![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The section doesn't cover anything too useful. I suggest renaming it and shortening it as the information in it isn't terribly notable either. VR talk 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How many civilians have been killed in Gaza?
According to some sources the number is 200:
Others say it is 100:
Shouldn't we quote both figures (i.e 100-200)? VR talk 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the Associated Press article are in both lists, we should use the more recent one, that is the one that updated the number to 200. -- Learsi si natas ( talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I found three other sources besides the one quote above and added the total 6 sources:
Additional sources can be found: [1], [2], [3]. Cheers, VR talk 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what the video in the article (that you used as a reference for the civilian count) said. So 520 divided by 4 is 130, so it is approx 130 not 100. Learsi si natas ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Background section has lost any semblance of neutrality. Consider statements like "Hamas violated the cease-fire with rocket and mortar attacks into Israeli civilian areas on a virtually daily basis". Furthermore, the background section cites a source for the "first" violation of the ceasfire (an article in IHT), but that article itself mentions a prior incident of violence (an Israeli military raid)
This needs to be edited immediately to make it more neutral. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(contd) I've edited it to mention violations of the ceasefire on both sides and to make it sound less one-sided. Please discuss here if you would like to revert to the older version. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Pallywood is back in 'See Also' without any attempt here to justify reverting its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikamatsu ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Bias by Palestinians against Israel? Say it ain't so! Should we talk about certain editors, some on this page, whose continuous attempt to make a duplicate article called Bloody Saturday Massacre was most certainly be biased against Israel? I see the Palestinian victimization propaganda machine hasn't been taken out by the Israelies yet. -- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Pro-Israel demonstrations were also held in several American cities,[286][287] Paris and Melbourne.[288][289] The largest demonstration was held in Istanbul in Turkey, with around 200,000 to 700,000 people.[290][291]"
The Istanbul demonstration was anti-Israeli, but this wording makes it sound like it was among the pro-Israeli demos. The next paragraph is also effected by this confusion. I think the demos sympathetic to each side should be clearly separated so as not to create this confusion. -- Chikamatsu ( talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. The long list of countries criticizing Israel reminds me of of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace": Is this what people come to wikipedia to read? What is the NATURE of the criticism? What exactly is criticized and what is not? Is the criticism constructive? All of this information is being excluded, both from this article and the subarticle -- where a giant worldwide table artificially limits the response of even the most involved parties to a sentence. Where, in wikipedia, should we report this information, if not here?!
In particular, I tried to detail Iran's response:
“ | Iranian officials have condemned "international inaction" and "bias toward Israel". Saaed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, on Sunday (4 Jan), called Gaza "a scene of disgrace for those who claim to be confronting terrorism," He said that these unnamed powers "are not only keeping quiet vis-a-vis the Zionist terrorism, they are actually confirming it", and he called on all countries to stop Israel's "war machine." [5] | ” |
Is the response of Iran not WP:NOTE? If it IS notable, then why is there no place for it in wikipedia? Why this urge to "scale-down"? If I want a "scaled-down" article, I'll go to a hardcopy encyclopedia, where article length is limited by the cost of ink and paper. How much do bits cost? The more information, the better -- am I wrong? Is it our job to filter (censor) what the reader may or may not see? Why not give the reader as much WP:RS as we can and then let the reader choose? NonZionist ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
1. You ignore the rule that changes should reflect discussion. You make changes that have been argued against. 2. You deviate from the language of your sources in a way which puts events in a certain light. 3. You connect two events in the same sentence with a qualifier that pertains only to one of them.
If you'll not stop, I'll ask for arbitrage. I have reason to believe you are biased in the subject of the above article. Please consider this before you make any further changes. Debresser ( talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. In the same section you change a certain phrase and leave it unchanged in another sentence. Again in such a way which shows a certain bias.
Don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. All these points have been discussed with you, and you do them the way you like, regardless of these discussions. Try to remember. If that doesn't help, write again. Debresser ( talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of having a bias. I'm acusing you of letting that bias influence the changes you make to the article. Specifically the section on civil protests. Debresser ( talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that in the section just before this the word censoring has also been mention in connection wioth you. And I remember one more such case, which is now in the archive of the talk page. I think you should consider refraining from making further changes to this article alltogether. Debresser ( talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The answer to you last two questions is "no" and "no". I stated the problems in general terms, and would realy prefer drinking a cup of chocolate to writing all the petty details. But if I have to, I will. Because you are distorting information! Debresser ( talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have already made the changes I find necessary. Now I am arguing with you, so you shouldn't undo them, as you did yesterday. Debresser ( talk)
By the way. Please don't misunderstand me. You have made many and important contributions to this page. And to other pages also, I am aware. Debresser ( talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Then let's make up and agree to make no further change to existing information in the section on Civil Protests without consensus. Debresser ( talk) 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Israelis hit a vegetable market killing 5 people, wounding 4. From the morning of Jan 5 to 15:00 (3:00 pm), the number of killed Palestinians is 25. Israelis have attacked the Union of Health Care Committees (health organization) headquarters. Source: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf -- Learsi si natas ( talk)
I have noticed that the pictures in the development section are of 1)Hamas rockets and 2)Israeli buildings damage.
There are no pictures of the carnage in Gaza in this section.
It may be that free pics from gaza are not available, but if this is the case I think the pictures should be removed anyway as the inclusion of these pictures alone is biased. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Two out of four pictures on this page show remnants of Hamas rockets and one picture features a surprisingly undamaged palestinian building (archive ?).
I would suggest to remove one picture of Hamas rockets in order to restore at least visual partiality in this heavily biased article.
Also I would suggest to change the legend of the Gaza map from "Israeli occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim agreement: permanent status to be determined through further negotiations" to simply "Israeli occupied". mogamma( Mogamma ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
There is an ongoing discussion to move "
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options " at
Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009. Proposals include
|
Please add your votes and comments only at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009. The move discussion has become fairly large (currently >70 kB) and thus seriously impacts the accessibility of this high traffic site. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
INFORMATION REQUEST
I want to add more pictures om the devastation in Gaza.Before tonight,when one was added,there was none,only pictures showing the much more limited Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.How do I do this?I can not see the normal guides for editing.
There is an ongoing discussion to improve the lead section at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead |
Please have all related discussions at that subpage. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be misleading (and is definitely ambiguous) to say protests happened worldwide. It is better to list the cities in which large protests (say, those that attracted 2,000 or more) happened. VR talk 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Logoprc.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of this posting on 1/5/2009 the info box keeping track of Palestinian casualties does not report the most accurate information available nor does it cite the most appropriate sources for the data it provides. It reads
Killed: 537 (~100 civilians[11]; ~138 policemen)[12][13] Wounded: 2,600 (mostly civilians)[14]
While the death count is accurate the civilain count is misleading and the police count is severely outdated. The accounting of Palestinian deaths should be standardized. There are two sources for daily updates on death counts from which major media outlets routinely draw their data.
1. UN OCHA: http://www.ochaopt.org/ 2. Al-Mezan CHR: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php (Al-Mezan has been used by the UN for death estimates see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf)
There is no reason to use the NYT or any other news outlet for this data, since the primary source (UN OCHA) is readily available. I propose we use this for data on total deaths and total injuries.
I have previously stated that no organization has developed a comprehensive estimate of civilian deaths. The most accurate and explicit current estimates reflect the number of women and children killed. Our data should reflect the precision available. I propose we report deaths in the following categories: Total, Women and children. Men are systematically excluded from this count and wikipedia needs to make this important point explicit instead of confusing accounting categories. News outlets are often making this mistake despite the UN sources contradicting this in their most recent accounting which makes NO mention of total civilian casualties (SEE: note [2] cites below and comments by John Holmes at http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10624.html).
Summarized, my proposals are the following:
1. Report fatalities as Total deaths with the proportion of women and children reported in parenthesis for UN estimates and separate women and children estimates from Al-Mezan. Use the same format for injuries.
will look like Killed: 489[1]-534[2] (UN reports 20% of casualties are women and children[2], Al-Mezan reports 89 Children and 30 Women have been killed[1]) Injured: 2,470 (40% are estimated to be women and children [2])
[1] is http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=937 [2] is http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf
This format will allow wiki to report the most accurate, explicit and up to date information on Palestinian casualties.
2. Use OCHA and only OCHA as a standard source for upper limit Total Death Counts and Al-Mezan for lower limit death count.
3. USe most recently reported OCHA estimates for proportion of deaths in the categories of women and children (at least 20% of total deaths and 40% of total injuries (see: OCHA 04) and Al-Mezan for disggregated count.
4. Discard speculative attempt to account for "civilian" deaths recognizing that no organization has made this estimate as of this post and that the most current press releases and situation reports refer only to total deaths, and women and children killed.
