![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ↠| Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
How are the demographic statistics (population density, % of youth) relevant to the background of this conflict? NoCal100 ( talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should also mention that those areas, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas - Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. Do you think it is relevant? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agada, would you please copy/paste your edit in its entirety (including the surrounding context) here in this section so we can see exactly what the problem is and why it is being reverted? Thanks Tundrabuggy ( talk) 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This addition (in bold) to background
The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth.[99] According to the CIA Factbook as of June 2007, it holds a population of 1,482,405 on an area of only 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi). Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007). This area, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. [1] [2]
With reference to footage of Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office telling about Grad rocket launching from "bellow" her office in the heart of Gaza city. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry, here is the same story from the RS Haaretz. I hope it will improve reference quality and solve unreliable source problem http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for your perspective and joining the discussion. I already mentioned that there are a lot of evidences that Hamas choose to fire rockets from downtown of Gaza city. Hope you don't dispute it. This particular evidence is relevant, since it gives specific address: Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) . Do you believe other references should be brought for support? Second question do we consider Governance of the Gaza Strip grad rocket launchers as military installation? If no, how do you prefer it should be called, in your opinion? As for "belonging" question. It was mentioned here that high density of population, high percentage of children in population and human shield are relevant points for background section and go hand in hand together. Generally I would appreciate you'd explain your opinion, before taking actions. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a biased approach. Where are all the rocket hits? There were pictures from reliable sources. Vandalism suspected. John Hyams ( talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent). There is no reason not to include some of the photos from these categories linked below. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV and so we need to include photos from all sides. The photos seem legitimate to me. We need to use common sense and fairness.
We don't have any free Israeli casualty photos yet for this war. See:
I'd like to know why the image "Image:Orphanschoolmosque.jpg" was removed. [1] The user offered no explanation in the edit summary. VR talk 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG as we shouldnt accept sneeky removals of pictures without Edit summary, talk or consencus Brunte ( talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jimb- prides himself on being "just an editor" when it comes to content... when it comes to policy and "office issues" its another thing. In fact, due in part to the near absolute power he wields in other parts, he is rarely taken at his word when it comes to content, and more often than not has been edited back to oblivion, notably in Jimmy Wales, but also infamously in Che Guevara and countless other examples. He is certainly respected, but not really given any special place. Ask him if you don't believe me, Oren0.
On this specific controversy, he didn't argue for or against inclusion of Babycue, but did raise some points for consideration that were interesting and well articulated. In fact, good enough to convince me. More important in fighting WP:BIAS as a cornerstone of NPOV was his clear endorsement of Al-Jazeera as a reliable source "as we mean it in wikipedia".
However, I suggest you do not use Jimb-'s name in vain. It can be a bitch that comes around and bites you in the ass. Again, feel free to ask the dude, for a super busy guy he is pretty accessible to us lowly editors. -- Cerejota ( talk) 09:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the image that OrenO removed because there was a clear consensus (in my opinion) that this page should contain images of casualties from the conflict and the image of the dead girl was in part kept on the page as a compromise for removing the picture of the dead baby that was discussed in detail at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture. Despite what OrenO claims, no consensus was reached to remove it.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
child casulties have been estimated to 159 according to cnn.com
quote from cnn.com
"Among the dead were 159 children, two of whom died in an UNRWA school that was shelled Saturday, Ging said."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
old. Nableezy ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(copied from my talk regarding the Ayman2 image:)
"With regards to your removal and misleading edit summary, there was no reason for you to remove the image. The image is free, relevant to the article, and no one has disputed that. If you want to dispute it, use the talk page." -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In the lengthy discussions above, there was no consensus to upload disgusting close-ups. The burden of evidence that inclusion of this image meets
see noumerous statements in the image discussions and section Pix restored:
The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis added. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that there is consensus to add pictures that come from the ISM. Even Cerejota, who originally supported including the baby picture changed his "vote" for that reason. Personally I like this picture a lot more than the baby picture. It tells us something about WP whereas I think the baby just told us that people died. But I don't think there is consensus to add it just now. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should add any pictures from the socialist action group until we decide whether or not they qualify as a reliable enough source to be used without attribution. The Squicks ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I, as well as many others, find ISM more reliable than the JPost and Haaretz. While JPost and Haaretz downplay Israeli war crimes or act as if they never happened, ISM exposes them. The deception is present on the former rather than on the latter. BTW, why are we holding the sources for Palestinian pictures to a standard different to the one for Israeli pictures with the latter coming from unknown people? A very ugly double standard indeed. I will continue removing those Israeli pics when both sides are held to the same standard. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So now any piece of garbage must be put up to illustrate the evils of Israel, on the grounds that to reject them is WP:CENSOR? We will be able to spend the rest of our lives arguing picture after gruesome picture here on the talk page. Already the page is considered highly overloaded on the Palestinian side according to the perspective of many who have posted here. The argument is that since the Palestinians have suffered most, and the most casualties, that this page should illustrate that suffering, and essentially nothing else. Sorry but that is not neutral. This argument will have to be taken somewhere else and settled. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What's this we talk? I don't know about anyone else, but I personally am more than willing to hold everyone up to the same standard. If you want to discuss another picture, than go ahead and create another RFC. The Squicks ( talk) 06:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
One argument repeatedly used by many editors in the burned baby discussion (which in fact was not limited to the burned baby but focussed on what kind of casualty pictures should be used to illustrate the article) was not to include emotive pictures. A close-up of open wounds falls well into this category, it is a disgusting eye-catcher that makes it impossible for me to read the narrative surrounding the picture. The open wounds close-up is so disgusting that one does not even really notice at first glance that they are on an exposed naked butt of a minor, which would be questionable in itself. This is not an issue for yet another RfC, it is covered already in the RfC/polls we had here before. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thumb|300px|Famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm). (unindent) Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR. Removing photos is the same as removing text. We include photos from all sides. See: commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties and upload some photos. We need some Israeli casualty photos.
War is not pretty, and Wikipedia shouldn't prettify it. See the many photos in My Lai Massacre, and the gallery farther down in that article.
