![]() | 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 1 | â | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | â | Archive 10 |
the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source [1] , we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. -- 217.132.189.80 ( talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
can someone add it to the table? here is the source [2] âPreceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 ( talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would, but the site you indicate, does not mention such information. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct sources are Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post I have added them. Debresser ( talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The photo for the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the article in Rmallah in West Bank not in Gaza, Please can some one add that-- 84.13.120.243 ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
We have to get a grip on the introduction. It is going from bad to worse. It now reads like a pice of Israeli propaganda. Almost all mention of the fact that there have been significant civilian casualties in Gaza - which is one of the most important aspects of this conflict - have been removed. I have just reinstated mention of the first day casualties but there is systematic editing of it going on, so that will probably be removed before long.
The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.
Could even suggest that the Israeli government has been editing the article (after all, it is known that the CIA edits wikipedia)!
I suggest that an intro is agreed here, possibly based on the version from a couple of days ago. Agree it here, agree any subsequent changes here and if people edit the intro without discussion, agree that such edits should be immediately undone.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been edited too much. Editors are editing and reversing it faster and faster. Why not limit the editing of this article and update every 24 hours (or 12, 36 etc.)or after a major event? I think neutrality and stability is more important than timeliness, especially when this article is EXTREMELY sensitive. Also this seems to be the only way to stop an assumed-not-neutral edit (i.e. editors from the belligerents) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Zhieaanm ( talk ⢠contribs) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the "man holding a civilian injured by the airstrikes" picture a bit too much? It clearly shows blood and is quite 'horrifying'. Maybe that wasn't the uploader's intention , yet I still believe that the article doesn't benefit from those kinds of pictures. either way, I suggest that the picture be removed. What do you think? That'll be much better than using an Israeli wounded picture as a counter-weight, as some would probably suggest.-- 212.235.85.149 ( talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
91.105.255.98, You may disagree but unless they are free pics they cannot be posted.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No surprise, the "Alleged violations of international law" section has been the subject of much editing recently. One recent edit has quoted Falk in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. Let me clarify something right off the bat: I am in no way objected to quoting Falk as a WP:RS. But I do have several objections to the way he is quoted:
While we're at it, there's one man who's quoted as saying Israel has used fuel bombs and depleted uranium. I'm removing the reference until there's some sort of serious substantiation. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge Black Saturday massacre into 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict, it is a short article with little information, and I'm sure some in Israel would object to the title's neutrality. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Grassfire ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Its been done already as Black Saturday massacre title is one sided and thus POV-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless an online petition receives serious media coverage it is not notable enough to be in this article, please move it to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I have left the current one in there for now, hoping someone will come up with some independent sources. VR talk 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is notable enough to mention violent protests in London, Greece etc, why can't we mention that a Palestinian man was shot dead during these violent protests. I don't understand why this fact was removed? VR talk 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct link is [ [3]]
The death of this man should be mentioned in the main article. The shooting dead of a protester is extremely notable. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Extremely notable? Why is that I wonder?-- 209.213.220.227 ( talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you are the same one who removed the information on hacked sites previously. I also noticed excessive cutting has already been ascribed to you by other people in this discussion page, section Reactions. Especially without at least putting the information you cut out back on the special page for Civilian Protests. By the way, I appreciate you personally inviting me to this discussion. Debresser ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There was apparently a failed attack on a Chicago synagogue. As much as this attack was disgusting, it was harmless. No one was injured, nor any damage done because the cocktail failed to burn. Additionally, there are no credible sources connecting this attack to the subject of the article. The official of the temple "suspects" that there maybe a relationship, but clearly isn't sure. No officials or policemen have made any comments to that end.
In a time when the article has gotten too long, it would help that we limit it to events that are for sure connected to the subject, not those that may possibly be. Please also note, that the section on reactions has been so severely cut down that it doesn't mention the official reactions by individual countries, nor all of the protests that have occurred. Clearly brevity is of paramount significance here. VR talk 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the picture of the Palestinian man carrying a maimed bombing victim has been deleted and a picture of Qassam rocket damage has been added. Even as a supporter of the Gazans I think it would be right to show pictures of casualities on both sides. Given that casualties on the Gazan side are over 100 times greater it is obviously giving undue weight to the Israeli perspective to bias the picture count 100% towards Israeili suffering. I also think we have some extremely partisan editors sympathetic to the Zionist side making blatantly biased edits.
Pictures were removed because they were copyright violations. If non-copy-vio pictures from Gaza are found, I will defend and uphold their inclusion, provided they have appropriate quality. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Will no one quote Bush as saying "Hamas should stop bombing Israel" while there are 500 Palestinian casualties and only 5 Israeli? -- 193.188.105.220 ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This has been moved to a seperate article. I have suggested below that the US be listed on the Involved Parties section in the main article. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why should the US be listed in involved parties? Then we would have to list Iran, Syria, Russia, UK, France etc. Does the US have troops on the ground? Are its planes bombing anyone? Are its ships shelling anybody? Where is the proof?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Previously "Any Palestinian 'executions' are a internal matter, not part of the conflict"
Therefore the apparent executions have no place in the casualties info box. Just as traitors executed during any historical war would not (I believe) have been added to the military deathcount.
Agreed? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently numbers only matter if they are not for the Israelis or their allies.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If these executions have anything to do with the hostilities, as e.g. when the reason would be presumed collaboration with Israel, they ipso facto are related and could and should be mentioned. Of course it would not do to mention them as casualties of the hostilities, but the fact should be mentioned somewhere.
I fail to see why Israeli newspapers would not be considered valid sources on this or any other information. The way
Al Ameer son dismisses them strikes me as an argument to accuse him of being biassed more than aforementioned newspapers.
Debresser (
talk)
23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is. After all it bankrolls Israel, supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to this operation. Therefore the American reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.