5. Change or discard accounting of police deaths in its current form. We could report that "at least 138 policemen killed (as of 12/30)" to note that this information is outdated and as a result is an underestimate of police casualties (many have been reported since 12/30). Someone can try to find a good up to date source for how many have been killed in total. I believe it is an important point that a significant portion of the dead are police but I have not seen good estimates of how many police have been killed.
I will be happy to make these edits and monitor the infobox to make sure they remain standardized once my account becomes autoconfirmed. Until then I ask that some one take the lead and makes sure these changes are implemented and maintained.
In addition to making these changes to the info box they need to be implement in the "Casualties" subsection. Where citation 17 and 216 are not the most appropriate sources for the claims being made. It is very easy to standardized our accounting practices and using the sources I've mentioned will guarantee that we are as up to date as possible and the least controversial. Thrylos000 ( talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The cabinet was also told that the IDF has made some 100,000 phone calls to Gaza residents since the beginning of the operation, warning them to leave their apartments or homes before an impending attack." Of course those phone calls are mentioned in this long beastly article somewhere right? Is that a first in the history of warfare? When's the last time Hamas called up the Israelis to warn them of incoming missiles? [4] Further, Israel has allowed foreign nationals to leave, and has treated Gaza civilian wounded. Of course there must be a place in the article for these things? Did I miss something? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
These are definately very important facts. I remember they were mentioned somewhere. Perhaps on other sites. Somebody really should take care of that. But what it has to do with the present talk subject, eludes me. Debresser ( talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this edit [5] is not ppropriate. We can't judge what other wikis say, and therefore refuse to link to them. VR talk 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
English: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
Hebrew: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/pdf/ipc_007.pdf
Flayer ( talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png (
) is. There's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary.
And if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV.
Either way, it's redundant and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP.
Jeztah (
talk)
09:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The UN is the largest international body, representing more countries than all other organisations. Therefore I'd suggest it should have a seperate section within Reactions, so that its reaction can be described in greater detail. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i have heard on the news that IDF officials announced the number of israeli troops deployed was 30,000 rather than 10,000 but i dont have a link for that, if any of the registered users have the information kindly change the figure in the battle box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ Talk 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have started a more formalised 'Discussion' about this below and I will copy your comment into it.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(1)The background section referred to "The first violation of the ceasefire", on June 23, via a "single mortar shell" for which "no one claimed responsibility". I have been unable to find too many references for this event. The Wikipedia page on the list of mortar attacks lists a single RIA Novosti source that quotes an IDF commander. I was unable to find a reference to this event in most other mainstream media sources. In contrast, the Israeli raid on Nablus, on June 24, and the response by Islamic Jihad is well documented. So, I have removed the mention of the "single mortar fire" pending other reliable sources. (2)Second, we really need to avoid language like "first violation of the ceasefire". The ceasefire was uneasy at best and who violated it "first" is a question we really cant go into here. What we can do is list the notable violations of the ceasefire. Jacob2718 ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Very minor edit needed in cash section - 400 mil NIS is approx. $100 mil , and not bil (as currently stated). the source also claims $100 mil, not bil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Changed it
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Updated war statistics can be found here (below), can someone please update the main page with them, it's such a mess that I wouldn't know where to start!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/israel-bombs-un-school/2009/01/07/1231004054728.html
"The latest attack takes the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip to 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, since Israel launched its military offensive on December 27, according to Gaza emergency services chief Moawiya Hassanein. He said another 2,950 people have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delos ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a picture of palestinian deaths after the first air-strike please help me with the copyright stuff. The image is free for use. Also, please add a box around the image, i don't know how to do it. thank you
Re the ongoing move/intro debate, the current article as is doesn't make sense. There should be an israeli military operation sub article devoted to operation cast lead. current article is supposedly a more generalized context of the ongoing I-P and A-I situation. this is clearly seen from article title which is a generalized conflict, rather than specific operation/offensive. If a new operation cast lead article is created, a is warranted since current article is NOT about the operation, than what is the raison d'tat of current article? a broader I-P article already exists. The current article, IMO, has no basis and should be scratched, with sections merged into operation cast lead and Israeli–Palestinian conflict respectively. regards -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently 3 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, [6] not by Hamas or any other Palestinian militants. Should we identify this in the infobox (by saying killed in friendly fire)? Probably not, as it is a bit too much detail. However, similarly I don't think we should also identify who killed the Egyptian border guard. These details are best left to the casualties section. VR talk 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Friendly fire deaths are sometimes differentiated, here we do have a precedent against that in that a Hamas rocket hit Gaza last week and we don't count the deaths differently in the infobox. So I agree with VR, Omrim and Debrasser. Keep these details in the article. RomaC ( talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the "(by Hamas)" attribution after Egyptian casualties. This is necessary given the ambiguous design of the infobox, which splits the conflict into two sides. The box is divided down the middle, and the Egyptian line is ambiguously placed inbetween the two. Since, it's only two words, which hardly over-clutters the box, the gain in clarity outweighs the cost in space Avaya1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Also I think that we should only quote figures in the infobox that have been independently verified. Thus if one side claims to have killed or captured some, we shouldn't jump to put it in the infobox, though we can certainly place it in the article with proper attribution. We should wait until reliable sources begin to treat it as fact. VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with respect to the captured. It should only be mentioned within the article as a statement by the IDF, and not in the infobox.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does somebody else besides me think this section is a little too big? Perhaps we should create an article called "2008-2009 Gaza humanitarian crisis"? VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that humanitarian aid has got through. According to the IDF, [8] injured Palestinian civilians have receive medical care in Israel. Besides the 100,000 warning phone calls, injured people have been transferred from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment at Israeli hospitals. As of December 31st, approximately 20 chronically ill were transferred from the Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip to Israeli hospitals. From the article:
Despite the continuous and extensive rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, the largest humanitarian aid transfer since the beginning of this operation took place on Tuesday afternoon (Dec. 30). 93 trucks containing humanitarian aid donations such as food and medical supplies from several different countries and international organizations were transferred through Israel into the Gaza Strip. The World Food Programme (WFP) transferred flour; CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere) provided medical supplies; UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) transferred powdered milk, sugar, rice and cooking oil; the World Health Organization (WHO) transferred medical supplies and medication; and the Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah sent, among other things, basic food and supplies.
Not to mention all of the cash that is being sent by everybody and his brother. With all that powdered milk and sugar, all that they will need to buy with the cash is more ammunition. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding money... "100 billion" should be "100 million" (MAJOR ERROR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.11.104 ( talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there is a ceasefire now (between 13:00 to 16:00 local time) for a "humanitarian corridor". [9] [10] -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The rocket fire chart added is a good start ("File:Qasam graph2002-2007.svg"). However, it documents the rocket fire from 2002-2007, thus quite irrelevant for this article. If someone can find or create a chart documenting rocket fire in the past 10 days, or since December 19, or even in the past 6 months, that'd be great. VR talk 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i see both sides of this argument. the main problem with citing the invasions as a response to hamas rockets and citing those figures is that then there is an argument for saying "which was in response to the gaza blockade which was in response to suicide bombers..." and statistics accompanying these assertions ad infinitum. This article should probably be renamed "dec 2008 israel offensive on gaza" or something to that effect and then describe events on both sides that occur from the date of the airstrike onward. there should definitely be links to articles dealing with hamas rocket fire, the gaza blockade and the 6 month truce. that is, unless i'm incorrect in thinking this page is specifically about the conflict that began in december Untwirl ( talk) 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer: I highly doubt Israel is going to war with Hamas for rockets that were fired more than a year ago. The Israeli action is in response to the more recent attacks, i.e. those between December 19-27. VR talk 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
mentioning?
-- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
He was corporal Yossef Muadi [12], a corporal in the Israeli army (read the inter-wikipedia-link in the title above on Israeli Druze, they align themselves with the Jews since Israel's creation and as opposed to Israeli Muslims fight in the Israeli army, many of them are high ranking officers -- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
t Its always bad when people die, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL: No inclusion, unless his death is particularly notable due to other circumstances. There is a significant Arab Israeli population and the Druze in particular are subjected to the draft - so this Corporal was just doign his job as a citizen. Perhaps commendable, but not notable as millions upon told millions have died under exactly the same circumstances for many nations, including Israel, since the invention of modern conscription. He is neither the first, nor (unfortunately) the last, Arab or Non-Jewish IDF soldier to die in combat. Of course, if significant (as in more than one or two articles or mentions) coverage is given to this soldier, then perhaps he deserves a separate page, which we could link form here. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, [13], the factions involved include:
The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."
