![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Since Palestinian sources clearly blur the line between civilians and combatants, reporting an unknown number of Hamas commanders as civilians it is only fair to remove it. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually it looks like we don't break down the PCHR numbers. The three asterisks are for the line which says the 940 number excludes policemen. The information beyond that point is just a list of civilian deaths that we are aware of, not that they were part of the PCHR count. It might be a little unclear. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope I reflected consensus in my edit, removing '***' and '****' AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhhh. Help. I'm new to editing and I'm having trouble with reference tags. The section on Effects is tits up at the moment because of it. Can someone please fix it, or tell me how to fix it :)-N00B Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that we are qualifying casualty figures. While I often repeat that the fog of war means that these figures are inherently unreliable this close to conflict, I am concerned by the use of IDF figures. How does the IDF know this? They are neither on the ground, nor the government of Gaza, nor do they have any access to hospital information. It would seem to me their figures are a best estimates, and worse wishful thinking about the "targets".
The BBC has a great analysis on the "fog of war" and casualty figures. I think we should include ranges without qualifiers other than the sourcing like this:
Deaths:
As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza.-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This section requires some serious work. For one, it is written almost entirely from the perspective of the IDF. Almost every piece of information here can be traced back to IDF sources. We need to use more neutral sources.
Second, I don't understand why we need to go into such extensive detail on the exact military tactics that Hamas used. For example, there is a separate subsection on "tunnels and booby traps" which, apart from reading very poorly, seems quite irrelevant and deserves a line rather than a subsection. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I shortened the section a bit. Presumably the IDF used land-mines and other "traps". However, we can hardly have a subsection on that. I think the problem here is that it is hard to get reliable information. Some of the Palestinian groups involved in combat, put out some information about their combat activities. The reason it was not put in, during an earlier discussion on this topic is that most of it is probably not verifiable. The same holds true of IDF reports. That's too bad; we'll have to keep the section brief till we get better sources. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like opinions on listing incidents. Summaries are good but the list has turned into news. Wikipedia is not for news. In particular, a doctor on TV lost a kid and it was very newsworthy since it was an interesting and tragic story. However, this doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. So I would love to revert the revert but am open to any good reasoning as to why this one occurrence should stay in. Also, we should probably address all of the other fluff in the section. Cptnono ( talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel Television has reported that shrapnel removed from the daughter and the niece, who are now in Tel HaShomer (hospital), shows that they may have pieces of metal that are from a Grad-type Katyusha rocket - and not from any ammunition used by the IDF - in their heads. Israel doesn't shoot Katyusha rockets. Hamas does.
The saddest part of this is that Dr. Abuelaish is apparently the rare 'Palestinian' who strives for peace. Apparently, even he could not keep the terrorists from using his home. See:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinian-doctors-daughter-may-have.html
I have not seen this Channel 1 Israel TV report, but local witness on the ground (my brother) confirmed that it indeed happened. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Peace between Palestinians and Israelis:
In respect of the question:" Now think of the future when your children are in your Age! Do you think there would be at that time peace between Israelis and Palestinians?" (2.4 %) answered "definitely", (30.9 %) "Likely", (25.2 %) "Possible", (8.5 %) "Unlikely", (29.3 %) "Definitely not" and (3.7 %) answered “I don't know". [1] |
” |
I fully agree with you RomaC, Palestinians do exist, and don't you loose your sleep: woman in my surrounding are safe :). I hope the hate will stop and people of peace will raise their voice. If you read carefully you'd notice that I just quote blog of Carl in Jerusalem, which is unworthy for Wikipedia inclusion. I personally think that situation on the ground is very sad and complex, the war generally is extremely ugly especially from close distance. Here is very shocking Newsweek quote:
“ | Many Gazans have no problem with the idea of Hamas attacking Israelis, but complain that they made a disappointing job of it this time... Perhaps a doctor at Shifa Hospital summed it up best. "Hamas doesn't care about anything," he said, "and the Israelis will kill anyone to get to Hamas." [2] | ” |
Why just we can't all live in peace AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Way off topic. Does any of the above have any bearing on the article? If anyone has any thoughts on how to work in the UN HQ bombing incident it would be appreciated. It is touched on several times throughout the article already and does not need to be here. The sources and a few lines are good so I don't want to delete it if these can be used somewhere else. Also, is there consensus on whether the Doctor's event stays or goes? Cptnono ( talk) 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267764091&oldid=267753026 Your suggestions are welcome. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The background is supposed to expand upon the lead. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No justification for anything, on my side. Quoting 3d party sources about events on the ground. I'll re-commit. And indeed looks like another cycle of violence is underway. It's funny how justification for more bloodshed could be found. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, thank for explaining basics of NPOV. I agree that we should talk only about facts and bring 3d party quotes as-is, without original research. Talking about good/bad is irrelevant, and depend on POV. Still we are not on the same page. RomaC is great editor but he commented on some unrelated amendment, which was not added by me. Could you comment on this proposed diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=267985738&oldid=267973921 Could you relate to each of 3 quotes? Which one is NPOV and which one is not? How it could be improved? Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, thank you for analysis. I see what you mean. I'd appropriate if you could integrate the relevant quotes/sources into the section in clear NPOV way. Agree? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i thing this is misleading
"Thirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks, though none expressed support for Hamas.[citation needed] Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive. Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence."
"mostly in the Muslim world" and "mostly in the western world" parts that i dont get. are japan, france, switzerland, mexico, spain, etc etc muslim countries? those parts should just be left out. Untwirl ( talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
so, we have a rough consensus to drop the muslim and western qualifiers and just state the numbers, yes? Untwirl ( talk) 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a "rough consensus". Untwirl supports removing the information, I oppose, Sean (if I understand him correctly) conditionally opposes, and the conditions are filled - you're all welcome to look at that discussion page. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The problems with it were:
a)We don't need details of every rocket attack on this page, that's what the timeline's for, so I've linked to it
b)There was a lot of detail about rocket attacks that happened before this conflict.
