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 25 | â | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | â | Archive 35 |
There are some facts that consistently censored from background section describing period after Hamas took control and before this conflict intensified by some "NPOV" editors. The fact of Gaza - Egypt land border existence is undeniable and important to blockade discussion. Rafah crossing was closed under Hamas rule after European Union border crossing monitors fled and after Hamas breach trial PA and Arab foreign ministers objected control of the border by Hamas. It reflects dynamics of blockade development. Quotes for inclusion:
Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I hear you all and performed following edit. I agree that Israel has a lot of influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. At lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy,I noticed you removed discussed background section changes. I agree that it needs more work and voiced my opinion and arguments repeatedly. With all respect you try to censor undeniable facts about background of this conflict and remove cited NPOV quotes without clear argument. I'd appreciate if you publish links to your changes in this discussion. IMO you work against consensus. I heard all the editors patiently and did not rush those changes. I'd be glad to argue about facts, but really do not appreciate edit waring or personal attacks. I understand there are about 8 hours of time difference between us. You are welcome to voice your opinion about points of confusion. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, Please re-read discussion. I already stated arguments: it reflects dynamics of blockade development... Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. Could we get back to quotes inclusion discussion? I really do not appreciate edit warring from your side. Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes.. Charles Stross stated that Information wants to be free What are your suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, let me address your concerns.
What do you think? Still concerned? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia (as an editor), but I have been following this article closely, and have noticed much of it is written in a manner not fitting of an encyclopedia. For example:
- In the Gaza humanitarian crisis: "Fear and panic are widespread" -- Have reliable sources documented this as fact? How can it be an encyclopaedic fact that fear is widespread. Why is this relevant to a Gaza humanitarian crisis? How would it be verified?
I just read the report, the exact wording is "People are living in a state of fear and panic". This is less of an encyclopaedic fact and more of a statement (by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Also, it is made in reference to the number of casualties, not the humanitarian crisis. Frankly, there are much more relevant facts about access to resources, etc, that should be included over such broad and ambiguous statements, IMO.
Kinetochore (
talk)
07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
and UN Jan. 1 report:There is a sense of panic, fear, and distress throughout the Gaza strip.
This relates to the humanitarian crisis section cause those are extracted from the UN OCHA reports, where OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. As understood from the reports, all those horrible elements reported by the reports sums the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is a crisis as described by several WP:RSs. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)People are living in a state of fear and panic.
UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [1]. Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy ( talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
the so called breaking newsstory from globeandmail has not been reported by other rs, hence "exceptional claims blah blah blah Untwirl ( talk) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
from the article "On January 6, 2009, Israel struck outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians. [5] "
i think we have enough rs for this fact that we dont need to use globe and mail Untwirl ( talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"the shell didn't actually hit the school building, like you said it did" "therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified"
From the Globe article:
â | John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."
"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said. Why would he do that? "Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn't true." Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before," he said, "in 2007." The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school. "Look at my statements," he said. "I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation." |
â |
This statement ""On January 6, 2009, the IDF fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." is factually accurate. the debate over where the rounds landed is not relevant and the article (UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School)is misleading (ie. the un admitted nothing different from what they had said all along). Untwirl ( talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
At the time of this "incident", it was not clear what happened. Israel's rules of engagement are that they return fire when they see where it comes from. They also may have specific military "targets" but that's another story. When the story first broke that they had hit a school, they assumed they had returned fire-for-fire, since those are the operating rules. When UNRWA and Palestinians claimed "No one was firing from this school" "It was a refuge for civilians" "We gave Israel the coordinates" and "We don't fire from schools," Israel released an earlier film demonstrating that gunmen indeed have and do fire from UNRWA schools. They did not pretend that this film was this incident. They were demonstrating that Hamas gunmen fire from schools. However, when it was finally acknowledged by some (not the UN!) that there was not a direct hit on the school, some people still want to give the impression that there was. It is most likely that there was fire from the area, and Israel responded. Indeed had the locals actually been in the compound, they would not have been hurt, since no one in the school was hurt. There is a huge difference between targeting a school (while aware of its coordinates) for no reason, and returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
ok, lets be specific, like the guardian. note that israeli fired on the school, hitting just outside, and "most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl, perhaps you can find a more recent source that says "playground" since that source is now acknowledged to be wrong. Where did Israel say that they did not avoid the school? Could you please ref the admission? Thanks Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains that Israel killed 40 totally innocent people. If they didn't score a direct hit on the school, put that in, but it doesn't reduce the severity of the incident. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
IDF see this incident as civilians used as human shield Caught in the crossfire in active war zone. IDF performs investigation of incidents as policy and publicly regrets such unthinkable loss. There are a lot of witness clips from Gaza of Hamas firing surrounded by civilians including kids on different occasions on Youtube, looks credible to me and Newsweek reporters. Did Hamas knew of UNRWA school GPS coordinates? Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from this location. After all Hamas did take part in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html ANALYSIS / Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives . "The incident in which some 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israel Defense Forces mortar shells hit an UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp Tuesday surprised no one who has been following events in Gaza in recent days. Senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower."
"What the officer did not say explicitly was that this is deliberate policy. Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives."
'Disproportional use of force' which when talking about 'legalities' of war, is one of the charges that has been brought against Israel. I don't care much for it, but I think that this information would merit prevalence somewhere in this article(yes i'm sure it won't be too hard finding a place for it). Cryptonio ( talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The deaths and injuries were sustained the West Bank? How exactly do they merit insertion here? Chesdovi ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a big mess, very povish written. We need to take a close look at it.
Subsection 'Engagement with Israeli forces' and/or 'Rocket attacks into Israel' is a natural start followed with 'Preparation'. All adjusted to this new layout.
The sections 'lead' looks like a long justification for the israeli attack. Cut it away as POV or find a rationale for having a section with justifications.
I suggest POV-tag on the section until its fixed. Brunte ( talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Support because it is an accurate term and it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive'.
NB. Some people say 'its not a response, Hamas has been firing rockets for years'. While Hamas has indeed, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian actions were a response to the Israeli actions. You can't seriously suggest that during this war/conflict Hamas fighters merely continued with whatever they had been doing during the previous months, and that they took no notice of the Israeli incursion.
An analogy: take an offenseve by allied forces during WW2. If the Nazis fought back to this, this would be their response. This would be despite the fact that they had been attacking allied forces for several years and that they began the aggression- that would not change the fact that it was a response.
It is the same here. This is an individual battle. The Israelis started this individual battle. The Palestinians responded to the Israelis.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I made sub-subsection '# 2.3 Rocket attacks into Israel' to an own subsection outside '2.2 Palestinian defence of Gaza' (Palestinian response, militants activity etz) That would solv the problem I guess. Brunte ( talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A better idea is to merge all of it into Israeli offensive, palestinian actiom to defend themself against the israels actions, section for section. Call the section 'Israeli offensive and palestinian defence' or similar. Brunte ( talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If we can agre on that we then can do the merging which is little more worksome than renaming sections and moving already availible text Brunte ( talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have read the thread above. My understanding of the situation is that the shells hit outside the school, thus killing 43 people inside. At the time there were loads of tv images and interviews clearly suggesting, neutrally, that, however it happenede, a lot of people had died in the school?