According to this source, [15], in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:
I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone has proposed 'Timeline of the conflict'. I would propose something like 'Military action in the 2008-2009 Conflict'
Anyway lets get a consensus here about whether it should be moved. I think it would be best because(as mentioned in another post above)the article is now simply too long. Also, it could go on for some time. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
From above: Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it.
BJ
Talk
11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk •
contribs)
(1) 'This is the deadliest conflict since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election in 2006.'
This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. The deadliest conflict in the world? The deadliest conflict between the two. Well, yes. But 'deadliest' is a superlative, implying a series of conflicts: Israel killed 830 odd Gazans by individual missile strikes and targeted assasinations from 2006 to 2007. That was an ongoing conflict culminating in the invasion now underway, and that was, so far, more deadly. This one is certainly more destructive. Whatever, it is just an ugly sentence, adds nothing to the text, and pads the lead with dull, pointless prose. I suggest it be considered for removal. Nishidani ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(2) We read.'A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities.[21]' ref.21 reads:
'Humanitarian aid. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire on Friday, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza'.
Our text limits this to the blockade. The source says the blockade lifting was one of the terms of the truce, among others which Israel, according to Hamas, had not respected. The nuance is important.
We need also an article on the terms of the truce brokered between Hamas and Israel. Anyone? Nishidani ( talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(3) 'Hamas-operated security installations' is repeated twice. The 'Hamas-operated' is a rather unsubtle attempt to condition the reader's negative associations of Hamas with some shady illegal terrorist group, and is in any case pleonastic. All of the administration of Gaza is operated by Hamas, since that body was elected to govern ther territory by the Gazan population in free elections. We know that, and harping on 'Hamas-operated' is rather ridiculous. All areas hit by Qassams are 'Israel-operated', but we don't say that, as we shouldn't qualify the infrastructure hit as 'Hamas-operated'. The adjective therefore is redundant, and insinuates an image of irregularity where there was none. Nishidani ( talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(4)'Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border.'
- Who's the clunk responsible for this? Each sentence should be sourced precisely. This one isn't. 'Decreased the amount'? is question begging. Hamas has consistently asserted, rightly or wrongly, that it withheld rocket and mortar attacks when the truce was made, and those that did occur either were launched by non-Hamas elements, or by Hamas as a retaliation for an Israeli violation of that truce. 'Decrease' is editorializing. It suspended mortar and rocket attacks after the truce came into effect. It 'resumed' them (we require a precise time line for the truce period, with Israeli and Hamas shootings in chronological order). In any case, the passage is an editorial construction, since it is not directly sourced, and no evidence therefore exists, until 'decreased the amount' type of phrasing is given for the passage. If no RS source is available to underline the text, it should be elided as padding. Nishidani ( talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(5)'The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza.[41).
If you read the source, the China News note 41, there is no mention of an 'active blockade', which thus emerges as another editorial intrusion. In any case, this is also false since Gaza had been actively blockaded long before the military assault began. The words therefore should be removed. Indeed the source should be substituted, as marginal. Many of the previous sources note the massing of infantry units. There is, as per Occam's razor, no need to multiply sources uselessly. Nishidani ( talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(6)'On 3 January 2009, a ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.'
As per notes 42, and 43, that should be 'entering the Gaza Strip'. The city of Gaza, like Khan Younis, has not yet been breeched, but these places are surrounded. One must distinguish Gaza the town, from Gaza the strip, invariably. Otherwise one misdescribes the battle by confusing an area with a point in that area. Nishidani ( talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(7) The quote from Livni (that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is "completely as it should be".) is unsourced, either by the preceding note 51 or the following note 52. In the interi,m, the wording has toned her comment down. Livni said Israel keeps the 'humanitarian situation (crisis) as it should be', she didn't note that 'oh, this is how it happens to be, and we approve'). She said on the 2 Jan.'"In this operation, Israel distinguishes (between) the war against terror, against Hamas members, from the civilian population. In doing so, we keep the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip completely as it should be."
That is the precise wording, 'we keep' has dropped out, and the source has been lost. An RS for the statement is James Hider, Hamas rockets threaten Israel's N-plan, The Australian January 03, 2009 Nishidani ( talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no experience finding and uploading photographs that are acceptable for use on Wiki, but I would imagine by now someone would have made some "copyleft" images available from inside Gaza. We have two pics from inside Israel, I'd hope we could add pictures from Gaza. Can anyone help get some, or point me in the right direction? RomaC ( talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am gathering information and references about the media coverage of the conflict. I would like to review this new section outline with you before posting it:
I am not sure about employing the term Propaganda (at the same time it is the most used term among the majority of sources), is there other alternatives? Bestofmed ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Be careful with OR and synthesis bias. I am not opposed to this, but I think this is something that is not being significantly being covered by any reliable news sources, and mostly the purvey of partisan blogs and publications. I think we should concentrated on the medular affairs of the conflict, at least until it is over and the fog of war lifts, and academic sources emerge that provide appropiate RS synthesis. Otherwise, we would be pulling this out of our asses. And when you pull out something from your ass, it usually stinks. :D -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well... That's going to be a difficult one. I would advise you to unite the two subsections. That should make it more organised, and have the additional bounty of avoiding the word 'propaganda'. You might want to use a bit of the information I posted on this Talk page, section on CNN. Good luck! Debresser ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"And so for an 11th day of Israel's war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it wait in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups funded mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel's history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy." Tiamut talk 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile.
...
It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop." Tiamut talk 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we still listing individual non-notable casualties, I.E.Staff Sergeant Dvir Emmanueloff, or did we decide notable only?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And Tawfiq Jabber, the head of Hamas’ security and protection unit-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that there is a big difference between naming casualties when they are high ranking officers, or when they are just soldiers or even citizens. If an Israeli high ranking commander would be killed, it might be worth noting his name, but anyone ranking under Colonel, should probably not be mentioned by name. I don't know how are the Hamas/brigades ranks work, but I think that when both Israeli and international media report names, it means they were high ranked officers (or whatever their equivalent is). -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the argument of the previous user most persuasive. Debresser ( talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Refer to #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for background on my criticisms. We have figures available for women and children dead (Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=940). They currently stand at 101 children and 37 women. This is not being reported in the info box or in the casualty section (which still has the child death count at 75 with no mention of women killed). For the first time we have a source that ventures a "civilian" estimate that I assume includes men, though this is not clear. This is apparently from the Palestinian MOH according to press articles.
There needs to be a footnote or a section in the casualties stating that the accounting practices have systematically excluded men in civilian counts to establish the proper context of ALL civilian death counts that don't explicitly state they are including men. Up until the MOH claiming "200 civilians dead" no one had made a total estimate of civilian deaths, the UN in fact was referring simply to women and children killed. It's not clear to me that the MOH is doing anything different as I cannot read arabic and I cannot check their own words. The UN, has not yet released its situation report for the day but as of 1/05 they were only citing figures of Total deaths and women and children deaths.
I've been arguing this for days and despite strong support in the above section on Casualty Accounting the Article page does not reflect these suggestions. An autoconfirmed member needs to take the lead and clarify the situation on casualty accounting. Again the two main primary sources for casualties are:
UN: http://www.ochaopt.org/ (check most current situation report PDF) Al-Mezan: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php
And #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting contains my full criticism of our presentation of casualty figures.