If America told Israel to stop this attack, it would do so.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I now see someone else has done just this. However surely it should be agreed here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Therefore Iran bankrolls Hamas (and Hezbollah), supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore the Iranian reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
AND, just to drag this out to its logical conclusion:
" UNSC Membership in 2009
The Council is composed of five permanent members â China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States â and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end): Austria (2010), Japan (2010), Uganda (2010), Burkina Faso (2009), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009), Viet Nam (2009), Costa Rica (2009), Mexico (2010), Croatia (2009), and Turkey (2010). They have all made statements and condemnations. So they should all be listed as involved parties too. -- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow that members of the Security Council are 'involved parties'. However I take your point that Iran is. So perhaps IRan and America under Involved PArties then? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How about neither as neither one is directly involved in the current combat operations. Or do you know something we don't?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well technically egypt is not involved in combat operations, however it remains an involved party. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have scaled down the size of the reactions section. This article has become huge. More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities. Including every one of them will make this article very big. Also, let's keep the cyber-warfare to a minimum as well. Just because a website, or online petition publishes something doesn't mean its notable until is is covered by news media, and/or independent sources. Cheers. VR talk 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Attacks on websites are indeed notable, and that is why they were mentioned. However, we need to explain them in proportion. For example in this edit, 393 characters explain the website attacks, while the reference to a Palestinian man bieng shot dead (far more notable) in 87 characters was removed. This seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. VR talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How about:
Protesters in London, Paris, Oslo, and other cities clashed with the police. [3] [4] [5] There were attacks against Jews and Israelis, as well as defacings of Israeli websites. [6] [7] which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict. [8] [9] One Palestinian man was shot dead during a protest. [10]
Is that good? VR talk 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see my reaction on your talk page, that this phrasing is faulted. Apart from that I would like to point out that the hacking of 300 websites is perhaps less tragic than the death of a person, but will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people, and is therefore far mor noticable. Debresser ( talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks for shortening the hackers. I also think that all the violent events should be mentioned together. This includes both attacks on Jews, and the killing of the Palestinian man. VR talk 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. It tells the reader that a long list of countries called for peace: It reminds me of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace". I tried to introduce real SUBSTANTIVE information into this section, but, of course, my efforts were blocked and the information was removed. So now we have nothing. What a waste of time. NonZionist ( talk) 08:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iran featured so prominently in the section currently? The Iranian part, including its leader Khamanei and ally Sistani, are given more space than Israel itself!
Also Egyptian reaction which accuses Israel of "savage aggression" is quoted twice (once in the second paragraph, and once under "involved parties"). May I ask why? VR talk 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following from the Civilian Protests section, someone keeps putting it back:
An online petition, claiming 25,494 signatories as of January 4th, called for the "Proclamation for Solidarity with Israel and the Christians in the Gaza Strip" through the American Center for Law and Justice; [11] its representatives have met with Israeli officials in Ashkelon. [12]
Please find an RS for this, ACLJ can't be an RS for itself. Also is not technically a civilian protest, so should probably be in another section.
The format at one point was 27 December 2008. I understand that this is an official format but in the table of contents it seems impossible to read when it says "3.1 27 December 2008". That just looks very sloppy. Is there any other format that we can use such as "December 27 2008" so that it looks like "3.1 December 27, 2008"? This is much easier to read. I am also thinking that this conflict will be going on much longer than others expect. If this continues to go on, what will we do about the Development section. It is already starting to get very long. Coreywalters06
I personally use the format 2008Dec27. This is clearly _one_ item, not three, and is easily time-sequenced. Johnbibby ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)::::
Is Hamas a reliable source? Consider it in the context of the following claims:
Should we treat these as facts? VR talk 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
See Pallywood-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Hamas takes part of a longstanding tradition of exagerating. See e.g. the 'Casualities' section on this page, where Hamas claims to have killed 9 Israeli soldiers, whereas all other sources so far (the better part of a day later) mention only one Israeli soldier as having been killed. This is a reality we should be aware of. Debresser ( talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Pallywood must be deleted from the 'See Also' section. This is clearly a blatant and trite POV addition designed to imply media bias against Israel in the coverage of the offensive. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 ( talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Media bias against Israel? I am stunned!!!-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone. The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I simply don't think Weiner and Bell have credible opinions, in that they are not definitely unbiased, and from what I've seen, their opinions are very different to most people on these issues.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has to take the award as one of the worst written, most POV, most inaccurate and misleading articles in wiki. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to submit this short AP article which I think has relevant content to be added to the "humanitarian crisis" sections.
"Paltel Group says 90% of Gaza's cellular service is down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iv4xv2KNWjkm8Ixw60eD52Va5zTw âPreceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 ( talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Minor detail!? 90% of their ability communicate with the outside world is down? We should impose to add a "communications breakdown" section to the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" list.. -- 69.217.126.175 ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think these edits are inappropriate. For one the user deletes the Israeli strength. He also quotes "haaretz.com" as a source for 60 wounded Israelis. I think we need to quote specific articles, and not simply the publisher. VR talk 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this standard? It seems unusual to me. 206.116.188.187 ( talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Policemen are not civilians, but effort should be made to distinguish them in the mostcase from Hamas security forces. In my view. Superpie ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The hair-splitting over who and who is not a "civilian" is a diversion from the real issue: Who is and is not the aggressor, and who is the victim. The political views, party affiliation and employer of the victim are all irrelevant. International law gives the victim the right of self-defense and the right to resist occupation. The victim who exercises these moral rights is still a victim: He fights or resists ONLY because the aggressor or occupier gives him no choice. In the Nuremberg Trials, AGGRESSION was declared the cardinal sin, not self-defense, not militancy! If Palestine were invading Israel, Palestine would be the aggressor and Israelis who defend themselves would not lose their civilian status by doing so. By the same standard, Palestinians do not lose their civilian status when they try to defend against Israeli aggression. If someone breaks into my house, the moral high-ground rests with me, whether or not I attempt to fight back. Only in the Kafkesque world of the ideologue is the defender condemned as a "terrorist" and the aggressor hailed as an "innocent". I would provide no untenable artificial subcounts. NonZionist ( talk) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
We had this discussion before, and I seem to remember somebody pointed out, that we will have to abide by the information of the pertaining sources. No other way is technically possible or allowed within the rules of Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
BBC has published an article discussing this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm
It asks whether 40 police recruits killed on the 27th should not be counted as civilians. They are not soldiers, after all. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The introduction reads "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.[15]". However, this is what Israel claims its motivation is. In a neutral article, the viewpoint of Hamas and others should be stated as well. So I propose the following addition, immediately after this sentence.
"However, Hamas disputes this, asserting [9] that this is a continuation of "Israeli crimes against Palestinians", while others state [10] that the rocket attacks by Hamas were preceded by Israeli raids in Gaza.