However, the article now says no one was killed. Is that correct? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you guys think of the current Reprisal attacks in Gaza section? According to User:Nableezy, he said " This is unrelated to the conflict." This is what he: Removed
All the info is directly cited from the article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What he deleted was simply more detailed information regarding the reprisal attacks. I don't believe it is unrelated. Can we hold off on the reverts for now until we get some opinions? Cheers! Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, well. Guys, this is lame. Since there is already an article on this, why don't we simply link to it, an use it's intro as the only mention here. This is peripherally relevant to the war (but still relevant) and that way we have the edit-war on the article actually about the topic, rather than here. I also suggest we use the {{ seealso}} to link to Hamas-Fatah conflict for background. Wasup with that? Do I hear yea?-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, please realize that WP:SUMMARY is meant precisely for forking out content. For example, the "Timeline", which is central to the conflict, yet very large, has been forked out under WP:SUMMARY.
And no, the internal conflict of the Palestinian factions is not central to this conflict. It is patently peripheral, because the situation was ongoing before the war started, and will continue to happen long after. Perhaps the shooting of Palestinian collaborators with the Israelis is a small part of this war, as those might have been revealed due to actions in support of Operation Cast Lead, but Hamas is notorious for shooting Fatah people as "collaborators" (and Fatah has done the same to Hamas - sometimes with much more reason).
However, you miss the central point: this topic has its own article, where the information belongs. At most we should have the intro for that article, which pretty much covers it, and then link. WP:SUMMARY is useless if we do not have the discipline to accept that our pet points will not be discussed in the "front" article in the extent we want them to.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The conflict is in direct response to the war. I'm not denying Hamas and Fatah are notorious for shooting each other, and that they will continue to shoot each other, but this slaughter resulted because of the conflict. It's only a paragraph, reducing it to sentence would render the inclusion useless so we might as well delete it. I request opinions from people who do not belong in the same "camp." I mean that in the most cordial way possible, but it's important we diversify. ; ) Wikifan12345 ( talk) 06:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop making this an argument and read what I wrote. I really don't want this to be another arbitration over a silly paragraph which can be easily solved. This is elementary man. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
People are putting a lot of effort into debating what belongs into this article, which is great but the writing is being neglected a bit and some of it is downright atrocious. Iâve tried to clean up some passages. Theyâre still not great but hopefully a bit more reader friendly. Iâve desperately tried to NOT change the content and stay clear of anything that might be considered pov changes. So could someone kindly explain how Version 2 below is âpov as hellâ compared to Version 1 below?
PS The bit about the EU monitors was added later. Some of the stuff Iâm looking to improve are clarity, conciseness, passive/active voice, and endless sentences/clauses.-- Andi Hofer ( talk) 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Andi Hofer ( talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Plus it doesn't do the situation justice. Hamas would attack for months without response, then after crap like the Passover Massacre, Israel would respond in the way they should have originally and the whole world cries. Version 2 is POV hell solely based on that sentence.
Not to mention it doesn't clarify who is militant and who is civilian, an argument which is constantly disputes. Plus it doesn't clarify how many civilians Hamas has killed during the rocket attacks. The paragraph gives the impression that Hamas was throwing stones and Israel responded with nuclear bombs. Hamas was asking for a war: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, and it took more than a year for them to get a real one. Plus, many of the wars aren't necessarily in response to the rocket attacks, but the suicide bombings that accompany them. If we count those, 40 people have been killed in suicide bombings in 2008 (many more in from non-bombings) and 500+ since 2001. This paragraph should be written collaboratively and not by one person. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Israel did mention it is. It mentioned ending Hamas' violation of the various truce/cease-fires and sovereignty. What, you think Israel is like "Ok Hamas, suicide bombings are ok but mortar and rockets are a big no-no." Saying "this is NPOV" means nothing, I said why it wasn't. And collaboratively doesn't mean two people with the same agenda. It means people from opposite spectrum, though many evil Zionists have left because of the vicious bandwagoning (not in this article talk however). Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not just saying this isn't NPOV, I gave reasons. You are the one who is saying this is NPOV and telling me my complaints are meaningless. I'm just going to get an admin to arbitrate if you continue to put roadblocks whenever someone has a valid point that disagrees with the 2 person consensus. Maybe you should do it since you're so concerned about my meaningless opinion. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too. [3] It gives the number of schools destroyed and damaged (37) plus closed as refugee shelters (18). Last night I didn't see much of this stuff but I noticed Nishidani's addition of mosques. Sound okay? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I. The Masjid of the Martyr Imad Aqel in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in north Gaza, the bombing of the mosque by the Israeli warplanes on Dec. 28, 2008 resulted in the collapse of an adjacent house, causing the death of 5 sisters from one family and injuries of number of citizens who are living nearby.
II. Masjid Al-Saraya was completely destroyed on Dec. 28, 2008 through the air bombing of Al-Saraya governmental compound in the center of Gaza city.
III. The Israeli warplanes have targeted Majid Al-Abbas and the neighboring Al-Abbas police station in Gaza city on Dec. 28, 2008 that resulted in substantial damage.
IV. Masjid Al-Shifaa Mosque was bombed by air Dec. 28, 2008, inside the mosque were a lot of a relatives of ill persons and four of them were killed. The mosque is located near Al-Shifaa medical complex in Gaza city. The bombing created a state of confusion among the medical staff and teams who are working in the hospital, deepening the difficulties in the hospital after being subjected to significant damage by fragments of missiles and pieces of stones and cement. Israeli missiles turned the mosque to a pile of rubble. The two rockets that directly struck the dome of the mosque resulted in two large holes, the stones and the columns of the mosque scattered and spread out in adjacent roads, houses, and shops causing a lot of damage.
V Masjid al-Fadilah, Rafa, Palestine, Jan. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Khaled Omar)
Masjid Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq is located in Beit Hanoun town in the far north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli warplanes have fired several missiles towards the mosque on Dec. 29, 2008 causing complete destruction. The dead and injured had been recovered from under the rubble.
VI. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Ezz Al-Dien Al-Qassam martyr mosque in Abasan / Khan-Younis in south of Gaza Strip destroying it completely. The Israeli authorities did not mention any reason for this bombing.
VII. On Dec. 29, 2008: Bombing of Masjid Al-Ribat in Rafah resulted in seven 7 dead 3 of them are children.
VIII. Masjid Al-Abrarâ in Rafah was bombed on Dec. 29, 2009 and again on Jan. 15, 2009. The mosque has been completely destroyed.
IX. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes have bombed Masjid Riad Al-Saaliheen mosque in the north of the Gaza Strip.
X. Around 3:00 AM at Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at dawn, the occupation warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Faruq Omar bin Al-Khatab in Al-Breij camp in the center of Gaza Strip destroying it completely.
XI. Masjid Abu Hanifa Nuâman located in Tal Alhawa south of Gaza city, was targeted with four missiles on Dec. 31, 2008, resulting in destroying it completely, the injuries of five women, and damage in a large number of adjacent houses.
