Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 22 February 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

The Al Jazeera images have the logo because the Creative Commons license requires it. These are free images with an attribution restriction.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008.

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 January 2009.

For previously archived Lead section material: Archive 22 and 23

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Palestinian Ministry of Health

I have a couple of questions regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza from which so many of our statistics come. Is this Ministry the same one in the West Bank? Does the Gazan Ministry of Health (under the Hamas-run government) cooperate with the West Bank Ministry of Health (under the Fatah-run government)? I was under the impression that everything in Gaza was now run by Hamas, so that essentially their are two entities, run by two different entities? If so, (and I'm asking not telling) shouldn't we clarify that the Palestinian Ministry of Health is actually a separate entity, more like the Gazan Ministry of Health? That might handle the "Hamas-run Ministry of Health" concern that has been brought up by a number of editors in the recent past? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources call it the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. Nableezy (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

::That may be. In fact there is a wp article here Palestinian Ministry of Health and it also begs the question. When we give statistics from the IDF, we understand who it is that the IDF speaks for. I think it is not asking too much to understand this question on the other side. Where is the PMOH located? Is it in Gaza? West Bank? Is it Hamas-run or Fatah run? Whom does it speak for? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't answer Tundra's question. I too am curious. It would be logical to assume Hamas is running the a show, if not...who is? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It speaks for the government which in turn, as it is democratically elected, speaks for the people, so it in turn speaks for the people. This source has been referred to though as the Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health in some sources (i saw a bbc article say that) but is most often referred to as the Palestinian MoH. If you want to add it is Gaza based with a source feel free, but calling it the Hamas MoH is incorrect. Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, calling it Hamas MoH is like calling the Kadima run IDF. I know Gaza is a Statetard, but we still have decency in wikipedia of refering to things by their names, not by what partisans what it name, no matter how much controversy their is. --Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The MoH article doesn't know what it's talking about. It was created to talk about the Fatah/Third Way/West Bank ministry and was changed by an IP to say that it meant the Hamas/Gaza ministry instead. But nobody ever bothered changing the infobox which has always listed the same Fatah minister.

But it is really a battleground article: just a single sentence that only says which of the two governments controls it. This is part of a wider problem. For example, we have seven article on PA ministries of which five mention only the Fayyad ministries and two mention only Haniyeh ministries. It is pretty confusing and unfair to our readers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. It is confusing and unfair to readers, like me. Perhaps someone who knows something more about it will go and edit it. I am not asking that it be called the "Hamas" MoH. However, from what I am reading, the Palestinian Ministry of Health is located in West Bank but I think there is one is Gaza that is giving out figures and information and such related to this conflict. The one in Gaza is run by the government, which is the democratically elected Hamas government, right? There is an article referenced at the MoH article referring to the health minister going off to Egypt to find out if Egypt will take in the casualties if Hamas would let them go. The name is rather misleading since it refers to "Palestinian" yet it is not clear it talks about all of Palestine. If the Gaza MoH entity is different and run by Hamas, that should be made clear somehow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As the sources call it the "Palestinian MoH" and once or twice I say that they were referring to one in Gaza, as in this:
During the fighting, the main source for the number of Palestinian casualties came from the Ministry of Health in Gaza. from this bbc article
I think it would be fine to say in the article the Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health once, after that it can be referred to as the Palestinian Ministry of Health without any ambiguity. Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an endless amount of UN and WHO reports that exactly call it "Palestinian Ministry of Health". So why should we report it differently? It's reported in an endless number of reports (I can give more than 20 reputable reports) as "Palestinian MoH". We report what others are reporting, WP:OR analysis and connecting dots and quotes isn't our job here. --Darwish (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say who runs the MoH and how much collaboration there is. The Fatah-Hamas split has made that hard to determine. However, it's best to refer Palestinian MoH as exactly that, especially since we don't refer to the American army as "Bush run army" (now "Obama run").VR _talk 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that during American Civil War they talked about the Confederacy MoH or the Union MoH. During Russian Civil War they talked about "red", "white" though other colors were also present. Palestinian MoH confuses me as hell. Is this Ramalah or Gaza ministry? In my eyes Palestinian MoH is clearly false flag. PNA president Mahmud Abbas would be confused, after all he fired Hamas government so in his eyes Gaza MoH is not "Palestinian" :) Do you have alternative suggestion for description: Hamas-run MoH or Gaza MoH? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We follow the sources, they call it the Palestinian MoH. This isnt for us to choose. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am personally confused. There are two instances of Palestinian MoH in this Universe :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza MoH could be a nice compromise AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources call the the "Palestinian Ministry of Health". They call themselves the "Palestinian Ministry of Health". We already say in the article that it is Gaza based, nothing else needs to be said. This is not up to us what to call them, the sources make that choice. Nableezy (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

how about a compromise? "Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza)" Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if we go by Nableezy's criteria I have 4 acceptable sources that refers to them as "the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza."

• The Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs refers to them that way:"the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza."

• So does the BBC: Counting casualties of Gaza's war --BBC "During the fighting, the main source for the number of Palestinian casualties came from the Ministry of Health in Gaza. "

• Physicians for Human Rights"Emergency Gaza Update" "The Palestinian ministry of Health in Gaza claims that the number of dead is even higher. "

• The International Middle East Media Center "The Palestinian Ministry of Heath in Gaza reported on Wednesday that the number of the killed civilians in the last 12 months reached 203" 7/9/2008

There are countless other sources that refer to them as just the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. We already say it is Gaza based, we do not need to use Gaza every single time. Once said that is enough. Why are you pushing for this so much anyway? We already say it is in Gaza, and then refer to it by its name, wtf else do you want? Nableezy (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly, I can find sources that call the IDF the 'Israeli Occupation Forces' to the point of actually using IOF as its abbreviations. Yet you have not seen a single user say we shouldnt call it the Israeli Defense Forces because they are occupying forces. I cannot believe how ridiculous some of these arguments are. If I were not so pissed I would probably just say fuck it and leave. Might even do that anyway. Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly you do not find them called IOF used by WP:RS such as the BBC & OCHA, both sources that you have used regularly. The confusion of PMOH between Fatah and Hamas is not ridiculous. Whenever information is given that can be seen to be contentious (and possibly not all is contentious), it should be referenced as Gazan MoH. Why in the world would you equate this with "Israel Occupation Forces" I have no idea. On the other hand, I encourage you to stick around as your input has been valuable to this article, even if I disagree with much of it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you want it to say it is in Gaza more than once? Nableezy (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think you really miss the point. The MoH in Ramallah and MoH in Gaza is not the same organization. They are both Palestinian though. How do you abbreviate the second one in Ramallah? Don't you see here source for confusion? Some people through think that Ismail Haniyeh lives in Damascus, so maybe its OK with them just to call it Palestinian, like some sources do. Do you see any way for compromise? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The sources call this the Palestinian Ministry of Health. They sometimes say 'in Gaza'. We also say that the Palestinian Ministry of Health is in Gaza. That is all that needs to be said. Nableezy (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it now, it's an aha experience for me. No way to compromise. We do really want to confuse the reader so she/he will not know which of the two organizations we are talking about. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If a reader see that it says the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza once and the rest of the time it says the Palestinian Ministry of Health, that reader would have to be a moron to think that they are two separate things. We already say it is int Gaza, what dont you understand about this? Nableezy (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic. Maybe we should make "in Gaza" consistent, so reader will not have to second guess and really research into the article to know what the hell do Misplaced Pages mean. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we define it once. That is all that is needed. Nableezy (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love that willingness to compromise and find consensus. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have compromised a lot on this article, I have yet to see you move one inch on a single position, from the gaza massacre, to the pictures, to 'started' vs 'intensified' and so on and so on. Try taking your own advice before doling it out to those who have at least tried to compromise on a lot. Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

While I have disagreed and still disagree on a number of issues I have not made a point of throwing up a wall. "That is all that is needed." I have not put notices on others' talkpages telling them what constitutes "consensus" and warning them not to make changes, as others on this page have done. My way of "compromising" is to say nothing more about it and not revert obvious errors, such as "The Gaza Massacre" (which even you no longer capitalize, as if acknowledging the point made by me and others), the "start date" of this so-called "conflict" etc. I am not the only one to have made this particular point, ie "Gaza MoH" . It is hardly an earth-shaking change. I get the feeling that this is more about me than it is the actual issue of confusion here. Discouraging, really. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it is your life, you can feel however you want. Nableezy (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Past compromises are irrelevant to this discussion.
• How do you abbreviate MoH office in Ramallah
• People who know political difference between Palestinian National Authority and Governance of the Gaza Strip are confused. Current situation is unacceptable.
• Let's make it clear: Gaza MoH

Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No I do not, and I have said multiple times that the name is not the Gaza MoH, the name that they use as well as the name the sources use is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I dont have to worry about a MoH in Ramallah, they are never discussed in the article. We already say it is located in Gaza, but its name is the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. Nableezy (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel ties ceasefire to Shalit

Some folks here didn't even want Shalit mentioned in this article as somehow "irrelevant" to this conflict. However, not so irrelevant. . Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources tying the attack with Shalit. You have found a source tying the ceasefire with Shalit but after all this time you still cannot tie the attack with Shalit. A line off this source would be appropriate in the ceasefire section on something about ongoing negotiations. Nableezy (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in the ceasefire, not the background.--Cerejota (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Gilad Shalit is known instance of war crime during this conflict his case belongs to international law. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, this is said to be a violation of international law, I cant find anybody saying the holding of Shalit and not allowing ICRC visitation is a war crime as it relates to this conflict. This has only been related to a proposed ceasefire, I for one havent seen sources linking it to other things. The International Law section is supposed to be about violations committed in this conflict, not past specific issues, though past general background should certainly be included, such as occupation on Israeli issues and past behaviour by Hamas, but we dont go into specific violations in the past. We are not going to detail every extrajudicial 'targeted killing' or every rocket attack. Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I would be fine with a small sentence saying Shalit has been denied visitation by the ICRC in Gaza in the intl law part, but not off of this source, find one that brings it up. Nableezy (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) According to the reliable sources, an impediment in ending this conflict and a factor in the conflict's renewal is the continued holding of Shalit, which turns out is a violation of international law. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But you see they are relating it to ending the conflict, as in achieving a ceasefire, not that it is a violation as a part of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The international law violation is directly related to the cease fire. If he's given all rights due under international law Israel would be less bothered by the kidnapping and wouldn't place the same emphasis on his release.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the violation is not related to this conflict, it is ongoing from over a year. Are there sources calling this a violation as it relates to this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's ongoing for over a year and it's related to this conflict because Israel is making his release a factor in the ceasefire.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is related to the ceasefire because Israel is making his release a factor in the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Soooo, it should go in the ceasefire section? Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At least. As well as in the international law violation section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reports of Israel linking a new ceasefire with a swap involving Shalit, support inclusion of this relevant information. RomaC (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a source that ties international law violations as a part of this conflict, not as a part of the ceasefire, and we can put a line in the intl law section that would be sourced and relevant, right now with this source it is only relevant to the ceasefire section. Nableezy (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit has the information, if we link to it, problem solved. There should be a one line mention in International Law, with a source from the article. The wikilink would be in the "Ceasefire" section, because its first. Problem solved. THis is a cause celebre for a certain section of Israeli public opinion, so be careful with undue weight. Shalit's inclusion in the ceasefire is done for clear political advantage, and in 10 years it will be a footnote. Historians tend to be assholes that way. BTW, not allowing ICRC visitation to a POW is a war crime - if you are a signatory of the Geneva convention or state that you abide by it. Hamas, to my knowledge is neither a signatory, nor abides by it. Of course, this is OR, but might be the reason why it is dificult if not impossible to find RS calling it a war crime: it is a partisan emotional charge, with no basis in how international law actually works. Similar to the DU/WP stuff with Israel.--Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it is a violation of international law, but my point was it is not a war crime in relation to this 'war'. That is why I dont think it should be more than a small mention in the intl section if at all there. Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, some people say it is related to this conflict. Poll: 76% oppose truce without Shalit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep proving my point, this is related to a truce or ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, from other hand, human rights experts describe Gilad Shalit case as a war crime. Many agree. Such opinions of experts reported by reliable sources go to international law section in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a 'war crime' as a part of this 'war'. A line about Shalit can be included IMO but you need a source tying it to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some people say that everything we see around us was initiated by Big Bang. It is really not a problem to find citing Gilad Shalit ... war crime. In any case Gilad Shalit events were initiated chronologically during period described in background section. Maybe we could put it there. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not background to this conflict, it is germane to the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you really say that (ie "not background") with a straight face? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has accused Cpl Shalit's captors of committing a war crime. International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met," the group said.