Please comment. Jacob2718 ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Offliner. In the current version, Israel explanation for its actions is stated unquestioningly. Neutrality demands that Hamas's position be included there. Alternately, we could remove Israel's justification from the introduction. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not that it's mentioned questioningly or unquestioningly as long as it's mentioned. The matter of whether the Qassam rockets can be taken as a proper motivation of the attack is left to the critical ability of the reader. However, it's clear to me that the introduction is not very well-written, is somehow redundant, and most importantly is far from being balanced with regard to presenting both parties' rationale behind their acts, either it be launching this massive attack on the Gaza strip or keeping on launching the rockets towards the southern Israelian cities. Like said by Jacob and Offliner the Israelian explanation is very well laid out (mentioned three times only in the introduction?) whereas the Hamas justification is only touched upon very briefly. Hamas stand is certainly not to be included in what the "others think"... Hamas is as involved in the "conflict" as Israel is, i.e., It's the other party! You either touch brifly upon the two stands or eliminate both from the introduction. 94.99.58.164 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, my only issue with the truce, is length, it is very important contextually, and the background section shoudl expand on it. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that after opposing the "cast lead" title, the article non the less ascribe the start of the conflict to the operation, rather than the previous days of hamas bombardment of civilian population. either the article is about the operation rather than the conflict as a whole, in which case the title should reflect this, or the article is about the conflict as a whole, in which case the into, specifically the 2nd sentence
The conflict began with a series of air strikes by Israel in Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008
should be reworded to reflect this. -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm "Israel has tried to take the initiative in the propaganda war over Gaza but, in one important instance, its version has been seriously challenged." I suggest this gets added to "Public relations campaign and media strategies" section âPreceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 ( talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
See Pallywood-- 173.49.55.18 ( talk) 11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox should we mention both parties' total strength, or only that deployed? For example given the Israeli navy and air force took part, should be describe its total number of aircraft and naval vessels? What about describing total number of Hamas militants? VR talk 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
â | BEFORE YOU MODIFY THIS INTRO
PLEASE READ THE APPROPRIATE POLICIES REGARDING INTRODUCTION "Wikipedia:Lead section" ALSO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS IN THE TALK PAGE AROUND THIS INTRO PLEASE DO NOT ADD MATERIAL THAT BELONGS ELSEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE THIS SHOULD SUMMARISE THE ARTICLE CONTENTS, NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE ARTICLE. AGAIN THIS IS INTRO HAS BEEN WIDELY DISCUSSED, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, YOU WILL BE REVERTED. IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD CHANGE HAVE THE DECENCY AND COMMON SENSE TO TRY AND REACH CONSENSUS INSTEAD OF BEING A VANDAL. |
â |
I was wondering if we could find a more appropriate wording for it. For instance, "being a vandal" would imply bad-faith contributions, and could be seen as offensive to some newer editors on the project.
And as a side note, the lead section is quite lengthy. I suggest reducing it to 3 paragraphs for the time being. Master&Expert ( Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The people of Gaza have my sympathies and my respect for going through the inconceivable challenges that face them. Nevertheless, it is important to look critically at the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" section:
I will await either comment or prolonged lack of response before I edit. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to express my opinion that you raise valid considerations. Specifically, #1 the blockade of Gaza should not be considered a part of the present hostilities, #2 short mention should be made of the mental consequences for Israelis and Palestinians both, #3 the whole subject of cash seems to me to be not directly pertaining to the hostilities. Debresser ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" should simply be its own article. Some may state that Gaza has had a humanitarian crisis for some time, although its certainly worse now. As there are obviously numerous contributing factors outside the military conflict, this might justify its own article. As a section on this page it will only grow larger, and will likely continue after this current military conflict has ended. Harley peters ( talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Saepe, if there's anything stupid in this paragraph, you can blame me :). My reply to your points:
Hi Again :). To address the concerns mentioned here, I've transformed the section from "Panic and Vulnerability" to "Shelter" and removed the statements that no longer fit. Now the section discusses only the sheltering problems faced by people on Gaza. Thanks. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to add that according to the IDF, there are over 50 trucks of international humanitarian aid entering Gaza on a daily basis. Unlike Hamas' and radical Islamist propaganda, IDF does not lie. They don't make up figures or state facts like these, when they aren't true. IDF hides information, but doesn't make up information. I didn't see it written anywhere. There are reports also (need to find sources) that Hamas are not allowing injured people to be sent to hospitals in Egypt and Israel (according to Egyptian foreign minister), and some of the humanitarian aid truck are not reaching their destination, AFTER they cross into Gaza. If anyone has sources, please check this info, because if it's true, all this "humanitarian aid" is a crusade against Israel. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 07:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's just sum up the the humanitarian crisis of both Gaza and Israel in the same section.21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that a new article should be made focusing on the Humanitarian situation in Gaza, but mainly because I believe that the Humanitarian Sitation is not directly linked to the 2008-2009 conflict. While the conflict is aggravating the situation, the issues run far deeper. A new article can be linked to the Conflict article but should also discuss issues such as Overcrowding, Lack of infastructure, (and at risk of taking a lot of heat for saying this) the reigon is governed by a listed terrorist organization which has shown blatant disregard for its population by not providing for them as a governent should as well as going so far to use them as human shields. The poor conditions in Gaza should not be spoken about for a soley external standpoint (one citing Israel as the cause for the crisis) but rather in its own article from an internal standpoint that would briefly mention the conflict with Israel (in an unbiased manner of course). ( Relidc ( talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
Surely Livni's comments should be in the lead? See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052302.html After all this sums up Israel's attitude to the humanitarian situation.
I notice that all mention of the problems facing ordinaryGazans have been removed from the lead. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of civilian protests around the world were and are pro-palestinian. However, there were quite a few "counter-demonstrations" (pro-Israeli ones). Why don't we mention them? Just to list a few I found in a quick serach in google and google-news:
Thanks, -- Omrim ( talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On the water crisis section, and after stating the reported UN figures about the water cuts, User:Manitobamountie added]:
These population numbers may be misleading, since, prior to the conflict, a large number of Palestinians were without adequate safe drinking water, because Palestine has the least available water supply per capita in a region that is poorly supplied with safe drinking water.