I've removed problems. Please don't reinstate without consensus here. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews23: That's not way things work around here. If you want to remove sourced material from an article because you don't like it, you should gain a consensus for its removal, then remove it.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
jalapenos - did you follow that procedure when doing this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 why did you use a misleading edit summary for your removal of info? Best, Untwirl ( talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please pardon me joining the discussion without having read the whole section, but I just wanted to add that thirteen rockets and several mortars were fired at Israel today. Any volunteers to add that to the graphic? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why removing such well sourced and important paragraph from the "Incidents" section:
UN Headquarters: On January 15, the IDF shelled the UN headquarters in Gaza where hundreds were sheltering. After analyzing the Unexploded ordnance, the UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by 155m White Phosphorus ammunition.[237]. 3 people were injured and hundreds of tons food and fuel were destroyed,[238] drawing condemnation from European countries.[239] Israel claimed Hamas fired from the site, but apologised for the "very sad consequences" calling its attack a "grave error". After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident.[240]
And the remover even completely deleted that the compound (which hosted hundreds of refugees) was hit by white phosphorus as asserted by the UN. How can this be explained? -- Darwish07 ( talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
And this was not a spokesman, this was a UN official report. I'm assuming good faith cause I think you thought it was a quote randomly found in a news website, but it was not. You didn't read the cited report first, and yes, I also didn't read the subarticle. I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I was questioning if this was vandalism "or what". Anyway I'll return the paragraph to the main page itself, cause this is an important incident and it was not even summarized in the main page before moving. You may want to discuss this afterwards, cause this section was moved without discussion here. Peace. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)The type of UXO removed confirms that the compound was shelled by 155mm White Phosphorous artillery.
(ec) better to chime in and realize i'm wrong than to make pov edits without discussion as you seem bent on doing. however, if you read more closely you will see the line i refer to: "After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident." (scroll up)
enough with the snide comments ("not that complicated", "editors pulling at straws", "this is the 2nd time . . .") you obviously weren't reading closely enough yourself or you would see the line i am talking about, unless you are being wp:dense? try to agf, and i will do the same. Untwirl ( talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The ex-parliamentarian Uri Avnery remarking on the war aims expressed, not by official declarations, but by many interviews in the press and on television in Israel during the campaign, writes as followes:
The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war crimes: (1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to “fix a price tag”. “to burn into their consciousness”, “to reinforce deterrence”, and most of all – to get the population to rise up against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at (literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical teams from reaching the victims, killing people indiscriminately. In certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was opened on people trying to escape.' Uri Avnery, 'Under the Black Flag', Counterpunch 02/02/2009
It's only his synthesis of comments made to the Israeli public. There is, in most wars, a distinction to be made between public declarations concerning the casus belli and the actual reasons for going to war, esp. one that is a war of choice, as was both this and the recent Iraq war. So any authoritative comments from IDF strategists or political sources that use the kind of language Avnery remarks on, in explaining the war's aims, should be noted for eventual use. Nishidani ( talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I read January_2009_Gaza_attacks and find it contans much less extra material compared to the section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Internal_violence than other linked articles have. I suggest either its merge in and deleted or that section Internal violence to be tighten or merged with another section. Discuss. Brunte ( talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I think that article should be deleted then. Can someone help as I dont know how to request it? Brunte ( talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
While three sources are provided, all seem to be referencing Palestinian medical workers or Palestinian-organized services. Including reuters and UNOCHA give the impression that these media groups are independently verifying the death/wounded toll, when in fact they are just citing (albeit subtly) information from Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian medical services.
I honestly couldn't care less about the casualties themselves, but the Palestinians have a long history of inflating, embellishing, and often times falsifying information regarding casualties.
Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know for a fact those sources would be considered unreliable from a POV perspective, but they're the only ones we can go by for now.
I think Israel might have their casualty estimates, perhaps that could also be included? Like, say "casualties disputed" or something along those lines. Be cordial, please.
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i dont remember exactly, but i do recall a question being put forth as to whether this violence relates directly to this conflict. the source itself says violence has "tripled." doesnt this mean at least one third of it is unrelated? Untwirl ( talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section. Also, I think we should include counter-opinions regarding the legal criticism. I know for a fact that many notable and more qualified than Richard Falk, who is more of an advocate than a legal expert.
Can we agree on this?
Oh, another thing I think we need to de-emphasize our inclusion of Richard A. Falk in the section lead. He possesses nowhere near the credibility nor the impartial opinion necessary to be considered a legal expert. What I mean is, if are going to continue using his name, his extreme bias must be established. Passing him off as impartial, which this article does, is simply a joke. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, he you didn't address my other points. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you'r looking for balance where there isn't one to be had Wikifan. The fact is that Israel have been accused of a lot more International Law violations than Gaza. Between the WP contraversy, UN facility attacks & civillian deaths all alleged Israel simply has more to answer. Not saying that they were right or wrong, or what the ruling on these allegations should be. It's just the nature of the beast here, Israel has an internationally recognized government and that makes them beholden to some things Hamas might get away with Andrew's Concience ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) to fan:
falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov. if you feel the whole world has an anti-israel bias, maybe you should contribute to the mars wiki
Untwirl (
talk)
04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We deal in sourced marterial. Richard Faulk is in a lot of sourced material because he's the UN spokesman. What can we do? Reject good sources because they feature someone we don't like. That would violate WP:Stupid Bullshit Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, bandying accusations of antisemitism is highly offensive to many editors here. Strongly suggest you strike that along with your Hitler analogies. RomaC ( talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
wikifan, i'm under the impression that the arbitration rules (and wp:npa) don't permit these (repeated) bullshit accusations of antisemitism. you can be blocked if you continue. Untwirl ( talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
'Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html
an ideas? Untwirl ( talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Every once in a while I actually look at the article so I noticed this. The article says Hamas was using "armored vehicles" in the fighting, sourced with this Jerusalem Post article [3]. Is that assertion correct? I realize that Hamas seized them from Fatah but I would have thought they'd be more of a liability given Israel's air supremacy. Does anyone know about this? The current source is vague and it seems odd. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews23jandrews23 tried to remove parts not so related to the articles core. It was revereted by Jalapenos do exist here with the comment "Jandrews, I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. Your repeated removal of large chunks of sourced material has prompted a second talk page discussion. State your position there"
I disagree and reverted, and Jalapenos do exist reverted again "So get consensus. That's how we do things around here."