Here is another famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm):
This picture has not achieve that status nor do most people accept ISM as RS for this type of picture. Please see my note below that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible." Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not just any other wound. It is the effects of a controversial weapon (white phosphorus) that few know what they are. For example, I do remember a certain someone saying that the dumping of white phosphorus is no big deal and he tried to justify the use of white phosphorus claiming it helps saves human lives. The reason, I think he said, was that WP is used to light up the area making it easier for Israelis to strike their targets. Another user responded to me by asking if there was any evidence that this was being as a weapon and not just smoke/illumination. While the specific picture does not exactly demonstrate that WP is being used as weapon, the picture illustrates the severity of white phosphorus showing that it is not just a harmless smokescreen, etc. This visual supplements the text on white phosphorus. In addition, the Ayman pictures are the only visuals of white phosphorus victims available for us to use. Anyone who believes in the educational value of this article would not pass the opportunity to post this pic.-- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be a  †sign next to his name on the commanders list as in all similar articles. 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he'd appreciate the cross. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an alternative  (KIA) see War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Looked at Iran-Iraq war article for precedents and cross sign were used there. But, this indeed looks much more appropriate. Thank you for noting, fixed. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining. I just thought it was kind of ironic. Personally I prefer the cross to the Jolly Roger. Actually it looks more like a totenkopf in my font but I don't want to bring up Nazis again. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, a background article for 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, additional info for it has been retrieved from an AfD for another article. That info needs to be summarized and incorporated into 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict.
Please see:
Help, editing, and additional input and comments are requested. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this sentence accurately reflect the sources: "Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independant(sic) investigations and law suits(sic)." I checked the sources that specifically say "war crimes," and they did this only in reference to Israel. RomaC ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In Belligerents, Fatah is below Hamas. This doesn't really fit with other statements that Hamas was rounding up members of Fatah, and that Fatah was calling for Hamas to stop firing rockets before the invasion. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outent) The problem with your suggestion Jandrews23 is that while most people may think that, it's simply untrue. Hamas is a political party, just like the any other, except that it also has an armed wing. All Palestinian political factions have an armed wing affiliated with them, but the armed wing has a separate leadership and structure. These armed wings make up the belligerents for the Palestinian side in the conflict. The political wings are not involved in combat. There are social workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who voted for Hamas and who may even be Hamas municipal reps but these are not combatants in this war. I think we should differentiate between the armed wings and political wings for all Palestinian factions, just as we differentiate between the political leadership and military leadership in Israel. Tiamut talk 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The previous discussion has been archived. The International law section needs work. Currently accusations against Israel are generally followed by a pro-Israel rebuttal; while accusations against Hamas are not challenged, or, if they are, then conclude with a pro-Israeli counter-argument. It's just not WP:Neutral to keep moving the formatting goal posts within a section like this. RomaC ( talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran the wikED ref tag checker. It turns out a lot of the refs do not use the citation template WP:CITET, and while this is not required, it certainly makes references more useful. It also said that multiple tags had references with the same name or content: be watchful when using a refrence and check if it is already in use before tagging. WP:REFNAME. Just saying. -- Cerejota ( talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Source #14 used to justify IDF estimate of militant casualty is not working. Source #12, while used to justify the 700 number, when you go to the article it becomes clear that the article states "Israel has not provided its own version of a Palestinian death toll". The 700 is attributed to a person and is NOT an official IDF estimate. Why not show Hamas estimates of IDF casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.240.65 ( talk) 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The maps in the infobox don't give any indication where in the world Israel and Gaza are. We know, of course, because we're brilliant, well educated, etc., but there are many Wikipedia readers who don't and would probably like to get that information first before scuba-diving into the details. Can someone who knows how to work with these things add an inset? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643759070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.61.100 ( talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The PCHR source is used for Civilians in InfoBox. I'm not sure that PCHR civilian definition is in consensus. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.
What do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Zakout also says that the Ministry of Health totals for wounded include cases of psycholgical trauma. [6] The PCHR does not do that and that's a big part of the discrepancy between the two. And the whole issue of "shock" wounded issue has come up a few times here. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I see what you say. Maybe we could add IDF numbers for civilians in InfoBox. Does it sound fair and balanced? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A Civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. So according to Wikipedia definition, Said Siam and Nizar Rayan who both are Hamas military commanders are not civilians, despite being killed in " non-combat situations". While quotes could represent Cognitive relativism in sources, InfoBox stats should state facts and consistent with Civilian Wikipedia definition. Hopefully Wikipedia's target is being Encyclopedia and not just Urban legend. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome BobaFett85. "Non-combat situations" is PCHR research team term. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.
What do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit. You have restored this sentence three times now:
An unknown number of Hamas military commanders killed in "non-combat situations" such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are not civilians under international humanitarian law, but were counted as such by PCHR research team. [3]
I have explained to you on your talk page the mutliple problems with this statement. First, where is the source that says both were "military commanders". Siam was the Interior Minister (a political figure) and Rayan a professor (and spiritual leader). Two, where is the source that says these two figures are not considered to be civilians under intl law? It's not in the article and you keep adding it anyway. Both these phrasings and points are WP:OR without sources to report them. Twice, I've changed the text to read "leaders" instead of "military commanders", removing the reference to intl law. I'd appreciate it greatly if instead of continuing to ignore the points I raise to you, that you respond to them here with sources that support your wording. Witout such sources, you cannot write this. Thanks. Tiamut talk 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree. RS around the world reported
Nizar Rayan and
Said Siam are commanders of Hamas military. Those persons are members/commanders of
Hamas armed forces (government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations), thus hardly civilians under international humanitarian law. We should clearly warn readers that PCHR
civilian statistics contains unknown number of
Hamas
combatants both in Casualties section and in InfoBox. Otherwise I feel we'd confuse the reader and hide the truth.
CNN
[10]: "Nizar Rayan, one of the main founders of Hamas and a commander in northern Gaza"
JPost
[11]: "Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander"
UPI
[12]: "Hamas military commander was killed in an Israeli airstrike"
NYPost
[13]: "He was both a military commander and the spiritual leader of Hamas' brutal military wing."
JPost
[14] "Siam was the Hamas political echelon's liaison with the group's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, and was responsible for the various security apparatuses in the Strip"
Haaretz
[15] "Sayyam ... head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas."
AP
[16] "Hamas confirms Israel strike killed security chief (Siam) ... who oversaw thousands of security agents in the Gaza Strip."
So does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, Let's behave in good faith to each other. I read you User page and learned that you're experienced and were already blocked four times for WP:3RR. You are a naughty boy :) (joke). I'd appreciate if you stop edit-warring with me and change article content while it is still in discussion. I think it is clearly against Wikipedia:etiquette While I argue about facts, I'm always ready to forgive and forget and work towards agreement. "No more war, no more bloodshed". Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Man, I think you need to chill out a bit and take a cooling off period. If you continue with this I will not have a choice but revert you too and you will not be edit-warring only with Tiamut but with me also. I agree to note these things in the casualties section but leave the infobox alone. BobaFett85 ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is quite an abundance of bizarre opinions being vaunted over these pages. A few correctives to the disinformation campaign may be found in this short, rather arbitrary list of articles, which expresses opinions in the main, but manages to give much evidence that is widely shared by serious students of the area. I hope a few out there read some of them, and cull what may prove useful for further research, that may assist the reviewing of the page, esp. the Background, which is totally dishonest.