This will be deleted cause:
-- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(Not directly related to article content)
I feel quite a few ongoing discussions have been archived without a consensus or decision being reached. If this is being done automatically can the settings be changed? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk ⢠contribs) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The source used for this claim never states nor gives evidence whatsoever to the aforementioned claim. Else I'd question the relevance of this assertion. 189.141.63.87 ( talk) 10:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The assessment goes back to one made by The International Institute for Strategic Studies.See
This against the 'natives' with their complex technology of making rockets out of lampposts. Nishidani ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Hamas is using 120mm mortars, and Russian designed Grad, and Improved Grad rockets Proteus7 ( talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently section 3's subsections are listed with date in the Day/Month/Year format (eg. "31 December 2008"), but may be misleading in the ToC because right before day there is a number representing the subsection. I.e.,
3 Development
ââ3.1 27 December 2008ââ3.2 28 December 2008ââ3.3 29 December 2008ââââ3.3.1 Dignity incidentââ3.4 30 December 2008ââ3.5 31 December 2008ââ3.6 1 January 2009ââ3.7 2 January 2009ââ3.8 3 January 2009ââ3.9 4 January 2009ââ3.10 5 January 2009
I suggest we use the Month Day, year format, eg. "December 31st 2008"--KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How bout you leave it alone as the subsectioning is known as Wikiformatting?-- 173.49.55.18 ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Any objection to giving the number of Israeli casualties in the intro, following the number of Palestinian casualties? Phersu ( talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have content objection, I have a stylistic objection. The intro is almost as long as it, I would remove both. But if one is put, its fair to put the other. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd have thought the one thing which DOES belong in the intro is the number of casualties... still having trouble finding a definitive figure for Israeli casualties though. Thanks. Phersu ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The time and location of the conflict and the motivations behind it are more relevant than casualities in terms of what gets into the lead. If all those are included and the lead still isn't long enough the casualties could be added... But given the complexity of this conflict I imagine that even such a minimalist lead would be a bit long. Kari Hazzard ( T | C) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. It seems to me that casualty figures are crucial in any intro about a military conflict involving substantial loss of life. Still finding conflicting figures about Israeli deaths though (Jerusalem Post says two soldiers and three civilians, which contradicts other reports. Anyone have the definitive number?) Phersu ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, someone removed the injured Israeli civilians in the info-box. I added it back, but I can't seem to find the source currently (and I don't have the time to look for it, I really gotta go now). I added it back. Also, someone removed one soldier casualty there, so it was 4 casualties (1 soldier, 3 civs). I added the correct number and added a reference. Whoever made this change, please, don't. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It may say five killed, but it doesn't mention two soldiers. All sources agree only one soldier has been killed. Please don't change that again. Especially since in the subsection on Casualties you DO get it right. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It was just cleared for publication that another soldier was killed during an operation in the north of the Gaza Strip. I see that the infobox was already updated. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This section is in need of serious attention. The two subheadings currently read, "Israel" and "Arab" which sounds quite awkward. Second, its not clear that the "Arab" subheading contains any notable information. The media focuses on large scale casualties and this, in my opinion, is not notable. For example, the page on | September 11, with good reason, does not carry any mention of how the US media played footage of the attacks throughout the day. I think the section on Israel can stand on its own, because as the sources in this section point out, the Israeli government seems to have launched a concerted public relations effort. There is nothing equivalent from the other side which is why the "Arab" section seems a bit forced. I suggest we remove it altogether unless something more substantive turns up. Jacob2718 ( talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Arab subheading should be deleted. It does not say anything important. Many networks have been playing images of the conflict in "grisly" detail such as CNN and the BCC but this has not been deemed noteworthy. Also, the same goes for logos about the conflict. Most importantly though, Arab is vague and does not represent any Arab nation or political group. The only media group even mentioned is Al-Jazeera which has no cited connection to any so-called public relations campaign. Please delete this subheading. Cishaurim ( talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a separate section for "others"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Hamas sources told The Jerusalem Post that members of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were participating in the fighting against the IDF..." - shouldn't we add them to the Belligerents section in the table? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no reference provided for this assertion. The belligerent list on the Palestinian side lists a slew of organizations without any citations. They should all be removed leaving Hamas as the only confirmed, widely and publicly recognized combatant fighting the Israeli forces in Gaza unless multiple sources can indicate that this is not the case.
Thrylos000 ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The following pictures seems to me like White Phosphorus munitions...but I am no expert on this so can anyone please confirm this so that the use of this controversial weapon can be recorded in the article. Here are the pictures:
Badkhan ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
They look like WP to me (though im no authority). What I really wanted to add was that explosions of this type were ongoing early on before the ground offensive. So maybe an issue for further study. Superpie ( talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I found the following sources report it:
Are all of the above sources are non-notable? VR talk 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen, give the information on this matter, not getting into legallity issues, and also include the past claims from the Lebanon war with Israel. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 ( talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: âIf white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.â The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus, but refused to say what had been deployed. âIsrael uses munitions that are allowed for under international law,â said Captain Ishai David, spokesman for the Israel Defence Forces. âWe are pressing ahead with the second stage of operations, entering troops in the Gaza Strip to seize areas from which rockets are being launched into Israel.â
Interesting context to Israel's possible use of WP in an anti-personnel capacity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/17/israel1 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-doctors-encounter-unexplained-injuries-414593.html
These incidents are relevant to any discussion of Israel's use of WP or other chemical weapons in the current conflict and can be mentioned with something like: "Israel has previously been suspected of using WP or other chemical weapons as part of their military operations in Gaza. Notably, medical personnel reported deep burn injuries, previously unseen in any Palestinian casualties, that appeared to be caused by chemical weapons among many injured palestinians during an Israeli military operation in Gaza during 2006." or something along those lines
Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A: Who did this? B: Why was it removed? C: Can somebody tell me why the OIC is considered irrelevant to comment upon the conflict when the African Union... Is?
If nobody can tell me why, I will re-add the information as I view it as an important and relevant aspect to the international response to the conflict. Superpie ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To my amazement, all of below statements was deleted in one huge edit! caliming it's not related to operation cast lead:
I really want to assume good faith, but how can I seeing all 9 facts criticizing Israeli actions got deleted in one edit claiming that it's not related!? -- Darwish07 ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it's addressed in this topic, I'll put it here. It seems that a couple ambulance strikes are being confused with each other. According to AP, the Al-Awda ambulance was one strike by a shell, and the ambulance today was a separate attack. Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD95GNHK80 <-- Right now, I have edited the article so that both ambulance attacks occurred on January 5th. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then please move it there. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then it does not appear that two ambulances were attacked on the 5th.