And thats what I like to do. Your views editors! Brunte ( talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you are well past your allowed number of reverts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268127450&oldid=268127353
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268145847&oldid=268145302
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268262758&oldid=268261420
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268272567&oldid=268269432
it seems that you are the one who needs to get consensus. don't revert again or you will be reported. this article has special rules due to arbitration. Untwirl ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As antijewish reactions is detalied reported in another artcle I suggest a hevy triming of this section. Suggested text:
The number of recorded antisemitic incidents during the conflict more than tripled the number of such incidents in the same period of the previous year, marking a two-decade high. [3] United States-based human rights group Human Rights First called them "antisemitic backlash attacks" to the events in Gaza. [4] The incidents received responses from representatives of several governments, most of whom condemned them and/or called for calm. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Brunte (
talk)
17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the page was deleted by administrator means it does not exist. if you have valuable information then i suggest you add it to the international reactions article, where it belongs, and help us summarize that section here. Untwirl ( talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
i havent abandoned anything. all of my arguments stand. i'm just feeling like you are being WP:DENSE and i dont feel the need to repeat it yet another time. Untwirl ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
a section i dont find necessary, merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I merge in both anti jewish and anti arab subsection on the reaction section. As it is now it dont look good. And I hope it dont swell upp to much in either side. If then we can restore sections. Brunte ( talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed
Brunte ( talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Gaza victims describe human shield use" By JPOST.COM STAFF [4] "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields." Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2009
Not much of an "extraordinary claim", these types of allegations are as old as the I-P conflict itself. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and WP:V has no requirement for a multitude of reliable sources. There's enough sentences with silly string citations. Moreover, the JPost says that this information comes from the Al-Hayat al-Jadida. So it looks like all POV's are satisfied (unless there's some card-carrying Hamas supporters here). If we want to be extremely cautious we can always go....."According the Jerusalem Post, the Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported that..........."-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"In most cases, the families had fled or were expelled by the soldiers. In some cases, however, the soldiers prevented the families from leaving, using them as "human shields". Untwirl ( talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
do you like haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060390.html "On Monday, on one of the walls of the house that became the IDF position from which soldiers shot the two brothers who died at their father's side, we found two inscriptions in Hebrew: "The Jewish people lives" and "Kahane was right," referring to right-wing extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane."
or http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059513.html "Report: IDF probing racist graffiti left by soldiers in Gaza"
the independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/my-terror-as-a-human-shield-the-story-of-majdi-abed-rabbo-1520420.html "My terror as a human shield: The story of Majdi Abed Rabbo"
brisbane times? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-for-gaza-peace/2009/01/30/1232818724423.html
the australian? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24987294-2703,00.html
ynet? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664281,00.html "Givati troops leave 'Death to Arabs' graffiti in Gaza" Untwirl ( talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
1. you say neither amnesty international nor the independent are reliable due to their "notoriously anti-Israel stance."
2. you advocate for the inclusion of jerusalem post, seemingly asserting that they don't have a pro-israel slant or an "anti-hamas" slant.
3. your bias is crystal clear, hence my observation above of your brushing off war crimes as "some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire."
do you need further explanation? maybe you should translate it into your native tongue so you can understand it better. Untwirl ( talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. "
btw - please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. Untwirl ( talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course" (linked to criticism of amnesty)
and "The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent
care to retract your statement? Untwirl ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the lead paragraph on casualties reads "However, as of February 1 2009, the number of Palestinians killed, and the proportion of Palestinians killed who were civilians, remains a matter of contention. According to figures compiled by the Israeli military, between 1,100 and 1,200 were killed, over 700 were militants and 250 were civilians.[46][47][48][49] [50] According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, 900 were civilians, including 410 children, and the remainder were police officers and militants.[51][52]"
I think this is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the secondary sources that we have access to. Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification. For example:
BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed"
Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead"
Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians
UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials."
AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"
Reuters: "Israel's Gaza offensive ... killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Gazan rights groups said 700 civilians died, many of them children."
Economist: "About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, in nearly three weeks of fighting." (On January 15)
It is true that the Israeli military has questioned these figures, but the Israeli figures have not been widely taken up by neutral reliable sources. Of course, we should include the fact that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figure cannot go ahead of the other figure and I think the phrasing should make it clear that an overwhelming majority of sources accept the other figure. In light of this, to present these figures as a matter of serious dispute misrepresents the sources. I propose something to the effect of: "About 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health [refs]. The Israeli military has questioned the number of civilian deaths [refs]." Jacob2718 ( talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
About 1,300 Palestinians were killed including 900 civilians and 410 children (with the remainder being police officers and militants) according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.[70][71] The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed.[72][73][74][75] [76]
Most reliable sources do indeed qualify the amount of causalities. It would be kinda irresponsible on their part not to. See Battle of Jenin, where Palestinian claims of massacre were later found to be nonsense and the IDF numbers were correct.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. Bullying doesn't last long around here, call it the revenge of the nerds if you will. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The figures need to be attributed, especially if they are disputed. We have numerous sources attributing the claims, the opener found some who don't (yet they might do in other articles, e.g. reuters attributes those figures to Hamas here). There is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not attribute their figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow.
