This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al-Fakhura school incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
It's most likely that some people will judge al-Fakhura school massacre to be a POV title. Let's see.
wiktionary:massacre says "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people."
There does not seem to be a dispute about the killing being intentional. The UNRWA had given GPS coordinates of its schools to the IDF, and the IDF initially claimed that mortars had been fired from the school. This seems to say that the IDF agrees that it deliberately fired shells at the school.
Was the killing "under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people"? Is killing people in a school who are sheltering from the conflict "atrocious or cruel"? That's probably subjective, even if it's common sense to most people. The third or condition is potentially more objective. Probably the closest thing to codifying "the usages of civilized people" is public international law such as the Geneva Conventions, which clearly protects civilians, especially those who deliberately try to get out of the way of the security forces fighting each other. However, the case has not yet been tried in an international court, so WP:NPOV would probably be used to say that the civilized or uncivilized nature of the attack is not a fact, it's two versions of a fact by different reliable sources. Does someone have an Israeli (or other) source claiming, after the admittance that no mortars had been fired from the building (see ref in article), that the attack was legal?
Also, there's the question of whether or not the term "al-Fakhura school massacre" (with the various roman spellings such as al-Fakhura, al-Fakhoura, Fakhura, Fakhoura and maybe others) is the term widely used in the world about the event.
In any case, i suggest we try to have a civilised method of choosing a new title once there are enough people interested in working on the article in order to discuss a title change. Depending on whether you have a good suggestion of a title or if you think a discussion should start while looking for a good candidate, then use Template:Move or Template:Moveoptions. Boud ( talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Princeton Univ. defines massacre as to "kill a large number of people indiscriminately". I think this fits that description. Keep the title. There is nothing that's not neutral about calling something what it is.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Tkalisky changed the title from al-Fakhura school massacre to al-Fakhura school strike without participating in the discussion here on the talk page. S/he commented: "(moved Al-Fakhura school massacre to Al-Fakhura school strike: According to Israel Hamas militants were firing on IDF soldiers from near the school. Strike part of fighting and not "Deliberately killing unarmed civilians".)"
i don't really follow the argument. Being "part of fighting" is not an argument against the killing being deliberate, and it is not an argument against the victims being unarmed civilians. A massacre can be one incident as part of a larger war.
The IDF only seems to argue that the killing was justified, i.e. that it was justified to kill 42 people in order to kill 2 Gazan troops allegedly present "within" or near(?) the school. We could say that this invalidates the third or condition in the wiktionary definition above, since they claim that killing 42 people is justified in order to kill two Gazan troops, i.e. that killing 42 people in order to kill 2 is "consistent with the usages of civilized people".
However, the IDF doesn't argue (in any of the statements we have included so far, it seems to me) that the killing was accidental, only that it was a civilised killing, making it not a massacre. Is that what you're trying to say, that the IDF claims that this was a civilised killing? Boud ( talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Al-Fakhura school strike is a ridiculous title. If people won't accept "massacre" (despite what most of the world thinks about it), then I propose we use the bland and inoffensive term "incident".
So what do people think of Al-Fakhura school incident? Tiamut talk 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We should think about moving the article to "Al-Fakhura school attack". I think attack conveys what occurred without being controversial. The use of incident is ridiculous and can mean anything from a fistfight to something as trivial as someone wetting his bed. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If the school was not actually attacked, which Ging and Gunness and the UN have finally confessed is the truth, why is there any discussion of calling it the Al-Fakhura school anything? If anything it should be something like "Sample Attack/Incident Against/Involving A Hamas Mortar Team Firing From A Civilian Occupied Area", as that is what the incident was, and note the proximity of the school in a subheading as with the collateral damage of the fighting in any built up area. Calling it an anything related to the school when it is clearly established otherwise is incorrect, biased, and inflammatory. 67.87.86.250 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC).
Please list NPOV issues here. Boud ( talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV notice was placed on 9 January when the article was much shorter by User:Chesdovi. Template:POV states that:
So Chesdovi, it would be helpful if you could promptly begin a discussion if you still think there are POV problems with the present article. Otherwise, "any editor" may remove the tag. Boud ( talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox had "(According to Israel at least 2 Hamas militants)". i added ((citation needed)). Jmundo removed both of these saying "(infobox is not a place for details, just numbers.)".
Jmundo, i assume your point is that if someone wants to restore this, then it should first be included, properly referenced in the main text, including the various POVs, and then only a very compact summary (with repeat references) should go in the infobox. If that's what you mean, then it seems reasonable to me. Boud ( talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In this edit, Tkalisky removed the section "Role in wider conflict" stating, "Premature analysis (lets wait a day or two before jumping to conclusions)". i have restored it.
Whether or not the analyses are premature are not for wikipedians to judge. Three mainstream news media, two biased towards the United States POV, and one biased towards the Qatar POV, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and al Jazeera, and the British Foreign Minister David Miliband each made statements regarding the role of the Al-Fakhura school bombing in the wider context. The conclusions are not the conclusions of wikipedians, they are the conclusions of very mainstream reliable sources. Whether or not their statements are correct or not is their responsibility, not ours.
This section is somewhat POV at the moment in the sense that we do not have any statement by government and non-government groups from the Gaza Strip regarding how they see the role of the al-Fakhura incident with respect to the wider conflict. Can someone find such a statement? That would help NPOV the section. Boud ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In these edits, Tkalisky removed the Legal actions section title. i have reverted it.