• "Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered a war crime." BBC
• In fact, B'Tselem said on 25 June 2007 (just 6 months before this conflict flared up-escalated): B'Tselem: Hamas must secure Gilad Shalit’s release immediately .

• This article is relevant too PRC:Shalit will not see light of day unless our demands are met 6/25/08 'Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' armed wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, said of a possible prisoner exchange deal involving Shalit, "the ball is in the hands of the occupier. If they (Israel) are interested in a deal, they will have to agree to our terms.'" ' Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this bbc article where the Israeli negotiator is saying: "Suddenly, the order of things has been changed" talking about new demands that Shalit be released as a condition to a truce. This is only related to the ceasefire. It is not background to this conflict, it is related to the negotiations for a ceasefire. And yes, something that happened in 2006 is not relevant background to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And do you notice how none of your sources are talking about this conflict? Why do you like proving my points? You take all the fun out of it. Nableezy (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This link will point out all of the stories in Haaretz in 2008 regarding Shalit: This article from the JP, Dec 29th 2008- can be interpreted differently from its title: " Operation not geared at getting Schalit back"

Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic- Military Bureau, said Sunday there is not necessarily a connection between the fate of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit and Operation Cast Lead.

"Releasing Schalit is a goal in its own right," he told Israel Radio. "We have not ceased efforts to bring about his release even for a day."

In marked contrast to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the return of captured soldiers was among Israel's declared war aims, the return of Schalit, held in Gaza for more than 900 days, has not been presented as a direct goal of the Gaza operation.

Gilad reiterated that Operation Cast Lead would continue with full force until calm was restored to the South.

Credit: Jerusalem Post staff

The way I interpret this article, Shalit is very much a part of this conflict, though not a direct goal in Operation Cast Lead. Considering that this article is not simply about OCL (or it would be so named) but rather about the 2008-2009 conflict itself, Shalit is very much a part of this conflict, especially in '08 when negotiations for his release broke down. To insist that he is not involved strikes me as tendentious, although why I am not sure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For example this article: from October 2008, just 2 months prior to this operation --Haaretz

• "Olmert has told officials in meetings on the matter that Israel must choose between moving ahead on Shalit's release by applying massive pressure on Hamas - which might lead to the breakdown of the cease-fire and a renewal of Qassam fire on the Negev - and a freeze on the Shalit release and quiet in Sderot and the communities close to the Gaza Strip. Sources close to Olmert have said that as long as things are quiet, Hamas has no interest in moving ahead on releasing Shalit."

It doesn't take "original research" to understand that when the ceasefire broke down completely, the choice was to move ahead on Shalit's release by "applying massive pressure on Hamas" which is what OCL did. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say it wasnt related, but you seem to want to put this in the background, which I say it is not, Intl law, which I would be fine with if it were not for the fact we would just be repeating ourselves with the next one, and in the ceasefire section, where I completely agree it should be in. If you want to have a small sentence in the intl law section about how he has been denied access to the ICRC, fine, but we shouldnt repeat it in the ceasefire section. If you want to split it up so that intl law sentence there and how they have now said there will be no long term truce without Shalit released in the ceasefire section, I would be fine with that. But it doesnt belong in the background section, and for all intents and purposes we are talking about Op Cast Lead in this article and the things that are relevant background to that and its immediate response should be in the background. This article is not about everything that happened in 2008, if it were the blockade would be given much more attention rather than being relegated to a couple of sentences as relevant background to this event. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And it does take OR to do that, especially considering your source says: "In marked contrast to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the return of captured soldiers was among Israel's declared war aims, the return of Schalit, held in Gaza for more than 900 days, has not been presented as a direct goal of the Gaza operation." That line alone says that Israel has not presented the release of Shalit as part of this operation, whereas in Lebanon they did. "Releasing Shalit is a goal in its own right" says that the release of Shalit is not dependent on Cast Lead, it is something they pursue independently. Nableezy (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They have not presented as a "direct" goal...that is not say it is not an "indirect goal." To claim that "for all intents and purposes we are talking about Op Cast Lead in this article" is WP:OR. There was no consensus to rename it as such and the title as it stands says different. The Shalit issue is part of the background of this conflict, absolutely. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either change the title or fairly and honestly put in the background to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict, which clearly includes information about the rest of 2008 and the kidnapping and negotiations surrounding Shalit. We have the truce issue acknowledged and the continual rocket fire from Hamas acknowledged. What is wrong with acknowledging that Hamas will not only not allow ICRC visits, but that they won't release him either until "all their demands are met?" I don't get your resistance on this issue. Is it that it makes Hamas "look bad" ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The kidnapping was from 2006, and do you have any source to back up that Shalit was a goal of this, directly or indirectly? And why would I think it make Hamas look bad, and if you want to add that they will not release until demands are met, maybe you would want to also add the demands are for the release of political prisoners in Israel being held to be released. Nableezy (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I do not understand your persistence on this issue. Is it because you think it will make Hamas 'look bad'? Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Nableezy. For some Misplaced Pages readers it will not make Hamas look any worse. They probably clicked on the wiki link and don't deny that terrorist organizations do exist. I could bring quite large number of Hamas official quotes talk about Gilad Shalit, during this conflict. it is clearly important for Palestinians. It's custom in this article to put international law experts opinion in International law section. In this case though no one denies the allegations. We need to explain our readers why current situation of Shalit being hostage in hands of Hamas is a war crime. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree in principal that if information about captured Israelis is to be included then it needs to balanced by information about captured Palestinians currently being detained without trial by Israel, 548 at the moment I believe. Obviously we need to make sure that we aren't just presenting one side of things. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas denies Gilad Shalit Red Cross visitation which is a war crime under Geneva convention. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. That is a fact. I'm saying that if captured combatants/non-combatants are regarded as relevant to this conflict/article in some way then surely the relevance works both ways for both belligerents ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit was kidnapped before these hostilities started (OCL). He was captured in a cross-border raid and was not taking part in hostilities at the time so was a non-combatant at the time, according to international law. But I personally don't see anything wrong with mentioning captured combatants (and non-combatants if you have that evidence). That is all part of the "conflict". Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy thank you for clarification. Sean thank you for agreeing Shalit case belongs to International Law section. Let's move on and agree on wording. I propose:

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas in June 2006 cross-border attack and continues to be an important topic in Hamas-Israel negotiations brokered by Egypt. Hamas denies Gilad Shalit Red Cross visitation which constitutes a war crime under Geneva convention.

First sentance ref: Hamas press release

Second sentence ref: B'Tselem press release

Any suggestion about wording? Thank you AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Sean. What he said is if Shalit goes in so do all the 'Palestinians currently being detained without trial by Israel, 548 at the moment I believe.' If you really want to include it, here would be a reasonable sentence on Shalit:
Gilad Shalit, captured in a cross border raid in 2006, has continued to be held without visitation from the ICRC.
But Hamas is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions so they are not bound by them so it could not be a violation of it as they cannot violate it. You could say, 'which X has said is a violation of international law.' Then that would have to be balanced out by the Hamas demands that Israel release all prisoners from Israel in exchange for Shalit. Nableezy (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't agreed that it should be in the law section. Was it commited during OCL ? No. In general I want stuff removed from the law section rather than added because the amount of material in there is in danger of making a mockery of WP:DUE. It's importance and notability from this articles perspective is related to the future of relations between the belligerents i.e. the ceasefire negotiations, prisoner release etc. I agree with the arguments Nabeezy made earlier here. "Find a source...that says..during this conflict" etc if you want it in the law section. On the other hand I don't really care. :) On the other-other hand it annoys me when the coverage/weight afforded to captured people depends on random factors like the exact location on this planet they were born, their nationality, so on and so forth. That's neither here nor there though. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynet: 1,000 "army" of bloggers to "flood" blogs with pro-Israel opininons

