Explosive in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [331] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten that enter the body forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation. These explosives is packed with tungsten dust and have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects.[344] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.[331] The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict.[345] Brunte ( talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The DIME, Dense Inert Metal Explosive, have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage. Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert, treating casualties at the Shifa Hospital for the first weeks of the conflict, is the main source of allegations that Israel is using DIME in the conflict "There is a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,".Mr Gilbert says. [2] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim. [2] New Weapons Research Committee, Italia, claims evidence is mounting" of DIME usage. They explain that these explosives is packed with tungsten dust and the wounds may be "untreatable" due to metals like tungsten forms micro-shrapnel upon detonation that enter the body. There is also criticism of the weapons on their biological and carcinogenic effects. [3] The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim. [2]
The Iranian government channel Press TV claimed on 4 January, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the conflict. [4]
Crap, somone have edit it down without discussion. Its impossible to do editing when ppl do larg edits witout using this side. As they ar sourced it cant be according to policy to remove text without discussion. I put it back untill it is discussed. Hopfully concensus style. lookat it/fix it later
Brunte (
talk)
10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"On Tuesday morning, Israeli bulldozers backed by tanks entered the central Gaza Strip and bulldozed agricultural lands. Meanwhile, Israeli warships shelled open areas in the north west of Gaza City. No casualties were reported."
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&Do=&ID=35135 Untwirl ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
source [6] quote from cnn.com
"More than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, the Web site of the Palestinian Authority's Central Bureau of Statistics said Monday."
I would like to see that mentioned in the artical
Kind regards -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)V
I have no idea where cnn get its inoframtion and i wasent even saying that its 100% corect i just feel it deserves mentioning in the artical -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V
"But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,â Gaza Director of Operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) John Ging to journalists in New York by video link, adding that two of those children died in an UNRWA school that was shelled on Saturday.
âAnother terrible tragedy, two little boys, two brothers, five and seven, indisputably innocent, but also now dead,â he added. âWhat we have now is people back out, trying to come to terms with what has happened.â
According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire.
- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29587&Cr=gaza&Cr1= -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I sent CNN a correction notice, let's see if they fix their mistake. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby you wrote
But we did, and again the number of children that were killed since Friday were 42 out of 159 in total,â
isnot the same because according to cnn out of 1,300 dead 159 are childern 2 died at the school what you quote say isthat of 159 people dead 42 this are two difrent things -- 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)V
I think the CNN writer misunderstood what Ging meant by "total" like I said above. I think it is a mistake on their part. Strangely enough the Gulf Daily News makes the same mistake, although they cite "Gaza emergency services" for the 159 number. [8] But Xinhua also took it to mean out of 159 "total people" (over the weekend). [9] Every other source I see just gives the whole quote. I still think it is mistake though and Ging meant 42 children died over the weekend out of 159 total people during that period. It is a problem for us that a lot of RS's are so lazy. I noticed the same thing during the start of the war when they use "F-16" as a lazy shorthand for "fighter jet" even when they obviously had no idea what type of plane it was. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
why would two nes agencys make he same mistake? i think thats what he said and they are quoting him âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.132.105 ( talk) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Story from around an hour ago According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 894 civilians died out of the 1,284 total. The hamas controlled Health Ministry's total is 1,324. The Squicks ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this section really belong in the article? The stuff about suspected DIME usage doesn't really seem that notable as part of the conflict as a whole. It probably belongs on the DIME page, but here? Similarly, one allegation about the use of DU shells doesn't really seem notable at all. Can we just axe the whole section? Blackeagle ( talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Section has disappeared? RomaC ( talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid ( talk) has been making bold edits today, to the lead and throughout. I generally support bold edits but in the case of controversial articles it is better to look at archives and participate in Talk discussions. I don't want to get into multiple reverts so it would be good if other editors could get involved. Specifically in question is whether adding controversial content requires consensus first; or if controversial edits can be made first and the requirement for consensus passes to the undo. RomaC ( talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid ( talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dovid, suggest controversial changes here before edit them in article. It is specialy important for the first section. Await positive reactions and concencus. Then no editwar. Brunte ( talk) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I