FFLaguna (
talk)
18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
My most sincere apologies. I was referring to the source of an older draft, and accidentally hit "Save page" instead of "Cancel." I guess I didn't realize until just now that I did that. Again, I am sorry. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of today, Jan 5th, 22:30 UTC, it seems that the content is fair and balanced, stating the facts of what has happened. Hopefully, we can keep the article unbiased. ( Ricgal ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archiveurl=
value (
help)
bbc7801662
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | 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 1 | â | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | â | Archive 10 |
the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source [1] , we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. -- 217.132.189.80 ( talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
can someone add it to the table? here is the source [2] âPreceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 ( talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would, but the site you indicate, does not mention such information. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct sources are Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post I have added them. Debresser ( talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The photo for the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the article in Rmallah in West Bank not in Gaza, Please can some one add that-- 84.13.120.243 ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
We have to get a grip on the introduction. It is going from bad to worse. It now reads like a pice of Israeli propaganda. Almost all mention of the fact that there have been significant civilian casualties in Gaza - which is one of the most important aspects of this conflict - have been removed. I have just reinstated mention of the first day casualties but there is systematic editing of it going on, so that will probably be removed before long.
The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.
Could even suggest that the Israeli government has been editing the article (after all, it is known that the CIA edits wikipedia)!
I suggest that an intro is agreed here, possibly based on the version from a couple of days ago. Agree it here, agree any subsequent changes here and if people edit the intro without discussion, agree that such edits should be immediately undone.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been edited too much. Editors are editing and reversing it faster and faster. Why not limit the editing of this article and update every 24 hours (or 12, 36 etc.)or after a major event? I think neutrality and stability is more important than timeliness, especially when this article is EXTREMELY sensitive. Also this seems to be the only way to stop an assumed-not-neutral edit (i.e. editors from the belligerents) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Zhieaanm ( talk ⢠contribs) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the "man holding a civilian injured by the airstrikes" picture a bit too much? It clearly shows blood and is quite 'horrifying'. Maybe that wasn't the uploader's intention , yet I still believe that the article doesn't benefit from those kinds of pictures. either way, I suggest that the picture be removed. What do you think? That'll be much better than using an Israeli wounded picture as a counter-weight, as some would probably suggest.-- 212.235.85.149 ( talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
91.105.255.98, You may disagree but unless they are free pics they cannot be posted.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No surprise, the "Alleged violations of international law" section has been the subject of much editing recently. One recent edit has quoted Falk in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. Let me clarify something right off the bat: I am in no way objected to quoting Falk as a WP:RS. But I do have several objections to the way he is quoted:
While we're at it, there's one man who's quoted as saying Israel has used fuel bombs and depleted uranium. I'm removing the reference until there's some sort of serious substantiation. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge Black Saturday massacre into 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict, it is a short article with little information, and I'm sure some in Israel would object to the title's neutrality. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Grassfire ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Its been done already as Black Saturday massacre title is one sided and thus POV-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless an online petition receives serious media coverage it is not notable enough to be in this article, please move it to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I have left the current one in there for now, hoping someone will come up with some independent sources. VR talk 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If it is notable enough to mention violent protests in London, Greece etc, why can't we mention that a Palestinian man was shot dead during these violent protests. I don't understand why this fact was removed? VR talk 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct link is [ [3]]
The death of this man should be mentioned in the main article. The shooting dead of a protester is extremely notable. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Extremely notable? Why is that I wonder?-- 209.213.220.227 ( talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you are the same one who removed the information on hacked sites previously. I also noticed excessive cutting has already been ascribed to you by other people in this discussion page, section Reactions. Especially without at least putting the information you cut out back on the special page for Civilian Protests. By the way, I appreciate you personally inviting me to this discussion. Debresser ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There was apparently a failed attack on a Chicago synagogue. As much as this attack was disgusting, it was harmless. No one was injured, nor any damage done because the cocktail failed to burn. Additionally, there are no credible sources connecting this attack to the subject of the article. The official of the temple "suspects" that there maybe a relationship, but clearly isn't sure. No officials or policemen have made any comments to that end.
In a time when the article has gotten too long, it would help that we limit it to events that are for sure connected to the subject, not those that may possibly be. Please also note, that the section on reactions has been so severely cut down that it doesn't mention the official reactions by individual countries, nor all of the protests that have occurred. Clearly brevity is of paramount significance here. VR talk 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the picture of the Palestinian man carrying a maimed bombing victim has been deleted and a picture of Qassam rocket damage has been added. Even as a supporter of the Gazans I think it would be right to show pictures of casualities on both sides. Given that casualties on the Gazan side are over 100 times greater it is obviously giving undue weight to the Israeli perspective to bias the picture count 100% towards Israeili suffering. I also think we have some extremely partisan editors sympathetic to the Zionist side making blatantly biased edits.
Pictures were removed because they were copyright violations. If non-copy-vio pictures from Gaza are found, I will defend and uphold their inclusion, provided they have appropriate quality. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Will no one quote Bush as saying "Hamas should stop bombing Israel" while there are 500 Palestinian casualties and only 5 Israeli? -- 193.188.105.220 ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This has been moved to a seperate article. I have suggested below that the US be listed on the Involved Parties section in the main article. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why should the US be listed in involved parties? Then we would have to list Iran, Syria, Russia, UK, France etc. Does the US have troops on the ground? Are its planes bombing anyone? Are its ships shelling anybody? Where is the proof?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Previously "Any Palestinian 'executions' are a internal matter, not part of the conflict"
Therefore the apparent executions have no place in the casualties info box. Just as traitors executed during any historical war would not (I believe) have been added to the military deathcount.
Agreed? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently numbers only matter if they are not for the Israelis or their allies.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If these executions have anything to do with the hostilities, as e.g. when the reason would be presumed collaboration with Israel, they ipso facto are related and could and should be mentioned. Of course it would not do to mention them as casualties of the hostilities, but the fact should be mentioned somewhere.
I fail to see why Israeli newspapers would not be considered valid sources on this or any other information. The way
Al Ameer son dismisses them strikes me as an argument to accuse him of being biassed more than aforementioned newspapers.
Debresser (
talk)
23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is. After all it bankrolls Israel, supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to this operation. Therefore the American reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.