XII. On Jan. 1, 2009 the occupation forces fired a rocket that caused damage to Masjid Khalil Al-Rahman in the Abasan area east of Khan Younis.
XIII. On Jan. 1, 2009 an Israeli bombing has targeted Masjid Al-Nasr, an ancient mosque in Beit Hanoun town in the north of Gaza Strip resulting in its destruction. The mosque was built in A.D. 736.
XIV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli warplanes targeted Masjid Al-Khulafaâ Al-Rashideenâ in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in the north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli forces fired several rockets towards the mosque and destroyed it, and resulted in injuring several Palestinians and damage in several neighboring houses.
XV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli forces bombed Masjid Omar Bin Abdel Aziz in Beit Hanoun resulting in enormous damage in its buildings.
XVI. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli jet warplanes type F-16 bombed the mosque of the Martyr Ibrahim Al-Maqadmah in Beit Lahia town far north of Gaza with a large bomb weighting 500 kg when tens of worshiper were performing the prayers, resulting in a massacre with 16 people killed and dozens injured.
XVII. The Israeli warplanes at the dawn on Jan. 6, 2009 bombed Masjid Hasan Al-Banna in Al-Zaitoon neighborhood north of Gaza Strip resulting in destroying it completely. The bombing resulted in the injuries of several persons and the burning of a number of neighboring houses.
XVIII. At 9:00 PM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Taqwa in Al-Shiekh Radwan neighborhood north of Gaza city, and re-bombed it four hours later, resulting in the killing of 4 Palestinian civilians, the injuries of others, and resulted in the destruction of the mosque that was composed of four floors and the damage of about 10 neighboring houses.
XIX. About 11:50 AM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Noor Al-Mohammed located in AL-Jalaâ street in Gaza city, causing complete destruction to the mosque, killing and injuring several Palestinians, and in damage to neighboring houses.
XX. On Jan. 7, 2009 at about 2:00 A.M., the Israeli warplanes bombed the police center in Bani Saheela east of Khan-Younis, resulting in destroying it and damage in the neighboring buildings including Masjid Hamza, with no injuries.
XXI. On Jan. 8, 2009 the Israeli forces fired artillery shells towards the houses of the citizens and Masjid Ibad Al-Rahman in Wadi Al-Salqa village.
XXII. Occupation forces destroyed Masjid Al-Ribat in Khan-Younis on Jan. 9, 2009.
XXIII. On Jan. 10, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Ssafa in Al-Breij camp resulting in partial destruction.
XXIV. On Jan. 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM, the Israeli warplanes of type F16 have bombed with many missiles âDar Al-Fadeelaâ mosque that follows the house of virtue orphans which includes elementary private school, the college of Dar Al-Daâwa for human sciences, and a computer center. That is located in Taha Hussein street in Khirbit Al-Adas neighborhood north-east of Rafah. This causes the complete destruction of the house Dar Al-Fadeela.
XXV. Masjid Bilal bin Rabah in Rafah south of Gaza was destroyed completely in the first week of the war against Gaza, the photos of the destruction of this mosque were displayed in a lot of media around the globe.
XXVI. Masjid Al-Salateen in Jabaliya was targeted by a bombing on Jan. 14, 2009.
XXVII. On Dec. 28, 2008 Masjid Al-Estiqamah in Rafah city was significantly damaged as a result of bombing in adjacent areas by Israeli warplanes. The mosque is located in a densely populated residential area causing the damage in tens of neighboring houses. Nishidani ( talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but could smoeone tell me whats the point of dumping the above couple of screens in here? Dovid ( talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I just saw in the 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah Smackdown article (aka "Reprisal attacks") a sourced claim of 400 Fatah members killed. This is a huge number, but my question is if this is included among the casualties of the conflict? This is important to clarify, via sources, if this is actually done. I mean, thats nearly a third of the deaths reported for the entire conflict.-- Cerejota ( talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The International law section is messy, too long (it was never significantly cut back when other sections were), and it contains factual inaccuracies. Frankly, it's quality is an embarrassment to the article (apologies to all those who worked on it, including myself). The problem is that it's a very charged section POV-wise, and I doubt any serious change to it will last for long, which is probably why it's in the shape it's in. I have a suggestion (and if this violates some WP policy that I'm unaware of, somebody just point that out and that will be the end of it). We form a committee among editors active in this article: say, one person considered pro-Palestinian, one person considered pro-Israel, and one person considered centrist. We all agree to accept whatever they spit out, thus granting it consensus. They spit out a high-quality section, and the article is improved. Any subsequent changes to the section will require consensus. Thoughts? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No. Sounds too complicated for me. Cryptonio ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Your edit to the International law section:
An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz, describes Israel rationale of using âenormous firepower â in Gaza in order to minimize military casualties in Israeliâs ranks. One senior military officer stated that for the Israeli army âbeing cautious means being aggressive⌠From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground ... I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock. Maybe someone there will sober up before it continues." It was not clear whether such strategy amounted to âdeliberate policyâ by the Israeli army. One possible reason given for the enforcement of the strategy, was the mentality that âheavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals.â This information correlates charges and accusations against Israel that it used âdisproportionate military responseâ in Gaza.[350] âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jalapenos do exist ( talk ⢠contribs) 04:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz...", followed by a picture-perfect WP:SYNTH paragraph, in an already messy section? You've got to be kidding me. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't appreciate this attention...there are already established ways in how to respond etc. You are acting like a child. Cryptonio ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the sorry thing. It should stay removed.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What was your reason? fog of war? It was a reliable source and it contained information from the article. Cryptonio ( talk) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a low priority and other density discussions should continue in other places. Is the mention of population density needed here? It is well sourced and belongs somewhere just maybe not in this exact section. Not a big deal just seems like it is better in other sections. Any thoughts?
"Amnesty International and the United Nations reported that in the densely populated areas of Gaza there were no "safe" places for civilians.[146][147]" Cptnono ( talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to believe that IDF spokesperson would do such a thing. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Get real. His has lawyers you know. I've googled and found 3 references:
I do not think this is a reliable source. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Get working. Google Israel's rescue, explanation or flat-out denial they did such a thing. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
AlJazera reports: After the incident, Israeli forces opened fire, killing a Palestinian farmer, Palestinian medical workers said. MX44 ( talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is why we have this pesky little thing called verifiability... :D-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, thank you for checking. So no IDF press release? MX44, Thank you for the link. I think you cite another "farmer" incident, but apparently by the same source: Hamas employed MoH official Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein, he is medical worker alright. Cerejota ( talk) thank you for providing verifiability. While, apparently, there is nothing surprising with "(Hamas) medical workers report farmer killed", on Jan 18 and this allegation was reported also by BBC and B'Tselem. From other hand "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" clearly presents red flag. IDF spokesperson would not state something that out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. How BBC and B'Tselem managed to miss this apparently important press release? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included...