Most of us live in countries where there are national legal systems, which have strong effects on dealing with conflict, especially regarding violent conflict. Surely legal actions related to this violent incident are of a quite different nature to general statements of condemnation which politicians make. This gives a natural structure to the section. More structure makes it easier for the reader than having an unstructured list of many paragraphs. Boud ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the statement is a little bit awkward because given what al-Jazeera paraphrases and quotes, he seems to be saying he recommends that all claims, both by Israel and by Gaza, would be part of what the UNSC should request the ICC to investigate. However, it doesn't quite say that literally. Taken very literally, he seems to be saying that only the Israeli claim that there were gunmen in the school should be investigated, and not the killings of the 40 or so people among the 350 or so who had sheltered at the school. Maybe the wording i suggested should be replaced by a quote, but i was trying to be compact. Any ideas? Boud ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the fact that the Israeli embassy was told to leave since according to the sources it does not seem directly in response to the school strike. Best. Tkalisky ( talk) 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless i missed something, none of the sources refered to in the infobx says that ALL casualites were civilians. Unless I am wrong (correct me if I am), we should delete this word and add what we do know (for ex. "including women and children")-- Omrim ( talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that original research? Many of the people were killed outside the school from shrapnel (most sources report that). Also, many sources report that militants were nearby. So even if not letting militants in the school, those outside may still be militants. I see no source (not even a Palestinian one) saying that all the dead in the incident were civilians. The fact that UNRWA dosen't let militants in the school is irrelevant for this issue for two reasons: 1) you interpret that if no militants were let in, all of the dead are civilians. You can't do that in Wiki, you can't "logically interpret" sources. You cite what is in the sources - and that UNRWA said there were no militants inside is already noted in the article. Let readers interpret that fact as they will. You can't do that for them 2) Even if you were allowed to interpret the source, your interpretation is wrong since many were killed outside the school, so the fact that militants were not allowed in the school makes your argument totaly flawed logically. Militants may have well been killed outside the school from shrapnel as many others have. I am sorry, unless I see a source specifically states that all those killed (and not those allowed or not allowed in the school) are civilians or at least "not militants" I will remove the word civilians again.-- Omrim ( talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"Chronology" means a time-ordered series of events. For example, 10:00, 10:30, 10:45, 11:15, etc.
We don't have actual times of events, but based on the various claims, it's not hard to put them into chronological order. The 350 people who sheltered did so before the other parts of the event. Their nature as civilians only or as civilians plus two Palestinian security forces is relevant before any possible mortar firing "from within" or "from" or "from near" the school, since the security forces could not fire the mortars from the school if they were not yet in the school. Then there is the possible firing of mortars from "within"/""/"near" the school which may or may not have occurred. Then there is the attack by Israeli security forces against the school. Then there is the possible recovery of bodies of Palestinian security forces by the Israeli security forces.
Doesn't this seem chronologically correct and NPOV? Boud ( talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Tomtom9041, please discuss any moves in this discussion page. Wikipedia is about consensus. -- Jmundo ( talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton on consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom9041 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, Jun 1, 2005
This article gives disproportionate weight to the Israeli government position on this incident. It also fails to mention the heavy international dondemnation that this attack and others like it have incurred. I'm going to try to address these issues shortly, but if others have ideas on how to proceed, they are welcome. Tiamut talk 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I added information about the Israeli story -- the four different versions. However, I'm not satisfied with the position of the section in the article. It ended up at the beginning, because that is where the sentence it replaces was located. The sentence gave the initial Israeli claim, but not the subsequent claims and retractions. I will move the information, put it after the "Description", and integrate it with the "Israel" section. NonZionist ( talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the Haaretz article where UNRWA spokemans Chris Gunness claims the IDF has acknowledged the school was attacked in error, it seems that the UN is changing its story too, as well as creating a direct conflict between Gunness' admission that the school was taken over by "militants" in 2007 and Ging's claim that militants were never there. Obviously it would take significant new research to confirm just when the UN abandoned the site, when they became aware it was taken over by militants (if it was before the IDF video was made available), when they reclaimed it from the militants (if ever), why they never altered its status, why they allowed civilians to take refuge in a place they had once abandoned to militants who used it to launch terror attacks, and why they denied militants had ever been present. Barring that, how about a section noting those inconsistencies in the UN story? 67.87.86.250 ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is pretty slipshod about how it records its references, from bare links to other descriptions. It would be a lot more helpful if the citations were made using a certain standard. The Squicks ( talk) 05:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I found some photos relevant to this article as well as for the article on the Israeli assault on Gaza. There are photos of families taking refuge at the school... The photos were taken the same day (likely before) the massacre. Here are the photos [5] [6] [7] [8] They are part of set on Flickr labeled UNICEF. I am assuming these photos were taken from UNICEF but at this point I can't seem to locate the photos on their web site. Anyway, I am asking anyone who has experience in requesting the use of photos from UNICEF or any similar organization to please let me know what the the right route is. Thanks. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the following fact tag: "fact| None of the references indicate that the UN claimed that Israeli artillery landed inside the Fakhoura school; thus no position change. Media reports do not equal UN statements. Until a quotation can be found by a UN official claiming that Israeli fire landed inside the Fakhoura school, this statement should be deleted or modified." The current wording of the article, "the UN reversed position," lends itself to the idea that the UN initially accused Israel of striking inside the school. None of the news articles cited as references quote the UN as making such a claim. Furthermore, I have not found such a claim. The Reuters article states that the victims included women and children who were sheltering at the school. While this wording can imply that the victims were inside the school when they were wounded or killed, it is yet vague enough that it might not be very useful as a reference to the statement "stated that the attack directly hit the school."
The Al Jazeera article appears to contradict itself, stating that the Israei strike hit the school and then immediately referring to a statement by medical sources that the shells landed outside the school. The Toronto Globe and Mail article, which seems to refer to the incorrect school, appears to be a discussion about how headlines can lead to incorrect impressions of the facts and does not contain a quotation from the UN accusing Israel of firing on the school. The Time article states that "the school was hit by bombs," [later "shells" or "mortars"] but not as a quotation of the UN. In order to avoid muddying the same waters that the news media did, the article might need a stronger distinction between direct media claims, implicit media claims, and UN claims.
The Jerusalem Post article clarifies that an error on the UN website, described by the Post as a "clerical error," led to the confusion over UN claims and specified that the UN had not made a verbal claim that Israel struck the school.
The UN press conference report does refer to "air strikes on several clearly marked schools." Again, though, this is not a quotation from a UN official.
It is Israel that made a claim and later retracted it: Israel initially claimed that mlitants had fired on them from within the school compound and later had to retract that claim, a point that is not stated soconsisely in the article.
PinkWorld (
talk)
05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink
I also added a who tag and a dubious tag to the United Nation section. "Some people say" i a weasel phrase; who has criticised Ging needs to be specifie and referenced. The citation of an incident in which three were killed after using the toilet occurred not at al Fakhoura school but at al Asma school - another separate incident. PinkWorld ( talk) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink
The UN didn't backtrack: Why UN 'reversal' over Gaza school should be treated with caution Wodge ( talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
From the very outset, the UN said that the bombing took place outside the school. UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency which administers refugee assistance in Gaza, stuck to that.
John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". This is accurate.
Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency (OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. This error was corrected earlier this month.
Wodge ( talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Or how about this?