If America told Israel to stop this attack, it would do so.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I now see someone else has done just this. However surely it should be agreed here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Therefore Iran bankrolls Hamas (and Hezbollah), supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore the Iranian reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
AND, just to drag this out to its logical conclusion:
" UNSC Membership in 2009
The Council is composed of five permanent members â China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States â and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end): Austria (2010), Japan (2010), Uganda (2010), Burkina Faso (2009), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009), Viet Nam (2009), Costa Rica (2009), Mexico (2010), Croatia (2009), and Turkey (2010). They have all made statements and condemnations. So they should all be listed as involved parties too. -- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow that members of the Security Council are 'involved parties'. However I take your point that Iran is. So perhaps IRan and America under Involved PArties then? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How about neither as neither one is directly involved in the current combat operations. Or do you know something we don't?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well technically egypt is not involved in combat operations, however it remains an involved party. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have scaled down the size of the reactions section. This article has become huge. More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities. Including every one of them will make this article very big. Also, let's keep the cyber-warfare to a minimum as well. Just because a website, or online petition publishes something doesn't mean its notable until is is covered by news media, and/or independent sources. Cheers. VR talk 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Attacks on websites are indeed notable, and that is why they were mentioned. However, we need to explain them in proportion. For example in this edit, 393 characters explain the website attacks, while the reference to a Palestinian man bieng shot dead (far more notable) in 87 characters was removed. This seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. VR talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How about:
Protesters in London, Paris, Oslo, and other cities clashed with the police. [3] [4] [5] There were attacks against Jews and Israelis, as well as defacings of Israeli websites. [6] [7] which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict. [8] [9] One Palestinian man was shot dead during a protest. [10]
Is that good? VR talk 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see my reaction on your talk page, that this phrasing is faulted. Apart from that I would like to point out that the hacking of 300 websites is perhaps less tragic than the death of a person, but will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people, and is therefore far mor noticable. Debresser ( talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks for shortening the hackers. I also think that all the violent events should be mentioned together. This includes both attacks on Jews, and the killing of the Palestinian man. VR talk 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. It tells the reader that a long list of countries called for peace: It reminds me of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace". I tried to introduce real SUBSTANTIVE information into this section, but, of course, my efforts were blocked and the information was removed. So now we have nothing. What a waste of time. NonZionist ( talk) 08:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iran featured so prominently in the section currently? The Iranian part, including its leader Khamanei and ally Sistani, are given more space than Israel itself!
Also Egyptian reaction which accuses Israel of "savage aggression" is quoted twice (once in the second paragraph, and once under "involved parties"). May I ask why? VR talk 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following from the Civilian Protests section, someone keeps putting it back:
An online petition, claiming 25,494 signatories as of January 4th, called for the "Proclamation for Solidarity with Israel and the Christians in the Gaza Strip" through the American Center for Law and Justice; [11] its representatives have met with Israeli officials in Ashkelon. [12]
Please find an RS for this, ACLJ can't be an RS for itself. Also is not technically a civilian protest, so should probably be in another section.
The format at one point was 27 December 2008. I understand that this is an official format but in the table of contents it seems impossible to read when it says "3.1 27 December 2008". That just looks very sloppy. Is there any other format that we can use such as "December 27 2008" so that it looks like "3.1 December 27, 2008"? This is much easier to read. I am also thinking that this conflict will be going on much longer than others expect. If this continues to go on, what will we do about the Development section. It is already starting to get very long. Coreywalters06
I personally use the format 2008Dec27. This is clearly _one_ item, not three, and is easily time-sequenced. Johnbibby ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)::::
Is Hamas a reliable source? Consider it in the context of the following claims:
Should we treat these as facts? VR talk 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
See Pallywood-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Hamas takes part of a longstanding tradition of exagerating. See e.g. the 'Casualities' section on this page, where Hamas claims to have killed 9 Israeli soldiers, whereas all other sources so far (the better part of a day later) mention only one Israeli soldier as having been killed. This is a reality we should be aware of. Debresser ( talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Pallywood must be deleted from the 'See Also' section. This is clearly a blatant and trite POV addition designed to imply media bias against Israel in the coverage of the offensive. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 ( talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Media bias against Israel? I am stunned!!!-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone. The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I simply don't think Weiner and Bell have credible opinions, in that they are not definitely unbiased, and from what I've seen, their opinions are very different to most people on these issues.
Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has to take the award as one of the worst written, most POV, most inaccurate and misleading articles in wiki. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to submit this short AP article which I think has relevant content to be added to the "humanitarian crisis" sections.
"Paltel Group says 90% of Gaza's cellular service is down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iv4xv2KNWjkm8Ixw60eD52Va5zTw âPreceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 ( talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Minor detail!? 90% of their ability communicate with the outside world is down? We should impose to add a "communications breakdown" section to the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" list.. -- 69.217.126.175 ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think these edits are inappropriate. For one the user deletes the Israeli strength. He also quotes "haaretz.com" as a source for 60 wounded Israelis. I think we need to quote specific articles, and not simply the publisher. VR talk 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this standard? It seems unusual to me. 206.116.188.187 ( talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Policemen are not civilians, but effort should be made to distinguish them in the mostcase from Hamas security forces. In my view. Superpie ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The hair-splitting over who and who is not a "civilian" is a diversion from the real issue: Who is and is not the aggressor, and who is the victim. The political views, party affiliation and employer of the victim are all irrelevant. International law gives the victim the right of self-defense and the right to resist occupation. The victim who exercises these moral rights is still a victim: He fights or resists ONLY because the aggressor or occupier gives him no choice. In the Nuremberg Trials, AGGRESSION was declared the cardinal sin, not self-defense, not militancy! If Palestine were invading Israel, Palestine would be the aggressor and Israelis who defend themselves would not lose their civilian status by doing so. By the same standard, Palestinians do not lose their civilian status when they try to defend against Israeli aggression. If someone breaks into my house, the moral high-ground rests with me, whether or not I attempt to fight back. Only in the Kafkesque world of the ideologue is the defender condemned as a "terrorist" and the aggressor hailed as an "innocent". I would provide no untenable artificial subcounts. NonZionist ( talk) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
We had this discussion before, and I seem to remember somebody pointed out, that we will have to abide by the information of the pertaining sources. No other way is technically possible or allowed within the rules of Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
BBC has published an article discussing this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm
It asks whether 40 police recruits killed on the 27th should not be counted as civilians. They are not soldiers, after all. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The introduction reads "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.[15]". However, this is what Israel claims its motivation is. In a neutral article, the viewpoint of Hamas and others should be stated as well. So I propose the following addition, immediately after this sentence.
"However, Hamas disputes this, asserting [9] that this is a continuation of "Israeli crimes against Palestinians", while others state [10] that the rocket attacks by Hamas were preceded by Israeli raids in Gaza.