Also, there is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not cite the Israeli figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow. The Israeli figures were just recently released, and all that was released was a kind of a "preview" that is yet to be completed. It is thus no surprise that they are not yet cited by everyone. We need secondary sources to wp:verify information, but we need to present these informations following wikipolicies such as wp:npov. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I continue to oppose inclusion of casualties figures in the lead, - it shoudl say something vague like "causualties happened" - and push for their inclusion in the infobox. As to quantities, all of these discussions would be solved if we provided an upper and lower range, and then a few sources. Keep the narrative for the Casualties section. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2 aircraft
3 airstrikes
3 army
5 artillery
5 bomb
3 bombed
1 bombings
3 bombs
5 booby
1 explode
1 exploding
4 explosives
2 gun
1 gunships
2 helicopter
2 helicopters
3 katyusha
3 launchers
3 missiles
19 mortar
5 mortars
6 phosphorus
6 qassam
47 rocket
34 rockets
2 rockets'
4 shelled
5 shelling
13 shells
6 tank
2 tanks
Sean.hoyland -
talk
09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a predictable result of the fact that one side in the conflict has lots of different types of weapons, and the other side has pretty much one type of weapon: rockets. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please say which title you think is better, since otherwise this is just going to back and forward between Jalapeno and me.
Support since it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive' and also because 'Palestinian militant activity' does not sound neutral, it makes it sound suspicious and illegal(maybe it is, but then 'Israeli offensive' should be changed to something like 'Israeli attacking troop activities' (OK a bad one but I can't think of better) Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Better After some rereading I think that 'Palestinian militant activity' sounds more negative than 'Israeli offensive' and is therby not npov. Brunte ( talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think neiter. If 'Israeli offensive' stands, the other should be something with 'defence' in it. ex 'Palestinian defence' or 'Palestinian defence of Gaza'
Brunte (
talk)
18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't any of these options are all that great. "Gazan response" is pretty generic. It doesn't really say who is responding and doesn't convey that most of the response was military in nature. "Palestinian militant activity" is only slightly better. It says a little bit more about who but is just as generic as to what. "Palestinian defense" doesn't really fit because many of the activities (rocket attacks) are defensive only in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense". On that basis the Israeli actions could be considered "defensive". Anyone have any other suggestions? Blackeagle ( talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Blackeagle's suggestion as the only only policy compliant framework so far. He has had the gonadal fortitude to bring the obvious cluster-fuck the section is. We should be able to provide an NPOV narrative in the encyclopedic voice without segregating obviously related topics by combatant. Of course, as I said, I can live with well sourced, verifiable aberrations as long as we do not cross the line into SYNTH. I just think we should reconsider how we have arrived to these "solutions". Consensus is hard, sweaty, and time-consuming. Which doesn't mean that we are immune from the fact must reach it. --
Cerejota (
talk)
02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Do people remember the previous discussions about this? The Israeli govt includes 'shock victims' in their casualty figures. In the infobox it now says 182 civilians injured. I would guess this includes shock victims once again. As noted before, there are probably over 1 million victims of shock in Gaza. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's hard to determine the exact number of "shocked" victims because mass media tends to be more selective when it comes to Israeli news, but perhaps we shock can technically be categorized in the injured section. Also, depending on one's proximity from an explosion, "shock" could imply physical damage. Lest you forget, shock can cause internal and psychological injuries. But I doubt 182 victims injured also includes those who were "shocked." Under your reasoning, the victims would exceed 50,000. Sderot and Ashkelon have been experiencing daily rocket attacks for over a year... Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been against counting them together. Although I would note that we also count Palestinian psychological victims. I included a link to this a while ago but the head of the PCHR counting said that they had counted about a thousand fewer wounded than the MoH and he attributed it to the MoH counting psychological trauma. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG. People, this would all be solved if we had ranges with sourcing. I will repeat this as mantra. There is absolutly no need to have long edit warring and talk threads on casulaties if we follow this simple formulation. There is a fog of war and all an any attempts at casualty figures by any side have to be treated as part of their respective PR efforts. However, they are published as primary sources and repeated by RS, and obviously central, so we must include this.
Say aye and lets get over with, so we can edit war on better things, like lovefests and rockets. Yeesh, at least the Babycue debate had some serious systemic implecations. These here is close to being lame.-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
could someone report it? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=268117343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) '
You can do it yourself. WP:AIV. He was handled fine, not blocked, but warned and has not edited again. If s/he edits again in the same fashion, s/he will be blocked. -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
jalps - 2 of us now have agreed and removed material that is duplicated word for word in the international reactions section. it should be summarized and that is all. don't say "see talk" when you have not posted anything discussing this to the talk page. i will wait to revert you until others weigh in. Untwirl ( talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
if you insist on overcrowding this article with 'effects', i suggest adding this:
"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F%3Fpage%3Drss%26id%3DRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26&ord=18771778&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
and this:
"Israel's election panel disqualified two Arab parties from running in the February 10 elections based on a motion filed by two far-right parties which claimed they did not recognise the Jewish state's right to exist. "Obviously, the right wing is stronger with the war. The Israelis are selling more cheap popularity in the streets," said Jamal Zahalqa, head of the parliamentary group of one of the two parties, the National Democratic Assembly. . . .The leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Sakhnin, father Salah Khoury, has organised a campaign to send food and clothes to Gaza, but fears the consequences of supporting the Palestinians in the enclave. "We identify with the people in Gaza, but we don't want to endanger ourselves," said the Arab Israeli. "We want to stand in our land. We're scared. Right wing Jews see us as enemies." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0R8Cdp-6NO1kvXp38rf3KRMk7Aw
and articles about settler violence against arabs in the west bank, which i shall find shortly. Untwirl ( talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and that source could be used in the article. A sovereign democratic government banning the waving of Israeli flags is VERY relevant to this article. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And Jalapeno, don't accuse of not being a productive contributor. You are the one who is unproductive solely based on your refusal to publish facts. There is plenty of reliable sources that provide a far differing spin then what is seen here. Sleep well. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
if it is "reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world" (and according to you, anti-semitic) to include the fact that there has been a pro-israel backlash against arabs, then you have a very broad view of anti-semitism. as cerejota once wisely said, calling everything antisemitism "cheapen(s) the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism." Untwirl ( talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you contend that, "Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable." and i say there is no difference. jews do not have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice. all people deserve to be treated with respect, jews, arabs, blacks, etc. i'll just repeat and agree with you that "there is no excuse to be ignorant." Untwirl ( talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Since Palestinian sources clearly blur the line between civilians and combatants, reporting an unknown number of Hamas commanders as civilians it is only fair to remove it. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually it looks like we don't break down the PCHR numbers. The three asterisks are for the line which says the 940 number excludes policemen. The information beyond that point is just a list of civilian deaths that we are aware of, not that they were part of the PCHR count. It might be a little unclear. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope I reflected consensus in my edit, removing '***' and '****' AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhhh. Help. I'm new to editing and I'm having trouble with reference tags. The section on Effects is tits up at the moment because of it. Can someone please fix it, or tell me how to fix it :)-N00B Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that we are qualifying casualty figures. While I often repeat that the fog of war means that these figures are inherently unreliable this close to conflict, I am concerned by the use of IDF figures. How does the IDF know this? They are neither on the ground, nor the government of Gaza, nor do they have any access to hospital information. It would seem to me their figures are a best estimates, and worse wishful thinking about the "targets".