Several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school after Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school." Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. The UNRWA called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." UNRWA maintains that from the day of attack that they had said that the wounded were outside of the school compound; adding that the source of the mistake had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations. The organization also pointed out that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself." Also, We could add after that "Jonathan Miller, the Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent, confirmed that the mistake had been caused by OCHA.
Wodge ( talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
New version:
The UN, originally, said that the shelling took place outside the school. John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". [3] Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency ( OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. [4] In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. [5] This error was corrected by Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator, who stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. [6] As a result, several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school [7] Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. [8] Christoper Guiness, an UNRWA spokensman, called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." He pointed out that Ging's statement, which formed the basis for Rabinovitch's argument, was actually in regards to the confirmed attack on another school in which three people were killed, and was made before the Al-Fakhura school incident occurred. The organization also argued that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself. [9]
Wodge ( talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the paragraphs before the UN "backtrack" necessary? I don't know if we need to go CSI on it since all parties involved agree the school was not targeted. Cptnono ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and rewrite the lead. The key point is that people initially thought it was the school that was bombed (while some disagreed) and now everyone admits that it was the street and not the school. The casualties are disputed, given the fog of war
The al-Fakhura School incident refers to events that took place at the United Nations run school of al-Fakhura located in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on January 6, 2009 during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [10] In response to alleged militant gunfire coming from beside the school, the IDF carried out a artillery attack that the UN and several NGOs say killed 42, 41 of them civilians, and that the IDF says killed 12, 9 of them civilians. [11] The attack created a public outcry and prompted condemnation from Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon and others. [12] [13] The response lead to a renewed push for a cease-fire in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [14] [15]
Several news reports initially stated that the attack directly hit the school itself, and that the victims had taken refuge there to escape the fighting between the IDF and Palestinian militants. [16] [14] [13] In the last week of January, the UN reversed position, stating that no deaths occurred within the building itself that and that the rounds struck the street outside the school. [12] It continues to dispute the claim of militant fire coming from the school itself, [17] [13] [12] while stating that militants may have operated close by. [18] Some Palestinian residents have affirmed that Hamas militants fired shells from near the school, [19] [15] [20] while others disagree and say that they saw no such thing. [13]
The IDF initially said that they were responding to mortar shells fired by Hamas militants from the school when they attacked the facility itself. [21] [13] It stated that it found the bodies of Hamas militants in the vicinity of the school after it opened fire, [22] also stating that the militants had booby-trapped the school building with bombs. [23] According to Haaretz, a preliminary investigation by the IDF found that the soldiers who hit the school building itself had targeted the schoolyard beside it instead, and missed. [22] However, later stories stated that the IDF believes that it did not miss, with a spokesperson saying that they "are still sticking by our official position" that the "IDF returned fire to the source". [17] [24] In February, the IDF released a report saying that it had recieved fire from militants in an area beside the school and returned fire to that area. [11]
So this article has not been worked very much since it was revealed that the shells were outside of the school and that there were no casualties inside. I think it would be appropriate to delete about everything but could see reworking it since the initial report adjusted the course of the military operation. Any thoughts? Cptnono ( talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i came to this article to try to find out what actually happened and what the disagreements are about. but in its current state it's hard to make heads or tails of anything. the lead seems ok but the rest of the article is just a random collection of assertions and counter-assertions. sorting these assertions by who said them doesn't help much. one problem is that a lot of the statements are out-of-date but are not identified as such -- for example, all these "this is a dark day in gaza" blah blah statements were made months ago before anyone had any idea of what had happened, but the article doesn't mention this.
overall i think this article is just too long. it needs to be rearranged so that it mostly just says *what* happened and what is disputed, without so many quotes. Benwing ( talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain why CAMERA, a controversial source widely regarded as unreliable in Wikipedia is being used to support the statement "Several people listed as civilians in the PCHR report are claimed by Hamas as its fighters" when that statement already complies with WP:V perfectly well via an uncontroversial RS, Karin Laub at AP ? The last discussion here and previous desicussion suggest great caution in the use of CAMERA as a source. That suggests that when there are alternatives we should use those. I can't see any reason whatsoever to use them here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(removing indentation)
I have to agree with Sean.hoyland here (despite his lack of
WP:AGF). It is important who is a combatant and who isn't because the issue here isn't if Hamas members were killed, but if Hamas members who are combatants are being counted as civilians/non-combatants by PCHR and others. This is why I used the term "operative" in my initial edit, to (try) to make it clear that these are people who were operating in the battlefield rather than an unarmed civilian who happened to be registered somewhere as a Hamas member. To be clear, I don't think membership in Hamas automatically makes one a combatant. I do think that being an active member of an armed force (say, Al Qassam Brigades) who has not surrended or is otherwise out of the fight (not in the sense of eating dinner, but in the sense of being wounded or incarcerated) makes one a combatant, and I think IHL says this both in spirit and in letter, Israeli HCJ rulings notwithstanding (are we going to go on the record here saying that the HCJ is the arbiter of IHL? I doubt it). Have a look at this for example, which is a bit on a tangent but has a definition for combatant.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf
If you have other legal opinions on this I'd be extremely happy to read them. If it doesn't talk specifically about this conflict, even better.
As for CAMERA being a RS, I'm new here. Is ElectronicIntifada a reliable source on facts rather than opinions? How about other "activist/journalist" type sites? Angry Arab? Daniel Pipes?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
07:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Here you go, including Dorit Beinisch advocating changing international law just the other day. D'OH! There are tonnes of refs on this page. Anyway, as you can see it's just the last ones that are relevant to this question. Certainly the HCJ isn't the arbiter of IHL. The reason I like those sources is that they show that even Israel recognises and uses the same categories as IHL and the PCHR. They just play with the interpretation of 'direct part' for their local interpretation. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
reuters-Egyptfloatstruceplan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg-20670001la
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).indep_hundredsrefuge
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).release
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).reuters_fakhura_42dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).time
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aljaz_fakhura_43dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).jpost_denies
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).haaretz_Gunness
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).grief
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).witness
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC_School
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).jpost_unrawschool
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Sean.hoyland - talk 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(indent)
See what I meant? I used the source you suggested, and as I expected, you now say this isn't a good source. Do you have some legal opinions you can provide but won't turn around later and tell me should not be used?