Please comment. Jacob2718 ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Offliner. In the current version, Israel explanation for its actions is stated unquestioningly. Neutrality demands that Hamas's position be included there. Alternately, we could remove Israel's justification from the introduction. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not that it's mentioned questioningly or unquestioningly as long as it's mentioned. The matter of whether the Qassam rockets can be taken as a proper motivation of the attack is left to the critical ability of the reader. However, it's clear to me that the introduction is not very well-written, is somehow redundant, and most importantly is far from being balanced with regard to presenting both parties' rationale behind their acts, either it be launching this massive attack on the Gaza strip or keeping on launching the rockets towards the southern Israelian cities. Like said by Jacob and Offliner the Israelian explanation is very well laid out (mentioned three times only in the introduction?) whereas the Hamas justification is only touched upon very briefly. Hamas stand is certainly not to be included in what the "others think"... Hamas is as involved in the "conflict" as Israel is, i.e., It's the other party! You either touch brifly upon the two stands or eliminate both from the introduction. 94.99.58.164 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, my only issue with the truce, is length, it is very important contextually, and the background section shoudl expand on it. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that after opposing the "cast lead" title, the article non the less ascribe the start of the conflict to the operation, rather than the previous days of hamas bombardment of civilian population. either the article is about the operation rather than the conflict as a whole, in which case the title should reflect this, or the article is about the conflict as a whole, in which case the into, specifically the 2nd sentence
The conflict began with a series of air strikes by Israel in Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008
should be reworded to reflect this. -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm "Israel has tried to take the initiative in the propaganda war over Gaza but, in one important instance, its version has been seriously challenged." I suggest this gets added to "Public relations campaign and media strategies" section âPreceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 ( talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
See Pallywood-- 173.49.55.18 ( talk) 11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox should we mention both parties' total strength, or only that deployed? For example given the Israeli navy and air force took part, should be describe its total number of aircraft and naval vessels? What about describing total number of Hamas militants? VR talk 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
â | BEFORE YOU MODIFY THIS INTRO
PLEASE READ THE APPROPRIATE POLICIES REGARDING INTRODUCTION "Wikipedia:Lead section" ALSO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS IN THE TALK PAGE AROUND THIS INTRO PLEASE DO NOT ADD MATERIAL THAT BELONGS ELSEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE THIS SHOULD SUMMARISE THE ARTICLE CONTENTS, NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE ARTICLE. AGAIN THIS IS INTRO HAS BEEN WIDELY DISCUSSED, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, YOU WILL BE REVERTED. IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD CHANGE HAVE THE DECENCY AND COMMON SENSE TO TRY AND REACH CONSENSUS INSTEAD OF BEING A VANDAL. |
â |
I was wondering if we could find a more appropriate wording for it. For instance, "being a vandal" would imply bad-faith contributions, and could be seen as offensive to some newer editors on the project.
And as a side note, the lead section is quite lengthy. I suggest reducing it to 3 paragraphs for the time being. Master&Expert ( Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The people of Gaza have my sympathies and my respect for going through the inconceivable challenges that face them. Nevertheless, it is important to look critically at the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" section:
I will await either comment or prolonged lack of response before I edit. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to express my opinion that you raise valid considerations. Specifically, #1 the blockade of Gaza should not be considered a part of the present hostilities, #2 short mention should be made of the mental consequences for Israelis and Palestinians both, #3 the whole subject of cash seems to me to be not directly pertaining to the hostilities. Debresser ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" should simply be its own article. Some may state that Gaza has had a humanitarian crisis for some time, although its certainly worse now. As there are obviously numerous contributing factors outside the military conflict, this might justify its own article. As a section on this page it will only grow larger, and will likely continue after this current military conflict has ended. Harley peters ( talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Saepe, if there's anything stupid in this paragraph, you can blame me :). My reply to your points:
Hi Again :). To address the concerns mentioned here, I've transformed the section from "Panic and Vulnerability" to "Shelter" and removed the statements that no longer fit. Now the section discusses only the sheltering problems faced by people on Gaza. Thanks. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to add that according to the IDF, there are over 50 trucks of international humanitarian aid entering Gaza on a daily basis. Unlike Hamas' and radical Islamist propaganda, IDF does not lie. They don't make up figures or state facts like these, when they aren't true. IDF hides information, but doesn't make up information. I didn't see it written anywhere. There are reports also (need to find sources) that Hamas are not allowing injured people to be sent to hospitals in Egypt and Israel (according to Egyptian foreign minister), and some of the humanitarian aid truck are not reaching their destination, AFTER they cross into Gaza. If anyone has sources, please check this info, because if it's true, all this "humanitarian aid" is a crusade against Israel. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 07:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's just sum up the the humanitarian crisis of both Gaza and Israel in the same section.21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that a new article should be made focusing on the Humanitarian situation in Gaza, but mainly because I believe that the Humanitarian Sitation is not directly linked to the 2008-2009 conflict. While the conflict is aggravating the situation, the issues run far deeper. A new article can be linked to the Conflict article but should also discuss issues such as Overcrowding, Lack of infastructure, (and at risk of taking a lot of heat for saying this) the reigon is governed by a listed terrorist organization which has shown blatant disregard for its population by not providing for them as a governent should as well as going so far to use them as human shields. The poor conditions in Gaza should not be spoken about for a soley external standpoint (one citing Israel as the cause for the crisis) but rather in its own article from an internal standpoint that would briefly mention the conflict with Israel (in an unbiased manner of course). ( Relidc ( talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
Surely Livni's comments should be in the lead? See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052302.html After all this sums up Israel's attitude to the humanitarian situation.
I notice that all mention of the problems facing ordinaryGazans have been removed from the lead. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of civilian protests around the world were and are pro-palestinian. However, there were quite a few "counter-demonstrations" (pro-Israeli ones). Why don't we mention them? Just to list a few I found in a quick serach in google and google-news:
Thanks, -- Omrim ( talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On the water crisis section, and after stating the reported UN figures about the water cuts, User:Manitobamountie added]:
These population numbers may be misleading, since, prior to the conflict, a large number of Palestinians were without adequate safe drinking water, because Palestine has the least available water supply per capita in a region that is poorly supplied with safe drinking water.