Nishidani ( talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
@ Nishidani_ What you refer to as "correctives to the disinformation campaign" of others, is frankly a disinformation campaign of itself and simply inappropriate to this talk page. If you believe that a section of this article is "totally dishonest" as you suggest, you should be putting up specific diffs for discussion and improvement. It strikes me as a sore lack of respect toward editors here who do not share your views to label their perspective "dishonest" and a "disinformation campaign." I urge you to refactor your comments. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Much as I don't like questioning something with 10 refs after it, the current article states:
This is not supported by even one of the references. It's important to note the distinction between calling it the "Gaza Massacre" (note the capital 'M' indicating that it's a part of the name), versus the way the sources describe it: "Gaza 'massacre'", "massacre in Gaza", and "Gaza massacre". That the conflict has been described as a massacre in the Arab world is certainly supported by the sources and should be in the lead. However, the sources do not support that the conflict has been called "the Gaza Massacre" (or its Arabic translation) as opposed to being descriptively called a massacre in Gaza. Unless sources can be found to show that it has been called the "Gaza Massacre" as a name rather than a description, this sentence should be rewritten, the Arabic removed, and the text unbolded (since it's a description rather than a name). In fact, the only source I see that even uses the term "Gaza massacre" is attributed to a Hamas spokesman. I therefore suggest that the text be changed to:
Thoughts? Oren0 ( talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
i dont read arabic, but there was a long discussion about this and the editors who do know it said that there is no capitalization in arabic. in context, if the source says "the gaza massacre" then we should capitalize it. Untwirl ( talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research?
I am beginning to feel like I cannot make myself understood. Am I clear to you?- Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Oren and Tundrabuggy that we have no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English-language sources don't. I would also add that a qualifier, such as "in parts of (the Arab world)" is necessary. English Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera Magazine, for example, simply don't call it that. Palestine News Network and Gulf News do. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we really fighting over capitalization? We wikipedians can get silly sometimes. Fact is, you guys should give up an accept the fact that calling this a "M/massacre" is pretty much the same, the equivalent, and as encyclopedic as calling it Operation Cast Lead. Its called verifiability, not truth. And the disingenousness of arguing the sources do not say this is beyond belief. Don't insult your intelligence by making silly arguments like that anymore. Sometimes, repeating a lie doesn't make it become truth, it just makes you a worse liar. -- Cerejota ( talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is totally obvious to me that no one wants to honestly face this issue (ie that the references do not say what is claimed) and prefer to argue the name so that they can put the Arab perspective in the lead without putting in the Israeli perspective. It seems they would prefer to pretend they do not understand this, and that we are niggling over capitalisation issues and use WP:PA. My earlier fixes were rejected.
As far as I am concerned, there should be no mention of a massacre in the lead without Israel's view also being mentioned. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundra, it is mentioned, more prominently and with less sourcing. Israel calls this thing "Operation Cast Lead" (check), and it was done to "stop rocket attacks" (check) and "targeting only Hamas infrastructure and people" (check).
The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". The equivalent response would be "The Israeli public opinion calls this "Gaza War" or somesuch, however, since Israel has a formal name for the conflict we should use that, rather than the informal media name. It is not about equivalency, but about how the conflict is named. There is assymetry in this naming, as there is in the casualties, but this is a result of the events, and we cannot artificially resolve this assymetry by making editorial decisions. Just as it is not POV to show the assymetry in casulaties, it is not POV to show an assymetry in naming. I hope I made sense.-- Cerejota ( talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Nableezy. I just wanted to understand if "massacre" has the same meaning for Arabs as it has for non-Arabs, and if Arabs use that term the same way as non-Arabs would. From your answer, I understand
So if I got that right, and if the Arabic word for "Gaza massacre" is indeed the most widely used name in the Arab world (which needs to be sourced), we have to
Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You keep eliding material, on your own, with no discussion. The three industrial centres knocked out by the IDF are specified because they are the fundamental pivots of the economy of the Gaza strip, cement for construction, and flour processing, etc. Before Gaza had some private infrastructure for storage, milling of foodstuffs, and large-scale building construction. These were economic targets like mills and silos (same happened in Lebanon), not military targets, like workshops, all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry. That effect is major, it has devastated the possibility of internal reconstruction, since now everything must be done abroad (Israel etc), and nothing done by Gaza's entrepreneurs themselves. Nishidani ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, we have a one-paragraph section on effects of the conflict, which, being one paragraph long, can only deal with generalities. The details are amply described in the separate article. Along comes an editor and starts listing factories that were destroyed and how, when the paragraph already says that 15,000 factories and workshops were destroyed. The edit was sloppy and in the wrong place, as the order of the paragraph was Gaza-Israel-elsewhere, and the addition, which pertained to Gaza, was inserted in between Israel and elsewhere. I moved the addition to the separate article and explained what I did and why in the edit summary. This was a very mundane edit, the kind that is done all the time to keep articles from deteriorating into collections of junk. Why you have a problem with it - well, I have a guess, but I'm supposed to force myself to think otherwise. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is, by the way, no good objective source for the cliché '1,000,000 people huddling in bomb shelters'. It is the entire Israeli population of the area according to demographics, potentially within Qassam ranges, without a discrimination between notorious areas under constant fear and barrages (Sderot) from a very large number of settlements that have had very little to fear from Qassams. I know the Israeli area affected quite well, have lived there. This is what media say. I have difficulty believing it. But I haven't touched it. Nishidani ( talk) 12:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
the information presented under this title belongs here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_foreign_involvement ... Cryptonio ( talk) 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This news report http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/28/2475752.htm?section=world Mentions a roadside bomb that was remotely detonated from within Gaza, killing an Israeli officer. It goes on to say that Israel reponded with renewed helicopter attacks, and that tanks & bulldozers were moving into Gaza once again.
I figure I'd post it here for dicussion rather than change the article. Some may wish to debate the veracity of this, or to talk about the direction this article will take if the fighting does indeed break out again in full. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing
Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30
a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m.
UTC)
[9] when
Israel launched a
military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (
Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party,
Hamas.