I find the idea one needs to be "actually physically fighting at the time" to be a combatant absurd. The guy planning operations isn't "directly involved" in the hostilities? The guy giving the order to go out and fight? "I am not a combatant anymore! I'm taking a leak! I'm not actually physically fighting at this time! You can shoot at me later when I pick up this rifle I have right next to me, which is still warm from when I was shooting it 5 minutes ago.". Is that how it works?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
I'm not taking anything out of context, you're trying to invent a new context that doesn't exist. HRW specifically says that "Hamas fighters can be targeted". The next sentence obviously talks about police who are not Hamas fighters. This is basic logic and reading comprehension. Moreover, the other HRW article I posted above says "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel". Read carefully. "Play a role in fighting", not "are shooting someone right this instant". This is also supported by the fact that HRW says that the home of a military commander is a legitimate target. He plays a role in fighting, despite probably not shooting at anyone at the time he's at home. So even if you were correct about the context, which you are not, you are misstating what "taking part in hostilities" means.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hamas says 42, Israel says almost zero, and the media goes back and forth. Is there at least a generally-accepted estimate? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In the Responses section, the "Israel" section is three times as long as the "Palestinians" section, and the latter is devoted almost entirely to second-hand reports by journalists alleging that Palestinian civilians who wish to remain anonymous agree with the IDF position that Hamas militants were firing from the building. I don't find anonymous individuals to constitute an WP:RS. Neither do I think its appropriate to use a section that is supposed to express another POV to support that of the Israeli government. I would like to delete almost all the information there and replace it with statements by Palestinian officials on the subject. Any objections? Tiamut talk 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to underline the point, this is how the section currently reads:
Residents of the neighborhood said two brothers who were Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack but that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood.[39] The Israeli military identified the brothers as Imad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker, and said they had been killed.[9] Two unnamed residents, who spoke to an Associated Press reporter by phone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said a group of militants had been firing mortar shells rounds from a street close to the school.[24][28] Jonathan Miller wrote in a Channel 4 story that "local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets - as the IDF claimed - and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school."[40] Additional testimonies from the local residents confirm that militants fired just outside the school compound.[14][15] A Hamas spokesman, Fauzi Barhoun, said initial allegations that Hamas militants had used the school to attack Israeli forces were "baseless".[24]
Tiamut talk 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If the reports are being published by reliable references, then whether the sources are anonymous or not is irrelevant. You are claiming that just because the Israel section is longer than the Palestinian one it is somehow POV? Official statements from Palestinian officials can be found in plenty of reliable sources but they are still treated as statements made by the person and not the newspaper. Just as the millions of statements made by Israeli officials in reliable sources are treated as statements by Israeli officials and not the journalists. The fact that these statements may or may not support the Israeli "narrative" (whatever that means) is totally and completely irrelevant. Just as statements made by Palestinian sources confirming the Hamas/Fatah whatever narrative is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This report by Human Right Watch gives eyewitness statements by people who are identified by name. These arguably have a greater level of reliability or verifiablity than those from anonymous sources. Mouin Gasser, a 45-year-old teacher, said:
"I was walking on the street where the school is located in the Jabaliya refugee camp. I was 15 meters away from the school gate and I saw the people running towards me as soon as the sound of the shelling began. While I was walking I could not distinguish what kind of shelling it was because all of them took place around the same time. There were about four strikes, about a half minute between them. The shells landed just outside the school and one hit an electricity transformer on a pole just outside the school, and the shrapnel from that strike hit the people inside the school. There were different sizes of shrapnel, very sharp pieces of metal, most of them about five centimeters long. The tanks were about two kilometers away to the west in Beit Lahiya. I was offering first aid to the people on the street and at the gate of the school. We did not know how this large number of casualties came about. At the gate of the school there were donkey carts and people were transporting their belongings to the school. I did not see any militants in the area. The shelling did not cause that much damage to the building but it was the first time to see so much shrapnel spreading everywhere."
Shadi Abu Shanar, who worked as a guard at the school and was inside the gate of the school when the attack took place said:
"Suddenly I heard a number of explosions at the gate. I went out onto the street and found dead bodies and wounded people lying on the ground. Most of them were cut into pieces. The street was full of people. I was about to pass out because of what I saw. The shells landed in a range of 20 to 40 meters around the school. The school was full of people."
At the very least, these should be added alongside the anonymous accounts to introduce a modicum of balance until we can find more sources to more adequately represent the Palestinian narrative. I might further note that neither these comments, nor the anonymous comments currently cited consitute "Palestinian responses" to the attack. They are rather eyewitness accounts, which perhaps merit their own section if editors insist that this information is relevant. Tiamut talk 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
→I missed almost the whole day and I see you didn't waste time. If someone was following my posts in the main article, could have seen that the whole HRW report is under serious question and here is why: "But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft". Moreover, those who have basic experience with drones, will realize that those "evidencies" that "saw" or "heard" those drones are disputable at least and erroneous at most. Besides, when the territory is under theocratic totalitarian rule, the most reliable testimonies will come from anonimous men. The contrary is true for open democratic society. Now back to the core of the dispute - it is impossible to know for sure, but they apparently are independable one of another. Several news agencies collected info saying that there were Hamas fighters in the vicinity of the school. Btw, the witnesses are not necessarily anonymous, NY Times: "Witnesses, including Hanan Abu Khajib, 39, said that Hamas fired just outside the school compound, probably from the secluded courtyard of a house across the street, 25 yards from the school". What exceptional source do you want, ICRC? With all my respect, I think the whole discussion is childish and should be dropped. -- Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
→I allowed myself to tinker with it a little. Frankly, Tiamut, you do not have a case to say "evidencies vary". Some didn't see the fighters, but many reports say there were. What do you think the court would say, taking into consideration that the building is not a singular point in space? -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Several concerns. Removed them all. If anyone sees one that should go in we can go from there. Maybe some can be used as sources? Cptnono ( talk) 05:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Name names. It's 42 people, so it shouldn't be hard to make a list.. right? We know the names of all 3,000 people murdered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Unless of course it's another case of Palestinian libel against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.237.161.201 ( talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't there a list of the alleged 40+ victims of this incident? Israel had provided a comprehensive list of Jewish civilians murdered by Palestinian terrorists, which can be viewed on Wikipedia.
The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians (Gazans are actually Egyptians) cannot provide any such list. There are only statements from families without any proof or source of the 40 people allegedly killed.
The head paragraph of this article should note this discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.85.247 ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is listed as a B-class article under the watch of five projects. The
criteria (#1) states, {{tq|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
There are dead link tags dated August 2014, June 2016, and October 2018 that need addressing. --
Otr500 (
talk)
01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al-Fakhura school incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
It's most likely that some people will judge al-Fakhura school massacre to be a POV title. Let's see.
wiktionary:massacre says "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people."