This will be deleted cause:
-- Darwish07 ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(Not directly related to article content)
I feel quite a few ongoing discussions have been archived without a consensus or decision being reached. If this is being done automatically can the settings be changed? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk ⢠contribs) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The source used for this claim never states nor gives evidence whatsoever to the aforementioned claim. Else I'd question the relevance of this assertion. 189.141.63.87 ( talk) 10:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The assessment goes back to one made by The International Institute for Strategic Studies.See
This against the 'natives' with their complex technology of making rockets out of lampposts. Nishidani ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Hamas is using 120mm mortars, and Russian designed Grad, and Improved Grad rockets Proteus7 ( talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently section 3's subsections are listed with date in the Day/Month/Year format (eg. "31 December 2008"), but may be misleading in the ToC because right before day there is a number representing the subsection. I.e.,
3 Development
ââ3.1 27 December 2008ââ3.2 28 December 2008ââ3.3 29 December 2008ââââ3.3.1 Dignity incidentââ3.4 30 December 2008ââ3.5 31 December 2008ââ3.6 1 January 2009ââ3.7 2 January 2009ââ3.8 3 January 2009ââ3.9 4 January 2009ââ3.10 5 January 2009
I suggest we use the Month Day, year format, eg. "December 31st 2008"--KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How bout you leave it alone as the subsectioning is known as Wikiformatting?-- 173.49.55.18 ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Any objection to giving the number of Israeli casualties in the intro, following the number of Palestinian casualties? Phersu ( talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have content objection, I have a stylistic objection. The intro is almost as long as it, I would remove both. But if one is put, its fair to put the other. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd have thought the one thing which DOES belong in the intro is the number of casualties... still having trouble finding a definitive figure for Israeli casualties though. Thanks. Phersu ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The time and location of the conflict and the motivations behind it are more relevant than casualities in terms of what gets into the lead. If all those are included and the lead still isn't long enough the casualties could be added... But given the complexity of this conflict I imagine that even such a minimalist lead would be a bit long. Kari Hazzard ( T | C) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. It seems to me that casualty figures are crucial in any intro about a military conflict involving substantial loss of life. Still finding conflicting figures about Israeli deaths though (Jerusalem Post says two soldiers and three civilians, which contradicts other reports. Anyone have the definitive number?) Phersu ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, someone removed the injured Israeli civilians in the info-box. I added it back, but I can't seem to find the source currently (and I don't have the time to look for it, I really gotta go now). I added it back. Also, someone removed one soldier casualty there, so it was 4 casualties (1 soldier, 3 civs). I added the correct number and added a reference. Whoever made this change, please, don't. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It may say five killed, but it doesn't mention two soldiers. All sources agree only one soldier has been killed. Please don't change that again. Especially since in the subsection on Casualties you DO get it right. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It was just cleared for publication that another soldier was killed during an operation in the north of the Gaza Strip. I see that the infobox was already updated. -NomĂŚd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This section is in need of serious attention. The two subheadings currently read, "Israel" and "Arab" which sounds quite awkward. Second, its not clear that the "Arab" subheading contains any notable information. The media focuses on large scale casualties and this, in my opinion, is not notable. For example, the page on | September 11, with good reason, does not carry any mention of how the US media played footage of the attacks throughout the day. I think the section on Israel can stand on its own, because as the sources in this section point out, the Israeli government seems to have launched a concerted public relations effort. There is nothing equivalent from the other side which is why the "Arab" section seems a bit forced. I suggest we remove it altogether unless something more substantive turns up. Jacob2718 ( talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Arab subheading should be deleted. It does not say anything important. Many networks have been playing images of the conflict in "grisly" detail such as CNN and the BCC but this has not been deemed noteworthy. Also, the same goes for logos about the conflict. Most importantly though, Arab is vague and does not represent any Arab nation or political group. The only media group even mentioned is Al-Jazeera which has no cited connection to any so-called public relations campaign. Please delete this subheading. Cishaurim ( talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a separate section for "others"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Hamas sources told The Jerusalem Post that members of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were participating in the fighting against the IDF..." - shouldn't we add them to the Belligerents section in the table? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no reference provided for this assertion. The belligerent list on the Palestinian side lists a slew of organizations without any citations. They should all be removed leaving Hamas as the only confirmed, widely and publicly recognized combatant fighting the Israeli forces in Gaza unless multiple sources can indicate that this is not the case.
Thrylos000 ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The following pictures seems to me like White Phosphorus munitions...but I am no expert on this so can anyone please confirm this so that the use of this controversial weapon can be recorded in the article. Here are the pictures:
Badkhan ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
They look like WP to me (though im no authority). What I really wanted to add was that explosions of this type were ongoing early on before the ground offensive. So maybe an issue for further study. Superpie ( talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I found the following sources report it:
Are all of the above sources are non-notable? VR talk 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen, give the information on this matter, not getting into legallity issues, and also include the past claims from the Lebanon war with Israel. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 ( talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: âIf white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.â The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus, but refused to say what had been deployed. âIsrael uses munitions that are allowed for under international law,â said Captain Ishai David, spokesman for the Israel Defence Forces. âWe are pressing ahead with the second stage of operations, entering troops in the Gaza Strip to seize areas from which rockets are being launched into Israel.â
Interesting context to Israel's possible use of WP in an anti-personnel capacity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/17/israel1 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-doctors-encounter-unexplained-injuries-414593.html
These incidents are relevant to any discussion of Israel's use of WP or other chemical weapons in the current conflict and can be mentioned with something like: "Israel has previously been suspected of using WP or other chemical weapons as part of their military operations in Gaza. Notably, medical personnel reported deep burn injuries, previously unseen in any Palestinian casualties, that appeared to be caused by chemical weapons among many injured palestinians during an Israeli military operation in Gaza during 2006." or something along those lines
Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A: Who did this? B: Why was it removed? C: Can somebody tell me why the OIC is considered irrelevant to comment upon the conflict when the African Union... Is?
If nobody can tell me why, I will re-add the information as I view it as an important and relevant aspect to the international response to the conflict. Superpie ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To my amazement, all of below statements was deleted in one huge edit! caliming it's not related to operation cast lead:
I really want to assume good faith, but how can I seeing all 9 facts criticizing Israeli actions got deleted in one edit claiming that it's not related!? -- Darwish07 ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it's addressed in this topic, I'll put it here. It seems that a couple ambulance strikes are being confused with each other. According to AP, the Al-Awda ambulance was one strike by a shell, and the ambulance today was a separate attack. Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD95GNHK80 <-- Right now, I have edited the article so that both ambulance attacks occurred on January 5th. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then please move it there. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then it does not appear that two ambulances were attacked on the 5th.
FFLaguna (
talk)
18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
My most sincere apologies. I was referring to the source of an older draft, and accidentally hit "Save page" instead of "Cancel." I guess I didn't realize until just now that I did that. Again, I am sorry. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of today, Jan 5th, 22:30 UTC, it seems that the content is fair and balanced, stating the facts of what has happened. Hopefully, we can keep the article unbiased. ( Ricgal ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archiveurl=
value (
help)
bbc7801662
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)