Thrylos000 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please remove archive picture from (undamaged) palestinian building. This building is not located in the Gaza strip but in the West Bank (see [16] mogamma ( Mogamma ( talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
I think it should have a room somewhere in the article. [17] Any thoughts? suggestions? -- Omrim ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This youtube video [18] is being used as a source on the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. I think that if it was notable, it would be in newspapers, or other news outlets by now. I don't think we should be sourcing anything to Youtube. VR talk 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this an interesting question, on which I would like to have a more definite 'ruling'. Is YouTube an acceptible source for Wikipedia or not? Debresser ( talk) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that this is considered by some, myself included, that this is a proxy war between the West and Iran? Just like the 2006 Lebanon war was and has already been described as part of the overall War on Terrorism. Here is a reference that backs this up [19]. And please don't ask for references that hold official confirmations of this because there obviously won't be any. In any case this is a direct result of the Fatah-Hamas conflict which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, and that as well has been said to be part of WoT. Well, does anyone have an opinion? BobaFett85 ( talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Irans call to use oil as a weapon until the war stops is worth mention? ( Relidc ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
I'm uneasy about including news articles, especially editorials, in the "External Links." Editorials by definition are POV, and even if we provide an even number of pro-Israel and anti-Israel articles, some may be more supportive than others (i.e., an article placing most blame on Hamas and some on Israel vs. all on Hamas), and some may be better written than the other, implying preference on one side. I recommend keeping the news articles in the References sections, and leave official sources in External. Jeztah ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the article needs a separate section that only states both Israeli and Hammas reasoning for this particular conflict. I ask for this new section because, historically, once conflicts are over, the "reasons" driving them often become a matter of conjecture. I do realize that there may be various reasons even within each side; perhaps a good place to start is by stating the opinions of those highest in power on each side of the conflict. I also think, in order to limit sidetracking, it would be a good idea to keep each side's statement to as little verbage as possible. The reader is always free to do further research into what is stated. I realize this idea may sound very simplistic, however it will give future readers/researchers access to accurate and very useful information. Tell someone ( talk) 13:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That is totally against custom and policy, "Criticism" and "Point/Counter point" is strongly discouraged. We have to speak in one unified encyclopedic voice. I know this is hard to achieve, but coping out of it by WP:POVFORKING or by essentially doing the same thing within the same article is not good: if one side did something or said something we have to report it, point or no counter point. In fact, sometimes you have to let the one side speak alone, because there isno verifiable response from the other. I do agree we should try to limit verbiage, and to point our readers to wikilink our hearts out. -- Cerejota ( talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict isn't getting much new edits. Either can people update it, or maybe we should move it back to this page. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for why User:Madhero88 from Jordan has removed all previous images and added a huge gallery of very graphic images of injured Palestinians?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should add a new section to the article on diplomatic efforts towrds truce. There has been such efforts since day 1, I think, and they are turnning to be more coherent and fruitful (hopefully) in the past day or two. Any way, I think there is enough information out there to describe this process, which unavoidably will crystallize into truce of some sort in the coming days. If there is an agreement on the issue, I'll do some research and create a suggested section for your reviews. Since it will obviously be a little time consuming, I didn't want to do so without having a consencus on the issue at the least. Let me know what you think.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
mentioning?
-- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that worth all the lives that have been lost in Gaza? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted Brewcrewer’s edit. The text ran:
'targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party. This is an adequate summary of the three sources, notes 22,23,24..
I.e.
(note 22) 'Air raids have so far struck sites linked to Hamas, including smuggling tunnels under the border to Egypt, government buildings, security compounds, and homes of members of the organisation. Israel said it attacked some 20 targets in Gaza overnight and in the early hours of Friday. It described the mosque it bombed in Jabaliya as a "terror hub" and said it was used to store weapons. BBC staff in Gaza say at least 10 houses belonging to Hamas members were also hit, as well as a poultry farm and industrial workshop.
(Note 23) 'Israeli jets have attacked the Gaza Strip for a fourth day, with raids on a number of Hamas government buildings and security installations. . . targeted Hamas-run offices and security installations, . . Dozens of Hamas centres, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning.'
(24) 'Palestinian officials said that Hamas-run offices and security installations were targeted,.. Dozens of centres of Hamas strength, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning . . raids damaged both the interior ministry and a science building at the Islamic University in Gaza, from which many top Hamas officials graduated. . . Places hit by later strikes included the home of a senior Hamas commander and a car carrying gas cylinders, reports said.
Brewcrewer replaced this with ‘targeting Hamas weapons and launching pads’ Launching pads are not mentioned in the three sources, and the synthesis excludes the large variety of infrastructure the three sources say were targeted to suggest only purely military bases were struck.
Brewcrewer Please review wiki procedures on editing. Do not try things like this again, changing the language without reading the sources for a sentence. Nishidani ( talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the refimprove tag from the article. At this point the article has 235 references and only one citation needed tag. I think that if there are any areas that need to be better referenced, it would be much more useful to tag those specific areas than to slap the improve references tag on the entire (enormous) article. Blackeagle ( talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP-GC, and the AL Aqsa Brigades are all on the Hamas side of this conflict. Check their respective websites, they claim responsibility for about 30% of rocket attacks.
Why did the edit ninjas remove their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 ( talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"On January 4, 2009, Israeli forces bombed two houses in an attempt to assassinate Jamil Mizher, member of the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as part of their campaign of assassinations and home bombings targeting the leadership of the Palestinian resistance."
I thought a political front that accounts for 5% of the Palestinean political population would be worth mentioning?
3rd largest party in Palestine, second largest in the PLO, one of Hamas's key partners, unmentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 ( talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please add New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00051.htm and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4810786a11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hell surfer ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
People are complaining that those images only represent the palestinian deaths. Please check the chart in the article to see why the images are more from the palestinian causulties. the number of civilian deaths in gaza far outnumbers the number in israel. however, anyone is most welcome to add images of civilian deaths in israel. I personally don't have any with a proper license. Any removal of those images without proper discussion will be reverted. Contrieng ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC) µ
I personally think they do not reflect the real weight of the situation at all. There are numerous images showing only the rising smokes from a distance, which are far from illuminating. There have been hundreds of civilian deaths, including children. Mosques, hospitals, and ambulances have been attacked. The images should be in consistent with these realities. If the events are dramatic, so should be the images. -- 80.41.10.68 ( talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4
01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AgadaUrbanit (
talk •
contribs)
The opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense and within international law framework rights is not expressed. As a matter of fact Self-Defense as a legal term is missing entirely from this article. Gary Grant opinion quote in violations of international law section would reflect this point of view to situation in hand.
AgadaUrbanit (
talk)
07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Introducing such obviously and blatantly biased material and then using it as a point-by-point retort against a United Nations official and expert brings shame upon Wikipedia and its credibility. The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations, not yet another place for "A says X about B and B's entirely unimportant friends say A is wrong because of Y". WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE and WP:UNDUE yet again. — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, so I was bold: I went ahead and removed all references to Weiner and Bell in the "By Palestinian militants" section. I expect that this will move us closer to consensus. I moved the BBC article that was already there, so that it replaced some of the material for which they were quoted. Most of the rest I brought from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I went ahead and deleted the genocide argument altogether, since I couldn't find another WP:RS that expounded it. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my reasoned comment on the amendments that have taken place is DO'H! Maybe it would be better to combine the 2 sections (in a possibly futile attempt) to give the UN the weight they deserve speaking on behalf of the world community (to a first approximation) while still maintaining some...but much less...of the opposing views. We need the links put back to the appropriate _(law) articles I guess too. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I just want to mention again that I suggested to lose this section altogether. The section does not describe facts, but only opinions on how facts should be interpreted. Hence, untill there is a valid court rulling on the issue (such as in the case of the West Bank Barrier) we should refrain from mentioning it, since all that is going to happen, is excatly what is happening now: editing battles, which in no way will crystallise to a consensus. So far there have been arguments (not discussions, arguments)on which intrepretation is relevant, is the date it was given relevant, which parts of international law should or shouldn't we include, the number of characters describing each side stance, and my favorite: who is a "notable commentator". Now it has become a "personal" issue. I rest my case! -- Omrim ( talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
== Fellows, I'm nor a wikipedia abbreviations expert and do not have enough rights to change the article yet. I'm not neutral and my English and fix it if you like. I have couple suggestions for changes. Please help!
Type | Change | References | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Addition | After "not intended to cause excessive civilian damage, even if Israel erred in its estimates." to add something like following: Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about Gaza Raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called self-defence.". Gary Grant noted on proportionate to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take pre-emptive action, in order to stop it." | [24] [25] |
2 | Deletion. | Please delete The UNHRC statement by Falk "the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right". It is far from being a legal fact and indeed it's is state duty: please see independent legal expert opinion @ change 1. | This time it is personal |
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called Self-Defense.". Gary Grant noted on proportionality to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take preemptive action, in order to stop it."
President Mahmoud Abbas stated he was considering taking Israel to international courts after Israeli tank shells killed 42 Palestinians seeking shelter in a U.N. school. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said in a statement "This is a brutal crime and a clear war crime, along with other attacks, and its perpetrators must not escape an international trial." Raji Sourani, head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza stated that "The repeated bombing of clearly marked civilian buildings, where civilians were sheltering, crosses several red lines in regard to international law."
UN Permanent Representative Dumisani Kumalo, representing South Africa in the 6060th UN Security Council meeting, stated that his country considers "the Israeli airstrikes using the most sophisticated war machinery, such as the F-16 planes, are a violation of the international humanitarian law". In the same meeting, the Egyptian representative stated that the "crippling blockade imposed by Israel" is in "flagrant violation" of Israel's responsibilities under international law, international humanitarian law and its specific obligations as an "occupying power". In a subsequent meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Jordan stated that "the military operations were a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention".
After finding four starving children sitting next to the corpses of their dead mothers among others in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement expressing its belief that Israel had breached international humanitarian law: "The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable."