There does not seem to be a dispute about the killing being intentional. The UNRWA had given GPS coordinates of its schools to the IDF, and the IDF initially claimed that mortars had been fired from the school. This seems to say that the IDF agrees that it deliberately fired shells at the school.
Was the killing "under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people"? Is killing people in a school who are sheltering from the conflict "atrocious or cruel"? That's probably subjective, even if it's common sense to most people. The third or condition is potentially more objective. Probably the closest thing to codifying "the usages of civilized people" is public international law such as the Geneva Conventions, which clearly protects civilians, especially those who deliberately try to get out of the way of the security forces fighting each other. However, the case has not yet been tried in an international court, so WP:NPOV would probably be used to say that the civilized or uncivilized nature of the attack is not a fact, it's two versions of a fact by different reliable sources. Does someone have an Israeli (or other) source claiming, after the admittance that no mortars had been fired from the building (see ref in article), that the attack was legal?
Also, there's the question of whether or not the term "al-Fakhura school massacre" (with the various roman spellings such as al-Fakhura, al-Fakhoura, Fakhura, Fakhoura and maybe others) is the term widely used in the world about the event.
In any case, i suggest we try to have a civilised method of choosing a new title once there are enough people interested in working on the article in order to discuss a title change. Depending on whether you have a good suggestion of a title or if you think a discussion should start while looking for a good candidate, then use Template:Move or Template:Moveoptions. Boud ( talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Princeton Univ. defines massacre as to "kill a large number of people indiscriminately". I think this fits that description. Keep the title. There is nothing that's not neutral about calling something what it is.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Tkalisky changed the title from al-Fakhura school massacre to al-Fakhura school strike without participating in the discussion here on the talk page. S/he commented: "(moved Al-Fakhura school massacre to Al-Fakhura school strike: According to Israel Hamas militants were firing on IDF soldiers from near the school. Strike part of fighting and not "Deliberately killing unarmed civilians".)"
i don't really follow the argument. Being "part of fighting" is not an argument against the killing being deliberate, and it is not an argument against the victims being unarmed civilians. A massacre can be one incident as part of a larger war.
The IDF only seems to argue that the killing was justified, i.e. that it was justified to kill 42 people in order to kill 2 Gazan troops allegedly present "within" or near(?) the school. We could say that this invalidates the third or condition in the wiktionary definition above, since they claim that killing 42 people is justified in order to kill two Gazan troops, i.e. that killing 42 people in order to kill 2 is "consistent with the usages of civilized people".
However, the IDF doesn't argue (in any of the statements we have included so far, it seems to me) that the killing was accidental, only that it was a civilised killing, making it not a massacre. Is that what you're trying to say, that the IDF claims that this was a civilised killing? Boud ( talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Al-Fakhura school strike is a ridiculous title. If people won't accept "massacre" (despite what most of the world thinks about it), then I propose we use the bland and inoffensive term "incident".
So what do people think of Al-Fakhura school incident? Tiamut talk 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We should think about moving the article to "Al-Fakhura school attack". I think attack conveys what occurred without being controversial. The use of incident is ridiculous and can mean anything from a fistfight to something as trivial as someone wetting his bed. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If the school was not actually attacked, which Ging and Gunness and the UN have finally confessed is the truth, why is there any discussion of calling it the Al-Fakhura school anything? If anything it should be something like "Sample Attack/Incident Against/Involving A Hamas Mortar Team Firing From A Civilian Occupied Area", as that is what the incident was, and note the proximity of the school in a subheading as with the collateral damage of the fighting in any built up area. Calling it an anything related to the school when it is clearly established otherwise is incorrect, biased, and inflammatory. 67.87.86.250 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC).
Please list NPOV issues here. Boud ( talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV notice was placed on 9 January when the article was much shorter by User:Chesdovi. Template:POV states that:
So Chesdovi, it would be helpful if you could promptly begin a discussion if you still think there are POV problems with the present article. Otherwise, "any editor" may remove the tag. Boud ( talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox had "(According to Israel at least 2 Hamas militants)". i added ((citation needed)). Jmundo removed both of these saying "(infobox is not a place for details, just numbers.)".
Jmundo, i assume your point is that if someone wants to restore this, then it should first be included, properly referenced in the main text, including the various POVs, and then only a very compact summary (with repeat references) should go in the infobox. If that's what you mean, then it seems reasonable to me. Boud ( talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In this edit, Tkalisky removed the section "Role in wider conflict" stating, "Premature analysis (lets wait a day or two before jumping to conclusions)". i have restored it.
Whether or not the analyses are premature are not for wikipedians to judge. Three mainstream news media, two biased towards the United States POV, and one biased towards the Qatar POV, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and al Jazeera, and the British Foreign Minister David Miliband each made statements regarding the role of the Al-Fakhura school bombing in the wider context. The conclusions are not the conclusions of wikipedians, they are the conclusions of very mainstream reliable sources. Whether or not their statements are correct or not is their responsibility, not ours.
This section is somewhat POV at the moment in the sense that we do not have any statement by government and non-government groups from the Gaza Strip regarding how they see the role of the al-Fakhura incident with respect to the wider conflict. Can someone find such a statement? That would help NPOV the section. Boud ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In these edits, Tkalisky removed the Legal actions section title. i have reverted it.