Since I'm sure someone will just debate this topic for the sake of WP:ITBOTHERSME, I'll be first and open a discussion topic for it. Yedioth Ahronoth has reported that the Israeli ministries have created a 1,000 (yes, one thousand) "army of bloggers" to "flood blogs with pro-Israel opinions". I just took the statement as-is and added it to the Media section. Please post any concerns below. Thanks. --Darwish (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad Misplaced Pages is not a blog, the Israeli POV could use some better representation to even things out over here. I am happy to see, however, that Ynet is now a legit reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the attribution "According to Ynet" before reporting their statements. --Darwish (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting phenomenon, but it's not directly related to the conflict. My guess is that it's Israel "learning lessons" from the pre-January-18th fighting, but that's not said in the source, and even if it were, it wouldn't be sufficiently relevant to warrant being in the main article. Looks like possible material for the media article though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's said in the article that this "army" was created directly "following Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip". I think it belongs to one of two places; either the "Media" or the to-be-created "Aftermath" section. I guess it's good to have it in the main article cause 1,000 person is not really a small number at all. Imagine if only 30 from the 1,000 was directed to a single newspaper website, they can "flood" the whole website commenting system down turning it to a sharp pro-Israel place. --Darwish (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, they're not saying it's connected to Cast Lead. "Following" is the kind of language newspapers use when they suspect a connection but don't want to risk asserting it. I really don't think this scheme will affect anything at all (if the Absorption Ministry was competent in this regard it wouldn't have told the media about it - duh), but if other reliable sources think otherwise they will no doubt print it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference says the "campaign" was launched "last week", i.e., on 21 January. This is just 3 days after the fragile unilateral Israeli ceasefire. All the January incidents is reported here. The campaign is related since at the end, the reference reported the responsible ministry of the campaign saying:"We are in the process of thinking how to utilize these volunteers not only during conflict, but also during regular times as well." It's clear that this campaign is directly related to the Cast Lead conflict. --Darwish (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I once pointed out, according to an article I read there are more Arabs online now than there are Jews world-wide. Considering that the Arab world is virtually unanimous in their opinion on this conflict and are not afraid to say so, an "army" of 1000 pro-Israel bloggers will make very little dent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple math will tell that with upwards of 400 million Arabs in the world, and 14 million Jews that if just 4% of Arabs have access to the internet then there will be more Arabs on the internet than the total number of Jews. I dont see what your point is though unless there is a source saying all these Arabs are flooding blogs with anti-Israeli propaganda? Nableezy (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, those 4% of Arabs speak many foreign languages and also (no doubt) "flood" blogs and websites with anti-Israel opinions. Misplaced Pages is not a blog, however, and everything here is supposed to sourced to reliable secondary sources. And the article called it "opinions" not "propaganda". 1000 more people with pro-Israeli opinions on the WWW would certainly be nice, but hardly an "army" or a "flood." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this is not-related. We're talking about a government sponsored managed activity where "Each time the ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions. We're speaking about organized and government sponsored managed, "identify and attack/flood" efforts. --Darwish (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was responding to Darwish's comment that 1,000 pro-Israeli bloggers could have a great effect. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that Israel wants to ensure that its point of view is heard. I assure you that all sides of any conflict in history would want their point of view heard. As such, this is neither notable nor relevant.Kinetochore (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats what FOX News is here for, but seriously it is about an organized effort to influence media, that would seem to be fitting with the section it is in. Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's not a simple "ensuring point of view is heard". When they say "flooding" blogs with pro-Israel opinions, this means a huge attack on articles. It's something like say "we don't like article X, Y, and Z", then a huge group of organized editors will post comments attacking the article from every side. This is mis-use of the democratic commentary system of websites and is equivalent to meat and socket puppetry on Misplaced Pages. --Darwish (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, let not your heart be troubled. Misplaced Pages is not a blog -- we do not push our "opinions" here but rather support the facts with reliable sources. Those 1000 volunteers with pro-Israel opinions are marching off to blogs and personal websites, not coming here. Besides, even if they did, you don't have to worry. With you and your pals, they are assured never to be able to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and remain forever at loggerheads. Cheers, Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I did not say they came here to Misplaced Pages, I said/meant it has a similar effect of puppetry on other websites.
• Your claims of me not trying to reach consensus is 100% wrong. On this page alone, I've reached 3 consensuses with other editors who own sharply different views.
• "you and your pals": hey, adhere to WP:CIVIL. I have been involved in serious efforts to reach consensus here, with several ones being reached. Meanwhile, you're just attacking. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, 1000 editors posting on the same nonconstructive or hateful message on the same blog would in fact be notable. Please prove that this has occured, or that this is the strategy or point of this 'army'. The commentary system is not supposed to be democratic, it gives a voice to those who want to post. It is very much not an equal representation of internet users, nor will it ever be. Frankly, I do not see a problem with pro Israeli bloggers being hired to offer an alternative points of view in comment sections, but you seem to find this concept offensive.Kinetochore (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, 1,000 editors on the same blog can never happen anyway. but it seems you forgot an important key word; "flooding". Hear what they are saying:

Each time the ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions.

No one can claim that this is a normal activity. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it should go in the propaganda section.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all- it is only your opinion that this is an Israeli propaganda tactic. I must insist that you find an RS that says this is propaganda if you are going to label it as such.Kinetochore (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kinetochore. No, we don't have references calling this action "propaganda". --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

SPAM SPaM Spam spam. God, I hate those communists! SPAM SPaM Spam spam AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world is an army of Israeli flooders needed when there is USians around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamenco111 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to discuss the merits of the action here. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr F.G. Superman has a hidden identity! He's really Bicycle Repair Man!!!. To the point of your argument, Do you really think the flood will be notable in a week or two? Does it add encyclopedic value to this article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse it adds encyclopedic value Agada; it's one of the techniques used to "improve public relations". This is a government sponsored managed activity where they "identify" specific sources like news websites, and then "flood" it with other opinions. We're talking about a very organized behaviour, check the "Each time the Ministry ..." paragraph. --Darwish (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit. The edit just removed material clearly cited in the reference which said:

Some 1,000 new immigrants and foreign-language-speaking Jews volunteer to army of bloggers set up by Absorption Ministry and Foreign Ministry with the stated objective of flooding blogs with pro-Israel opinions

and also said:

Each time the ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions

. Please do not remove material clearly cited in the reference. --Darwish (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add the already well-cited "improve Israeli public relations", it's of course absolutely fine. --Darwish (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, my edit took info which was directly from the article as well. It is not notable that some Ynet editor has coined these volunteers as an army either. Darwish's POV (that he does not like that Israel is doing this) shines through in his version.

• “…has set up about 1,000 "army of bloggers" with the stated objective of "flooding" blogs with pro-Israel opinions. “ Darwish's version
• “…have recruited 1000 volunteers to improve Israeli public relations on the internet” - My version. Note this is directly from the article as well.

Please comment on which version you prefer, if any, so we can settle this.Kinetochore (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My own views are irrelevant in here. I didn't claim that my version is the one; just please don't blame the messenger when my version is also a clear cut from the article itself. Both "versions" are true and should be reported. For consensus purposes, I propose this:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the stated objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

As you see, the word "army" is removed, the language is softened, improving Israel's PR (basically your version) is emphasized first, and approximately the whole article is summarized in this new sentence. Thoughts?

This third version is acceptable, except I would remove the word 'stated' as it implies that this is not the real objective, that there is some hidden motive. Kinetochore (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I don't have strong feelings about the "stated" word. Although journalistically speaking, it's often said as "x is formed with the stated objective of y", this isn't really that critical. Anyway, I've modified the statement to match the form we exactly agreed upon. Nice discussion. --Darwish (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, agree PR is the aim here. No need what so ever in encyclopedic value. Consider for instance: BBC reports that Israel has a large IT industry and one of the world's most technologically-literate populations. Around 3.7 million people had internet access by 2006 (via Internet World Stats). I'd stay Internet statistic looks very outdated, Yet even those numbers make 1000 bloggers army like drop in the sea. Do you think BBC quote could be a valuable asset to this article? Which section does it belong to? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The internet will be massacred! Not too make light of the conflict but the thought of an "army of bloggers" is a little funny. Right now it looks like simple PR and propaganda seems a little strong. I'm not against its inclusion we just need to establish notability and not demonize it. I need to go report to my superiors at the ministry about these shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, You're calling a team of 1,000 bloggers where the ministry "identify" for them the "problematic" articles and news so they "flood" it with pro-Israel opinions after that a "simple PR"? --Darwish (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, as said, it's clear that Israel has suffered a major PR backlash after the Gaza offense. It's also clear that this is one of the methods to improve the situation, as said by the reference itself. It adds encyclopedic value cause I doubt we have reports of another armies doing similar targeted "identify"-then-"flood" campaigns on the Internet newspapers and blogs. It also shows one of the ways of how Israel is currently approaching its PR problems. --Darwish (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Unfortunately "propaganda" has too much weight. I think it can be used in the article but don't want to see it overspun. The word resonates very negatively with he reader and sometimes we need to watch out for perceived definitions than literal.Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 2nd option. As long as it from the source and not an attempt to whitewash it we are good. Much more neutral. Don't mind it going in the Propaganda subsection, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is an OR term since the campaign has not been described as one in the source. --Darwish (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it should not be in a "Propaganda" section.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at two different articles :)? The statement has always been under the "Media" section, never under the "propaganda" one. --Darwish (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a little miscommunication :) I originally thought it made some sense to put it to the propaganda section but if it is agreed that it is OR then we don't need to worry about it.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is being reached above. --Darwish (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you say that Darwish. How exactly WP:Consensus is reached? There were number of editors who opposed. While single supporter used propaganda argument. I think this kind of argument represents very well weasel word concept. You mislead when you quote government sponsored. There is clearly no WP:consensus for inclusion into this article which many editors claimed is too much bloated to answer WP:SUMMARY quality requirement. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, yes, there was consensus reached above between me and Kinetochore where several compromises was made and we found a common ground between our two versions. I also replied to every disagreement above, and no one disagreed with my replies. I also said "is being reached above", i.e., it's in the making above cause this reply was before reaching the common ground. --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claims of me are false. The government sponsored statement wasn't used in the article, but in the talk page. And I did not even quote the statement as you falsely claim, I put it under italics. You've accused me of using weasel words; You owe me an apology for that, cause I didn't -- not even in a single instance -- quote that statement as you claim. --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, semantically speaking, it is a government sponsored managed activity. It seems you missed this part in the article:

The Absorption Ministry is recruiting new immigrants and Jews living abroad

and most importantly this:

While the Absorption Ministry is tasked with recruitment, the Foreign Ministry will be responsible for directing the volunteers online.

Yes, it's an activity between two Israeli governmental organizations (two ministries), not even one. You see, it's (government sponsored managed) * 2  ;) --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, man. If you going to continue this kind of arguing, I'm going have to return you back my barnstar. Average Israeli family have home network with couple of computers connected via broadband connection to the Internet. Many know some English. I still don't know how you quoted government sponsored talking about army, when source clearly talked about volunteers. And I agree that government bureaucrats, generally, need to justify with PR their next year funds. I know it's custom on Misplaced Pages to strike errors. There is no consensus for inclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I don't mean they are paid by the government; it's said clearly that they are volunteers. When writing in the talkpages, I just mean they are managed and guided by the government, which what cited reference quotes above completely prove. The army word isn't mine, and it is not used in the Misplaced Pages article anyway. Here's what's written in the Misplaced Pages article and what was mutually agreed upon between me and kinetchore:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

Now what's your objections to the paragraph above? Several concessions has been made to make it appear in such neutral way. --Darwish (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop using this silly picture saying I'm using weasel words, cause I'm not. I didn't have the intention to say they are paid by the government, I just meant they are managed by them. I striked the statement from sponsored to "managed", to match what I really meant and what the source clearly implies. --Darwish (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And how can you claim in your revert that the statement is OR? Where is the OR for heavens sake? Enough Agada, read the cited source and the statement you removed before doing such weirdo judgments. --Darwish (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Army and flooding are weasel words. Quoting goverment sponsored should be striked. No consensonsous for inclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? The words army and flooding aren't mine, they are the source -- which seems you didn't read yet -- ones. Now for the 10th time, I ask you what's actually wrong with the sentence used in the Misplaced Pages article:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

What's the problem in above sentence? --Darwish (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are OK.