The BBC has a great analysis on the "fog of war" and casualty figures. I think we should include ranges without qualifiers other than the sourcing like this:
Deaths:
As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza.-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This section requires some serious work. For one, it is written almost entirely from the perspective of the IDF. Almost every piece of information here can be traced back to IDF sources. We need to use more neutral sources.
Second, I don't understand why we need to go into such extensive detail on the exact military tactics that Hamas used. For example, there is a separate subsection on "tunnels and booby traps" which, apart from reading very poorly, seems quite irrelevant and deserves a line rather than a subsection. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I shortened the section a bit. Presumably the IDF used land-mines and other "traps". However, we can hardly have a subsection on that. I think the problem here is that it is hard to get reliable information. Some of the Palestinian groups involved in combat, put out some information about their combat activities. The reason it was not put in, during an earlier discussion on this topic is that most of it is probably not verifiable. The same holds true of IDF reports. That's too bad; we'll have to keep the section brief till we get better sources. Jacob2718 ( talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like opinions on listing incidents. Summaries are good but the list has turned into news. Wikipedia is not for news. In particular, a doctor on TV lost a kid and it was very newsworthy since it was an interesting and tragic story. However, this doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. So I would love to revert the revert but am open to any good reasoning as to why this one occurrence should stay in. Also, we should probably address all of the other fluff in the section. Cptnono ( talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel Television has reported that shrapnel removed from the daughter and the niece, who are now in Tel HaShomer (hospital), shows that they may have pieces of metal that are from a Grad-type Katyusha rocket - and not from any ammunition used by the IDF - in their heads. Israel doesn't shoot Katyusha rockets. Hamas does.
The saddest part of this is that Dr. Abuelaish is apparently the rare 'Palestinian' who strives for peace. Apparently, even he could not keep the terrorists from using his home. See:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinian-doctors-daughter-may-have.html
I have not seen this Channel 1 Israel TV report, but local witness on the ground (my brother) confirmed that it indeed happened. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Peace between Palestinians and Israelis:
In respect of the question:" Now think of the future when your children are in your Age! Do you think there would be at that time peace between Israelis and Palestinians?" (2.4 %) answered "definitely", (30.9 %) "Likely", (25.2 %) "Possible", (8.5 %) "Unlikely", (29.3 %) "Definitely not" and (3.7 %) answered “I don't know". [1] |
” |
I fully agree with you RomaC, Palestinians do exist, and don't you loose your sleep: woman in my surrounding are safe :). I hope the hate will stop and people of peace will raise their voice. If you read carefully you'd notice that I just quote blog of Carl in Jerusalem, which is unworthy for Wikipedia inclusion. I personally think that situation on the ground is very sad and complex, the war generally is extremely ugly especially from close distance. Here is very shocking Newsweek quote:
“ | Many Gazans have no problem with the idea of Hamas attacking Israelis, but complain that they made a disappointing job of it this time... Perhaps a doctor at Shifa Hospital summed it up best. "Hamas doesn't care about anything," he said, "and the Israelis will kill anyone to get to Hamas." [2] | ” |
Why just we can't all live in peace AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Way off topic. Does any of the above have any bearing on the article? If anyone has any thoughts on how to work in the UN HQ bombing incident it would be appreciated. It is touched on several times throughout the article already and does not need to be here. The sources and a few lines are good so I don't want to delete it if these can be used somewhere else. Also, is there consensus on whether the Doctor's event stays or goes? Cptnono ( talk) 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267764091&oldid=267753026 Your suggestions are welcome. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The background is supposed to expand upon the lead. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No justification for anything, on my side. Quoting 3d party sources about events on the ground. I'll re-commit. And indeed looks like another cycle of violence is underway. It's funny how justification for more bloodshed could be found. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, thank for explaining basics of NPOV. I agree that we should talk only about facts and bring 3d party quotes as-is, without original research. Talking about good/bad is irrelevant, and depend on POV. Still we are not on the same page. RomaC is great editor but he commented on some unrelated amendment, which was not added by me. Could you comment on this proposed diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=267985738&oldid=267973921 Could you relate to each of 3 quotes? Which one is NPOV and which one is not? How it could be improved? Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, thank you for analysis. I see what you mean. I'd appropriate if you could integrate the relevant quotes/sources into the section in clear NPOV way. Agree? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i thing this is misleading
"Thirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks, though none expressed support for Hamas.[citation needed] Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive. Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence."
"mostly in the Muslim world" and "mostly in the western world" parts that i dont get. are japan, france, switzerland, mexico, spain, etc etc muslim countries? those parts should just be left out. Untwirl ( talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
so, we have a rough consensus to drop the muslim and western qualifiers and just state the numbers, yes? Untwirl ( talk) 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a "rough consensus". Untwirl supports removing the information, I oppose, Sean (if I understand him correctly) conditionally opposes, and the conditions are filled - you're all welcome to look at that discussion page. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The problems with it were:
a)We don't need details of every rocket attack on this page, that's what the timeline's for, so I've linked to it
b)There was a lot of detail about rocket attacks that happened before this conflict.