[10]
[11]
[12] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (
Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in parts of the
Arab World.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. [23] [24] [25] Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade, and citing an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4 as a breach of the truce, [26] [27] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.
On 27 December 2008, Israel launched an all out military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire. [28] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade. [29]
On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices [30] [31] in all of the Gaza strip. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.. Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations.
On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza. [48] [49] During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza.
Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian and army targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. [50] [51]
Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire with Hamas on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Palestinian militants fired about 20 rockets over the border after the Israeli ceasefire announcement. Israel retaliated with an airstrike. Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. [52] [53] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. [54]
International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid. [55] [56] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
During the conflict, 13 Israelis were killed including three civilians. On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians. [62] [3] [63] Following the conflict, more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water and it was reported that Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'. [64]. As a result of the bombings, 4,000 Gazan buildings were razed [64] and 20,000 severely damaged [64]), more than 50,800 Gazans were left homeless. [64]
Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and law suits. [65] In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes. [71]
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lets look at the proposals one by one:
(1) The ja23 proposal would omit "parts of"(the Arab world), which must be rejected according to the npov discussin consensus now in archive 22. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(2) The ja23 proposal would delete the sentence "Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce." This sentence however is the most npov way (without blaming anyone) to describe the pre-cast lead situation and thus should stay. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(3) The ja23 proposal replaces some sources with the sentence: "Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations." This is problematic as the Hamas seizure of power was not only by 2006 election, but more like in a civil war 2007. We should neither present all details of how Hamas gained power in the lead (WP:UNDUE) nor cherry-pick some details as it is done here, but leave that to the background section. The "gov buildings and police stations" passage is redundant, as it is stated in the sentence before that IAF targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices". Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(4) The ja23 proposal adds: "During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza." Picking an isolated incident, presenting only one version as also with the isolated (Hamas) casualty figure gives them undue weight, violates WP:NPOV and thus must be rejected. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(5) The ja23 proposal adds "There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris." This again is pov-ed, in style ("angry") as in content (only against Israel), also the towns presented are randomly picked and thus given undue weight. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(6) The ja23 proposal replaces:
This must be rejected because of WP:NPOV - All figures except the Hamas figure are deleted. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(7) The ja23 proposal adds: "In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes." Again, this violates WP:NPOV, as only one side of the dispute is presented, and also violates WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
TL; DR please people re-read WP:LEDE. I like the first line, but it should be merged with the second and third (as redundant). Mention of specific casualty figures should not go on the lede. We should not used phrases that charactize, like "angry protests". What the UN chief in Gaza said is notable, but not lede material.
Something like this, but with the sourcing and wikilinks:
“ | The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party, Hamas, and of halting rocket fire that had resumed after a six month long truce ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas contends the resuming of the rocket attacks is a result of Israel not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and of the Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on 4 November 2008. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.
On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices in all of the Gaza strip. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, and schools, were also attacked. Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians. On January 3, 2009, a ground invasion by the Israeli Defence Forces began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on 18 January 2009 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). After initially ignoring the ceasefire with renewed rocket attacks, Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. International reactions during the conflict have included the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[47][48] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with protests against Israeli operations held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris. Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits. |
†|
This is shorter, sumarizes the article, and is way more NPOV. Less peacock and weasel.-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Re [26] and [27], the language being restored here is pretty clearly inappropriate. First of all, identifying the Palestinian Ministry of Health as "Hamas-run" is gratuitous and carries no information; it simply serves as a kind of rhetorical prod to the reader, "don't trust these guys." (I imagine it read aloud in an Israeli accent; "khhhaamas"Â ;) It's a government ministry, it's run by the government, which is run by the party in power. Flagging that party serves no legitimate purpose and is only an attempt to lead the reader around by the nose. And what does the Jerusalem Post, a hawkish Israeli paper, report?
Tony Laurance, who heads the World Health Organization's office in the West Bank and Gaza, said the information from the Gaza Health Ministry "is likely to be close to accurate." It was "reported on a daily basis by hospitals to the central information center within the Ministry of Health," he added. That center had identifying details of the casualties in terms of names and ages and places of residents. [28]
Second, and more significantly, the text portrays a significant gap between Pal MoH estimates and other Palestinian counts. This gap does not appear to exist, and it certainly isn't docuemnted or even implied in the given sources. MoH estimates 1,330 dead of whom 900 are civilians. The PCHR, an independent non-partisan, group, estimates 1,284 dead of whom 894 are civilians. The difference in total death counts is less than 4% and in civilians less than 1%. The PCHR's estimate appears to be the most widely cited in Western reports. The vague innuendos by Israeli officials, almost all off the record, and the Clouseauian investigation by that one Italian journalist, are not "Palestinian estimates." Indeed the JPost piece I already cited notes that the PCHR's figures are "almost identical" to Hamas's.
People, cut the crap. You can't just make things up and put them into Wikipedia articles. This is pretty basic. If you want to quibble about "hamas-run" fine, but this business about "other Palestinian estimates" is, to be blunt, a lie. Please don't lie. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The proposal of ja23 to use "Kadima-run" for the Israeli side is exactly the argument to have Hamas-run or some similar phrasing in the article. This conflict is not Israel vs Palestine, but Israel vs the Hamas-run part of Palestine. There are many Palestine areas/institutions that are not involved (at least directly). Thus we need the qualification. If Hamas would perform an operation only against Kadima, and Kadima would rule a different area of Israel than Likud and have its own institutions and ministries there, we of course had to indicate that, too. But this is not the case for Israel. She is acting as one party. Palestine is not. We have to avoid disambigous wording and clearly attribute who exactly is the source for whatever. If the numbers are from Hamas, we have to say Hamas and not MoH, and don't let the reader click through other articles before he knows that the information is actually from a party of this conflict and not from "someone". We cannot assume everyone knows exactly who is in charge of what MoH. What is the problem with clearly indicating the sources? Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]There is no question that Hamas threw out the PA and are governing on their own. It is my understanding that there is no power-sharing going on between PA and Hamas in Gaza. There is no two-party system, no opposition party acknowledged. Do correct me if I'm wrong. That may be a "democratically elected" government, but my understanding of democratic is that the voice of others is heard as well. I am also under the impression that not every Gazan is happy with Hamas and Hamas' decision to provoke Israel. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Al-Arabia-Grad
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al-Arabia-Grad-YouTube
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ynet
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nydn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Guardian20091105
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
hs
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).btselem
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ↠| Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
How are the demographic statistics (population density, % of youth) relevant to the background of this conflict? NoCal100 ( talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should also mention that those areas, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas - Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. Do you think it is relevant? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agada, would you please copy/paste your edit in its entirety (including the surrounding context) here in this section so we can see exactly what the problem is and why it is being reverted? Thanks Tundrabuggy ( talk) 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This addition (in bold) to background
The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth.[99] According to the CIA Factbook as of June 2007, it holds a population of 1,482,405 on an area of only 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi). Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007). This area, specifically center of Gaza city were chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers, thus choosing the battle ground for this conflict. [1] [2]
With reference to footage of Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office telling about Grad rocket launching from "bellow" her office in the heart of Gaza city. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry, here is the same story from the RS Haaretz. I hope it will improve reference quality and solve unreliable source problem http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for your perspective and joining the discussion. I already mentioned that there are a lot of evidences that Hamas choose to fire rockets from downtown of Gaza city. Hope you don't dispute it. This particular evidence is relevant, since it gives specific address: Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) . Do you believe other references should be brought for support? Second question do we consider Governance of the Gaza Strip grad rocket launchers as military installation? If no, how do you prefer it should be called, in your opinion? As for "belonging" question. It was mentioned here that high density of population, high percentage of children in population and human shield are relevant points for background section and go hand in hand together. Generally I would appreciate you'd explain your opinion, before taking actions. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a biased approach. Where are all the rocket hits? There were pictures from reliable sources. Vandalism suspected. John Hyams ( talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent). There is no reason not to include some of the photos from these categories linked below. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV and so we need to include photos from all sides. The photos seem legitimate to me. We need to use common sense and fairness.