Most of us live in countries where there are national legal systems, which have strong effects on dealing with conflict, especially regarding violent conflict. Surely legal actions related to this violent incident are of a quite different nature to general statements of condemnation which politicians make. This gives a natural structure to the section. More structure makes it easier for the reader than having an unstructured list of many paragraphs. Boud ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the statement is a little bit awkward because given what al-Jazeera paraphrases and quotes, he seems to be saying he recommends that all claims, both by Israel and by Gaza, would be part of what the UNSC should request the ICC to investigate. However, it doesn't quite say that literally. Taken very literally, he seems to be saying that only the Israeli claim that there were gunmen in the school should be investigated, and not the killings of the 40 or so people among the 350 or so who had sheltered at the school. Maybe the wording i suggested should be replaced by a quote, but i was trying to be compact. Any ideas? Boud ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the fact that the Israeli embassy was told to leave since according to the sources it does not seem directly in response to the school strike. Best. Tkalisky ( talk) 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless i missed something, none of the sources refered to in the infobx says that ALL casualites were civilians. Unless I am wrong (correct me if I am), we should delete this word and add what we do know (for ex. "including women and children")-- Omrim ( talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that original research? Many of the people were killed outside the school from shrapnel (most sources report that). Also, many sources report that militants were nearby. So even if not letting militants in the school, those outside may still be militants. I see no source (not even a Palestinian one) saying that all the dead in the incident were civilians. The fact that UNRWA dosen't let militants in the school is irrelevant for this issue for two reasons: 1) you interpret that if no militants were let in, all of the dead are civilians. You can't do that in Wiki, you can't "logically interpret" sources. You cite what is in the sources - and that UNRWA said there were no militants inside is already noted in the article. Let readers interpret that fact as they will. You can't do that for them 2) Even if you were allowed to interpret the source, your interpretation is wrong since many were killed outside the school, so the fact that militants were not allowed in the school makes your argument totaly flawed logically. Militants may have well been killed outside the school from shrapnel as many others have. I am sorry, unless I see a source specifically states that all those killed (and not those allowed or not allowed in the school) are civilians or at least "not militants" I will remove the word civilians again.-- Omrim ( talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"Chronology" means a time-ordered series of events. For example, 10:00, 10:30, 10:45, 11:15, etc.
We don't have actual times of events, but based on the various claims, it's not hard to put them into chronological order. The 350 people who sheltered did so before the other parts of the event. Their nature as civilians only or as civilians plus two Palestinian security forces is relevant before any possible mortar firing "from within" or "from" or "from near" the school, since the security forces could not fire the mortars from the school if they were not yet in the school. Then there is the possible firing of mortars from "within"/""/"near" the school which may or may not have occurred. Then there is the attack by Israeli security forces against the school. Then there is the possible recovery of bodies of Palestinian security forces by the Israeli security forces.
Doesn't this seem chronologically correct and NPOV? Boud ( talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Tomtom9041, please discuss any moves in this discussion page. Wikipedia is about consensus. -- Jmundo ( talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton on consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom9041 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, Jun 1, 2005
This article gives disproportionate weight to the Israeli government position on this incident. It also fails to mention the heavy international dondemnation that this attack and others like it have incurred. I'm going to try to address these issues shortly, but if others have ideas on how to proceed, they are welcome. Tiamut talk 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I added information about the Israeli story -- the four different versions. However, I'm not satisfied with the position of the section in the article. It ended up at the beginning, because that is where the sentence it replaces was located. The sentence gave the initial Israeli claim, but not the subsequent claims and retractions. I will move the information, put it after the "Description", and integrate it with the "Israel" section. NonZionist ( talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the Haaretz article where UNRWA spokemans Chris Gunness claims the IDF has acknowledged the school was attacked in error, it seems that the UN is changing its story too, as well as creating a direct conflict between Gunness' admission that the school was taken over by "militants" in 2007 and Ging's claim that militants were never there. Obviously it would take significant new research to confirm just when the UN abandoned the site, when they became aware it was taken over by militants (if it was before the IDF video was made available), when they reclaimed it from the militants (if ever), why they never altered its status, why they allowed civilians to take refuge in a place they had once abandoned to militants who used it to launch terror attacks, and why they denied militants had ever been present. Barring that, how about a section noting those inconsistencies in the UN story? 67.87.86.250 ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is pretty slipshod about how it records its references, from bare links to other descriptions. It would be a lot more helpful if the citations were made using a certain standard. The Squicks ( talk) 05:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I found some photos relevant to this article as well as for the article on the Israeli assault on Gaza. There are photos of families taking refuge at the school... The photos were taken the same day (likely before) the massacre. Here are the photos [5] [6] [7] [8] They are part of set on Flickr labeled UNICEF. I am assuming these photos were taken from UNICEF but at this point I can't seem to locate the photos on their web site. Anyway, I am asking anyone who has experience in requesting the use of photos from UNICEF or any similar organization to please let me know what the the right route is. Thanks. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the following fact tag: "fact| None of the references indicate that the UN claimed that Israeli artillery landed inside the Fakhoura school; thus no position change. Media reports do not equal UN statements. Until a quotation can be found by a UN official claiming that Israeli fire landed inside the Fakhoura school, this statement should be deleted or modified." The current wording of the article, "the UN reversed position," lends itself to the idea that the UN initially accused Israel of striking inside the school. None of the news articles cited as references quote the UN as making such a claim. Furthermore, I have not found such a claim. The Reuters article states that the victims included women and children who were sheltering at the school. While this wording can imply that the victims were inside the school when they were wounded or killed, it is yet vague enough that it might not be very useful as a reference to the statement "stated that the attack directly hit the school."
The Al Jazeera article appears to contradict itself, stating that the Israei strike hit the school and then immediately referring to a statement by medical sources that the shells landed outside the school. The Toronto Globe and Mail article, which seems to refer to the incorrect school, appears to be a discussion about how headlines can lead to incorrect impressions of the facts and does not contain a quotation from the UN accusing Israel of firing on the school. The Time article states that "the school was hit by bombs," [later "shells" or "mortars"] but not as a quotation of the UN. In order to avoid muddying the same waters that the news media did, the article might need a stronger distinction between direct media claims, implicit media claims, and UN claims.
The Jerusalem Post article clarifies that an error on the UN website, described by the Post as a "clerical error," led to the confusion over UN claims and specified that the UN had not made a verbal claim that Israel struck the school.
The UN press conference report does refer to "air strikes on several clearly marked schools." Again, though, this is not a quotation from a UN official.
It is Israel that made a claim and later retracted it: Israel initially claimed that mlitants had fired on them from within the school compound and later had to retract that claim, a point that is not stated soconsisely in the article.
PinkWorld (
talk)
05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink
I also added a who tag and a dubious tag to the United Nation section. "Some people say" i a weasel phrase; who has criticised Ging needs to be specifie and referenced. The citation of an incident in which three were killed after using the toilet occurred not at al Fakhoura school but at al Asma school - another separate incident. PinkWorld ( talk) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink
The UN didn't backtrack: Why UN 'reversal' over Gaza school should be treated with caution Wodge ( talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
From the very outset, the UN said that the bombing took place outside the school. UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency which administers refugee assistance in Gaza, stuck to that.
John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". This is accurate.
Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency (OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. This error was corrected earlier this month.
Wodge ( talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Or how about this?