• Quoting government sponsored is a mistake - it should be striked, was not present in article as quote.
• The proposed addition is not notable in any way, except for the fact that government bureaucrats, generally, need to justify with PR their next year funds.
• No consensous for inclusion. The parrot is dead

See what I mean? Or still want to argue the parrot is resting or whatever? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this source might help to calm things down as it actually contains the language used by Absorption Minister Eli Aflalo and director-general Erez Halfon. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• For literally the third time I ask you not to misrepresent my actions. I never quoted the statement, I put it under italics.
• You've been here for a while, you know that we just report. Your WP:OR theories and explanations debating a WP:RS reported campaign are irrelevant to the discussion. It's notable, it's reported in three Israeli newspapers. Yedioth Ahronoth, The Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz
• No, The parrot is alive ;-). You can't just say "no consensus for inclusion" while I asked you -- literally -- three times to voice your concerns about the statement used in the Misplaced Pages article, and you just reply with the same statement: "no consensus". Now, for the 4th time, I ask you what's wrong with the statement:

  In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

  --Darwish (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Flooded" is a POV word and if you are going to use it it must be in quotes and properly sourced. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"a pool of Israeli commentators in languages that can bolster Israel's public relations in the virtual world" are the actual words he used in the JPOST piece (above). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

but in the Ynet piece: "it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions.". I don't mind having the word under quotes though. --Darwish (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence you have quoted is POV from the article itself and shouldn't be included in that fashion. Even if it is a quote from a RS, it is a subjective word and ie an "opinion." Unless you can find another source that shows that those were the FM's actual words, there should be a more neutral word used. This one fellow did indeed say "army of bloggers" so that could be quoted but it too needs quotes around it like the JP article. "Flooding" is not demonstrated to have been actually used by anyone except the newspaper. Talk about mixed metaphors.Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "army of bloggers" sentence isn't used in the Misplaced Pages article at all. That was one of the compromises made in my discussion with kinetchore above. Although it isn't journalists opinions as you imply, it's quoted in the Ynet, Haaretz, and JPost articles themselves. --Darwish (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Darwish. I'm sure the time will filter it out. :) Enjoy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what's wrong with you today. I've tried to be as civil as possible in the discussion. You first said there was no consensus, I asked very politely 4 times to voice your concerns about the language used, and you just replied again with "no consensus". You then said the campaign is non-notable while it's mentioned in 3 reputable Israeli newspapers. Several times you repeated the claims that I quoted the "government sponsored" statement while I told you I never did so. Even after I found that "sponsored" isn't the right word, I striked and substituted the word to "managed". You even threatened you're going to return back the barnstar, which is a very impolite action in any social dictionary. You've complained about my "kind of arguing" while I just civilly replied asking you to participate using logic. And at the end you speak sarcastically by "whatever" and "time will filter it out, Enjoy" (emphasis's mine). You may have had a bad day today or something; I'll forget this weird discussion cause you have had a much brighter history in constructive debates so far. Best. --Darwish (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK, thank you for worrying/warring. You clarified in the past that "shekel" opinions do not impress you. This discussion got way off topic. Why the hell should I bother? You could insert here a last word, if you want. Nice Baby Koala picture, agree nice addition to this talk page. Enjoy :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Israeli newspaper Ynet has reported that in an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions."

Guys, there is an aricle about Media and the conflict, this information should be moved there. It is not important enough to be in the main article - it is simply one of the ways Israel is working to improve its PR, unless anyone else can prove otherwise.Kinetochore (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New way of objectively subjectively evaluating trying to objectively evaluate the validity of graphic photos

<non-free image and copyright-violating link removed; non-free images can only be used in article spaces with appropriate fair-use rationales; copyright infringing links cannot be inserted on any space in Misplaced Pages. Please do not restore.>

From http://www.journalismethics.ca/online_journalism_ethics/photojournalism.htm -

"According to Al Tompkins from the Poynter Institute in the U.S., when deciding whether a photograph is too graphic for the paper, newsrooms should consider: “What is the real journalistic value of the photographs? What do they prove and why are they news? Do they dispel or affirm information the public had prior to seeing the images?” By looking at the photos in terms of what they add to the news, editors should be able to determine whether publication is appropriate."

I will find further commentary of the use of graphic images. Franly, I watched a documentary where even Al Jazeera's and other Arabic TV news stations would not broadcast these graphic images. Why wikipedia editors insist on doing so beggars belief.

I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise.

And I would be saying the same thing if you were publishing the corpses of Israeli dead - which, I note with some bemusement, you never do.

Betacrucis (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You realize these were broadcast on Al-Jazeera right? That they are stills from a video released by Al-Jazeera. Please stop comparing them to propaganda and rotten.com. And there have been 15 Israeli deaths in this conflict as opposed to 1300+ Palestinians, it is logic, as well as due weight that we show that in its proper proportion. Nableezy (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any images of Israeli casualties? If so, I would be in favor of including them. At the moment, all we have at the moment is a picture of some damage to a wall with a girl sitting in front of it, which frankly, looks a little posed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously is posed (in the sense that the person wasn't there during the attack), but I don't mind it. Its important to give an human angle to war via images. After all, those rockets fall on people, you know? Some call it propaganda, I call it illustrating an encyclopedia. Same as with the AL-Jazeera pictures, which have the added bonus that they are form a reliable source and actually at the moment in the hospital.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also mention for those who are just joining us that we have had extensive discussions regarding which photographs should be included, with regard to balance, and concerns of "sensationalism". (See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_25#Pix_.28restored.29 and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture) The photographs currently shown were the result of a compromise which has lasted for some time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to revisit this issue, this will end in bans. All am saying: questioning due weight, relevant, reliably sourced, free-licensed inclusion of images is prima facie disruptive. Its two images in casualties of faces and one image for the Zeitoun incident. Opposing this is stepping away from the reasonable, and I will predicatably result in the gallery being restored. Why Betacrucis insists on being disruptive is beyond me.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And Betacrucis, please realize when you say "I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise." you are calling a large number of editors, all the ones who support its inclusion, or are engaging in this practice, propagandists. If that is your intent fine, you are certainly free to feel that way, but if not consider not using that language. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think an editor shouldn't say it, even if they feel that way. It is an accusation of deliberate intent. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And we could probably get by without accusations of censorship as well. It is the other side of the same coin. Both are unhelpful and only serve to poison the atmosphere. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I secretly enjoy it when somebody calls me a propagandist, but yes we should get away from both, but what should I say when somebody says the pictures are emotional and thus not encyclopedic? A word comes to mind to describe that reasoning, but I just agreed not to use it, so a respectful synonym would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily agree with it but I think it is a real perspective. We don't all have the same cool logical minds like you and Spock. Some of us are sensitive Western types. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't censored but if the images are more bloody than necessary just to make a point than it is inappropriate to use them. The images should accompany the information not push certain views. There are more dead kids on one side tha the other so there will not be a balance which is OK. They should also be kept in the correct section. We don't need every picture to be burn victims throughout the entire article.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt that is true, but do you think the pictures that are currently in the article are a problem? I see minor burns on the girl, but nothing like the baby pic, which everybody who was for including accepted that the consensus was against them and refrained from trying to put that one back in. Nableezy (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The two in the casualties section are OK. They are in the correct place and aren't overly offensive to me. It might be better to replace one of the civilians with that of a dead belligerent.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a free image of this and we will do it, removing one of the civilians to put a belligerent. Althought, according to the IDF (and some in this talkpage), these are possibly combatants.--Cerejota (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to disagree with your general point Cptnono but I always think it is funny when I hear that Misplaced Pages isn't censored. Misplaced Pages is heavily censored. For example, we can't include our own opinions or analysis at all. That sounds like pretty extreme censorship in my opinion. I am of course familiar with the section title in WP:NOT but even that section says that we censor. We just don't guarantee to do it to any particular standard other than for compliance with US and Florida laws. As a statement, "WP is not censored" is untrue. But I agree with your general point. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Cerejota, I originally put down soldier/militant instead of belligerent but was trying to cover the whole spectrum of dudes with guns. If it wasn't for the high byte count we could actually use both civilians and a third dead guy with guns. Agreed, JGGardiner, I was pointing to one of many "policies" that are more or less guidelines by the way they are kind of followedCptnono (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i can't help but acknowledge Nableezy's consistency in replacing estimates/opinion with facts and using them with arguments. Here: :"You realize these were broadcast on Al-Jazeera right? That they are stills from a video released by Al-Jazeera. Please stop comparing them to propaganda and rotten.com. And there have been 15 Israeli deaths in this conflict as opposed to 1300+ Palestinians, it is logic, as well as due weight that we show that in its proper proportion."

What, so more Israeli's should die and that would make the war fair? Please leave your SOAPBOXING at the door, we don't know how many civilians have been killed and it is likely it is far less than 900. I like how you don't differentiate between civilian and militant, quite stealthy dare I say. Al-Jazeera while unfortunately is considered an RS, we should be prudent before blasting their b.s in this article. You want logical? Fine, it is owned by Qatar's despot ruler and their Western counterpart just quit on account of bloated corruption and bias. Yes, this is all POV and shouldn't be in the article but I'm just giving facts here. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok (incredibly harsh personal attack removed), what soapboxing? That the photos are from a RS? And that was your bolds. None of what you said matters at all, like almost everything else you have written it was all irrelevant bullshit. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, soapboxing by continuing to pass off investigated-estimates of casualties in what I see is an attempt to evoke inappropriate emotion to justify the pictures. Sorry for my abrasiveness, but it's become a pattern. My apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

regarding this removal of text if you want to withdraw something strike it out, do not simply remove a comment that another user may take offense to. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) And me citing the Palestinian numbers that have been quoted by the UN, ICRC, . . ., somehow is soapboxing while you saying it will likely end up being less than 900 civilians (and if you can read you will notice I said casualties deaths not civilians) is not? Whatever, we already established how much I care about your opinions so Ill stop now. Nableezy (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You both calm down. The responses are way out of proportion. I suggest we all try to leave the soapboxy comparisons at the door and stick to the RS. And of course, stop arguing Al Jazeera is less reliable. I do not give a fuck about "truth", all I care about is verifiability. You all can take "the truth" and smoke it. Nableezy, stop the crap: you are picking on wikifan, using the codewords guaranteed to make him blow up... Seriously, the last few days it has been nasty watching both of you basically throw the WP:CIVIL rule book out. This. Stops. Nao. --Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I strike something? Just say it? I think I left a summary on the edit...is that not enough? Agreed Cerejota. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

uggh, sorry but when somebody has called me an antisemite multiple times without striking those bullshit accusations i have trouble taking that person seriously. and i havent been picking on wikifan, he just has the unfortunate tendency of saying retarded things that i feel the need to correct. Nableezy (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this. Nableezy (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And what codewords? Palestinian? Nableezy (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm such a retard. Silly Wikifan12345. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, seriously, please, you have to stop attacking editors and treating this talk page as a place to blog about your views on whatever shiny thing happens to catch your eye. It's so very disruptive. Do it for the sake of the poor people of Qatar cowering in fear from their despotic ruler, the horror. Also, by the way, visit Qatar. It's quite shiny. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Qatar. We have two sets of people here: One, the AJ crowd, claim the pictures illustrate a realistic tone of the war and are vehicle for facts, which again are supported by the unfortunate fact that AJ is considered a reliable source. The other crowd believes the pictures are simply propaganda, and including them is a blatant attempt to take sides and evoke unnecessary emotion that distracts from the article. Another claim is that other comparable articles don't have these pictures. Nableezy compared the picture-inclusion to various massacres and I think even the holocaust...yeah, I hope he was joking. Anyways, you know where I stand but hopefully we can come to some compromise. If these pictures remain, and they probably will considering how committed these users are, perhaps we can reduce the # to those which are 100% related and not war-porn? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See, there is another retarded comment. I specifically said I brought up the Holocaust article, along with the My Lai Massacre article to disprove the idea that Misplaced Pages does not show pictures of dead people. And they are 100% related; and 'war-porn', well that is also a retarded comment. Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy you used the Holocaust and a massacre to justify the inclusion of this photos. Not did I call you on it, but someone who is less retarded than I am did as well. If you continue to dismiss everything I say is retarded I don't know what to say. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And I patiently explained to both you and that other user that I used the articles to disprove a single point made, that Misplaced Pages does not show graphic images of dead people. I did not use the Holocaust to justify the pictures inclusion, I used the Holocaust article to show that those who object on the grounds that Misplaced Pages does not show images of dead people are incorrect. Do you understand it this time or do I have to explain it again? Nableezy (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, I continue to go back to assuming good faith. I have to assume it because otherwise I will go quite mad.