So what do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl ( talk), it was not my intention. can we return to "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" quote? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources that is all I have to sya about this - I mean, if it did happen, it will be trivial to find sourcing -- Cerejota ( talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So is there WP:consensus to remove first paragraph of Ceasefire violations section? Any other suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks I need your opinion how to move forward. First paragraphs is out of context in Ceasefire violations since it happend while militants fired rockets and Israel launched retaliatory air strikes (AFP link). We did not find sources for Israeli army said they shot the farmer. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
the source is: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm
it should not be removed - it should be attributed to xinhua. if edits reported by only one source are to be removed - then the unnamed doctor's estimate of casualties should be removed as well. i'm sure there are others ... i think this type of requirement will open pandora's box.
Untwirl (
talk)
20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
the video shows a reporter saying she heard a loud noise and thinks that a rocket was fired from the building. how does her untrained opinion on a noise with no visual verification qualify as an exceptional source? Untwirl ( talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Cryptonio, thank you for bringing up fairness into discussion. I hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
After this long discussion I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267161730&oldid=267155196 AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It was clearly established that there is No WP:consensus on the subject. I argue that first paragraph of Ceasefire violations should be removed.
I'm new here. Let me know if I understand it right. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not consensus, the problem is WP:V. I insist and concur with Agada, Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. I have yet to find verification that the IDF admitted the shooting. If we do, it stays, if we don't, it goes. We do find verifiability that the incident happened. So the incident stays. Simple. -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
"Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"
"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.
Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel," Cryptonio ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, my wife and daughter approved this joke, but I'm sorry if you find it offensive. Being male I love woman in general, and thank God for their existence, assume good faith. BTW statistics in the picture look credible to me ( and my wife ), but I'd be glad to be corrected. To the point.
Cognitive relativism has its limits. Any suggestion? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I understand and agree with Agada's point. Israeli army said they shot the farmer would be Israel claiming they were responsible for a war crime. "Oh sure, we saw this farmer plowing his field and so we shot him. What's the big deal?" Israel might acknowledge that it shot a 27-year old man (or whatever -- just using example) who Palestinians claim was a farmer "just checking his field". So the point is, this statement is a redflag statement, like admitting to murder, out of character etc etc as Agada pointed out above. It requires "exceptional sources" ... one Chinese (if generally reliable) source does not qualify. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Cryptonio. Please reread verifiability. In any case the problematic phrase get only 3 hits using google, so Wikipedia is in the good company, reporting this 'fact'. Could you explain your reasoning why January 18 morning events should not go to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, where events of that morning are described? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, your talk page is read-only. How did you do it and is it intentional? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit Agada, but also addressed your concerns:
"The first death after the ceasefire was a Palestinian farmer who was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis, on the morning of 18 January. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching land occupied at that moment by Israeli ground troops. There has not been an Israeli report addressing this matter in furtherance. [7] [8] "
Cryptonio ( talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
EDITor Evb-wiki has not been seen in this talk page or has addressed this subject matter. His edit for this reason can be taken as vandalism. Will revert. Cryptonio ( talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Tuesday 6 January 2009 - "The sharp spike in the number of civilian casualties came as Israeli troops and tanks moved into Gaza's second largest city, Khan Younis, for the first time today supported by intensive artillery strikes as the military pledged to press on with its attack." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestinians
Sunday 18 January 2009 - "A Palestinian civilian was killed by Israeli forces near the Gazan town of Khan Younis after mortar bombs were fired from the area, medical workers said, identifying him as a civilian.
He was the first fatality on either side of the frontier since Israel halted its 22-day-old Gaza offensive at 2am, saying it had achieved all its objectives but that a troop withdrawal was contingent on Hamas ceasing its fire." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0118/breaking2.htm Cryptonio ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As per your request, the incident is now mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in Unilateral Ceasefire. The red flag you raised comes from the article which you said was from a reliable source and was included by you to the second paragraph of Unilateral Ceasefire. Pardon for taking so long in agreeing with you that this is where the article belongs, although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter. Cryptonio ( talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, I fully agree that IDF admitted its mistakes in the past and civilians were killed in Crossfire. IDF see such cases as mistakes that unfortunately happen during war and publishes official investigation reports. For instance see the doctor incident. IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. Everything is routed via IDF spokesperson office. Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree on inclusion of all refs gathered and use NPOV wording let the reader decide. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"This pattern of response - to cast doubt about the very information that arrives from Palestinian sources about the circumstances of the killing, to avoid accepting responsibility for an unfortunate event, to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy, and to create a demonic image of the adversary as someone who is capable of purposely causing bloodshed among his own people so as to achieve diplomatic gain, or as someone who does not hesitate to stage a horrifying arena of death so as to besmirch Israel's name, repeats itself every time tragedies of this nature occur. "
This..."to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy"...is the only thing missing in order for you to leave the article alone. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Agada kind request, I'm moving below discussion here. My complain is that there's no room for debate that incidents done after the official ceasefire declaration belongs to the violations section, and in no where else. It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of 18 January. This is stated very clearly. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:
Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January
And in the UN 19 Jan. report:
One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuzaâa east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.
The violations should be stated in their chronological occurrence order, without saying any statements of who broke the cease-fire first, and let the readers decide for themselves. This is basic editing, I can't see how this could be even discussed. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK folks, I hear you all. Thank you for your opinions. Let me state current situation. The January 18 morning incident have already 3 reliable sources gathered by editors and currently described twice both Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph and Ceasefire violations. It's called redundancy. Cryptonio agreed during this discussion that event of January 18 morning are currently described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph of this article and it is correct context for NPOV quote describing the indecent. All references should be included for increased encyclopedic value. Fog is thick, let the reader decide. Still first is clearly POV and different reliable sources describe different events as first incident. Thus first is not a part of NPOV lingo. I deleted "first" description from January 20 events as soon as I learned January 18 morning events and expect same NPOV approach for January 18 morning description. Cerejota stated during this discussion that IDF admission does not stand verifiability so I also removed it. Carefully balancing all editors concerns, fixing redundancy, preserving NPOV I performed following edit. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dudes, as I mentioned, how can unilateral ceasefires be violated? I think the whole "violations" section is OR. There is no agreement between the parties, so in any case "violations" would be journo speak and not "violations" in the legal sense. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Folks and Dudes :) Congrats on 4th ref on January 18 morning incident. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer got back into this article. Dear editors, please address my concerns. I think description of this incident requires urgent NPOV review. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And as you already know the 18 Jan. incident is also reported by the UN:On 19 January, a Palestinian farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire east of Jabalia. The same day, Palestinian militants fired a number of mortars towards Israel and also shot at Israeli troops still inside the Gaza Strip.
Even so, the incident is balanced by an IDF statement saying the farmer was approaching occupied land. I understand your concerns, but you're debating a reputable WP:RS source with an WP:OR thesis. Unfortunately whether those OR concerns are right or wrong doesn't matter here at all. Meanwhile, I don't have strong opinions about the unexploded ordnance accident, I just thought it was a war aftermath instead of an attack. The problem is that there was also 2 childrean in Gaza dead by ordnance as reported by the UNICEF:One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuzaâa east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.