We don't have any free Israeli casualty photos yet for this war. See:
I'd like to know why the image "Image:Orphanschoolmosque.jpg" was removed. [1] The user offered no explanation in the edit summary. VR talk 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG as we shouldnt accept sneeky removals of pictures without Edit summary, talk or consencus Brunte ( talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jimb- prides himself on being "just an editor" when it comes to content... when it comes to policy and "office issues" its another thing. In fact, due in part to the near absolute power he wields in other parts, he is rarely taken at his word when it comes to content, and more often than not has been edited back to oblivion, notably in Jimmy Wales, but also infamously in Che Guevara and countless other examples. He is certainly respected, but not really given any special place. Ask him if you don't believe me, Oren0.
On this specific controversy, he didn't argue for or against inclusion of Babycue, but did raise some points for consideration that were interesting and well articulated. In fact, good enough to convince me. More important in fighting WP:BIAS as a cornerstone of NPOV was his clear endorsement of Al-Jazeera as a reliable source "as we mean it in wikipedia".
However, I suggest you do not use Jimb-'s name in vain. It can be a bitch that comes around and bites you in the ass. Again, feel free to ask the dude, for a super busy guy he is pretty accessible to us lowly editors. -- Cerejota ( talk) 09:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the image that OrenO removed because there was a clear consensus (in my opinion) that this page should contain images of casualties from the conflict and the image of the dead girl was in part kept on the page as a compromise for removing the picture of the dead baby that was discussed in detail at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture. Despite what OrenO claims, no consensus was reached to remove it.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
child casulties have been estimated to 159 according to cnn.com
quote from cnn.com
"Among the dead were 159 children, two of whom died in an UNRWA school that was shelled Saturday, Ging said."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
old. Nableezy ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(copied from my talk regarding the Ayman2 image:)
"With regards to your removal and misleading edit summary, there was no reason for you to remove the image. The image is free, relevant to the article, and no one has disputed that. If you want to dispute it, use the talk page." -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In the lengthy discussions above, there was no consensus to upload disgusting close-ups. The burden of evidence that inclusion of this image meets
see noumerous statements in the image discussions and section Pix restored:
The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis added. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that there is consensus to add pictures that come from the ISM. Even Cerejota, who originally supported including the baby picture changed his "vote" for that reason. Personally I like this picture a lot more than the baby picture. It tells us something about WP whereas I think the baby just told us that people died. But I don't think there is consensus to add it just now. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should add any pictures from the socialist action group until we decide whether or not they qualify as a reliable enough source to be used without attribution. The Squicks ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I, as well as many others, find ISM more reliable than the JPost and Haaretz. While JPost and Haaretz downplay Israeli war crimes or act as if they never happened, ISM exposes them. The deception is present on the former rather than on the latter. BTW, why are we holding the sources for Palestinian pictures to a standard different to the one for Israeli pictures with the latter coming from unknown people? A very ugly double standard indeed. I will continue removing those Israeli pics when both sides are held to the same standard. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So now any piece of garbage must be put up to illustrate the evils of Israel, on the grounds that to reject them is WP:CENSOR? We will be able to spend the rest of our lives arguing picture after gruesome picture here on the talk page. Already the page is considered highly overloaded on the Palestinian side according to the perspective of many who have posted here. The argument is that since the Palestinians have suffered most, and the most casualties, that this page should illustrate that suffering, and essentially nothing else. Sorry but that is not neutral. This argument will have to be taken somewhere else and settled. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What's this we talk? I don't know about anyone else, but I personally am more than willing to hold everyone up to the same standard. If you want to discuss another picture, than go ahead and create another RFC. The Squicks ( talk) 06:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
One argument repeatedly used by many editors in the burned baby discussion (which in fact was not limited to the burned baby but focussed on what kind of casualty pictures should be used to illustrate the article) was not to include emotive pictures. A close-up of open wounds falls well into this category, it is a disgusting eye-catcher that makes it impossible for me to read the narrative surrounding the picture. The open wounds close-up is so disgusting that one does not even really notice at first glance that they are on an exposed naked butt of a minor, which would be questionable in itself. This is not an issue for yet another RfC, it is covered already in the RfC/polls we had here before. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thumb|300px|Famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm). (unindent) Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR. Removing photos is the same as removing text. We include photos from all sides. See: commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties and upload some photos. We need some Israeli casualty photos.
War is not pretty, and Wikipedia shouldn't prettify it. See the many photos in My Lai Massacre, and the gallery farther down in that article.