I've removed problems. Please don't reinstate without consensus here. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews23: That's not way things work around here. If you want to remove sourced material from an article because you don't like it, you should gain a consensus for its removal, then remove it.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
jalapenos - did you follow that procedure when doing this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 why did you use a misleading edit summary for your removal of info? Best, Untwirl ( talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please pardon me joining the discussion without having read the whole section, but I just wanted to add that thirteen rockets and several mortars were fired at Israel today. Any volunteers to add that to the graphic? Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why removing such well sourced and important paragraph from the "Incidents" section:
UN Headquarters: On January 15, the IDF shelled the UN headquarters in Gaza where hundreds were sheltering. After analyzing the Unexploded ordnance, the UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by 155m White Phosphorus ammunition.[237]. 3 people were injured and hundreds of tons food and fuel were destroyed,[238] drawing condemnation from European countries.[239] Israel claimed Hamas fired from the site, but apologised for the "very sad consequences" calling its attack a "grave error". After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident.[240]
And the remover even completely deleted that the compound (which hosted hundreds of refugees) was hit by white phosphorus as asserted by the UN. How can this be explained? -- Darwish07 ( talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
And this was not a spokesman, this was a UN official report. I'm assuming good faith cause I think you thought it was a quote randomly found in a news website, but it was not. You didn't read the cited report first, and yes, I also didn't read the subarticle. I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I was questioning if this was vandalism "or what". Anyway I'll return the paragraph to the main page itself, cause this is an important incident and it was not even summarized in the main page before moving. You may want to discuss this afterwards, cause this section was moved without discussion here. Peace. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)The type of UXO removed confirms that the compound was shelled by 155mm White Phosphorous artillery.
(ec) better to chime in and realize i'm wrong than to make pov edits without discussion as you seem bent on doing. however, if you read more closely you will see the line i refer to: "After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident." (scroll up)
enough with the snide comments ("not that complicated", "editors pulling at straws", "this is the 2nd time . . .") you obviously weren't reading closely enough yourself or you would see the line i am talking about, unless you are being wp:dense? try to agf, and i will do the same. Untwirl ( talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The ex-parliamentarian Uri Avnery remarking on the war aims expressed, not by official declarations, but by many interviews in the press and on television in Israel during the campaign, writes as followes:
The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war crimes: (1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to “fix a price tag”. “to burn into their consciousness”, “to reinforce deterrence”, and most of all – to get the population to rise up against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at (literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical teams from reaching the victims, killing people indiscriminately. In certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was opened on people trying to escape.' Uri Avnery, 'Under the Black Flag', Counterpunch 02/02/2009
It's only his synthesis of comments made to the Israeli public. There is, in most wars, a distinction to be made between public declarations concerning the casus belli and the actual reasons for going to war, esp. one that is a war of choice, as was both this and the recent Iraq war. So any authoritative comments from IDF strategists or political sources that use the kind of language Avnery remarks on, in explaining the war's aims, should be noted for eventual use. Nishidani ( talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I read January_2009_Gaza_attacks and find it contans much less extra material compared to the section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Internal_violence than other linked articles have. I suggest either its merge in and deleted or that section Internal violence to be tighten or merged with another section. Discuss. Brunte ( talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I think that article should be deleted then. Can someone help as I dont know how to request it? Brunte ( talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
While three sources are provided, all seem to be referencing Palestinian medical workers or Palestinian-organized services. Including reuters and UNOCHA give the impression that these media groups are independently verifying the death/wounded toll, when in fact they are just citing (albeit subtly) information from Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian medical services.
I honestly couldn't care less about the casualties themselves, but the Palestinians have a long history of inflating, embellishing, and often times falsifying information regarding casualties.
Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know for a fact those sources would be considered unreliable from a POV perspective, but they're the only ones we can go by for now.
I think Israel might have their casualty estimates, perhaps that could also be included? Like, say "casualties disputed" or something along those lines. Be cordial, please.
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i dont remember exactly, but i do recall a question being put forth as to whether this violence relates directly to this conflict. the source itself says violence has "tripled." doesnt this mean at least one third of it is unrelated? Untwirl ( talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section. Also, I think we should include counter-opinions regarding the legal criticism. I know for a fact that many notable and more qualified than Richard Falk, who is more of an advocate than a legal expert.
Can we agree on this?
Oh, another thing I think we need to de-emphasize our inclusion of Richard A. Falk in the section lead. He possesses nowhere near the credibility nor the impartial opinion necessary to be considered a legal expert. What I mean is, if are going to continue using his name, his extreme bias must be established. Passing him off as impartial, which this article does, is simply a joke. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, he you didn't address my other points. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you'r looking for balance where there isn't one to be had Wikifan. The fact is that Israel have been accused of a lot more International Law violations than Gaza. Between the WP contraversy, UN facility attacks & civillian deaths all alleged Israel simply has more to answer. Not saying that they were right or wrong, or what the ruling on these allegations should be. It's just the nature of the beast here, Israel has an internationally recognized government and that makes them beholden to some things Hamas might get away with Andrew's Concience ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) to fan:
falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov. if you feel the whole world has an anti-israel bias, maybe you should contribute to the mars wiki
Untwirl (
talk)
04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We deal in sourced marterial. Richard Faulk is in a lot of sourced material because he's the UN spokesman. What can we do? Reject good sources because they feature someone we don't like. That would violate WP:Stupid Bullshit Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, bandying accusations of antisemitism is highly offensive to many editors here. Strongly suggest you strike that along with your Hitler analogies. RomaC ( talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
wikifan, i'm under the impression that the arbitration rules (and wp:npa) don't permit these (repeated) bullshit accusations of antisemitism. you can be blocked if you continue. Untwirl ( talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
'Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html
an ideas? Untwirl ( talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Every once in a while I actually look at the article so I noticed this. The article says Hamas was using "armored vehicles" in the fighting, sourced with this Jerusalem Post article [3]. Is that assertion correct? I realize that Hamas seized them from Fatah but I would have thought they'd be more of a liability given Israel's air supremacy. Does anyone know about this? The current source is vague and it seems odd. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews23jandrews23 tried to remove parts not so related to the articles core. It was revereted by Jalapenos do exist here with the comment "Jandrews, I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. Your repeated removal of large chunks of sourced material has prompted a second talk page discussion. State your position there"
I disagree and reverted, and Jalapenos do exist reverted again "So get consensus. That's how we do things around here."