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)
UN_RFalk
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The section doesn't cover anything too useful. I suggest renaming it and shortening it as the information in it isn't terribly notable either. VR talk 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How many civilians have been killed in Gaza?
According to some sources the number is 200:
Others say it is 100:
Shouldn't we quote both figures (i.e 100-200)? VR talk 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the Associated Press article are in both lists, we should use the more recent one, that is the one that updated the number to 200. -- Learsi si natas ( talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I found three other sources besides the one quote above and added the total 6 sources:
Additional sources can be found: [1], [2], [3]. Cheers, VR talk 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what the video in the article (that you used as a reference for the civilian count) said. So 520 divided by 4 is 130, so it is approx 130 not 100. Learsi si natas ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Background section has lost any semblance of neutrality. Consider statements like "Hamas violated the cease-fire with rocket and mortar attacks into Israeli civilian areas on a virtually daily basis". Furthermore, the background section cites a source for the "first" violation of the ceasfire (an article in IHT), but that article itself mentions a prior incident of violence (an Israeli military raid)
This needs to be edited immediately to make it more neutral. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(contd) I've edited it to mention violations of the ceasefire on both sides and to make it sound less one-sided. Please discuss here if you would like to revert to the older version. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Pallywood is back in 'See Also' without any attempt here to justify reverting its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikamatsu ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Bias by Palestinians against Israel? Say it ain't so! Should we talk about certain editors, some on this page, whose continuous attempt to make a duplicate article called Bloody Saturday Massacre was most certainly be biased against Israel? I see the Palestinian victimization propaganda machine hasn't been taken out by the Israelies yet. -- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Pro-Israel demonstrations were also held in several American cities,[286][287] Paris and Melbourne.[288][289] The largest demonstration was held in Istanbul in Turkey, with around 200,000 to 700,000 people.[290][291]"
The Istanbul demonstration was anti-Israeli, but this wording makes it sound like it was among the pro-Israeli demos. The next paragraph is also effected by this confusion. I think the demos sympathetic to each side should be clearly separated so as not to create this confusion. -- Chikamatsu ( talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. The long list of countries criticizing Israel reminds me of of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace": Is this what people come to wikipedia to read? What is the NATURE of the criticism? What exactly is criticized and what is not? Is the criticism constructive? All of this information is being excluded, both from this article and the subarticle -- where a giant worldwide table artificially limits the response of even the most involved parties to a sentence. Where, in wikipedia, should we report this information, if not here?!
In particular, I tried to detail Iran's response:
“ | Iranian officials have condemned "international inaction" and "bias toward Israel". Saaed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, on Sunday (4 Jan), called Gaza "a scene of disgrace for those who claim to be confronting terrorism," He said that these unnamed powers "are not only keeping quiet vis-a-vis the Zionist terrorism, they are actually confirming it", and he called on all countries to stop Israel's "war machine." [5] | ” |
Is the response of Iran not WP:NOTE? If it IS notable, then why is there no place for it in wikipedia? Why this urge to "scale-down"? If I want a "scaled-down" article, I'll go to a hardcopy encyclopedia, where article length is limited by the cost of ink and paper. How much do bits cost? The more information, the better -- am I wrong? Is it our job to filter (censor) what the reader may or may not see? Why not give the reader as much WP:RS as we can and then let the reader choose? NonZionist ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
1. You ignore the rule that changes should reflect discussion. You make changes that have been argued against. 2. You deviate from the language of your sources in a way which puts events in a certain light. 3. You connect two events in the same sentence with a qualifier that pertains only to one of them.
If you'll not stop, I'll ask for arbitrage. I have reason to believe you are biased in the subject of the above article. Please consider this before you make any further changes. Debresser ( talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. In the same section you change a certain phrase and leave it unchanged in another sentence. Again in such a way which shows a certain bias.
Don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. All these points have been discussed with you, and you do them the way you like, regardless of these discussions. Try to remember. If that doesn't help, write again. Debresser ( talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of having a bias. I'm acusing you of letting that bias influence the changes you make to the article. Specifically the section on civil protests. Debresser ( talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that in the section just before this the word censoring has also been mention in connection wioth you. And I remember one more such case, which is now in the archive of the talk page. I think you should consider refraining from making further changes to this article alltogether. Debresser ( talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The answer to you last two questions is "no" and "no". I stated the problems in general terms, and would realy prefer drinking a cup of chocolate to writing all the petty details. But if I have to, I will. Because you are distorting information! Debresser ( talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have already made the changes I find necessary. Now I am arguing with you, so you shouldn't undo them, as you did yesterday. Debresser ( talk)
By the way. Please don't misunderstand me. You have made many and important contributions to this page. And to other pages also, I am aware. Debresser ( talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Then let's make up and agree to make no further change to existing information in the section on Civil Protests without consensus. Debresser ( talk) 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Israelis hit a vegetable market killing 5 people, wounding 4. From the morning of Jan 5 to 15:00 (3:00 pm), the number of killed Palestinians is 25. Israelis have attacked the Union of Health Care Committees (health organization) headquarters. Source: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf -- Learsi si natas ( talk)
I have noticed that the pictures in the development section are of 1)Hamas rockets and 2)Israeli buildings damage.
There are no pictures of the carnage in Gaza in this section.
It may be that free pics from gaza are not available, but if this is the case I think the pictures should be removed anyway as the inclusion of these pictures alone is biased. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Two out of four pictures on this page show remnants of Hamas rockets and one picture features a surprisingly undamaged palestinian building (archive ?).
I would suggest to remove one picture of Hamas rockets in order to restore at least visual partiality in this heavily biased article.
Also I would suggest to change the legend of the Gaza map from "Israeli occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim agreement: permanent status to be determined through further negotiations" to simply "Israeli occupied". mogamma( Mogamma ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
There is an ongoing discussion to move "
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options " at
Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009. Proposals include
|
Please add your votes and comments only at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009. The move discussion has become fairly large (currently >70 kB) and thus seriously impacts the accessibility of this high traffic site. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
INFORMATION REQUEST
I want to add more pictures om the devastation in Gaza.Before tonight,when one was added,there was none,only pictures showing the much more limited Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.How do I do this?I can not see the normal guides for editing.
There is an ongoing discussion to improve the lead section at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead |
Please have all related discussions at that subpage. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be misleading (and is definitely ambiguous) to say protests happened worldwide. It is better to list the cities in which large protests (say, those that attracted 2,000 or more) happened. VR talk 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Logoprc.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of this posting on 1/5/2009 the info box keeping track of Palestinian casualties does not report the most accurate information available nor does it cite the most appropriate sources for the data it provides. It reads
Killed: 537 (~100 civilians[11]; ~138 policemen)[12][13] Wounded: 2,600 (mostly civilians)[14]
While the death count is accurate the civilain count is misleading and the police count is severely outdated. The accounting of Palestinian deaths should be standardized. There are two sources for daily updates on death counts from which major media outlets routinely draw their data.
1. UN OCHA: http://www.ochaopt.org/ 2. Al-Mezan CHR: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php (Al-Mezan has been used by the UN for death estimates see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf)
There is no reason to use the NYT or any other news outlet for this data, since the primary source (UN OCHA) is readily available. I propose we use this for data on total deaths and total injuries.
I have previously stated that no organization has developed a comprehensive estimate of civilian deaths. The most accurate and explicit current estimates reflect the number of women and children killed. Our data should reflect the precision available. I propose we report deaths in the following categories: Total, Women and children. Men are systematically excluded from this count and wikipedia needs to make this important point explicit instead of confusing accounting categories. News outlets are often making this mistake despite the UN sources contradicting this in their most recent accounting which makes NO mention of total civilian casualties (SEE: note [2] cites below and comments by John Holmes at http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10624.html).
Summarized, my proposals are the following:
1. Report fatalities as Total deaths with the proportion of women and children reported in parenthesis for UN estimates and separate women and children estimates from Al-Mezan. Use the same format for injuries.
will look like Killed: 489[1]-534[2] (UN reports 20% of casualties are women and children[2], Al-Mezan reports 89 Children and 30 Women have been killed[1]) Injured: 2,470 (40% are estimated to be women and children [2])
[1] is http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=937 [2] is http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf
This format will allow wiki to report the most accurate, explicit and up to date information on Palestinian casualties.
2. Use OCHA and only OCHA as a standard source for upper limit Total Death Counts and Al-Mezan for lower limit death count.
3. USe most recently reported OCHA estimates for proportion of deaths in the categories of women and children (at least 20% of total deaths and 40% of total injuries (see: OCHA 04) and Al-Mezan for disggregated count.
4. Discard speculative attempt to account for "civilian" deaths recognizing that no organization has made this estimate as of this post and that the most current press releases and situation reports refer only to total deaths, and women and children killed.