Here is another famous war casualty photo with burn wounds (napalm):
This picture has not achieve that status nor do most people accept ISM as RS for this type of picture. Please see my note below that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible." Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not just any other wound. It is the effects of a controversial weapon (white phosphorus) that few know what they are. For example, I do remember a certain someone saying that the dumping of white phosphorus is no big deal and he tried to justify the use of white phosphorus claiming it helps saves human lives. The reason, I think he said, was that WP is used to light up the area making it easier for Israelis to strike their targets. Another user responded to me by asking if there was any evidence that this was being as a weapon and not just smoke/illumination. While the specific picture does not exactly demonstrate that WP is being used as weapon, the picture illustrates the severity of white phosphorus showing that it is not just a harmless smokescreen, etc. This visual supplements the text on white phosphorus. In addition, the Ayman pictures are the only visuals of white phosphorus victims available for us to use. Anyone who believes in the educational value of this article would not pass the opportunity to post this pic.-- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be a  †sign next to his name on the commanders list as in all similar articles. 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he'd appreciate the cross. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an alternative  (KIA) see War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Looked at Iran-Iraq war article for precedents and cross sign were used there. But, this indeed looks much more appropriate. Thank you for noting, fixed. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining. I just thought it was kind of ironic. Personally I prefer the cross to the Jolly Roger. Actually it looks more like a totenkopf in my font but I don't want to bring up Nazis again. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, a background article for 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, additional info for it has been retrieved from an AfD for another article. That info needs to be summarized and incorporated into 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict.
Please see:
Help, editing, and additional input and comments are requested. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this sentence accurately reflect the sources: "Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independant(sic) investigations and law suits(sic)." I checked the sources that specifically say "war crimes," and they did this only in reference to Israel. RomaC ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In Belligerents, Fatah is below Hamas. This doesn't really fit with other statements that Hamas was rounding up members of Fatah, and that Fatah was calling for Hamas to stop firing rockets before the invasion. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outent) The problem with your suggestion Jandrews23 is that while most people may think that, it's simply untrue. Hamas is a political party, just like the any other, except that it also has an armed wing. All Palestinian political factions have an armed wing affiliated with them, but the armed wing has a separate leadership and structure. These armed wings make up the belligerents for the Palestinian side in the conflict. The political wings are not involved in combat. There are social workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who voted for Hamas and who may even be Hamas municipal reps but these are not combatants in this war. I think we should differentiate between the armed wings and political wings for all Palestinian factions, just as we differentiate between the political leadership and military leadership in Israel. Tiamut talk 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The previous discussion has been archived. The International law section needs work. Currently accusations against Israel are generally followed by a pro-Israel rebuttal; while accusations against Hamas are not challenged, or, if they are, then conclude with a pro-Israeli counter-argument. It's just not WP:Neutral to keep moving the formatting goal posts within a section like this. RomaC ( talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran the wikED ref tag checker. It turns out a lot of the refs do not use the citation template WP:CITET, and while this is not required, it certainly makes references more useful. It also said that multiple tags had references with the same name or content: be watchful when using a refrence and check if it is already in use before tagging. WP:REFNAME. Just saying. -- Cerejota ( talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Source #14 used to justify IDF estimate of militant casualty is not working. Source #12, while used to justify the 700 number, when you go to the article it becomes clear that the article states "Israel has not provided its own version of a Palestinian death toll". The 700 is attributed to a person and is NOT an official IDF estimate. Why not show Hamas estimates of IDF casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.240.65 ( talk) 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The maps in the infobox don't give any indication where in the world Israel and Gaza are. We know, of course, because we're brilliant, well educated, etc., but there are many Wikipedia readers who don't and would probably like to get that information first before scuba-diving into the details. Can someone who knows how to work with these things add an inset? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643759070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.61.100 ( talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The PCHR source is used for Civilians in InfoBox. I'm not sure that PCHR civilian definition is in consensus. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.
What do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Zakout also says that the Ministry of Health totals for wounded include cases of psycholgical trauma. [6] The PCHR does not do that and that's a big part of the discrepancy between the two. And the whole issue of "shock" wounded issue has come up a few times here. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I see what you say. Maybe we could add IDF numbers for civilians in InfoBox. Does it sound fair and balanced? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A Civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. So according to Wikipedia definition, Said Siam and Nizar Rayan who both are Hamas military commanders are not civilians, despite being killed in " non-combat situations". While quotes could represent Cognitive relativism in sources, InfoBox stats should state facts and consistent with Civilian Wikipedia definition. Hopefully Wikipedia's target is being Encyclopedia and not just Urban legend. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome BobaFett85. "Non-combat situations" is PCHR research team term. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.
What do you think? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit. You have restored this sentence three times now:
An unknown number of Hamas military commanders killed in "non-combat situations" such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are not civilians under international humanitarian law, but were counted as such by PCHR research team. [3]
I have explained to you on your talk page the mutliple problems with this statement. First, where is the source that says both were "military commanders". Siam was the Interior Minister (a political figure) and Rayan a professor (and spiritual leader). Two, where is the source that says these two figures are not considered to be civilians under intl law? It's not in the article and you keep adding it anyway. Both these phrasings and points are WP:OR without sources to report them. Twice, I've changed the text to read "leaders" instead of "military commanders", removing the reference to intl law. I'd appreciate it greatly if instead of continuing to ignore the points I raise to you, that you respond to them here with sources that support your wording. Witout such sources, you cannot write this. Thanks. Tiamut talk 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree. RS around the world reported
Nizar Rayan and
Said Siam are commanders of Hamas military. Those persons are members/commanders of
Hamas armed forces (government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations), thus hardly civilians under international humanitarian law. We should clearly warn readers that PCHR
civilian statistics contains unknown number of
Hamas
combatants both in Casualties section and in InfoBox. Otherwise I feel we'd confuse the reader and hide the truth.
CNN
[10]: "Nizar Rayan, one of the main founders of Hamas and a commander in northern Gaza"
JPost
[11]: "Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander"
UPI
[12]: "Hamas military commander was killed in an Israeli airstrike"
NYPost
[13]: "He was both a military commander and the spiritual leader of Hamas' brutal military wing."
JPost
[14] "Siam was the Hamas political echelon's liaison with the group's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, and was responsible for the various security apparatuses in the Strip"
Haaretz
[15] "Sayyam ... head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas."
AP
[16] "Hamas confirms Israel strike killed security chief (Siam) ... who oversaw thousands of security agents in the Gaza Strip."