And thats what I like to do. Your views editors! Brunte ( talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you are well past your allowed number of reverts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268127450&oldid=268127353
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268145847&oldid=268145302
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268262758&oldid=268261420
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268272567&oldid=268269432
it seems that you are the one who needs to get consensus. don't revert again or you will be reported. this article has special rules due to arbitration. Untwirl ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As antijewish reactions is detalied reported in another artcle I suggest a hevy triming of this section. Suggested text:
The number of recorded antisemitic incidents during the conflict more than tripled the number of such incidents in the same period of the previous year, marking a two-decade high. [3] United States-based human rights group Human Rights First called them "antisemitic backlash attacks" to the events in Gaza. [4] The incidents received responses from representatives of several governments, most of whom condemned them and/or called for calm. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Brunte (
talk)
17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the page was deleted by administrator means it does not exist. if you have valuable information then i suggest you add it to the international reactions article, where it belongs, and help us summarize that section here. Untwirl ( talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
i havent abandoned anything. all of my arguments stand. i'm just feeling like you are being WP:DENSE and i dont feel the need to repeat it yet another time. Untwirl ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
a section i dont find necessary, merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I merge in both anti jewish and anti arab subsection on the reaction section. As it is now it dont look good. And I hope it dont swell upp to much in either side. If then we can restore sections. Brunte ( talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed
Brunte ( talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Gaza victims describe human shield use" By JPOST.COM STAFF [4] "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields." Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2009
Not much of an "extraordinary claim", these types of allegations are as old as the I-P conflict itself. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and WP:V has no requirement for a multitude of reliable sources. There's enough sentences with silly string citations. Moreover, the JPost says that this information comes from the Al-Hayat al-Jadida. So it looks like all POV's are satisfied (unless there's some card-carrying Hamas supporters here). If we want to be extremely cautious we can always go....."According the Jerusalem Post, the Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported that..........."-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"In most cases, the families had fled or were expelled by the soldiers. In some cases, however, the soldiers prevented the families from leaving, using them as "human shields". Untwirl ( talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
do you like haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060390.html "On Monday, on one of the walls of the house that became the IDF position from which soldiers shot the two brothers who died at their father's side, we found two inscriptions in Hebrew: "The Jewish people lives" and "Kahane was right," referring to right-wing extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane."
or http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059513.html "Report: IDF probing racist graffiti left by soldiers in Gaza"
the independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/my-terror-as-a-human-shield-the-story-of-majdi-abed-rabbo-1520420.html "My terror as a human shield: The story of Majdi Abed Rabbo"
brisbane times? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-for-gaza-peace/2009/01/30/1232818724423.html
the australian? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24987294-2703,00.html
ynet? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664281,00.html "Givati troops leave 'Death to Arabs' graffiti in Gaza" Untwirl ( talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
1. you say neither amnesty international nor the independent are reliable due to their "notoriously anti-Israel stance."
2. you advocate for the inclusion of jerusalem post, seemingly asserting that they don't have a pro-israel slant or an "anti-hamas" slant.
3. your bias is crystal clear, hence my observation above of your brushing off war crimes as "some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire."
do you need further explanation? maybe you should translate it into your native tongue so you can understand it better. Untwirl ( talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. "
btw - please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. Untwirl ( talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course" (linked to criticism of amnesty)
and "The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent
care to retract your statement? Untwirl ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the lead paragraph on casualties reads "However, as of February 1 2009, the number of Palestinians killed, and the proportion of Palestinians killed who were civilians, remains a matter of contention. According to figures compiled by the Israeli military, between 1,100 and 1,200 were killed, over 700 were militants and 250 were civilians.[46][47][48][49] [50] According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, 900 were civilians, including 410 children, and the remainder were police officers and militants.[51][52]"
I think this is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the secondary sources that we have access to. Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification. For example:
BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed"
Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead"
Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians
UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials."
AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"
Reuters: "Israel's Gaza offensive ... killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Gazan rights groups said 700 civilians died, many of them children."
Economist: "About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, in nearly three weeks of fighting." (On January 15)
It is true that the Israeli military has questioned these figures, but the Israeli figures have not been widely taken up by neutral reliable sources. Of course, we should include the fact that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figure cannot go ahead of the other figure and I think the phrasing should make it clear that an overwhelming majority of sources accept the other figure. In light of this, to present these figures as a matter of serious dispute misrepresents the sources. I propose something to the effect of: "About 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health [refs]. The Israeli military has questioned the number of civilian deaths [refs]." Jacob2718 ( talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
About 1,300 Palestinians were killed including 900 civilians and 410 children (with the remainder being police officers and militants) according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.[70][71] The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed.[72][73][74][75] [76]
Most reliable sources do indeed qualify the amount of causalities. It would be kinda irresponsible on their part not to. See Battle of Jenin, where Palestinian claims of massacre were later found to be nonsense and the IDF numbers were correct.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. Bullying doesn't last long around here, call it the revenge of the nerds if you will. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The figures need to be attributed, especially if they are disputed. We have numerous sources attributing the claims, the opener found some who don't (yet they might do in other articles, e.g. reuters attributes those figures to Hamas here). There is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not attribute their figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow.