Do you feel a need to report all of those under the post-ceasefire incidents section? I don't feel so, but I'm waiting your opinion. Thanks for the civil discussion. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Two Palestinian children were killed on 20 January by unexploded ordnance in Az Zaitoun in Gaza Governorate
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 25 | â | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | â | Archive 35 |
There are some facts that consistently censored from background section describing period after Hamas took control and before this conflict intensified by some "NPOV" editors. The fact of Gaza - Egypt land border existence is undeniable and important to blockade discussion. Rafah crossing was closed under Hamas rule after European Union border crossing monitors fled and after Hamas breach trial PA and Arab foreign ministers objected control of the border by Hamas. It reflects dynamics of blockade development. Quotes for inclusion:
Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I hear you all and performed following edit. I agree that Israel has a lot of influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. At lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy,I noticed you removed discussed background section changes. I agree that it needs more work and voiced my opinion and arguments repeatedly. With all respect you try to censor undeniable facts about background of this conflict and remove cited NPOV quotes without clear argument. I'd appreciate if you publish links to your changes in this discussion. IMO you work against consensus. I heard all the editors patiently and did not rush those changes. I'd be glad to argue about facts, but really do not appreciate edit waring or personal attacks. I understand there are about 8 hours of time difference between us. You are welcome to voice your opinion about points of confusion. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, Please re-read discussion. I already stated arguments: it reflects dynamics of blockade development... Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. Could we get back to quotes inclusion discussion? I really do not appreciate edit warring from your side. Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes.. Charles Stross stated that Information wants to be free What are your suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, let me address your concerns.
What do you think? Still concerned? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia (as an editor), but I have been following this article closely, and have noticed much of it is written in a manner not fitting of an encyclopedia. For example:
- In the Gaza humanitarian crisis: "Fear and panic are widespread" -- Have reliable sources documented this as fact? How can it be an encyclopaedic fact that fear is widespread. Why is this relevant to a Gaza humanitarian crisis? How would it be verified?
I just read the report, the exact wording is "People are living in a state of fear and panic". This is less of an encyclopaedic fact and more of a statement (by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Also, it is made in reference to the number of casualties, not the humanitarian crisis. Frankly, there are much more relevant facts about access to resources, etc, that should be included over such broad and ambiguous statements, IMO.
Kinetochore (
talk)
07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
and UN Jan. 1 report:There is a sense of panic, fear, and distress throughout the Gaza strip.
This relates to the humanitarian crisis section cause those are extracted from the UN OCHA reports, where OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. As understood from the reports, all those horrible elements reported by the reports sums the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is a crisis as described by several WP:RSs. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)People are living in a state of fear and panic.
UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [1]. Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy ( talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
the so called breaking newsstory from globeandmail has not been reported by other rs, hence "exceptional claims blah blah blah Untwirl ( talk) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
from the article "On January 6, 2009, Israel struck outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians. [5] "
i think we have enough rs for this fact that we dont need to use globe and mail Untwirl ( talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"the shell didn't actually hit the school building, like you said it did" "therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified"
From the Globe article:
â | John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."
"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said. Why would he do that? "Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn't true." Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before," he said, "in 2007." The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school. "Look at my statements," he said. "I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation." |
â |
This statement ""On January 6, 2009, the IDF fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." is factually accurate. the debate over where the rounds landed is not relevant and the article (UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School)is misleading (ie. the un admitted nothing different from what they had said all along). Untwirl ( talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
At the time of this "incident", it was not clear what happened. Israel's rules of engagement are that they return fire when they see where it comes from. They also may have specific military "targets" but that's another story. When the story first broke that they had hit a school, they assumed they had returned fire-for-fire, since those are the operating rules. When UNRWA and Palestinians claimed "No one was firing from this school" "It was a refuge for civilians" "We gave Israel the coordinates" and "We don't fire from schools," Israel released an earlier film demonstrating that gunmen indeed have and do fire from UNRWA schools. They did not pretend that this film was this incident. They were demonstrating that Hamas gunmen fire from schools. However, when it was finally acknowledged by some (not the UN!) that there was not a direct hit on the school, some people still want to give the impression that there was. It is most likely that there was fire from the area, and Israel responded. Indeed had the locals actually been in the compound, they would not have been hurt, since no one in the school was hurt. There is a huge difference between targeting a school (while aware of its coordinates) for no reason, and returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
ok, lets be specific, like the guardian. note that israeli fired on the school, hitting just outside, and "most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl, perhaps you can find a more recent source that says "playground" since that source is now acknowledged to be wrong. Where did Israel say that they did not avoid the school? Could you please ref the admission? Thanks Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains that Israel killed 40 totally innocent people. If they didn't score a direct hit on the school, put that in, but it doesn't reduce the severity of the incident. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
IDF see this incident as civilians used as human shield Caught in the crossfire in active war zone. IDF performs investigation of incidents as policy and publicly regrets such unthinkable loss. There are a lot of witness clips from Gaza of Hamas firing surrounded by civilians including kids on different occasions on Youtube, looks credible to me and Newsweek reporters. Did Hamas knew of UNRWA school GPS coordinates? Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from this location. After all Hamas did take part in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html ANALYSIS / Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives . "The incident in which some 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israel Defense Forces mortar shells hit an UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp Tuesday surprised no one who has been following events in Gaza in recent days. Senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower."
"What the officer did not say explicitly was that this is deliberate policy. Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives."
'Disproportional use of force' which when talking about 'legalities' of war, is one of the charges that has been brought against Israel. I don't care much for it, but I think that this information would merit prevalence somewhere in this article(yes i'm sure it won't be too hard finding a place for it). Cryptonio ( talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The deaths and injuries were sustained the West Bank? How exactly do they merit insertion here? Chesdovi ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a big mess, very povish written. We need to take a close look at it.
Subsection 'Engagement with Israeli forces' and/or 'Rocket attacks into Israel' is a natural start followed with 'Preparation'. All adjusted to this new layout.
The sections 'lead' looks like a long justification for the israeli attack. Cut it away as POV or find a rationale for having a section with justifications.
I suggest POV-tag on the section until its fixed. Brunte ( talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Support because it is an accurate term and it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive'.
NB. Some people say 'its not a response, Hamas has been firing rockets for years'. While Hamas has indeed, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian actions were a response to the Israeli actions. You can't seriously suggest that during this war/conflict Hamas fighters merely continued with whatever they had been doing during the previous months, and that they took no notice of the Israeli incursion.
An analogy: take an offenseve by allied forces during WW2. If the Nazis fought back to this, this would be their response. This would be despite the fact that they had been attacking allied forces for several years and that they began the aggression- that would not change the fact that it was a response.
It is the same here. This is an individual battle. The Israelis started this individual battle. The Palestinians responded to the Israelis.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I made sub-subsection '# 2.3 Rocket attacks into Israel' to an own subsection outside '2.2 Palestinian defence of Gaza' (Palestinian response, militants activity etz) That would solv the problem I guess. Brunte ( talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A better idea is to merge all of it into Israeli offensive, palestinian actiom to defend themself against the israels actions, section for section. Call the section 'Israeli offensive and palestinian defence' or similar. Brunte ( talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If we can agre on that we then can do the merging which is little more worksome than renaming sections and moving already availible text Brunte ( talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have read the thread above. My understanding of the situation is that the shells hit outside the school, thus killing 43 people inside. At the time there were loads of tv images and interviews clearly suggesting, neutrally, that, however it happenede, a lot of people had died in the school?