Cdogsimmons, you said you would be in favor of including images of Israeli casualties. There are two problems: first, the Israeli media very rarely take such photos, particularly during the most gruesome attacks like suicide bombings. Secondly, I'd be against their inclusion for the very same reason: it is emotive and it is propagandistic. Wikifan is right to say that it is "war porn". It simply is.

They may have been broadcast on Al Jazeera, but they DO NOT belong in an encyclopaedia. Think for a minute.

I don't have time to look back at other articles' histories (like the 2nd intifada's page) which do not contain any such images, but I am quite certain that in the long run, pictures of dead people not only don't belong on this page, but they won't remain on this page, regardless of my input. They are undeserving of inclusion.

Let me illustrate further: if there was, heaven forbid, a suicide bombing in downtown Jerusalem today, I would oppose the inclusion of images of dead people.

I'll add one other thing: the photos seem to have been added without consensus. But I stress that I consider this a side issue. Betacrucis (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is soooo far from the most gruesome images and you should take a look at the archives if you really want to see what 'consensus' this picture has. A number of editors who opposed the baby picture favored this ones inclusion as one that "accurately depict the subject and content of the article (within obvious reason)." You need to read up on the discussion and you will find that there is a general consensus in wikipedia that an image being emotive is not a reason to exclude it, and your assertion that it is propaganda, well there is a word for that too, but it is one of the ones I said I would try not to use earlier, and it is just that, an assertion of yours. One that a great many of editors have rejected as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to a question posed earlier by another editor, are any of the images currently shown a concern? That might be a good place to start so we can get to the core of the argument. Please say which image(s) and explain how it goes too far. Again, I feel that they could overbalance the article but it sounds like that is an easy fix from the discussion above.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. As I've said before, the issue is a matter of public perception. When we go to an article like the Holocaust, we expect to see pictures of its victims. When we go to the article on 9/11 we expect to see an image of a plane flying into the world trade center. With the eyes of the world watching this conflict, there is a general expectation that there will be pictures of casualties. An absence of those pictures sends a message just as their inclusion does. I'm not saying we have to have the most gruesome pictures available, or to show all the pictures available, but we should have some pictures available. If you want to rediscuss it I think we should do so. Why don't we spread out all the available pictures of casualties we have and pick the ones that are most appropriate to the article. Despite what Betacrucis says there had been a longstanding consensus on the talk page that images of the casualties should be presented when they became available.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, so much of what you say and the way you say it is inconsistent with WP guidelines. That's okay but I would urge you to re-examine your whole approach to editing in WP. I really think you need to thoughtfully question your approach, identify all of the things that you perhaps hold as self-evidently true e.g.

• that you can reliably recognise censorship when you see it
• that your measurement of emotive and propagandistic value is somehow deterministic and has an objective, meaningful value
• that your moral/ethical values are neutral and globally applicable
• that you are able to objectively measure the 'validity' of a graphic image when the term 'graphic' is so dependant on local cultural rule sets

and try to look at the things you perhaps hold as self-evidently true through the lens of the WP guidelines. For a simple example, if you think the term 'war porn' is meaningful in the context of war photography and image use in WP then there should probably be systemic bias detection alarm bells going off in your head to alert you to the possibilty that you may be attempting to impose your local value system on what is meant to be a culturally neutral, uncensored global encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

and potentially offend other editors who have objected to the use of such a term in the archives. but that is systematic bias as well so who knows what you should do. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, the one removed prior to this discussion starting, and i would then presume would be the problem, was the dead girl picture from the al-jazeera video, it is in the article now in the casualties section. Nableezy (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And a note, there is exactly one image of a dead Palestinian in the entire article. And exactly one image of a wounded surviving Palestinian. Could that possibly be overbalancing the article? Nableezy (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And amazingly, there is not one picture of a combatant in this article despite the fact that there was a ground incursion. I find that to be a major problem.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

we need free images, but there was one image of police officers dead (and the idf considers them combatants), that was the one free image I have seen about combatants. People also objected to that one as being too gory. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record I'm still strongly in favour of that image being included in this article. It was, in my view, the highest quality free image of casualties that we have at our very limited disposal. It was also the only image where the casualties are shown in-situ and therefore in context. It's a very high value image and entirely encyclopedic just like Ronald Haeberle's My Lai Massacre photos. I would willingly trade both of the AJ casualty images for that one if it comes to that. Yeah, it has blood in it. Shockingly, women bleed every month. It's red and comes out of their bodies even though on TV it's blue and comes from pixies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt, civilian casualties should also be represented. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you guys are having fun. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ignoring Wikifan) Fair enough and there's a valid argument for providing due weight to representing child casualties. I'm not advocating the trading of images by the way. It shouldn't be necessary if people follow guidelines but whatever other images are in the article I think the police officers image should be here. The apparently ambiguous militant/civilian status of Gaza policeman in some people's minds is another advantage of the photo. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The image of the slaughtered policemen, which was retrieved from the Arabic version, is not free but it is under fair use. This image was subject of an editwar with at least one person saying that he/she would accept only images of 'real victims' - women and children casualties. That's why I placed in the burned infant image, which was then replaced with the dead girl image. Replacing that with the image of the policemen would mean that we are going in circles. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating destabilising the admin ordered temporary ceasefire on images either by the way but if we are going to have a reassessment of which images should be in this article to improve the encyclopedic value of the article then I'll be advocating the inclusion of that one. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no new and persuasive arguments for removing damage and casualty pictures from this article. That said, I would prefer pictures contextualized with the event. So, bodies in rubble etc. instead of a dead girl in a hospital bed. (I realize that sounds callous.) So, if there are possibly more appropriate pictures available I hope editors can post them here for discussion. RomaC (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but what is perhaps more surprising is that Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions seems to have been largely forgotten. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't paying too much attention to this dispute, Nab. Was that the "babybq" or whatever the crass wordplay was? I am one of the biggest supporters of removing too much info that only shows the Gaza strip as only full of victims but can admit the pictures as they are now are OK. Second to that, my concerns have always been length issues. If we can get this article to an acceptable length (100b is the max from what I have read and also doesn't bog down machines) there is no reason we can't have plenty of images. There are more pictures of dead or injured Palestinians than Israelis and that is just the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the image I was talking about is the one Falastine was talking about here, but upon hearing we are claiming fair-use, I really do not think that applies. Fair use, as I understand it, cannot apply to using a photo under copyright with the same intention that was used by original publication, here illustrating these deaths. If we were to have an article about the photo itself we can claim fair use, but under these circumstances I do not think we can, so that would rule out the policemen image. The baby pic was another issue that ended with an request for comment and the consensus being that the image should not be displayed. But the policemen image was also removed repeatedly with the same reasoning. But irrelevant now if it is not a free image, at least I think so, but we could ask somebody who knows more about this stuff. Nableezy (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly the fair use rationale on the arabic wiki is pretty weak if you ask me. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I emailed AJ. Let's see what they have to say. I've asked them to comment and whether they would be willing to add the source material to the CC repository as this image predates the first batch. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if you believe anything I have said is "inconsistent with WP guidelines", then point it out, instead of using vaguely threatening language.

I am advocating treating this page the same as every other article on WP. Look at the pages for the First intifada, Second intifada, Operation grapes of wrath, 2006 Lebanon War. Think of any suicide bombing; pick one out of thin air - the Sbarro bombing, for instance, or the Dolphinarium bombing, the Passover massacre - no photos of dead people. None.

You can cite Al Jazeera all you like but Al Jazeera is not Misplaced Pages. These discussions have been had elsewhere. Why is this article different from all other articles? Betacrucis (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, your intentional stance module is misfiring. Stop using it.
Okay

• Others have already pointed out things for you. Read their comments. Read mine as friendly advice because that's what it is. This statement "I will continue to campaign against this blatantly sick, gruesome, propagandistic practise" is spectactularly ill-advised given the current sanctions in place if you want an example.
• I have no reason to vaguely threaten you nor have I. It's surprising that you would even think that. You are a newbie. That's why I said "That's okay but..".
• Advocating the removal of information from one place on the basis of the absence of information in another place is not sensible in an encyclopedia.
• AJ is just another reliable source available to us. Nothing more than that. It can help improve the encyclopedic value of the article just like other RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Love the reference to intentional stance, not sure what relevance it has here.
2. It was an ill-advised comment. Poorly worded. Let me explain. I don't know about any sanctions; all I know is I removed them in the course of a broader edit, (incidentally most of whose content seems set to be included as consensus material in the article). I haven't removed them since. I do feel strongly against the inclusion of the images but I won't edit war over them. They are unprecedentedly graphic and unnecessary (and yes, I know there are far more gory things out there; I oppose their inclusion, too.)
3. Do you value consistency, Sean?
4. Agreed. Betacrucis (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Well, for example someone just told me "you cant just take out facts because it makes America look bad. It seems you have a pro american agenda. you can and should only take out facts that are not proven" because I removed some irrelevant information without references from another article. That's a typical example of someone's intentional stance software failing here. They have a model of the intent of an editor, it's the wrong model so the action they take is inappropriate. I guess that's why we have wp:agf.
2. Everyone editing Israel-Palestine articles needs to be aware of the sanctions (which you can get to via one of the templates at the top of this page). Editors have been banned for fairly minor things in my view. Admins seem to have lost patience.
3. I value consistency if it's implementation increases the quality and volume of encyclopedic information. I don't think it has an intrinsic positive value by itself and it's open to misuse. It's a bit like consensus except that consensus is a requirement. It's true that there is an abundance of inconsistency between closely related subjects in WP and it doesn't help. On image content guidelines specifically the community can't find consensus. We have the universal declaration of human rights as a foundation, wp:notcensored and a few other things statements/discussions. Just look at all of the discussions/guideline reviews triggered by the images in the Abu Ghraib article. The solution might end up being a software solution to allow an opt out from displaying certain image categories via a gadget in people's preferences. In the meantime we have polarisation rather than consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps I did not AGF, if that's what you mean. As for the sanctions, I'll have a look at them. I worry that such processes can be used as partisan weapons - I did feel like my "trial" for "sock puppetry" was trigger-happy. Hard to AGF about that...

As for consistency in general. The first issue is article content in general. I feel like these arguments are wheel reinventions. See my section below.

As for consistency with images (the second issue), I do feel like some sort of consensus can be reached. I have a non-Zionist Jewish friend who is vehemently opposed to Israel's current policies, and he told me that he joined a local Muslim internet forum. He found the use of graphic pictures beyond objectionable. The implication, I believe, was that it was a cynical use of gory pictures to illustrate a political point.

I understand that some editors believe that such pictures have inherently legitimate value. If this is the case, then I see two really fair courses of action:

1. Find pictures of dead Israelis to illustrate every WP article on killings of Israelis. Meaning that all articles on this conflict would contain pictures of dead and wounded people.
2. Strictly oppose the inclusion of such pictures on a blanket basis unless some compelling reason for their inclusion can be shown to further the goals of creating an encyclopaedia.

I must stress that I do not oppose these images on partisan grounds. I would vehemently oppose the inclusion of such images of any dead or wounded person unless compelling reasons can be shown to include them. Such conditions might include: the emblematic nature of a photo (noteworthiness). The Phan Thị Kim Phúc image and the image of the blood-stained hands during the Ramallah lynching and the image of Mohammed Al-Dura during the Second Intifada spring to mind as such cases.