So does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, Let's behave in good faith to each other. I read you User page and learned that you're experienced and were already blocked four times for WP:3RR. You are a naughty boy :) (joke). I'd appreciate if you stop edit-warring with me and change article content while it is still in discussion. I think it is clearly against Wikipedia:etiquette While I argue about facts, I'm always ready to forgive and forget and work towards agreement. "No more war, no more bloodshed". Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Man, I think you need to chill out a bit and take a cooling off period. If you continue with this I will not have a choice but revert you too and you will not be edit-warring only with Tiamut but with me also. I agree to note these things in the casualties section but leave the infobox alone. BobaFett85 ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is quite an abundance of bizarre opinions being vaunted over these pages. A few correctives to the disinformation campaign may be found in this short, rather arbitrary list of articles, which expresses opinions in the main, but manages to give much evidence that is widely shared by serious students of the area. I hope a few out there read some of them, and cull what may prove useful for further research, that may assist the reviewing of the page, esp. the Background, which is totally dishonest.
Nishidani ( talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
@ Nishidani_ What you refer to as "correctives to the disinformation campaign" of others, is frankly a disinformation campaign of itself and simply inappropriate to this talk page. If you believe that a section of this article is "totally dishonest" as you suggest, you should be putting up specific diffs for discussion and improvement. It strikes me as a sore lack of respect toward editors here who do not share your views to label their perspective "dishonest" and a "disinformation campaign." I urge you to refactor your comments. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Much as I don't like questioning something with 10 refs after it, the current article states:
This is not supported by even one of the references. It's important to note the distinction between calling it the "Gaza Massacre" (note the capital 'M' indicating that it's a part of the name), versus the way the sources describe it: "Gaza 'massacre'", "massacre in Gaza", and "Gaza massacre". That the conflict has been described as a massacre in the Arab world is certainly supported by the sources and should be in the lead. However, the sources do not support that the conflict has been called "the Gaza Massacre" (or its Arabic translation) as opposed to being descriptively called a massacre in Gaza. Unless sources can be found to show that it has been called the "Gaza Massacre" as a name rather than a description, this sentence should be rewritten, the Arabic removed, and the text unbolded (since it's a description rather than a name). In fact, the only source I see that even uses the term "Gaza massacre" is attributed to a Hamas spokesman. I therefore suggest that the text be changed to:
Thoughts? Oren0 ( talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
i dont read arabic, but there was a long discussion about this and the editors who do know it said that there is no capitalization in arabic. in context, if the source says "the gaza massacre" then we should capitalize it. Untwirl ( talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research?
I am beginning to feel like I cannot make myself understood. Am I clear to you?- Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Oren and Tundrabuggy that we have no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English-language sources don't. I would also add that a qualifier, such as "in parts of (the Arab world)" is necessary. English Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera Magazine, for example, simply don't call it that. Palestine News Network and Gulf News do. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we really fighting over capitalization? We wikipedians can get silly sometimes. Fact is, you guys should give up an accept the fact that calling this a "M/massacre" is pretty much the same, the equivalent, and as encyclopedic as calling it Operation Cast Lead. Its called verifiability, not truth. And the disingenousness of arguing the sources do not say this is beyond belief. Don't insult your intelligence by making silly arguments like that anymore. Sometimes, repeating a lie doesn't make it become truth, it just makes you a worse liar. -- Cerejota ( talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is totally obvious to me that no one wants to honestly face this issue (ie that the references do not say what is claimed) and prefer to argue the name so that they can put the Arab perspective in the lead without putting in the Israeli perspective. It seems they would prefer to pretend they do not understand this, and that we are niggling over capitalisation issues and use WP:PA. My earlier fixes were rejected.
As far as I am concerned, there should be no mention of a massacre in the lead without Israel's view also being mentioned. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundra, it is mentioned, more prominently and with less sourcing. Israel calls this thing "Operation Cast Lead" (check), and it was done to "stop rocket attacks" (check) and "targeting only Hamas infrastructure and people" (check).
The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". The equivalent response would be "The Israeli public opinion calls this "Gaza War" or somesuch, however, since Israel has a formal name for the conflict we should use that, rather than the informal media name. It is not about equivalency, but about how the conflict is named. There is assymetry in this naming, as there is in the casualties, but this is a result of the events, and we cannot artificially resolve this assymetry by making editorial decisions. Just as it is not POV to show the assymetry in casulaties, it is not POV to show an assymetry in naming. I hope I made sense.-- Cerejota ( talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Nableezy. I just wanted to understand if "massacre" has the same meaning for Arabs as it has for non-Arabs, and if Arabs use that term the same way as non-Arabs would. From your answer, I understand
So if I got that right, and if the Arabic word for "Gaza massacre" is indeed the most widely used name in the Arab world (which needs to be sourced), we have to
Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You keep eliding material, on your own, with no discussion. The three industrial centres knocked out by the IDF are specified because they are the fundamental pivots of the economy of the Gaza strip, cement for construction, and flour processing, etc. Before Gaza had some private infrastructure for storage, milling of foodstuffs, and large-scale building construction. These were economic targets like mills and silos (same happened in Lebanon), not military targets, like workshops, all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry. That effect is major, it has devastated the possibility of internal reconstruction, since now everything must be done abroad (Israel etc), and nothing done by Gaza's entrepreneurs themselves. Nishidani ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, we have a one-paragraph section on effects of the conflict, which, being one paragraph long, can only deal with generalities. The details are amply described in the separate article. Along comes an editor and starts listing factories that were destroyed and how, when the paragraph already says that 15,000 factories and workshops were destroyed. The edit was sloppy and in the wrong place, as the order of the paragraph was Gaza-Israel-elsewhere, and the addition, which pertained to Gaza, was inserted in between Israel and elsewhere. I moved the addition to the separate article and explained what I did and why in the edit summary. This was a very mundane edit, the kind that is done all the time to keep articles from deteriorating into collections of junk. Why you have a problem with it - well, I have a guess, but I'm supposed to force myself to think otherwise. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is, by the way, no good objective source for the cliché '1,000,000 people huddling in bomb shelters'. It is the entire Israeli population of the area according to demographics, potentially within Qassam ranges, without a discrimination between notorious areas under constant fear and barrages (Sderot) from a very large number of settlements that have had very little to fear from Qassams. I know the Israeli area affected quite well, have lived there. This is what media say. I have difficulty believing it. But I haven't touched it. Nishidani ( talk) 12:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
the information presented under this title belongs here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_foreign_involvement ... Cryptonio ( talk) 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This news report http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/28/2475752.htm?section=world Mentions a roadside bomb that was remotely detonated from within Gaza, killing an Israeli officer. It goes on to say that Israel reponded with renewed helicopter attacks, and that tanks & bulldozers were moving into Gaza once again.
I figure I'd post it here for dicussion rather than change the article. Some may wish to debate the veracity of this, or to talk about the direction this article will take if the fighting does indeed break out again in full. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing
Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30
a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m.