However, the article now says no one was killed. Is that correct? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you guys think of the current Reprisal attacks in Gaza section? According to User:Nableezy, he said " This is unrelated to the conflict." This is what he: Removed
All the info is directly cited from the article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What he deleted was simply more detailed information regarding the reprisal attacks. I don't believe it is unrelated. Can we hold off on the reverts for now until we get some opinions? Cheers! Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, well. Guys, this is lame. Since there is already an article on this, why don't we simply link to it, an use it's intro as the only mention here. This is peripherally relevant to the war (but still relevant) and that way we have the edit-war on the article actually about the topic, rather than here. I also suggest we use the {{ seealso}} to link to Hamas-Fatah conflict for background. Wasup with that? Do I hear yea?-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, please realize that WP:SUMMARY is meant precisely for forking out content. For example, the "Timeline", which is central to the conflict, yet very large, has been forked out under WP:SUMMARY.
And no, the internal conflict of the Palestinian factions is not central to this conflict. It is patently peripheral, because the situation was ongoing before the war started, and will continue to happen long after. Perhaps the shooting of Palestinian collaborators with the Israelis is a small part of this war, as those might have been revealed due to actions in support of Operation Cast Lead, but Hamas is notorious for shooting Fatah people as "collaborators" (and Fatah has done the same to Hamas - sometimes with much more reason).
However, you miss the central point: this topic has its own article, where the information belongs. At most we should have the intro for that article, which pretty much covers it, and then link. WP:SUMMARY is useless if we do not have the discipline to accept that our pet points will not be discussed in the "front" article in the extent we want them to.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The conflict is in direct response to the war. I'm not denying Hamas and Fatah are notorious for shooting each other, and that they will continue to shoot each other, but this slaughter resulted because of the conflict. It's only a paragraph, reducing it to sentence would render the inclusion useless so we might as well delete it. I request opinions from people who do not belong in the same "camp." I mean that in the most cordial way possible, but it's important we diversify. ; ) Wikifan12345 ( talk) 06:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop making this an argument and read what I wrote. I really don't want this to be another arbitration over a silly paragraph which can be easily solved. This is elementary man. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
People are putting a lot of effort into debating what belongs into this article, which is great but the writing is being neglected a bit and some of it is downright atrocious. Iâve tried to clean up some passages. Theyâre still not great but hopefully a bit more reader friendly. Iâve desperately tried to NOT change the content and stay clear of anything that might be considered pov changes. So could someone kindly explain how Version 2 below is âpov as hellâ compared to Version 1 below?
PS The bit about the EU monitors was added later. Some of the stuff Iâm looking to improve are clarity, conciseness, passive/active voice, and endless sentences/clauses.-- Andi Hofer ( talk) 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Andi Hofer ( talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Plus it doesn't do the situation justice. Hamas would attack for months without response, then after crap like the Passover Massacre, Israel would respond in the way they should have originally and the whole world cries. Version 2 is POV hell solely based on that sentence.
Not to mention it doesn't clarify who is militant and who is civilian, an argument which is constantly disputes. Plus it doesn't clarify how many civilians Hamas has killed during the rocket attacks. The paragraph gives the impression that Hamas was throwing stones and Israel responded with nuclear bombs. Hamas was asking for a war: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, and it took more than a year for them to get a real one. Plus, many of the wars aren't necessarily in response to the rocket attacks, but the suicide bombings that accompany them. If we count those, 40 people have been killed in suicide bombings in 2008 (many more in from non-bombings) and 500+ since 2001. This paragraph should be written collaboratively and not by one person. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Israel did mention it is. It mentioned ending Hamas' violation of the various truce/cease-fires and sovereignty. What, you think Israel is like "Ok Hamas, suicide bombings are ok but mortar and rockets are a big no-no." Saying "this is NPOV" means nothing, I said why it wasn't. And collaboratively doesn't mean two people with the same agenda. It means people from opposite spectrum, though many evil Zionists have left because of the vicious bandwagoning (not in this article talk however). Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not just saying this isn't NPOV, I gave reasons. You are the one who is saying this is NPOV and telling me my complaints are meaningless. I'm just going to get an admin to arbitrate if you continue to put roadblocks whenever someone has a valid point that disagrees with the 2 person consensus. Maybe you should do it since you're so concerned about my meaningless opinion. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too. [3] It gives the number of schools destroyed and damaged (37) plus closed as refugee shelters (18). Last night I didn't see much of this stuff but I noticed Nishidani's addition of mosques. Sound okay? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I. The Masjid of the Martyr Imad Aqel in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in north Gaza, the bombing of the mosque by the Israeli warplanes on Dec. 28, 2008 resulted in the collapse of an adjacent house, causing the death of 5 sisters from one family and injuries of number of citizens who are living nearby.
II. Masjid Al-Saraya was completely destroyed on Dec. 28, 2008 through the air bombing of Al-Saraya governmental compound in the center of Gaza city.
III. The Israeli warplanes have targeted Majid Al-Abbas and the neighboring Al-Abbas police station in Gaza city on Dec. 28, 2008 that resulted in substantial damage.
IV. Masjid Al-Shifaa Mosque was bombed by air Dec. 28, 2008, inside the mosque were a lot of a relatives of ill persons and four of them were killed. The mosque is located near Al-Shifaa medical complex in Gaza city. The bombing created a state of confusion among the medical staff and teams who are working in the hospital, deepening the difficulties in the hospital after being subjected to significant damage by fragments of missiles and pieces of stones and cement. Israeli missiles turned the mosque to a pile of rubble. The two rockets that directly struck the dome of the mosque resulted in two large holes, the stones and the columns of the mosque scattered and spread out in adjacent roads, houses, and shops causing a lot of damage.
V Masjid al-Fadilah, Rafa, Palestine, Jan. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Khaled Omar)
Masjid Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq is located in Beit Hanoun town in the far north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli warplanes have fired several missiles towards the mosque on Dec. 29, 2008 causing complete destruction. The dead and injured had been recovered from under the rubble.
VI. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Ezz Al-Dien Al-Qassam martyr mosque in Abasan / Khan-Younis in south of Gaza Strip destroying it completely. The Israeli authorities did not mention any reason for this bombing.
VII. On Dec. 29, 2008: Bombing of Masjid Al-Ribat in Rafah resulted in seven 7 dead 3 of them are children.
VIII. Masjid Al-Abrarâ in Rafah was bombed on Dec. 29, 2009 and again on Jan. 15, 2009. The mosque has been completely destroyed.
IX. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes have bombed Masjid Riad Al-Saaliheen mosque in the north of the Gaza Strip.
X. Around 3:00 AM at Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at dawn, the occupation warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Faruq Omar bin Al-Khatab in Al-Breij camp in the center of Gaza Strip destroying it completely.
XI. Masjid Abu Hanifa Nuâman located in Tal Alhawa south of Gaza city, was targeted with four missiles on Dec. 31, 2008, resulting in destroying it completely, the injuries of five women, and damage in a large number of adjacent houses.