What do you think? 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost anything can be objectionable to almost anyone. It's nearly random. I'm of the view that any conflict related article should include images that try to faithfully describe the objective reality of the event even when those images are very disturbing indeed. Trying to faithfully describe the objective reality of an event is a very compelling reason for me and should be a high priority in a politically/culturally neutral, global encyclopedia. For example, I'm absolutely in favour of showing the carnage caused by suicide attacks/rocket attacks. The images are out there because they're used in pro-Israeli propaganda but they may not be suitable licence-wise. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cultural reasons why there aren't really such pictures out there. But even if there were, I would oppose their inclusion. You have provided your own rationale for inclusion of such images, but I don't think that brings us closer to a more objective way of identifying what deserves inclusion and what doesn't. You are right that "objectionable" is a random term, but "notability" is not. I think an objective way of evaluating the inclusion of images can be (and may already have been) agreed-upon. I seek further dialogue on this. Betacrucis (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I understand that you object to the term "war porn", but can you understand why someone would use it?

If not, can you understand why someone would object to photographs of dead and wounded people being used?

Photographs of suicide attack victims would be objectionable for exactly the same reasons.

I understand your points about the My Lai massacre, and other such events. But My Lai is acknowledged by all parties to have been a massacre, pure and simple - rape, torture, mutilation, the works. Whatever your beliefs about the recent Gaza operation, you have to admit that reliable sources certainly don't generally regard it as a massacre.

I urge you to consider in good faith my suggestion that we edit this article in general conformity with other articles about the conflict.
Betacrucis (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, you have to understand that this article needs to be edited in general conformity with the rest of Misplaced Pages. The lack of pictures in those other articles is not really of much consequence, and if it is it speaks more to the need to add pictures to those articles rather than remove them from here. Also, those other articles suffer from another problem, that we do not have free images to use. We are fortunate enough to have Israeli's taking pictures and uploading their work, as you can see in each of the rocket attack pictures, as well as having Al-Jazeera providing the world footage under CC, something that as far as I know has never been done by a RS with their copyrighted work. We have available to us images that are not available in those other articles, that they do not contain images is not a good thing and should not be the standard. As far as the 'war-porn', sure I understand it, but we should try to stay away from causing offense to other editors, though I probably am not the best one to speak on this as you can see from a section of this thread. That the articles pictures may offend some is not related to that, back here we are all 'editors of encyclopedia' and we should try to keep that atmosphere, and one of the ways we do that is to try to avoid offending others. Out on the article page, we are all consumers of an encyclopedia, and our discomforts are covered by the general disclaimer on content that all wikipedia articles fall under. This article has pictures that accurately depict what happened, that is what is needed in every article. Objectionable or not, which really only has meaning in a specific locale, is not a criteria for images in this encyclopedia. Images of a war zone are going to make some feel queasy and may make some feel angry, but all they are is a visual representation of the events. Nableezy (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, there are in fact plenty of pictures of Israeli victims of terrorism. Just do a google image search.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy I fully understand your rationale. My sense is that a uniform guideline for the inclusion of such images can be agreed-upon, as I wrote to Sean above. I suspect that the most important criterion will be notability, but there may be others. As it stands it sounds as if you agree with me that as shocking as some images may be, everyone agrees there is a line. My suggestion is that the line ought to be drawn at notability. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if a "graphic" image (as understood in our vernacular) is suggested for inclusion, it ought to be notable. I gave some examples - the al dura image in 2nd intifada, and others - these are notable no matter how graphic they are. (But to give you some idea about the universal application of my principles here, I have serious concerns about the inclusion of Uday Hussein's post-mortem image. I think it is grotesque and not sufficiently notable.)

I get that you wish to provide all images that seem relevant, but I think we run into countervailing interests - of not just some subjective notion of taste (which I have admitted motivates me) - but particularly of notability. I suspect a number of factors ought to be weighed before the inclusion of a "graphic" image (I use the term graphic recognizing its subjectivity).

That is to say, I think that prima facie, grotesque images and images of the dead and wounded ought to be weighed against a selection of agreed-upon criteria before they are included. I think we can achieve this, although perhaps this page is not the place for it.

Is there a broader "Palestinian-Israeli" principles/rule page that I can suggest this to?

By the way, and off-topic - when are you going to add those changes to the casualties section, Nableezy? Your preliminary draft in the talk page looks like it's worthy of putting up because, while it needs refinement, is better than what's currently there.
Betacrucis (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the casualties section, will wait for a lil while to see if anybody has objections (note: people look here and let me know what you think). As to notability, that would be a requirement if we wanted to make an article about a picture, such as Faris Odeh or other such famous images, here the requirement is that it add relevant value to this article. We can't say we only use images that have reached an iconic status. The most basic point here is that Misplaced Pages as a whole is illustrated. Some of those illustrations will cause offense, such as the images detailing sexual positions and organs, or the images of the dead, or the images of Muhammad (and trust me I am not equating any of these images to anything else other than that they cause offense to a great many people), but that offense is not reason to remove the images. Where you can take your suggestion, you may want to consider signing up for the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and make that suggestion there. But beyond the arbitration sanctions, I think it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a separate set of rules for the I/P articles as opposed to the rest of Misplaced Pages. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Not so, there are already a new set of rules for IP conflict based known as "discretionary sanctions," . Further I know that there are admins who are actively discussing issues concerning such contentious areas, in hopes of putting some new guidelines and rules into place in order to make for a better editing environment. Obviously I believe Beta's points are well taken as I was banned from editing the article for my aggressive removal of those photographs based on objections to weight as well as some of their graphic nature. I do not believe that there ever a consensus (rough or otherwise) to include a certain number of photographs (ie balance) or what exactly those photos should illustrate, and how much weight (ie casualty ratio 1000-1 thus many more photos on the 1000 side) is appropriate (ie WP:UNDUE), what constitutes "war porn", what constitutes WP:CENSOR, what constitutes WP:RS in this situation, eg International Solidarity Movement Al-Jazeera or Flickr etc. I actually think that in order to prevent these questions from coming up time and again on this article and other I-P articles, that there should be some kind of dispute resolution on this, with an eye to establishing some WP:guidelines for future articles. Not quite sure how to go about this but if there is a willing admin lurking, perhaps he/she could guide us to the appropriate forum (RfC? RfA? mediation?) to save us from having to repeat ourselves endlessly on talk pages and improve the editing environment on this and other contentious articles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said 'beyond the arbitration sanctions'. But Al-Jazeera is a RS without question. There is no possible way to say that it is not, and again if you want to demand that all pictures be from a RS then you will only see images from Al-Jazeera, as every single image showing any damage in Israel is not from a RS, and Al-Jazeera is the one RS in this world, or at least the only one I am aware of, that has released such images under an acceptable license. The only images in this article that are from a RS are the ones from Al-Jazeera. In this situation, in any situation, Al-Jazeera is undeniably a RS. I swear I just got a concussion banging my head on my desk, people are looking into my office all weirded out by the sound of 'BANG, BANG, BANG'. Now for my own safety, as I do not want exacerbate the concussion I just gave myself, please stop questioning Al-Jazeera's reliability or comparing it to ISM or the images we get from flickr. Nableezy (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No it is not a RS without a question. While it is true that according to polls the Palestinians watch and consider Al-Jazeera the most reliable by far, Israel does not. See this: Israel boycotts Al Jazeera news channel Israel considers Al-Jazeera's "coverage of the incidents is unbalanced and biased towards the Palestinian people." Israel is one side of this conflict. If we can't get reliable photos from a source that one side of the conflict considers unbalanced and biased, perhaps we should leave photos out all together. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) See also this: Israel to place restrictions on Al Jazeera from this month. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article also demonstrates the "unreliablity" of AJ in connection with Israeli issues. Plus you did not discuss my major issue which is that this should be something the wider community debates in order to set policy for future similar arguments. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. I am already aware of, and think I disagree with, your thinking about AJ. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, maybe I should have made myself clearer. Regardless of what Israel thinks, Al-Jazeera is without question a RS on Misplaced Pages. No matter what Israel says about Al-Jazeera, Al-Jazeera is a RS here. Nothing you say will change that, there is not even a point to discussing this. Even most of the people who generally agree with you will accept that here on Misplaced Pages, Al-Jazeera is unquestionably a RS. Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the "line" goes which we won't cross, it has to do with context with the article, not aversion to seeing distressing images. If we had an article about "Images of dead people used for propaganda purposes", that would be an appropriate article to display really shocking images. There is a concern that filling this page up with pictures of dead people will look like propaganda which is not what this article is about. However, to fail to post any images of casualties, is also playing to a side of the conflict. There's a reason after all that Israel barred the international press from entering Gaza when the operations began. We need to find some common ground. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, also for interest, there are plenty of disturbing images out there showing Israeli victims. The 'cultural reasons' often cited are apparently not supported by the abundant evidence to the contrary. See this slideshow for example. Don't look if you don't want to see this kind of material.
We have some guidelines on images

• "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" see WP:NOTCENSORED.
• "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic". see WP:IMAGE