dispute this edit [12] . Guess it is originally a way for a waring part to ballance up the numbers of injured and dead. If physical or mental trauma is presented for only one part its nonsence. And it is not written acording to its source '80 Percent of Sderot Residents Suffer from a Form of Hysteria' "and some may suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) for the rest of their lives, but to date Baruch Hashem, the number of people who fall into this category appears low" I would like to speculate that far more ppl in Gaza suffer severe PTSD. As the edit is not in that context I suggest a remove. Brunte ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I gave this link a few days ago (I think) which has a Jerusalem Post story with the final Israeli casualties, counting shock seperately. [13] It counts four killed, 68 wounded and 295 treated for shock. I'd exclude shock victims from the usual counts of injured, like we now do in the infobox for example. But I think that there should be a mention of mental trauma. It is a real problem and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Here's an article that I posted here a while ago that talks about some of the effects on children on both sides. [14] I'm sure there's more out there. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
i think this page is long enough without including mental trauma or shock for either side, thats an npov and undue weight argument waiting to happen. :>) Untwirl ( talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
... will now continue at the ordinary talk page (here). Reasons:
SkÀpperöd ( talk) 15:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist ( talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[63][64] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[65][66][67][68][69][70] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[78][79][80] Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[81][82][83][84][85]
The Background section notes that "a blockade constitutes an act of war under international law. [105]." Can this refer to the Israeli "blockade"? Surely a country has the right to close its borders? Gaza also has no port. This sentance should also be removed. The firing of rockets by Hamas is also an act of war!? Chesdovi ( talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this per WP:NOR. If there are sources stating a scholary consensus regarding (1) that "war" (in law terms) is possible between Israel and the Gaza strip, and (2) that this particular blockade is a part of it, source and reintroduce. SkÀpperöd ( talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Many see Blockade of the Gaza Strip as Hamas casus belli but some forget that it was imposed by both Egypt and Israel. Egypt though did not get any rocket attacks yet, just gunmen firing. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And let's not forget, that the Hamas rockets was a reply to killing its people:was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground
Israel began bombing, hamas replied with rockets in a tit for tat fashion. And it's not only the BBC, look at the report by the pro-Israeli far-right Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which said:Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel.
-- Darwish07 ( talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets
"...1,314 individuals have been killed (0.089% of the population)" in the casualties paragraph makes a point, but is it OR? Don't see the percentage in the sources. RomaC ( talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added that according the IDF, they were fired at from civilian buildings. Why was it reverted?-- Ortho ( talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, check portuguese version: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Chumbo_Fundido âPreceding unsigned comment added by Finoqueto ( talk âą contribs) 11:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox it is written that "Hamas rockets halted". Is this accurate? It gives the impression that the IDF destroyed Hamas's rockets. As far as I know Hamas fired some rockes on the day of the ceasefire to show that they still had the ability to perform rocket attacks. Perhaps it should be changed to "Hamas ceases rocket attacks" Sherif9282 ( talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to throw the data into the article somewhere or are we still waiting while the infobox gets more and more cluttered? Cptnono ( talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
See also: There was already a poll on the same issue preceding this RfC.
The big question is: should the image at right be included in the article?
There have been a couple discussions surrounding this image, so I'll do my best to accurately summarize arguments made by both sides. Note that proponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the first section and opponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the second section:
Those for the image have said:
Those against the image have said:
There have also been complaints that some are alleging political bias where there is none.
Anyway, to read more about this issue, see /Archive 20#Request permission to upload photo (especially the straw poll section, which has clear-cut positions from individuals), /Archive 20#Images of the dead, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?, and WP:AN#Have I been a jerk?.
All comments are welcome (particularly from outside editors). Refinement, clarification, and addition of points are also welcome. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If the debate is revolving around this picture only, why is user:brewcrewer removing all the photos of the casualities??? -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
i've been watching this for a while and i have always sided with inclusion of photos of palestinian civilian casualties, as that is one of the most notorious effects of this war. i also agree that there are many articles on wiki that show horrific photos of victims, both dead and alive, so concerns over the graphic nature of it didn't seem relevant. if, however, the photo isn't verifiable, well thats another story. i dont have much experience with the technical aspects here yet, so i'll leave that to the pros. i definitely agree that npov isn't achieved by presenting each side in a 1 for 1 fashion, as that gives undue weight to a less prominent factor.