XII. On Jan. 1, 2009 the occupation forces fired a rocket that caused damage to Masjid Khalil Al-Rahman in the Abasan area east of Khan Younis.
XIII. On Jan. 1, 2009 an Israeli bombing has targeted Masjid Al-Nasr, an ancient mosque in Beit Hanoun town in the north of Gaza Strip resulting in its destruction. The mosque was built in A.D. 736.
XIV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli warplanes targeted Masjid Al-Khulafaâ Al-Rashideenâ in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in the north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli forces fired several rockets towards the mosque and destroyed it, and resulted in injuring several Palestinians and damage in several neighboring houses.
XV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli forces bombed Masjid Omar Bin Abdel Aziz in Beit Hanoun resulting in enormous damage in its buildings.
XVI. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli jet warplanes type F-16 bombed the mosque of the Martyr Ibrahim Al-Maqadmah in Beit Lahia town far north of Gaza with a large bomb weighting 500 kg when tens of worshiper were performing the prayers, resulting in a massacre with 16 people killed and dozens injured.
XVII. The Israeli warplanes at the dawn on Jan. 6, 2009 bombed Masjid Hasan Al-Banna in Al-Zaitoon neighborhood north of Gaza Strip resulting in destroying it completely. The bombing resulted in the injuries of several persons and the burning of a number of neighboring houses.
XVIII. At 9:00 PM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Taqwa in Al-Shiekh Radwan neighborhood north of Gaza city, and re-bombed it four hours later, resulting in the killing of 4 Palestinian civilians, the injuries of others, and resulted in the destruction of the mosque that was composed of four floors and the damage of about 10 neighboring houses.
XIX. About 11:50 AM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Noor Al-Mohammed located in AL-Jalaâ street in Gaza city, causing complete destruction to the mosque, killing and injuring several Palestinians, and in damage to neighboring houses.
XX. On Jan. 7, 2009 at about 2:00 A.M., the Israeli warplanes bombed the police center in Bani Saheela east of Khan-Younis, resulting in destroying it and damage in the neighboring buildings including Masjid Hamza, with no injuries.
XXI. On Jan. 8, 2009 the Israeli forces fired artillery shells towards the houses of the citizens and Masjid Ibad Al-Rahman in Wadi Al-Salqa village.
XXII. Occupation forces destroyed Masjid Al-Ribat in Khan-Younis on Jan. 9, 2009.
XXIII. On Jan. 10, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Ssafa in Al-Breij camp resulting in partial destruction.
XXIV. On Jan. 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM, the Israeli warplanes of type F16 have bombed with many missiles âDar Al-Fadeelaâ mosque that follows the house of virtue orphans which includes elementary private school, the college of Dar Al-Daâwa for human sciences, and a computer center. That is located in Taha Hussein street in Khirbit Al-Adas neighborhood north-east of Rafah. This causes the complete destruction of the house Dar Al-Fadeela.
XXV. Masjid Bilal bin Rabah in Rafah south of Gaza was destroyed completely in the first week of the war against Gaza, the photos of the destruction of this mosque were displayed in a lot of media around the globe.
XXVI. Masjid Al-Salateen in Jabaliya was targeted by a bombing on Jan. 14, 2009.
XXVII. On Dec. 28, 2008 Masjid Al-Estiqamah in Rafah city was significantly damaged as a result of bombing in adjacent areas by Israeli warplanes. The mosque is located in a densely populated residential area causing the damage in tens of neighboring houses. Nishidani ( talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but could smoeone tell me whats the point of dumping the above couple of screens in here? Dovid ( talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I just saw in the 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah Smackdown article (aka "Reprisal attacks") a sourced claim of 400 Fatah members killed. This is a huge number, but my question is if this is included among the casualties of the conflict? This is important to clarify, via sources, if this is actually done. I mean, thats nearly a third of the deaths reported for the entire conflict.-- Cerejota ( talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The International law section is messy, too long (it was never significantly cut back when other sections were), and it contains factual inaccuracies. Frankly, it's quality is an embarrassment to the article (apologies to all those who worked on it, including myself). The problem is that it's a very charged section POV-wise, and I doubt any serious change to it will last for long, which is probably why it's in the shape it's in. I have a suggestion (and if this violates some WP policy that I'm unaware of, somebody just point that out and that will be the end of it). We form a committee among editors active in this article: say, one person considered pro-Palestinian, one person considered pro-Israel, and one person considered centrist. We all agree to accept whatever they spit out, thus granting it consensus. They spit out a high-quality section, and the article is improved. Any subsequent changes to the section will require consensus. Thoughts? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No. Sounds too complicated for me. Cryptonio ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Your edit to the International law section:
An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz, describes Israel rationale of using âenormous firepower â in Gaza in order to minimize military casualties in Israeliâs ranks. One senior military officer stated that for the Israeli army âbeing cautious means being aggressive⌠From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground ... I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock. Maybe someone there will sober up before it continues." It was not clear whether such strategy amounted to âdeliberate policyâ by the Israeli army. One possible reason given for the enforcement of the strategy, was the mentality that âheavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals.â This information correlates charges and accusations against Israel that it used âdisproportionate military responseâ in Gaza.[350] âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jalapenos do exist ( talk ⢠contribs) 04:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"An analysis by Jewish newspaper Haaretz...", followed by a picture-perfect WP:SYNTH paragraph, in an already messy section? You've got to be kidding me. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't appreciate this attention...there are already established ways in how to respond etc. You are acting like a child. Cryptonio ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the sorry thing. It should stay removed.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What was your reason? fog of war? It was a reliable source and it contained information from the article. Cryptonio ( talk) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a low priority and other density discussions should continue in other places. Is the mention of population density needed here? It is well sourced and belongs somewhere just maybe not in this exact section. Not a big deal just seems like it is better in other sections. Any thoughts?
"Amnesty International and the United Nations reported that in the densely populated areas of Gaza there were no "safe" places for civilians.[146][147]" Cptnono ( talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to believe that IDF spokesperson would do such a thing. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Get real. His has lawyers you know. I've googled and found 3 references:
I do not think this is a reliable source. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Get working. Google Israel's rescue, explanation or flat-out denial they did such a thing. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
AlJazera reports: After the incident, Israeli forces opened fire, killing a Palestinian farmer, Palestinian medical workers said. MX44 ( talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is why we have this pesky little thing called verifiability... :D-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, thank you for checking. So no IDF press release? MX44, Thank you for the link. I think you cite another "farmer" incident, but apparently by the same source: Hamas employed MoH official Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein, he is medical worker alright. Cerejota ( talk) thank you for providing verifiability. While, apparently, there is nothing surprising with "(Hamas) medical workers report farmer killed", on Jan 18 and this allegation was reported also by BBC and B'Tselem. From other hand "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" clearly presents red flag. IDF spokesperson would not state something that out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. How BBC and B'Tselem managed to miss this apparently important press release? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included...