5. Change or discard accounting of police deaths in its current form. We could report that "at least 138 policemen killed (as of 12/30)" to note that this information is outdated and as a result is an underestimate of police casualties (many have been reported since 12/30). Someone can try to find a good up to date source for how many have been killed in total. I believe it is an important point that a significant portion of the dead are police but I have not seen good estimates of how many police have been killed.
I will be happy to make these edits and monitor the infobox to make sure they remain standardized once my account becomes autoconfirmed. Until then I ask that some one take the lead and makes sure these changes are implemented and maintained.
In addition to making these changes to the info box they need to be implement in the "Casualties" subsection. Where citation 17 and 216 are not the most appropriate sources for the claims being made. It is very easy to standardized our accounting practices and using the sources I've mentioned will guarantee that we are as up to date as possible and the least controversial. Thrylos000 ( talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The cabinet was also told that the IDF has made some 100,000 phone calls to Gaza residents since the beginning of the operation, warning them to leave their apartments or homes before an impending attack." Of course those phone calls are mentioned in this long beastly article somewhere right? Is that a first in the history of warfare? When's the last time Hamas called up the Israelis to warn them of incoming missiles? [4] Further, Israel has allowed foreign nationals to leave, and has treated Gaza civilian wounded. Of course there must be a place in the article for these things? Did I miss something? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
These are definately very important facts. I remember they were mentioned somewhere. Perhaps on other sites. Somebody really should take care of that. But what it has to do with the present talk subject, eludes me. Debresser ( talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this edit [5] is not ppropriate. We can't judge what other wikis say, and therefore refuse to link to them. VR talk 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
English: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
Hebrew: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/pdf/ipc_007.pdf
Flayer ( talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png (
) is. There's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary.
And if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV.
Either way, it's redundant and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP.
Jeztah (
talk)
09:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The UN is the largest international body, representing more countries than all other organisations. Therefore I'd suggest it should have a seperate section within Reactions, so that its reaction can be described in greater detail. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i have heard on the news that IDF officials announced the number of israeli troops deployed was 30,000 rather than 10,000 but i dont have a link for that, if any of the registered users have the information kindly change the figure in the battle box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ Talk 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have started a more formalised 'Discussion' about this below and I will copy your comment into it.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(1)The background section referred to "The first violation of the ceasefire", on June 23, via a "single mortar shell" for which "no one claimed responsibility". I have been unable to find too many references for this event. The Wikipedia page on the list of mortar attacks lists a single RIA Novosti source that quotes an IDF commander. I was unable to find a reference to this event in most other mainstream media sources. In contrast, the Israeli raid on Nablus, on June 24, and the response by Islamic Jihad is well documented. So, I have removed the mention of the "single mortar fire" pending other reliable sources. (2)Second, we really need to avoid language like "first violation of the ceasefire". The ceasefire was uneasy at best and who violated it "first" is a question we really cant go into here. What we can do is list the notable violations of the ceasefire. Jacob2718 ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Very minor edit needed in cash section - 400 mil NIS is approx. $100 mil , and not bil (as currently stated). the source also claims $100 mil, not bil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Changed it
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Updated war statistics can be found here (below), can someone please update the main page with them, it's such a mess that I wouldn't know where to start!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/israel-bombs-un-school/2009/01/07/1231004054728.html
"The latest attack takes the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip to 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, since Israel launched its military offensive on December 27, according to Gaza emergency services chief Moawiya Hassanein. He said another 2,950 people have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delos ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a picture of palestinian deaths after the first air-strike please help me with the copyright stuff. The image is free for use. Also, please add a box around the image, i don't know how to do it. thank you
Re the ongoing move/intro debate, the current article as is doesn't make sense. There should be an israeli military operation sub article devoted to operation cast lead. current article is supposedly a more generalized context of the ongoing I-P and A-I situation. this is clearly seen from article title which is a generalized conflict, rather than specific operation/offensive. If a new operation cast lead article is created, a is warranted since current article is NOT about the operation, than what is the raison d'tat of current article? a broader I-P article already exists. The current article, IMO, has no basis and should be scratched, with sections merged into operation cast lead and Israeli–Palestinian conflict respectively. regards -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently 3 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, [6] not by Hamas or any other Palestinian militants. Should we identify this in the infobox (by saying killed in friendly fire)? Probably not, as it is a bit too much detail. However, similarly I don't think we should also identify who killed the Egyptian border guard. These details are best left to the casualties section. VR talk 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Friendly fire deaths are sometimes differentiated, here we do have a precedent against that in that a Hamas rocket hit Gaza last week and we don't count the deaths differently in the infobox. So I agree with VR, Omrim and Debrasser. Keep these details in the article. RomaC ( talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the "(by Hamas)" attribution after Egyptian casualties. This is necessary given the ambiguous design of the infobox, which splits the conflict into two sides. The box is divided down the middle, and the Egyptian line is ambiguously placed inbetween the two. Since, it's only two words, which hardly over-clutters the box, the gain in clarity outweighs the cost in space Avaya1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Also I think that we should only quote figures in the infobox that have been independently verified. Thus if one side claims to have killed or captured some, we shouldn't jump to put it in the infobox, though we can certainly place it in the article with proper attribution. We should wait until reliable sources begin to treat it as fact. VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with respect to the captured. It should only be mentioned within the article as a statement by the IDF, and not in the infobox.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does somebody else besides me think this section is a little too big? Perhaps we should create an article called "2008-2009 Gaza humanitarian crisis"? VR talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that humanitarian aid has got through. According to the IDF, [8] injured Palestinian civilians have receive medical care in Israel. Besides the 100,000 warning phone calls, injured people have been transferred from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment at Israeli hospitals. As of December 31st, approximately 20 chronically ill were transferred from the Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip to Israeli hospitals. From the article:
Despite the continuous and extensive rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, the largest humanitarian aid transfer since the beginning of this operation took place on Tuesday afternoon (Dec. 30). 93 trucks containing humanitarian aid donations such as food and medical supplies from several different countries and international organizations were transferred through Israel into the Gaza Strip. The World Food Programme (WFP) transferred flour; CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere) provided medical supplies; UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) transferred powdered milk, sugar, rice and cooking oil; the World Health Organization (WHO) transferred medical supplies and medication; and the Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah sent, among other things, basic food and supplies.
Not to mention all of the cash that is being sent by everybody and his brother. With all that powdered milk and sugar, all that they will need to buy with the cash is more ammunition. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding money... "100 billion" should be "100 million" (MAJOR ERROR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.11.104 ( talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there is a ceasefire now (between 13:00 to 16:00 local time) for a "humanitarian corridor". [9] [10] -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The rocket fire chart added is a good start ("File:Qasam graph2002-2007.svg"). However, it documents the rocket fire from 2002-2007, thus quite irrelevant for this article. If someone can find or create a chart documenting rocket fire in the past 10 days, or since December 19, or even in the past 6 months, that'd be great. VR talk 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
i see both sides of this argument. the main problem with citing the invasions as a response to hamas rockets and citing those figures is that then there is an argument for saying "which was in response to the gaza blockade which was in response to suicide bombers..." and statistics accompanying these assertions ad infinitum. This article should probably be renamed "dec 2008 israel offensive on gaza" or something to that effect and then describe events on both sides that occur from the date of the airstrike onward. there should definitely be links to articles dealing with hamas rocket fire, the gaza blockade and the 6 month truce. that is, unless i'm incorrect in thinking this page is specifically about the conflict that began in december Untwirl ( talk) 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer: I highly doubt Israel is going to war with Hamas for rockets that were fired more than a year ago. The Israeli action is in response to the more recent attacks, i.e. those between December 19-27. VR talk 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
mentioning?
-- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
He was corporal Yossef Muadi [12], a corporal in the Israeli army (read the inter-wikipedia-link in the title above on Israeli Druze, they align themselves with the Jews since Israel's creation and as opposed to Israeli Muslims fight in the Israeli army, many of them are high ranking officers -- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
t Its always bad when people die, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL: No inclusion, unless his death is particularly notable due to other circumstances. There is a significant Arab Israeli population and the Druze in particular are subjected to the draft - so this Corporal was just doign his job as a citizen. Perhaps commendable, but not notable as millions upon told millions have died under exactly the same circumstances for many nations, including Israel, since the invention of modern conscription. He is neither the first, nor (unfortunately) the last, Arab or Non-Jewish IDF soldier to die in combat. Of course, if significant (as in more than one or two articles or mentions) coverage is given to this soldier, then perhaps he deserves a separate page, which we could link form here. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, [13], the factions involved include:
The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."