Untwirl (
talk)
01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The photos of palestinian civilian casualties is hard to see but it should be there. It gives the hartbreaking true that war is awfull and civilian have been indirectly (?) massacred in a grusom way. Probably will bring the responsibles jail for warcrimes. The removal is without concensus and should be reverted. If the photo of the dead baby is claimed to be unverifiable it must be presented stronger indications first. Up to now its fair to use. Brunte ( talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I added two of the dead civilians. The baby still under discussion though I Support the inclusion Brunte ( talk) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
118.90.104.151 ( talk) 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good one. I support. 118.90.104.151 ( talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
These two pics was exactly the ones I put in [15] [16] but got reverted by Tundrabuggy Brunte ( talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I must echo Sean.hoyland's concern. This is an image of a sheet, not a body. I suppose we really must ask ourselves in this discussion, why should we have an image of a body, especially a graphic image. The answer I think is that it conveys the stark reality of death that has occurred. But, even more so in this case, that reality of death must be a widely accepted reality. Because if it was not, it makes it appear that we here at wikipedia are pushing one version of "reality" for some political reason. That, I think is perhaps why the inclusion of images of dead, naked Nazi concentration camp victims piled into a grotesque tower don't cause people to bat an eye (in the sense that they belong on the page). We have collectively come to accept that picture as an adequate representation of the millions that died under similar circumstances. There is a problem here with the image of the burned babies in that we have not collectively come to associate this conflict as generally resulting in the burning to death of babies, although that has obviously taken place at least once. I would argue though that if we are forced to pick only one image, I would opt for the picture of the dead girl's face for the following reason. It is evocative of the deaths of civilians (particularly children) during this conflict which has become a major issue in the worldwide press which I have no doubt has effect the course of the way the war was fought and ended. I can't actually tell who's under that sheet in the picture above so it is almost meaningless to me. It could be a Hamas soldier, or a Israeli soldier, an adult or a child.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
âA cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history.â
Support inclusion, at least until some other graphic material that actually shows what befell civilians or children is included. The fact that the illustrative pics have been systematically pruned, leaving only a few balanced snaps of skylines with smoke and rockets, in what was an assault of immense savagery when one considers that half of the dead and wounded were civilians, has tilted my position. It is simply not enough to have a bandaged kid on a bed. Personally, I would prefer photos like that one of the old man in a wrecked landscape in today's online Haaretz, or a panoramic shot of the rubbled landscape of the city. These are everywhere in wiki articles dealing with bombings. One cannot sanitise narratives of bombed cities, even when the city was part of enemy territory (Dresden, Falluja). Nishidani ( talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
General Question How is it that we can bring in a picture from a highly partisan group ( International Solidarity Movement) which includes a link to a blog Democracy Now? Just wondering. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
question is Guardian.co.uk a reliable source? -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What POV is being pushed other than the truth? About 200 to 300 children were killed. This is the largest group of civilian casualties and it should be visually illustrated. EnigmaMcmxc previously said, âthe image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - thatâs POV pushing if you like it or not.â This is probably the most ludicrous comment I have read here. If it is fact it is not POV. Children were killed as a result of Israeli military action. This is an undeniable truth. EnigmaMcmxc, your argument seems centered around the idea that it is advantageous to use less graphic images. I donât want this encyclopedia to anticipate reader response and water down the truth. Would you propose replacing an image of massacred genocide victims with one of hundreds of burial plots in a cemetery? Either way the readers still understands a lot of people died. You ask the question yourself, âwould I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?â The answer is yes. â Zntrip 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of respected groups as well as individuals who think it more than likely that they in fact they did. In fact if you read about what they do, falsification is a big part of it.
The respected Anti-Defamation League [21] says of them:
Discover the Networks#Programs, a conservative "Guide to the Political Left" describes them thus:
NGO Monitor says of them that
Here you will find the story of the manipulation of photographs in relation to Rachel Corrie. Perhaps ISM totally innocent of falisification of photos; since they have not been convicted of it in a court of law; but they are hardly what one would call a neutral party. Anything taken from them would have to be considered potential propaganda. Hardly fit for WP. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is clear that there is not consensus for this picture and people are not changing their opinion. Is their any oppoistion to considering this matter closed for the time being? Nableezy ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Summary In conclusion, I'd like to summarize the two major points that have been argued.
fire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).