Several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school after Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school." Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. The UNRWA called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." UNRWA maintains that from the day of attack that they had said that the wounded were outside of the school compound; adding that the source of the mistake had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations. The organization also pointed out that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself." Also, We could add after that "Jonathan Miller, the Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent, confirmed that the mistake had been caused by OCHA.
Wodge ( talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
New version:
The UN, originally, said that the shelling took place outside the school. John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". [3] Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency ( OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. [4] In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. [5] This error was corrected by Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator, who stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. [6] As a result, several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school [7] Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. [8] Christoper Guiness, an UNRWA spokensman, called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." He pointed out that Ging's statement, which formed the basis for Rabinovitch's argument, was actually in regards to the confirmed attack on another school in which three people were killed, and was made before the Al-Fakhura school incident occurred. The organization also argued that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself. [9]
Wodge ( talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the paragraphs before the UN "backtrack" necessary? I don't know if we need to go CSI on it since all parties involved agree the school was not targeted. Cptnono ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and rewrite the lead. The key point is that people initially thought it was the school that was bombed (while some disagreed) and now everyone admits that it was the street and not the school. The casualties are disputed, given the fog of war
The al-Fakhura School incident refers to events that took place at the United Nations run school of al-Fakhura located in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on January 6, 2009 during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [10] In response to alleged militant gunfire coming from beside the school, the IDF carried out a artillery attack that the UN and several NGOs say killed 42, 41 of them civilians, and that the IDF says killed 12, 9 of them civilians. [11] The attack created a public outcry and prompted condemnation from Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon and others. [12] [13] The response lead to a renewed push for a cease-fire in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [14] [15]
Several news reports initially stated that the attack directly hit the school itself, and that the victims had taken refuge there to escape the fighting between the IDF and Palestinian militants. [16] [14] [13] In the last week of January, the UN reversed position, stating that no deaths occurred within the building itself that and that the rounds struck the street outside the school. [12] It continues to dispute the claim of militant fire coming from the school itself, [17] [13] [12] while stating that militants may have operated close by. [18] Some Palestinian residents have affirmed that Hamas militants fired shells from near the school, [19] [15] [20] while others disagree and say that they saw no such thing. [13]
The IDF initially said that they were responding to mortar shells fired by Hamas militants from the school when they attacked the facility itself. [21] [13] It stated that it found the bodies of Hamas militants in the vicinity of the school after it opened fire, [22] also stating that the militants had booby-trapped the school building with bombs. [23] According to Haaretz, a preliminary investigation by the IDF found that the soldiers who hit the school building itself had targeted the schoolyard beside it instead, and missed. [22] However, later stories stated that the IDF believes that it did not miss, with a spokesperson saying that they "are still sticking by our official position" that the "IDF returned fire to the source". [17] [24] In February, the IDF released a report saying that it had recieved fire from militants in an area beside the school and returned fire to that area. [11]
So this article has not been worked very much since it was revealed that the shells were outside of the school and that there were no casualties inside. I think it would be appropriate to delete about everything but could see reworking it since the initial report adjusted the course of the military operation. Any thoughts? Cptnono ( talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i came to this article to try to find out what actually happened and what the disagreements are about. but in its current state it's hard to make heads or tails of anything. the lead seems ok but the rest of the article is just a random collection of assertions and counter-assertions. sorting these assertions by who said them doesn't help much. one problem is that a lot of the statements are out-of-date but are not identified as such -- for example, all these "this is a dark day in gaza" blah blah statements were made months ago before anyone had any idea of what had happened, but the article doesn't mention this.
overall i think this article is just too long. it needs to be rearranged so that it mostly just says *what* happened and what is disputed, without so many quotes. Benwing ( talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain why CAMERA, a controversial source widely regarded as unreliable in Wikipedia is being used to support the statement "Several people listed as civilians in the PCHR report are claimed by Hamas as its fighters" when that statement already complies with WP:V perfectly well via an uncontroversial RS, Karin Laub at AP ? The last discussion here and previous desicussion suggest great caution in the use of CAMERA as a source. That suggests that when there are alternatives we should use those. I can't see any reason whatsoever to use them here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(removing indentation)
I have to agree with Sean.hoyland here (despite his lack of
WP:AGF). It is important who is a combatant and who isn't because the issue here isn't if Hamas members were killed, but if Hamas members who are combatants are being counted as civilians/non-combatants by PCHR and others. This is why I used the term "operative" in my initial edit, to (try) to make it clear that these are people who were operating in the battlefield rather than an unarmed civilian who happened to be registered somewhere as a Hamas member. To be clear, I don't think membership in Hamas automatically makes one a combatant. I do think that being an active member of an armed force (say, Al Qassam Brigades) who has not surrended or is otherwise out of the fight (not in the sense of eating dinner, but in the sense of being wounded or incarcerated) makes one a combatant, and I think IHL says this both in spirit and in letter, Israeli HCJ rulings notwithstanding (are we going to go on the record here saying that the HCJ is the arbiter of IHL? I doubt it). Have a look at this for example, which is a bit on a tangent but has a definition for combatant.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf
If you have other legal opinions on this I'd be extremely happy to read them. If it doesn't talk specifically about this conflict, even better.
As for CAMERA being a RS, I'm new here. Is ElectronicIntifada a reliable source on facts rather than opinions? How about other "activist/journalist" type sites? Angry Arab? Daniel Pipes?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
07:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Here you go, including Dorit Beinisch advocating changing international law just the other day. D'OH! There are tonnes of refs on this page. Anyway, as you can see it's just the last ones that are relevant to this question. Certainly the HCJ isn't the arbiter of IHL. The reason I like those sources is that they show that even Israel recognises and uses the same categories as IHL and the PCHR. They just play with the interpretation of 'direct part' for their local interpretation. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
reuters-Egyptfloatstruceplan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg-20670001la
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).indep_hundredsrefuge
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).release
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).reuters_fakhura_42dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).time
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aljaz_fakhura_43dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).jpost_denies
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).haaretz_Gunness
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).grief
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).witness
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC_School
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).jpost_unrawschool
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Sean.hoyland - talk 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(indent)
See what I meant? I used the source you suggested, and as I expected, you now say this isn't a good source. Do you have some legal opinions you can provide but won't turn around later and tell me should not be used?