Notability isn't part of the selection process in an article like this one. If it were an article about an artist for example it would be. I'm not even sure I understand what notability means anyway or who defines when a casualty image becomes notable. An image shown on a TV channel watched by millions of people around the world seems pretty notable. The images in the biology related articles showing animals and plants are not notable images. Despite that they provide high bandwidth, pertinent and encyclopedic information about the subjects. That's the same function our images need to perform. I'm all for systematically measuring the pertinence and encyclopedic nature of images using decision procedures that are consistent with our guidelines and an agreed set of parameters. Problem is, it can't be done. I think you arrived after the almost endless 'one of the most densely populated' vs 'some other description' discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Israel is one side of this conflict. If we can't get reliable photos from a source that one side of the conflict considers unbalanced and biased, perhaps we should leave photos out all together": Tundra, What is this? Why should we even care if Israel bans or does not ban AlJazeera? Misplaced Pages doesn't require or even need Israel's approval or even opinion for determining what should be used as a reference and what should be not. Let's also remember that those pictures were not from the Arabic channel, but from Aljazeera English. Go dude, open a noticeboard and try to say that Aljazeera English shouldn't be used in the I/P articles cause "Isarael considers it unbalanced"; I guarantee you 100% failure, and you'll even look funny in the process. But hey, you can give it a try ;-) --Darwish (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, as Jimbo Wales has pointed out, it's a matter of what Al-Jazeera is reliable for. It may well be reliable for many and even most or all other things, but if it is biased against Israel, one should not use it anymore than one would use a source that is biased against Palestinians. Certainly you have objected to many sources being used as being "biased." And why can't you find pictures from some other source that would be acceptable to both sides of the conflict? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is like the 10th time you have misrepresented what Jimbo said. He said if the footage is from one of their reporters that they are standing behind it is fine. If it comes from another source and they are just broadcasting it, then there may be questions. And Al-Jazeera is no more biased than ynet or the JPost, and we use those in abundance. If you want to not use any Arab media then be consistent and argue for the removal of any Israeli media. Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy pretty much sums it up correctly. This misrepresentation of Jimbo, in particular when he elaborated on what he meant, which is what Nableezy said, is not the first, and tundra should stop doing it, or go to Jimbo to "clarify". He made no references to bias (Jimbo is notorious for not giving a fuck about bias), he does reference reliability as generally understood: a clear standard of journalistic transparency. --Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly this is all based off of a bs postulation that all images be from a RS (though again, that doesnt seem to apply to all images). And then when we have pictures from a RS suddenly we get another demand we use a different RS, one can only assume because there is not a single other RS that has released images under an acceptable license. Why not just come out and say you just dont want any type of picture that shows a Palestinian casualty? Why do we have to go through 15 different arguments, the next as invalid as the prior? We all know that you dont want the images, but this constant reinventing the argument to remove them is getting annoying. I really wish wikipedia had some sort of requirement that the first argument you make is the one you have to stand by, and if that is shown to be invalid or rendered moot then sit down. Nableezy (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You've just started a new kind of argument as a reply to the message that proved that your previous "Israel considers it unbalanced" position is false. This is not a constructive way for a discussion. --Darwish (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you don't read what I write, Nableezy. Now that's OK if you don't want to answer, but if you do answer you should read. I have said (repeatedly) (as have others) that I had a number of objections to the photographs, including balance and undue weight, the question of the reliablity of the sources and WP:NPOV. To insist as you do that my reasoning is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT hardly seems fair or even assuming good faith under the circumstances. As to Jimbo, he said that pictures can be used to push a political agenda, which has also been the contention of a number of us here. I am not misrepresenting him in the slightest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresnting him when you say what AJ is being used for without actually looking at what he said he meant by that, not what type of story or who it is about, but is at an AJ report that they are standing behind or is it footage they are re-airing from somebody else. The former is completely fine, the latter may raise some questions. These pics represent the former. Nableezy (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of these photos have set a heavy precedent. What separates this war from every other in Israel? I've searching through lebanon, six day, yum, arab/israel, etc...and while all probably have images from RS, we don't include them. I know there was an excellent rationalization for this above, but the question is...shall we go through those articles and start adding photos? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, if the argument against is weight there was mention above of replacing one of the images with that of a combatant. This would balance it out slightly. Unfortunately, more people in Gaza died than in Israel so there will not be a perfect balance. However, we do not need only dead or hurt civilians in the section since it might lead the reader.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, "shall we go through those articles and start adding photos?"...yes. Look at 2006 Lebanon War for example. It has a nice, colourful picture of a guy putting out a forest fire in N.Israel caused by something, maybe a rocket, who knows. The lack of photos showing what really happened in that conflict is a clear failure on WP's part. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One single photo that does not involve murder, death, injured, etc. It's describing a scene that couldn't be considered a vehicle for propaganda. Again, it's the only REAL photo in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

and remember, over 1,000 civilians were killed, this isn't disputed by the IDF or any other organization as far as I know. Where are the horrific photos? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they weren't able to reach a consensus on inclusion and the arguments that available pictures of casualties were "sensationalist" won the day. Maybe it's time to start looking for a consensus over there too.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Tundra, Wiki, and Darwish, settle down.
I think the arguments put in favor of the pictures are understandable. The argument over AJ being a RS is an unnecessary one. Let's assume for a moment that the pics are from a RS and that they are copyleft. Then I think we get to the question of what value these pictures add to the article? I don't think these pictures can be taken out of the cultural context in which they are being used today - generally, as propaganda. Yes, it is true that there have been photos taken at suicide bombings (there was a very short time during Intifada 2 when I believe it became official IL policy to broadcast them) but they are generally not used in the same way.
Cdogsimmons made a very interesting point: "There is a concern that filling this page up with pictures of dead people will look like propaganda which is not what this article is about. However, to fail to post any images of casualties, is also playing to a side of the conflict. There's a reason after all that Israel barred the international press from entering Gaza when the operations began. We need to find some common ground."
I think this shows crucial insight. And I really believe there is some common ground between, on the one hand, posting images of corpses and wounded children, and, on the other hand, not posting any images at all. Surely we can locate images that illustrate this conflict that we can agree on? Betacrucis (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, I would like to and should extend utmost respect to you. My concern is, that in this issue, we have been down this road before. I ask you? what pictures would you like to post? Of the people who survived this conflict? of houses that weren't destroyed? of mosques that weren't attacked? Objectionability obliges us to post these pictures. It is why we continue to ask pro-Israelis editors to take command of their side on this issue. The objection to this has been, that Israel does not release these pictures and on a personal note you have said you wouldn't accept that even if you had those pictures. We are not going to debate who has better morals on this issue. Consensus in my opinion must be reach from the pro-Israeli camp and is independent from the pictures that have been posted of Palestinian casualties. Wiki rules does not commend us for it, but almost it seems as if they encourage us. Cryptonio (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cryptonio. I'm not totally sure I understand what you're arguing for. Would you clarify? Betacrucis (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You have the freedom to post pictures that show how this conflict affected Israelis. Maybe even F-16s flying sorties. Be bold. Cryptonio (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap shot. I might just as well say, "Feel free to post pictures that show how this conflict affected Palestinians. Maybe even Hamas gunmen firing rocket launchers. Be bold."
I have consistently said that there should be no gratuitous pictures of casualties from either side. I remain committed to that view and note with disappointment that there remains no consensus on this issue. Betacrucis (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that pictures should be in the article. Misplaced Pages isn't censored as far as I know so it's expected we put in some photos illustrate the context. But, we are obviously aren't being as prudent as we should be. The argument has become a this or that fight and I don't have faith in any compromise simply because we don't need one. A consensus is unlikely from my perspective and people are still committed to including the pictures regardless of how absurd it is, IMO. We already had a dispute resolution awhile back if I recall and that went nowhere. Too many people support the inclusion, so any argument, even if it is beyond accommodating won't matter. I'm trying to emphasize Beta so you don't continue this fight and expect a result. Eventually the pictures will be removed or reduced significantly, I am almost certain of that, but for now we should focus on areas that have potential for change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap shot? have you seen the page 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict? is full of Israeli tanks. I kid you not. go see here http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict. As consensus, in this case Wikifan is telling you that consensus is overrated. his words. Nah, seriously it was no cheap shot. Cryptonio (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And don't believe Wikifan, the 2006 article has 6 pictures, this one has 6 as well. and more people read the Torah over there than in here so(they got it like a stronghold). i feel like arming myself with a Citation Needed gun and do a drive-by. Cryptonio (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 6 pictures with wounded Israeli soldiers or injured civilians? Nobody is disputing the inclusion of pictures, but what the pictures are displaying. This should have been assumed lol. Don't see how tanks are politically/socially charged...they're tanks. Are you inferring this whole debate is simply to one-up the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict? Is this some sort of war to override any perceived imbalance/balance of israeli/pal bias? Christ man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I bet you meant to say "they're tanks" so nonchalantly. Israelis are used to seeing pictures of tanks. Palestinians are used to seeing pictures of dead people. This whole debate is to write an article. Mostly influenced by the fact that years go by and there was yet no article named 2008-2009 and so it was needed and here it is. This is no war. I wouldn't compare the pissing that goes on here as war. Cryptonio (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the discussion that we should be having. This is not about what the other articles have or dont, and Cryptonio your concerns about the other article belong on that articles talk page. If anybody wants to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of a photo, any photo, based on policies then please feel free. If you want to do something else, then do it somewhere else. We are bound by certain things here, those being the policies of Misplaced Pages on what content to host and how that content should be presented. We are not bound by anybody's personal opinions on what is objectionable, what constitutes pornography, or what is really the truth. If that is what you want to talk about get a blog, where I am sure you will draw many more crazy people to read your words. Now to address Betacrucis, I disagree with how Cryptonio put it, what I think you should be looking for are representative images of the destruction to Israel during this conflict. To the issue of weight, due weight is determined by the sources. Rightly or wrongly, the sources have largely focused on the destruction to Gaza, specifically the casualties. So I would like to ask you specifically, do you think the images of the casualties, which are 1 girl killed and 1 woman injured, show an accurate portrayal of the events in Gaza? I would be willing to change the picture of the wounded woman with the image of the dead police if we can get it under an acceptable license, would that balance any weight concerns on the question of representative images of the casualties? Or is this just about being opposed to any image of any casualty? If it is, you will find that the policies do not back your convictions. But the weight of the pictures is proper, speaking of balance is correct, the images should be presented to reflect the balance of the damage. Balance does not mean that each image individually must be equal to an opposite, that a casualty on one side must be equaled by a casualty on the other side, this was an unbalanced war in terms of the damage caused to each side and that balance has to be preserved. I personally do not like looking at the image, and while it does not offend me I completely understand why it may offend some. But again, offense is not reason to remove an image. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted your comment, Cryptonio; it does sound like you are trying to get back at another article which I am not familiar with. Nableezy, I understand your point about offense being no reason to remove an image; I will have to read through WP policy but prima facie it appears that an argument could be made for both inclusion and exclusion. Not so much exclusion as replacement. I appreciate that your view is in favor of inclusion of the images and that you feel that they are appropriate and informative; I think they are gratuitous and unnecessary.
Take a massacre that has nothing to do with this conflict - the Virginia Tech massacre, for example. Not a single picture of dead or injured people. I think you will find that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, images of dead people are widely considered gratuitous unless there is some sort of overriding reason for their inclusion - such as notability or iconic status.
I think Wikifan is right that their inclusion is far from guaranteed in the long-run. As I've said, my strong sense is that these images cannot be removed from the context of the pro-Palestinian tendency to use such images for propaganda purposes. I think anybody reasonable, even a pro-Palestinian editor, recognizes the reality of this context.
Certainly there are shocking images that occasionally deserve inclusion. I can't recall if I've mentioned this already, but I note the images of Mohammed al-Dura in the Second Intifada article, and the bloodied hands image from the Ramallah lynching. These are notable and iconic. But in general I cannot see a reason for the inclusion of such images, especially for a recent conflict in which emotions are high on both sides. We should be able to see this in its historic context and avoid using information or images that will no longer seem salient in a few years time.
I am eager to hear your thoughts on how these images add to the article.
Consensus may be overrated but as I understand it, it is policy. I have not removed the images because I've been warned that there are special sanctions in place, but I cannot see why the default position in the absence of consensus ought to be their inclusion.
By the way, I also cannot see the need for the current chart, whose figures are now well and truly outdated. But that's another topic.
By the way, Nableezy, check it out - I'm using "br"! Betacrucis (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta the "context of the pro-Palestinian tendency to use such images for propaganda purposes" has nothing to do with our decision procedures just like the context of the weapons sales people to use pictures of tanks for marketing purposes has nothing to do with us. We aren't producing pro-Palestinian propaganda anymore than we're trying to sell tanks. Images are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Both the presence and absence of a certain image can be seen as propaganda depnding on your perspective. We have to get past the propaganda angle because it's out of scope for us. We can't control/second guess the minds of readers and how they interpret facts. We're just producing an encyclopedia. (By the way, if you are interested in propaganda I highly recommend looking at Chinese poster propaganda because it's outstandingly good at what it does including the stuff they are producing nowadays. Sadly WP's coverage of it is very poor indeed...) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, after months of work the Ant article got to FA status. Within minutes it was attacked by intelligent design supporters who said there was no proof that ants evolved millions of years ago blah blah, just a theory etc etc. They saw the article as pro-Evolution propaganda. It's inevitable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I do resent the comparison to creationists. Or even the hint of a comparison. The relevance of Chinese propaganda posters or intelligent design "theory" to the appropriateness of gratuitous images on this page really does escape me completely. This question is one of policy and consensus. I'd like you to address my points, please. I made valid ones and they are being pivoted around rather than responded to. Betacrucis (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the number of times we have had this argument, and considering that all sorts of people have made the same argument ie that the pictures represent a POV-pushing, I believe that this go to some kind of arbitration. The pictures are kept in the article by the wall of individuals who insist on keeping them in. We should be making policy decisions here not arguing over each photo. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That may work but I think the best suggestion i've seen was another editor mentioning that we should be bold. I don't even know where to begin looking for free images but think if a few not associated with civilians were in showing Israeli stuff it could begin balancing out the pics.Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what the requirements that we place for an images inclusion. If we have to use a RS then the only one that I know of that has released images under an acceptable license is Al-Jazeera and you can take a look at their Creative Commons Repository. If not, the easiest search is Flickr, you can narrow it down by type of license. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, I wasn't comparing you personally to creationists (and don't get me wrong, I love those guys from the entertainment perspective and they ask questions I would never think of which help us improve various articles). I am explictly equating the argument you are using to theirs though so feel free to continue resenting it. :) You state that these images are gratuitous and propagandistic like they state that evolution is a lie. The beliefs are axioms. If someone thinks something is propaganda or gratuitous or offensive etc even though it is a verifiable fact that comes from an accepted RS included to illustrate/illuminate the subject matter of an article as per guidelines there is nothing we can do about that. Seriously, if someone says "this image is propaganda for X" how are we even supposed to respond to that ? We can say "No it isn't. It's required because it's pertinent, encyclopedic and consistent with the guidelines. Read the guidelines." but that line of argument can't touch an axiom. What if I added a line to the article that said something like "Al-Jazeera broadcast extensive coverage of the effects of the IDF operation on people and property throughout the conflict" ? What happens to your argument then ? Are the AJ images still gratuitous ? As for "images of dead people are widely considered gratuitous", I see them all the time over here in the S.E.Asian media as I've said before so be aware of what "widely" means. People's attitude to death comes from their culture and that's local but "our culture", the WP culture is global, culturally neutral and comes with a content disclaimer on every single page. Without wishing to be rude, to me, the word "gratuitous" in practice is very often a code word for "I don't like it and I want it censored because it offends my values. If someone disagrees with me it just shows their immorality/agenda". I'm not saying that is how you think but that is how I see that word. The word "gratuitous" and censorship go hand in hand in my experience. Also, "notable" and "iconic" are meaningless for this article and there's no policy for that in this context. Maybe when the fug of wart has lifted there will be some iconic images around which we probably won't be able to include for licence reasons anyway. The article requires images and we don't have to wait for the peoples policy committee for the promotion of notable and iconic imagery to authorise images from an RS.
The Chinese propaganda stuff was off-topic by the way. I love that stuff so much I'll use even the slighest opportunity to promote it to anyone who uses the word propaganda. Chinese poster propaganda is on my WP to do list if I can persuade a Dutch collector to upload his awesome collection to commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And I know people are going to cry about this line, at least some have in the past, but seriously, how cool is Al-Jazeera? What other organization gives away content for free like that? Sickest channel. Nableezy (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha well it's the Emir of Qatar's personal pet project, so it can afford to give away its product for free! Personally I do like sources that use free licensing, but Al Jazeera is about as reliable a source as Fox News. That is, totally unreliable :) Betacrucis (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really in my opinion, but we even treat Faux News as a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, I wonder if you saw a report by AJ last year when they went to interview kids in an Israeli school under frequent rocket attack/warning and asked them what it was like and what they would like to say to the people firing the rockets ? It was an outstandingly good piece and quite moving. Anyway, doesn't matter because AJ is an RS. Having said that, they haven't replied to my email about the policemen image nor have they added the footage from 27 Dec to the CC archive. Bastards. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove every picture with the AJ logo on it out of spite. Nableezy (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Last time I removed an image Tundrabuggy got banned for a month so I won't be doing that again. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section