According to this source, [15], in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:
I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone has proposed 'Timeline of the conflict'. I would propose something like 'Military action in the 2008-2009 Conflict'
Anyway lets get a consensus here about whether it should be moved. I think it would be best because(as mentioned in another post above)the article is now simply too long. Also, it could go on for some time. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
From above: Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it.
BJ
Talk
11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk •
contribs)
(1) 'This is the deadliest conflict since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election in 2006.'
This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. The deadliest conflict in the world? The deadliest conflict between the two. Well, yes. But 'deadliest' is a superlative, implying a series of conflicts: Israel killed 830 odd Gazans by individual missile strikes and targeted assasinations from 2006 to 2007. That was an ongoing conflict culminating in the invasion now underway, and that was, so far, more deadly. This one is certainly more destructive. Whatever, it is just an ugly sentence, adds nothing to the text, and pads the lead with dull, pointless prose. I suggest it be considered for removal. Nishidani ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(2) We read.'A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities.[21]' ref.21 reads:
'Humanitarian aid. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire on Friday, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza'.
Our text limits this to the blockade. The source says the blockade lifting was one of the terms of the truce, among others which Israel, according to Hamas, had not respected. The nuance is important.
We need also an article on the terms of the truce brokered between Hamas and Israel. Anyone? Nishidani ( talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(3) 'Hamas-operated security installations' is repeated twice. The 'Hamas-operated' is a rather unsubtle attempt to condition the reader's negative associations of Hamas with some shady illegal terrorist group, and is in any case pleonastic. All of the administration of Gaza is operated by Hamas, since that body was elected to govern ther territory by the Gazan population in free elections. We know that, and harping on 'Hamas-operated' is rather ridiculous. All areas hit by Qassams are 'Israel-operated', but we don't say that, as we shouldn't qualify the infrastructure hit as 'Hamas-operated'. The adjective therefore is redundant, and insinuates an image of irregularity where there was none. Nishidani ( talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(4)'Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border.'
- Who's the clunk responsible for this? Each sentence should be sourced precisely. This one isn't. 'Decreased the amount'? is question begging. Hamas has consistently asserted, rightly or wrongly, that it withheld rocket and mortar attacks when the truce was made, and those that did occur either were launched by non-Hamas elements, or by Hamas as a retaliation for an Israeli violation of that truce. 'Decrease' is editorializing. It suspended mortar and rocket attacks after the truce came into effect. It 'resumed' them (we require a precise time line for the truce period, with Israeli and Hamas shootings in chronological order). In any case, the passage is an editorial construction, since it is not directly sourced, and no evidence therefore exists, until 'decreased the amount' type of phrasing is given for the passage. If no RS source is available to underline the text, it should be elided as padding. Nishidani ( talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(5)'The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza.[41).
If you read the source, the China News note 41, there is no mention of an 'active blockade', which thus emerges as another editorial intrusion. In any case, this is also false since Gaza had been actively blockaded long before the military assault began. The words therefore should be removed. Indeed the source should be substituted, as marginal. Many of the previous sources note the massing of infantry units. There is, as per Occam's razor, no need to multiply sources uselessly. Nishidani ( talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(6)'On 3 January 2009, a ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.'
As per notes 42, and 43, that should be 'entering the Gaza Strip'. The city of Gaza, like Khan Younis, has not yet been breeched, but these places are surrounded. One must distinguish Gaza the town, from Gaza the strip, invariably. Otherwise one misdescribes the battle by confusing an area with a point in that area. Nishidani ( talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(7) The quote from Livni (that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is "completely as it should be".) is unsourced, either by the preceding note 51 or the following note 52. In the interi,m, the wording has toned her comment down. Livni said Israel keeps the 'humanitarian situation (crisis) as it should be', she didn't note that 'oh, this is how it happens to be, and we approve'). She said on the 2 Jan.'"In this operation, Israel distinguishes (between) the war against terror, against Hamas members, from the civilian population. In doing so, we keep the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip completely as it should be."
That is the precise wording, 'we keep' has dropped out, and the source has been lost. An RS for the statement is James Hider, Hamas rockets threaten Israel's N-plan, The Australian January 03, 2009 Nishidani ( talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no experience finding and uploading photographs that are acceptable for use on Wiki, but I would imagine by now someone would have made some "copyleft" images available from inside Gaza. We have two pics from inside Israel, I'd hope we could add pictures from Gaza. Can anyone help get some, or point me in the right direction? RomaC ( talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am gathering information and references about the media coverage of the conflict. I would like to review this new section outline with you before posting it:
I am not sure about employing the term Propaganda (at the same time it is the most used term among the majority of sources), is there other alternatives? Bestofmed ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Be careful with OR and synthesis bias. I am not opposed to this, but I think this is something that is not being significantly being covered by any reliable news sources, and mostly the purvey of partisan blogs and publications. I think we should concentrated on the medular affairs of the conflict, at least until it is over and the fog of war lifts, and academic sources emerge that provide appropiate RS synthesis. Otherwise, we would be pulling this out of our asses. And when you pull out something from your ass, it usually stinks. :D -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well... That's going to be a difficult one. I would advise you to unite the two subsections. That should make it more organised, and have the additional bounty of avoiding the word 'propaganda'. You might want to use a bit of the information I posted on this Talk page, section on CNN. Good luck! Debresser ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"And so for an 11th day of Israel's war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it wait in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups funded mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel's history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy." Tiamut talk 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile.
...
It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop." Tiamut talk 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we still listing individual non-notable casualties, I.E.Staff Sergeant Dvir Emmanueloff, or did we decide notable only?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And Tawfiq Jabber, the head of Hamas’ security and protection unit-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that there is a big difference between naming casualties when they are high ranking officers, or when they are just soldiers or even citizens. If an Israeli high ranking commander would be killed, it might be worth noting his name, but anyone ranking under Colonel, should probably not be mentioned by name. I don't know how are the Hamas/brigades ranks work, but I think that when both Israeli and international media report names, it means they were high ranked officers (or whatever their equivalent is). -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the argument of the previous user most persuasive. Debresser ( talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Refer to #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for background on my criticisms. We have figures available for women and children dead (Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=940). They currently stand at 101 children and 37 women. This is not being reported in the info box or in the casualty section (which still has the child death count at 75 with no mention of women killed). For the first time we have a source that ventures a "civilian" estimate that I assume includes men, though this is not clear. This is apparently from the Palestinian MOH according to press articles.
There needs to be a footnote or a section in the casualties stating that the accounting practices have systematically excluded men in civilian counts to establish the proper context of ALL civilian death counts that don't explicitly state they are including men. Up until the MOH claiming "200 civilians dead" no one had made a total estimate of civilian deaths, the UN in fact was referring simply to women and children killed. It's not clear to me that the MOH is doing anything different as I cannot read arabic and I cannot check their own words. The UN, has not yet released its situation report for the day but as of 1/05 they were only citing figures of Total deaths and women and children deaths.
I've been arguing this for days and despite strong support in the above section on Casualty Accounting the Article page does not reflect these suggestions. An autoconfirmed member needs to take the lead and clarify the situation on casualty accounting. Again the two main primary sources for casualties are:
UN: http://www.ochaopt.org/ (check most current situation report PDF) Al-Mezan: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php
And #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting contains my full criticism of our presentation of casualty figures.