Also, there is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not cite the Israeli figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow. The Israeli figures were just recently released, and all that was released was a kind of a "preview" that is yet to be completed. It is thus no surprise that they are not yet cited by everyone. We need secondary sources to wp:verify information, but we need to present these informations following wikipolicies such as wp:npov. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I continue to oppose inclusion of casualties figures in the lead, - it shoudl say something vague like "causualties happened" - and push for their inclusion in the infobox. As to quantities, all of these discussions would be solved if we provided an upper and lower range, and then a few sources. Keep the narrative for the Casualties section. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2 aircraft
3 airstrikes
3 army
5 artillery
5 bomb
3 bombed
1 bombings
3 bombs
5 booby
1 explode
1 exploding
4 explosives
2 gun
1 gunships
2 helicopter
2 helicopters
3 katyusha
3 launchers
3 missiles
19 mortar
5 mortars
6 phosphorus
6 qassam
47 rocket
34 rockets
2 rockets'
4 shelled
5 shelling
13 shells
6 tank
2 tanks
Sean.hoyland -
talk
09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a predictable result of the fact that one side in the conflict has lots of different types of weapons, and the other side has pretty much one type of weapon: rockets. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please say which title you think is better, since otherwise this is just going to back and forward between Jalapeno and me.
Support since it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive' and also because 'Palestinian militant activity' does not sound neutral, it makes it sound suspicious and illegal(maybe it is, but then 'Israeli offensive' should be changed to something like 'Israeli attacking troop activities' (OK a bad one but I can't think of better) Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Better After some rereading I think that 'Palestinian militant activity' sounds more negative than 'Israeli offensive' and is therby not npov. Brunte ( talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think neiter. If 'Israeli offensive' stands, the other should be something with 'defence' in it. ex 'Palestinian defence' or 'Palestinian defence of Gaza'
Brunte (
talk)
18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't any of these options are all that great. "Gazan response" is pretty generic. It doesn't really say who is responding and doesn't convey that most of the response was military in nature. "Palestinian militant activity" is only slightly better. It says a little bit more about who but is just as generic as to what. "Palestinian defense" doesn't really fit because many of the activities (rocket attacks) are defensive only in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense". On that basis the Israeli actions could be considered "defensive". Anyone have any other suggestions? Blackeagle ( talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Blackeagle's suggestion as the only only policy compliant framework so far. He has had the gonadal fortitude to bring the obvious cluster-fuck the section is. We should be able to provide an NPOV narrative in the encyclopedic voice without segregating obviously related topics by combatant. Of course, as I said, I can live with well sourced, verifiable aberrations as long as we do not cross the line into SYNTH. I just think we should reconsider how we have arrived to these "solutions". Consensus is hard, sweaty, and time-consuming. Which doesn't mean that we are immune from the fact must reach it. --
Cerejota (
talk)
02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Do people remember the previous discussions about this? The Israeli govt includes 'shock victims' in their casualty figures. In the infobox it now says 182 civilians injured. I would guess this includes shock victims once again. As noted before, there are probably over 1 million victims of shock in Gaza. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's hard to determine the exact number of "shocked" victims because mass media tends to be more selective when it comes to Israeli news, but perhaps we shock can technically be categorized in the injured section. Also, depending on one's proximity from an explosion, "shock" could imply physical damage. Lest you forget, shock can cause internal and psychological injuries. But I doubt 182 victims injured also includes those who were "shocked." Under your reasoning, the victims would exceed 50,000. Sderot and Ashkelon have been experiencing daily rocket attacks for over a year... Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been against counting them together. Although I would note that we also count Palestinian psychological victims. I included a link to this a while ago but the head of the PCHR counting said that they had counted about a thousand fewer wounded than the MoH and he attributed it to the MoH counting psychological trauma. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG. People, this would all be solved if we had ranges with sourcing. I will repeat this as mantra. There is absolutly no need to have long edit warring and talk threads on casulaties if we follow this simple formulation. There is a fog of war and all an any attempts at casualty figures by any side have to be treated as part of their respective PR efforts. However, they are published as primary sources and repeated by RS, and obviously central, so we must include this.
Say aye and lets get over with, so we can edit war on better things, like lovefests and rockets. Yeesh, at least the Babycue debate had some serious systemic implecations. These here is close to being lame.-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
could someone report it? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=268117343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) '
You can do it yourself. WP:AIV. He was handled fine, not blocked, but warned and has not edited again. If s/he edits again in the same fashion, s/he will be blocked. -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
jalps - 2 of us now have agreed and removed material that is duplicated word for word in the international reactions section. it should be summarized and that is all. don't say "see talk" when you have not posted anything discussing this to the talk page. i will wait to revert you until others weigh in. Untwirl ( talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
if you insist on overcrowding this article with 'effects', i suggest adding this:
"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F%3Fpage%3Drss%26id%3DRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26&ord=18771778&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
and this:
"Israel's election panel disqualified two Arab parties from running in the February 10 elections based on a motion filed by two far-right parties which claimed they did not recognise the Jewish state's right to exist. "Obviously, the right wing is stronger with the war. The Israelis are selling more cheap popularity in the streets," said Jamal Zahalqa, head of the parliamentary group of one of the two parties, the National Democratic Assembly. . . .The leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Sakhnin, father Salah Khoury, has organised a campaign to send food and clothes to Gaza, but fears the consequences of supporting the Palestinians in the enclave. "We identify with the people in Gaza, but we don't want to endanger ourselves," said the Arab Israeli. "We want to stand in our land. We're scared. Right wing Jews see us as enemies." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0R8Cdp-6NO1kvXp38rf3KRMk7Aw
and articles about settler violence against arabs in the west bank, which i shall find shortly. Untwirl ( talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and that source could be used in the article. A sovereign democratic government banning the waving of Israeli flags is VERY relevant to this article. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And Jalapeno, don't accuse of not being a productive contributor. You are the one who is unproductive solely based on your refusal to publish facts. There is plenty of reliable sources that provide a far differing spin then what is seen here. Sleep well. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
if it is "reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world" (and according to you, anti-semitic) to include the fact that there has been a pro-israel backlash against arabs, then you have a very broad view of anti-semitism. as cerejota once wisely said, calling everything antisemitism "cheapen(s) the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism." Untwirl ( talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you contend that, "Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable." and i say there is no difference. jews do not have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice. all people deserve to be treated with respect, jews, arabs, blacks, etc. i'll just repeat and agree with you that "there is no excuse to be ignorant." Untwirl ( talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)