I find the idea one needs to be "actually physically fighting at the time" to be a combatant absurd. The guy planning operations isn't "directly involved" in the hostilities? The guy giving the order to go out and fight? "I am not a combatant anymore! I'm taking a leak! I'm not actually physically fighting at this time! You can shoot at me later when I pick up this rifle I have right next to me, which is still warm from when I was shooting it 5 minutes ago.". Is that how it works?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
I'm not taking anything out of context, you're trying to invent a new context that doesn't exist. HRW specifically says that "Hamas fighters can be targeted". The next sentence obviously talks about police who are not Hamas fighters. This is basic logic and reading comprehension. Moreover, the other HRW article I posted above says "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel". Read carefully. "Play a role in fighting", not "are shooting someone right this instant". This is also supported by the fact that HRW says that the home of a military commander is a legitimate target. He plays a role in fighting, despite probably not shooting at anyone at the time he's at home. So even if you were correct about the context, which you are not, you are misstating what "taking part in hostilities" means.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hamas says 42, Israel says almost zero, and the media goes back and forth. Is there at least a generally-accepted estimate? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In the Responses section, the "Israel" section is three times as long as the "Palestinians" section, and the latter is devoted almost entirely to second-hand reports by journalists alleging that Palestinian civilians who wish to remain anonymous agree with the IDF position that Hamas militants were firing from the building. I don't find anonymous individuals to constitute an WP:RS. Neither do I think its appropriate to use a section that is supposed to express another POV to support that of the Israeli government. I would like to delete almost all the information there and replace it with statements by Palestinian officials on the subject. Any objections? Tiamut talk 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to underline the point, this is how the section currently reads:
Residents of the neighborhood said two brothers who were Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack but that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood.[39] The Israeli military identified the brothers as Imad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker, and said they had been killed.[9] Two unnamed residents, who spoke to an Associated Press reporter by phone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said a group of militants had been firing mortar shells rounds from a street close to the school.[24][28] Jonathan Miller wrote in a Channel 4 story that "local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets - as the IDF claimed - and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school."[40] Additional testimonies from the local residents confirm that militants fired just outside the school compound.[14][15] A Hamas spokesman, Fauzi Barhoun, said initial allegations that Hamas militants had used the school to attack Israeli forces were "baseless".[24]
Tiamut talk 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If the reports are being published by reliable references, then whether the sources are anonymous or not is irrelevant. You are claiming that just because the Israel section is longer than the Palestinian one it is somehow POV? Official statements from Palestinian officials can be found in plenty of reliable sources but they are still treated as statements made by the person and not the newspaper. Just as the millions of statements made by Israeli officials in reliable sources are treated as statements by Israeli officials and not the journalists. The fact that these statements may or may not support the Israeli "narrative" (whatever that means) is totally and completely irrelevant. Just as statements made by Palestinian sources confirming the Hamas/Fatah whatever narrative is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This report by Human Right Watch gives eyewitness statements by people who are identified by name. These arguably have a greater level of reliability or verifiablity than those from anonymous sources. Mouin Gasser, a 45-year-old teacher, said:
"I was walking on the street where the school is located in the Jabaliya refugee camp. I was 15 meters away from the school gate and I saw the people running towards me as soon as the sound of the shelling began. While I was walking I could not distinguish what kind of shelling it was because all of them took place around the same time. There were about four strikes, about a half minute between them. The shells landed just outside the school and one hit an electricity transformer on a pole just outside the school, and the shrapnel from that strike hit the people inside the school. There were different sizes of shrapnel, very sharp pieces of metal, most of them about five centimeters long. The tanks were about two kilometers away to the west in Beit Lahiya. I was offering first aid to the people on the street and at the gate of the school. We did not know how this large number of casualties came about. At the gate of the school there were donkey carts and people were transporting their belongings to the school. I did not see any militants in the area. The shelling did not cause that much damage to the building but it was the first time to see so much shrapnel spreading everywhere."
Shadi Abu Shanar, who worked as a guard at the school and was inside the gate of the school when the attack took place said:
"Suddenly I heard a number of explosions at the gate. I went out onto the street and found dead bodies and wounded people lying on the ground. Most of them were cut into pieces. The street was full of people. I was about to pass out because of what I saw. The shells landed in a range of 20 to 40 meters around the school. The school was full of people."
At the very least, these should be added alongside the anonymous accounts to introduce a modicum of balance until we can find more sources to more adequately represent the Palestinian narrative. I might further note that neither these comments, nor the anonymous comments currently cited consitute "Palestinian responses" to the attack. They are rather eyewitness accounts, which perhaps merit their own section if editors insist that this information is relevant. Tiamut talk 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
→I missed almost the whole day and I see you didn't waste time. If someone was following my posts in the main article, could have seen that the whole HRW report is under serious question and here is why: "But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft". Moreover, those who have basic experience with drones, will realize that those "evidencies" that "saw" or "heard" those drones are disputable at least and erroneous at most. Besides, when the territory is under theocratic totalitarian rule, the most reliable testimonies will come from anonimous men. The contrary is true for open democratic society. Now back to the core of the dispute - it is impossible to know for sure, but they apparently are independable one of another. Several news agencies collected info saying that there were Hamas fighters in the vicinity of the school. Btw, the witnesses are not necessarily anonymous, NY Times: "Witnesses, including Hanan Abu Khajib, 39, said that Hamas fired just outside the school compound, probably from the secluded courtyard of a house across the street, 25 yards from the school". What exceptional source do you want, ICRC? With all my respect, I think the whole discussion is childish and should be dropped. -- Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
→I allowed myself to tinker with it a little. Frankly, Tiamut, you do not have a case to say "evidencies vary". Some didn't see the fighters, but many reports say there were. What do you think the court would say, taking into consideration that the building is not a singular point in space? -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Several concerns. Removed them all. If anyone sees one that should go in we can go from there. Maybe some can be used as sources? Cptnono ( talk) 05:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Name names. It's 42 people, so it shouldn't be hard to make a list.. right? We know the names of all 3,000 people murdered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Unless of course it's another case of Palestinian libel against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.237.161.201 ( talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't there a list of the alleged 40+ victims of this incident? Israel had provided a comprehensive list of Jewish civilians murdered by Palestinian terrorists, which can be viewed on Wikipedia.
The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians (Gazans are actually Egyptians) cannot provide any such list. There are only statements from families without any proof or source of the 40 people allegedly killed.
The head paragraph of this article should note this discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.85.247 ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is listed as a B-class article under the watch of five projects. The
criteria (#1) states, {{tq|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
There are dead link tags dated August 2014, June 2016, and October 2018 that need addressing. --
Otr500 (
talk)
01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)