Thrylos000 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please remove archive picture from (undamaged) palestinian building. This building is not located in the Gaza strip but in the West Bank (see [16] mogamma ( Mogamma ( talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
I think it should have a room somewhere in the article. [17] Any thoughts? suggestions? -- Omrim ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This youtube video [18] is being used as a source on the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. I think that if it was notable, it would be in newspapers, or other news outlets by now. I don't think we should be sourcing anything to Youtube. VR talk 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this an interesting question, on which I would like to have a more definite 'ruling'. Is YouTube an acceptible source for Wikipedia or not? Debresser ( talk) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that this is considered by some, myself included, that this is a proxy war between the West and Iran? Just like the 2006 Lebanon war was and has already been described as part of the overall War on Terrorism. Here is a reference that backs this up [19]. And please don't ask for references that hold official confirmations of this because there obviously won't be any. In any case this is a direct result of the Fatah-Hamas conflict which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, and that as well has been said to be part of WoT. Well, does anyone have an opinion? BobaFett85 ( talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Irans call to use oil as a weapon until the war stops is worth mention? ( Relidc ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
I'm uneasy about including news articles, especially editorials, in the "External Links." Editorials by definition are POV, and even if we provide an even number of pro-Israel and anti-Israel articles, some may be more supportive than others (i.e., an article placing most blame on Hamas and some on Israel vs. all on Hamas), and some may be better written than the other, implying preference on one side. I recommend keeping the news articles in the References sections, and leave official sources in External. Jeztah ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the article needs a separate section that only states both Israeli and Hammas reasoning for this particular conflict. I ask for this new section because, historically, once conflicts are over, the "reasons" driving them often become a matter of conjecture. I do realize that there may be various reasons even within each side; perhaps a good place to start is by stating the opinions of those highest in power on each side of the conflict. I also think, in order to limit sidetracking, it would be a good idea to keep each side's statement to as little verbage as possible. The reader is always free to do further research into what is stated. I realize this idea may sound very simplistic, however it will give future readers/researchers access to accurate and very useful information. Tell someone ( talk) 13:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That is totally against custom and policy, "Criticism" and "Point/Counter point" is strongly discouraged. We have to speak in one unified encyclopedic voice. I know this is hard to achieve, but coping out of it by WP:POVFORKING or by essentially doing the same thing within the same article is not good: if one side did something or said something we have to report it, point or no counter point. In fact, sometimes you have to let the one side speak alone, because there isno verifiable response from the other. I do agree we should try to limit verbiage, and to point our readers to wikilink our hearts out. -- Cerejota ( talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict isn't getting much new edits. Either can people update it, or maybe we should move it back to this page. Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for why User:Madhero88 from Jordan has removed all previous images and added a huge gallery of very graphic images of injured Palestinians?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should add a new section to the article on diplomatic efforts towrds truce. There has been such efforts since day 1, I think, and they are turnning to be more coherent and fruitful (hopefully) in the past day or two. Any way, I think there is enough information out there to describe this process, which unavoidably will crystallize into truce of some sort in the coming days. If there is an agreement on the issue, I'll do some research and create a suggested section for your reviews. Since it will obviously be a little time consuming, I didn't want to do so without having a consencus on the issue at the least. Let me know what you think.-- Omrim ( talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
mentioning?
-- 212.117.137.193 ( talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that worth all the lives that have been lost in Gaza? Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted Brewcrewer’s edit. The text ran:
'targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party. This is an adequate summary of the three sources, notes 22,23,24..
I.e.
(note 22) 'Air raids have so far struck sites linked to Hamas, including smuggling tunnels under the border to Egypt, government buildings, security compounds, and homes of members of the organisation. Israel said it attacked some 20 targets in Gaza overnight and in the early hours of Friday. It described the mosque it bombed in Jabaliya as a "terror hub" and said it was used to store weapons. BBC staff in Gaza say at least 10 houses belonging to Hamas members were also hit, as well as a poultry farm and industrial workshop.
(Note 23) 'Israeli jets have attacked the Gaza Strip for a fourth day, with raids on a number of Hamas government buildings and security installations. . . targeted Hamas-run offices and security installations, . . Dozens of Hamas centres, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning.'
(24) 'Palestinian officials said that Hamas-run offices and security installations were targeted,.. Dozens of centres of Hamas strength, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning . . raids damaged both the interior ministry and a science building at the Islamic University in Gaza, from which many top Hamas officials graduated. . . Places hit by later strikes included the home of a senior Hamas commander and a car carrying gas cylinders, reports said.
Brewcrewer replaced this with ‘targeting Hamas weapons and launching pads’ Launching pads are not mentioned in the three sources, and the synthesis excludes the large variety of infrastructure the three sources say were targeted to suggest only purely military bases were struck.
Brewcrewer Please review wiki procedures on editing. Do not try things like this again, changing the language without reading the sources for a sentence. Nishidani ( talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the refimprove tag from the article. At this point the article has 235 references and only one citation needed tag. I think that if there are any areas that need to be better referenced, it would be much more useful to tag those specific areas than to slap the improve references tag on the entire (enormous) article. Blackeagle ( talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP-GC, and the AL Aqsa Brigades are all on the Hamas side of this conflict. Check their respective websites, they claim responsibility for about 30% of rocket attacks.
Why did the edit ninjas remove their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 ( talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"On January 4, 2009, Israeli forces bombed two houses in an attempt to assassinate Jamil Mizher, member of the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as part of their campaign of assassinations and home bombings targeting the leadership of the Palestinian resistance."
I thought a political front that accounts for 5% of the Palestinean political population would be worth mentioning?
3rd largest party in Palestine, second largest in the PLO, one of Hamas's key partners, unmentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 ( talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please add New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00051.htm and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4810786a11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hell surfer ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
People are complaining that those images only represent the palestinian deaths. Please check the chart in the article to see why the images are more from the palestinian causulties. the number of civilian deaths in gaza far outnumbers the number in israel. however, anyone is most welcome to add images of civilian deaths in israel. I personally don't have any with a proper license. Any removal of those images without proper discussion will be reverted. Contrieng ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC) µ
I personally think they do not reflect the real weight of the situation at all. There are numerous images showing only the rising smokes from a distance, which are far from illuminating. There have been hundreds of civilian deaths, including children. Mosques, hospitals, and ambulances have been attacked. The images should be in consistent with these realities. If the events are dramatic, so should be the images. -- 80.41.10.68 ( talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4
01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AgadaUrbanit (
talk •
contribs)
The opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense and within international law framework rights is not expressed. As a matter of fact Self-Defense as a legal term is missing entirely from this article. Gary Grant opinion quote in violations of international law section would reflect this point of view to situation in hand.
AgadaUrbanit (
talk)
07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Introducing such obviously and blatantly biased material and then using it as a point-by-point retort against a United Nations official and expert brings shame upon Wikipedia and its credibility. The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations, not yet another place for "A says X about B and B's entirely unimportant friends say A is wrong because of Y". WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE and WP:UNDUE yet again. — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, so I was bold: I went ahead and removed all references to Weiner and Bell in the "By Palestinian militants" section. I expect that this will move us closer to consensus. I moved the BBC article that was already there, so that it replaced some of the material for which they were quoted. Most of the rest I brought from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I went ahead and deleted the genocide argument altogether, since I couldn't find another WP:RS that expounded it. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my reasoned comment on the amendments that have taken place is DO'H! Maybe it would be better to combine the 2 sections (in a possibly futile attempt) to give the UN the weight they deserve speaking on behalf of the world community (to a first approximation) while still maintaining some...but much less...of the opposing views. We need the links put back to the appropriate _(law) articles I guess too. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I just want to mention again that I suggested to lose this section altogether. The section does not describe facts, but only opinions on how facts should be interpreted. Hence, untill there is a valid court rulling on the issue (such as in the case of the West Bank Barrier) we should refrain from mentioning it, since all that is going to happen, is excatly what is happening now: editing battles, which in no way will crystallise to a consensus. So far there have been arguments (not discussions, arguments)on which intrepretation is relevant, is the date it was given relevant, which parts of international law should or shouldn't we include, the number of characters describing each side stance, and my favorite: who is a "notable commentator". Now it has become a "personal" issue. I rest my case! -- Omrim ( talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
== Fellows, I'm nor a wikipedia abbreviations expert and do not have enough rights to change the article yet. I'm not neutral and my English and fix it if you like. I have couple suggestions for changes. Please help!
Type | Change | References | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Addition | After "not intended to cause excessive civilian damage, even if Israel erred in its estimates." to add something like following: Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about Gaza Raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called self-defence.". Gary Grant noted on proportionate to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take pre-emptive action, in order to stop it." | [24] [25] |
2 | Deletion. | Please delete The UNHRC statement by Falk "the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right". It is far from being a legal fact and indeed it's is state duty: please see independent legal expert opinion @ change 1. | This time it is personal |
AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called Self-Defense.". Gary Grant noted on proportionality to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take preemptive action, in order to stop it."
President Mahmoud Abbas stated he was considering taking Israel to international courts after Israeli tank shells killed 42 Palestinians seeking shelter in a U.N. school. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said in a statement "This is a brutal crime and a clear war crime, along with other attacks, and its perpetrators must not escape an international trial." Raji Sourani, head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza stated that "The repeated bombing of clearly marked civilian buildings, where civilians were sheltering, crosses several red lines in regard to international law."
UN Permanent Representative Dumisani Kumalo, representing South Africa in the 6060th UN Security Council meeting, stated that his country considers "the Israeli airstrikes using the most sophisticated war machinery, such as the F-16 planes, are a violation of the international humanitarian law". In the same meeting, the Egyptian representative stated that the "crippling blockade imposed by Israel" is in "flagrant violation" of Israel's responsibilities under international law, international humanitarian law and its specific obligations as an "occupying power". In a subsequent meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Jordan stated that "the military operations were a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention".
After finding four starving children sitting next to the corpses of their dead mothers among others in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement expressing its belief that Israel had breached international humanitarian law: "The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable."
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |date=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)
UN_RFalk
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)