UTC)
[9] when
Israel launched a
military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (
Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party,
Hamas.
[10]
[11]
[12] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (
Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in parts of the
Arab World.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. [23] [24] [25] Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade, and citing an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4 as a breach of the truce, [26] [27] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.
On 27 December 2008, Israel launched an all out military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire. [28] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade. [29]
On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices [30] [31] in all of the Gaza strip. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.. Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations.
On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza. [48] [49] During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza.
Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian and army targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. [50] [51]
Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire with Hamas on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Palestinian militants fired about 20 rockets over the border after the Israeli ceasefire announcement. Israel retaliated with an airstrike. Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. [52] [53] On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. [54]
International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid. [55] [56] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
During the conflict, 13 Israelis were killed including three civilians. On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians. [62] [3] [63] Following the conflict, more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water and it was reported that Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'. [64]. As a result of the bombings, 4,000 Gazan buildings were razed [64] and 20,000 severely damaged [64]), more than 50,800 Gazans were left homeless. [64]
Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and law suits. [65] In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes. [71]
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lets look at the proposals one by one:
(1) The ja23 proposal would omit "parts of"(the Arab world), which must be rejected according to the npov discussin consensus now in archive 22. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(2) The ja23 proposal would delete the sentence "Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce." This sentence however is the most npov way (without blaming anyone) to describe the pre-cast lead situation and thus should stay. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(3) The ja23 proposal replaces some sources with the sentence: "Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations." This is problematic as the Hamas seizure of power was not only by 2006 election, but more like in a civil war 2007. We should neither present all details of how Hamas gained power in the lead (WP:UNDUE) nor cherry-pick some details as it is done here, but leave that to the background section. The "gov buildings and police stations" passage is redundant, as it is stated in the sentence before that IAF targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices". Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(4) The ja23 proposal adds: "During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza." Picking an isolated incident, presenting only one version as also with the isolated (Hamas) casualty figure gives them undue weight, violates WP:NPOV and thus must be rejected. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(5) The ja23 proposal adds "There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris." This again is pov-ed, in style ("angry") as in content (only against Israel), also the towns presented are randomly picked and thus given undue weight. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(6) The ja23 proposal replaces:
This must be rejected because of WP:NPOV - All figures except the Hamas figure are deleted. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(7) The ja23 proposal adds: "In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes." Again, this violates WP:NPOV, as only one side of the dispute is presented, and also violates WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
TL; DR please people re-read WP:LEDE. I like the first line, but it should be merged with the second and third (as redundant). Mention of specific casualty figures should not go on the lede. We should not used phrases that charactize, like "angry protests". What the UN chief in Gaza said is notable, but not lede material.
Something like this, but with the sourcing and wikilinks:
“ | The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party, Hamas, and of halting rocket fire that had resumed after a six month long truce ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas contends the resuming of the rocket attacks is a result of Israel not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and of the Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on 4 November 2008. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.
On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices in all of the Gaza strip. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, and schools, were also attacked. Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians. On January 3, 2009, a ground invasion by the Israeli Defence Forces began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on 18 January 2009 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). After initially ignoring the ceasefire with renewed rocket attacks, Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. International reactions during the conflict have included the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[47][48] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with protests against Israeli operations held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris. Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits. |
†|
This is shorter, sumarizes the article, and is way more NPOV. Less peacock and weasel.-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Re [26] and [27], the language being restored here is pretty clearly inappropriate. First of all, identifying the Palestinian Ministry of Health as "Hamas-run" is gratuitous and carries no information; it simply serves as a kind of rhetorical prod to the reader, "don't trust these guys." (I imagine it read aloud in an Israeli accent; "khhhaamas"Â ;) It's a government ministry, it's run by the government, which is run by the party in power. Flagging that party serves no legitimate purpose and is only an attempt to lead the reader around by the nose. And what does the Jerusalem Post, a hawkish Israeli paper, report?
Tony Laurance, who heads the World Health Organization's office in the West Bank and Gaza, said the information from the Gaza Health Ministry "is likely to be close to accurate." It was "reported on a daily basis by hospitals to the central information center within the Ministry of Health," he added. That center had identifying details of the casualties in terms of names and ages and places of residents. [28]
Second, and more significantly, the text portrays a significant gap between Pal MoH estimates and other Palestinian counts. This gap does not appear to exist, and it certainly isn't docuemnted or even implied in the given sources. MoH estimates 1,330 dead of whom 900 are civilians. The PCHR, an independent non-partisan, group, estimates 1,284 dead of whom 894 are civilians. The difference in total death counts is less than 4% and in civilians less than 1%. The PCHR's estimate appears to be the most widely cited in Western reports. The vague innuendos by Israeli officials, almost all off the record, and the Clouseauian investigation by that one Italian journalist, are not "Palestinian estimates." Indeed the JPost piece I already cited notes that the PCHR's figures are "almost identical" to Hamas's.
People, cut the crap. You can't just make things up and put them into Wikipedia articles. This is pretty basic. If you want to quibble about "hamas-run" fine, but this business about "other Palestinian estimates" is, to be blunt, a lie. Please don't lie. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The proposal of ja23 to use "Kadima-run" for the Israeli side is exactly the argument to have Hamas-run or some similar phrasing in the article. This conflict is not Israel vs Palestine, but Israel vs the Hamas-run part of Palestine. There are many Palestine areas/institutions that are not involved (at least directly). Thus we need the qualification. If Hamas would perform an operation only against Kadima, and Kadima would rule a different area of Israel than Likud and have its own institutions and ministries there, we of course had to indicate that, too. But this is not the case for Israel. She is acting as one party. Palestine is not. We have to avoid disambigous wording and clearly attribute who exactly is the source for whatever. If the numbers are from Hamas, we have to say Hamas and not MoH, and don't let the reader click through other articles before he knows that the information is actually from a party of this conflict and not from "someone". We cannot assume everyone knows exactly who is in charge of what MoH. What is the problem with clearly indicating the sources? Skäpperöd ( talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]There is no question that Hamas threw out the PA and are governing on their own. It is my understanding that there is no power-sharing going on between PA and Hamas in Gaza. There is no two-party system, no opposition party acknowledged. Do correct me if I'm wrong. That may be a "democratically elected" government, but my understanding of democratic is that the voice of others is heard as well. I am also under the impression that not every Gazan is happy with Hamas and Hamas' decision to provoke Israel. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Al-Arabia-Grad
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al-Arabia-Grad-YouTube
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ynet
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nydn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Guardian20091105
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
hs
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).btselem
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).