So what do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl ( talk), it was not my intention. can we return to "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" quote? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources that is all I have to sya about this - I mean, if it did happen, it will be trivial to find sourcing -- Cerejota ( talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So is there WP:consensus to remove first paragraph of Ceasefire violations section? Any other suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks I need your opinion how to move forward. First paragraphs is out of context in Ceasefire violations since it happend while militants fired rockets and Israel launched retaliatory air strikes (AFP link). We did not find sources for Israeli army said they shot the farmer. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
the source is: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm
it should not be removed - it should be attributed to xinhua. if edits reported by only one source are to be removed - then the unnamed doctor's estimate of casualties should be removed as well. i'm sure there are others ... i think this type of requirement will open pandora's box.
Untwirl (
talk)
20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
the video shows a reporter saying she heard a loud noise and thinks that a rocket was fired from the building. how does her untrained opinion on a noise with no visual verification qualify as an exceptional source? Untwirl ( talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Cryptonio, thank you for bringing up fairness into discussion. I hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
After this long discussion I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267161730&oldid=267155196 AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It was clearly established that there is No WP:consensus on the subject. I argue that first paragraph of Ceasefire violations should be removed.
I'm new here. Let me know if I understand it right. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not consensus, the problem is WP:V. I insist and concur with Agada, Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. I have yet to find verification that the IDF admitted the shooting. If we do, it stays, if we don't, it goes. We do find verifiability that the incident happened. So the incident stays. Simple. -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
"Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"
"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.
Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel," Cryptonio ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, my wife and daughter approved this joke, but I'm sorry if you find it offensive. Being male I love woman in general, and thank God for their existence, assume good faith. BTW statistics in the picture look credible to me ( and my wife ), but I'd be glad to be corrected. To the point.
Cognitive relativism has its limits. Any suggestion? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I understand and agree with Agada's point. Israeli army said they shot the farmer would be Israel claiming they were responsible for a war crime. "Oh sure, we saw this farmer plowing his field and so we shot him. What's the big deal?" Israel might acknowledge that it shot a 27-year old man (or whatever -- just using example) who Palestinians claim was a farmer "just checking his field". So the point is, this statement is a redflag statement, like admitting to murder, out of character etc etc as Agada pointed out above. It requires "exceptional sources" ... one Chinese (if generally reliable) source does not qualify. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Cryptonio. Please reread verifiability. In any case the problematic phrase get only 3 hits using google, so Wikipedia is in the good company, reporting this 'fact'. Could you explain your reasoning why January 18 morning events should not go to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, where events of that morning are described? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, your talk page is read-only. How did you do it and is it intentional? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit Agada, but also addressed your concerns:
"The first death after the ceasefire was a Palestinian farmer who was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis, on the morning of 18 January. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching land occupied at that moment by Israeli ground troops. There has not been an Israeli report addressing this matter in furtherance. [7] [8] "
Cryptonio ( talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
EDITor Evb-wiki has not been seen in this talk page or has addressed this subject matter. His edit for this reason can be taken as vandalism. Will revert. Cryptonio ( talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Tuesday 6 January 2009 - "The sharp spike in the number of civilian casualties came as Israeli troops and tanks moved into Gaza's second largest city, Khan Younis, for the first time today supported by intensive artillery strikes as the military pledged to press on with its attack." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestinians
Sunday 18 January 2009 - "A Palestinian civilian was killed by Israeli forces near the Gazan town of Khan Younis after mortar bombs were fired from the area, medical workers said, identifying him as a civilian.
He was the first fatality on either side of the frontier since Israel halted its 22-day-old Gaza offensive at 2am, saying it had achieved all its objectives but that a troop withdrawal was contingent on Hamas ceasing its fire." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0118/breaking2.htm Cryptonio ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As per your request, the incident is now mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in Unilateral Ceasefire. The red flag you raised comes from the article which you said was from a reliable source and was included by you to the second paragraph of Unilateral Ceasefire. Pardon for taking so long in agreeing with you that this is where the article belongs, although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter. Cryptonio ( talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, I fully agree that IDF admitted its mistakes in the past and civilians were killed in Crossfire. IDF see such cases as mistakes that unfortunately happen during war and publishes official investigation reports. For instance see the doctor incident. IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. Everything is routed via IDF spokesperson office. Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree on inclusion of all refs gathered and use NPOV wording let the reader decide. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"This pattern of response - to cast doubt about the very information that arrives from Palestinian sources about the circumstances of the killing, to avoid accepting responsibility for an unfortunate event, to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy, and to create a demonic image of the adversary as someone who is capable of purposely causing bloodshed among his own people so as to achieve diplomatic gain, or as someone who does not hesitate to stage a horrifying arena of death so as to besmirch Israel's name, repeats itself every time tragedies of this nature occur. "
This..."to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy"...is the only thing missing in order for you to leave the article alone. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Agada kind request, I'm moving below discussion here. My complain is that there's no room for debate that incidents done after the official ceasefire declaration belongs to the violations section, and in no where else. It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of 18 January. This is stated very clearly. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:
Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January
And in the UN 19 Jan. report:
One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuzaâa east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.
The violations should be stated in their chronological occurrence order, without saying any statements of who broke the cease-fire first, and let the readers decide for themselves. This is basic editing, I can't see how this could be even discussed. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK folks, I hear you all. Thank you for your opinions. Let me state current situation. The January 18 morning incident have already 3 reliable sources gathered by editors and currently described twice both Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph and Ceasefire violations. It's called redundancy. Cryptonio agreed during this discussion that event of January 18 morning are currently described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph of this article and it is correct context for NPOV quote describing the indecent. All references should be included for increased encyclopedic value. Fog is thick, let the reader decide. Still first is clearly POV and different reliable sources describe different events as first incident. Thus first is not a part of NPOV lingo. I deleted "first" description from January 20 events as soon as I learned January 18 morning events and expect same NPOV approach for January 18 morning description. Cerejota stated during this discussion that IDF admission does not stand verifiability so I also removed it. Carefully balancing all editors concerns, fixing redundancy, preserving NPOV I performed following edit. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Dudes, as I mentioned, how can unilateral ceasefires be violated? I think the whole "violations" section is OR. There is no agreement between the parties, so in any case "violations" would be journo speak and not "violations" in the legal sense. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Folks and Dudes :) Congrats on 4th ref on January 18 morning incident. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer got back into this article. Dear editors, please address my concerns. I think description of this incident requires urgent NPOV review. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And as you already know the 18 Jan. incident is also reported by the UN:On 19 January, a Palestinian farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire east of Jabalia. The same day, Palestinian militants fired a number of mortars towards Israel and also shot at Israeli troops still inside the Gaza Strip.
Even so, the incident is balanced by an IDF statement saying the farmer was approaching occupied land. I understand your concerns, but you're debating a reputable WP:RS source with an WP:OR thesis. Unfortunately whether those OR concerns are right or wrong doesn't matter here at all. Meanwhile, I don't have strong opinions about the unexploded ordnance accident, I just thought it was a war aftermath instead of an attack. The problem is that there was also 2 childrean in Gaza dead by ordnance as reported by the UNICEF:One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuzaâa east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.
Do you feel a need to report all of those under the post-ceasefire incidents section? I don't feel so, but I'm waiting your opinion. Thanks for the civil discussion. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Two Palestinian children were killed on 20 January by unexploded ordnance in Az Zaitoun in Gaza Governorate