The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.

Both cellular and land line telephone services were severely damaged at the onset of the Israeli campaign. It was estimated that 90 percent of both services were nonoperational, because of "frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites." Gaza telecommunications officials stated the territory "was close to losing contact with the rest of the world."

Since Roof knocking uses both cellular and land line telephone services, I can see how an editor might have thought that this was relevant, but on closer inspection it is misleading. It seems that the predominant interpretation would be that the Israelis most likely didn't warn residents in advance of an attack, because 90% of the phones were down. This doesn't seem to be the case and thus the statement is a false implication.

I would suggest moving this statement out of the Roof knocking section and into another part of the article where it isn't a false implication. Any thoughts on where to move it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just read source from the AZ and no where does it verify the above paragraph. Surprised no one saw that. Both articles reiterate the fact that they were "losing contact" after the conflict, not before. Hard to believe considering the amount of propaganda they've been able to ship to the UN and the world. Also, this is from both articles: "Palestinians said the Israeli military broke into broadcasts on the Hamas TV channel, Al Aqsa, appealing to Palestinians not to agree to serve as human shields for the militants. The message read, “Israel is acting only against Hamas and has no interest in harming you.” Urging Palestinians to not agree to be human shields for Hamas? ZOMG PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!!!! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here's the relevant excerpt from the Jan 4, 2009 AZ article.

Severe damage to Gaza's phone network was pushing the territory closer to complete isolation. The Palestinian phone company Paltel Group said 90 percent of Gaza's cellular service was down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites.

And here's the one from the other source, Sun of Jan 5, 2009.

Last night 90 per cent of the mobile phone network in Gaza was down — along with landlines.

Telecoms officials said Gaza was close to losing contact with the rest of the world.

However, please note that the point in my first message wasn't dependent on the issue raised by Wikifan12345. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken.

On the 'roof knocking' section, some claims were made, while leaving obvious questions unanswered. For example, is the practice common military protocol before ALL bombings? does the practice works while you stop supplying power to the city? does it work?

Now, we felt as if the actual 'roof knocking' section was out of place, but it was kept where it was. Consequently, it needed a response addressing those questions above. I may also add, that it was also argued where the section should had belong, so perhaps the answer giving to address the Palestinian's concerns about this practice may seem out of place. The thing is, that there was many concerns, and often mentioned when this practice came as the subject. To bring up the phone lines is to further address those STRONG concerns that the Palestinians were addressing, most of who totally and categorically labeled the practice as propaganda/psy war. Needless to say, that if you read any of the sources giving as a response to 'roof knocking' the Palestinians made their objections known. There is more on this on the archives. here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_33#Roof_knocking Cryptonio (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was proved that it was not common practice, per the case with the Palestinian doctor who lost his daughters. In the report of the incident, it does not say 'dummy missiles' were used before 'live' ones were. See? many questions on this practice.

Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim). Cryptonio (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob please quote exactly what is stated in the source and link the reference as well because I've reviewed both of them and nowhere does it verify what you quoted. Point is, Palestinians are claiming this "roof knocking" is a vehicle to attack Palestinian civilians psychologically, which the IDF denies. Here is an excerpt from Haarretz: "roof knocking, in which the army informs the residents of s suspected building that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike." From the little that I know, the IDF uses roof knocking to warn civilians of impending airstrikes/attacks and to basically get out or face the likelihood of death. Naturally this pisses off Palestinians and Hamas, and it should. But we're mixing neutrality with POV. For example, this statement by the woefully dysfunction Palestinians Centre for Human Rights: "the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces constituted psychological warfare since sometimes the homes were attacked and sometimes they were not" is rather misleading because according to the IDF, many airstrikes are called off when Palestinians go on the roof of their homes to show civilians are still inside and won't leave. Not saying we should remove this attitude towards roof-knocking, but the section screams opinion and POV and does not give a voice to the "offender" aside from the general definition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What's POV? roof knocking or the adequate response to counter-balance what it claims? Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just said it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"many airstrikes are called off when Palestinians go on the roof of their homes to show civilians are still inside and won't leave"

At the same time, civilians who climb to the roof are "sometimes" 'thought' to be spotters directing Hamas fire towards israelis and warnings are not giving nor airstrikes called off. see the doctor's incident here http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/04/gaza.idf/ Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't draw an inference from the doctor incident. It was a totally different thing. Roof knocking seems to be used only as part of a planned airstrike on a structure. In the doctor incident, Israeli ground forces were taking fire from a position and returned fire on the doctor's house next door which they mistakenly believed was involved. Most sources say they used a tank. They obviously wouldn't "roof knock" against forces they were actively taking fire from. You have to understand that there are various kinds of military operations. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct when differentiating between roof knocking and the doctor's incident. At the same time you bring up the point that perhaps the Israeli military, in this case, did not made the necessary attempt to avoid civilian casualty in this incident. The doctor's family had reasons to climb to the roof, in an attempt to avoid being fired upon. The Israeli army(from the 'roof knocking' tactic') should had been very aware of this scenario. Still, the decision was made to fire at the doctor's house, with the Israeli military saying it was a mistake. Now if in this case(the doctor's) the military was not informed on who was a target or not, who's to say they are when they use 'roof knocking'? That 'roof knocking' is only used on air strikes is a valid point, but that it only should be used with air strikes is open for debate and we are not going there. Then, do we only discuss some 'incidents' where partial information is available, and subsequently make judgment when we don't know the full scope of action? my point is, that you said "seems to only be used" and then again "you wouldn't 'roof knock' against..." None of this information is useful for us to make these assertions, whether attacking these methods or defending them. But that to have avoided these civilians casualties, perhaps this tactic, 'roof knocking' could have been used but it wasn't. After all, that 'is' the purpose of the tactic itself. We could speculate on these circumstances(yet, only remaining on base with speculation) and I believe I should have clarified it in that way when bringing the doctor's incident. Cryptonio (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan12345. Re your remark, "Bob please quote exactly what is stated in the source and link the reference as well because I've reviewed both of them and nowhere does it verify what you quoted." -

Those quotes were exact. I copied them from the sources using my browser's copy command. Here are the links you requested: AZ SUN . The quote from the AZ source is the 6th paragraph from the bottom. The quote from the SUN source is from the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from the bottom. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Although all of the above remarks from various editors are interesting, I didn't see anything that specifically addressed the validity of my point regarding the false implication, much less refuting it. Perhaps I missed it, and anyone is welcome to clarify how they showed that the subject item is not a false implication with respect to roof knocking. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would still like some input re my original question, "Any thoughts on where to move it?" Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Regarding where to move it, I just found a good place in the other part of the Air strikes section that mentions damage to infrastructure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that the predominant interpretation would be that the Israelis most likely didn't warn residents in advance of an attack, because 90% of the phones were down." -Bob

"Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim). -Cryptonio

This claim has stood for some time now, just like the position that 'roof knocking' is in the wrong place, as it is a military tactic and not a phase in Israel's campaign. I would address these concerns first and then it would be worthwhile to address the adequate response that it's now included(the status of phone lines).

I may also add, that the only sources that implicates this tactic "roof knocking" in this conflict comes from Palestinian sources. I've yet to read an 'independent' source where it's clear that Israel is using this tactic in this conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "implication" = "original research". We would need a RS for that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Regarding your remark, "Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim)." -

Re "it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim)." I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't claim that. My point was that in the mind of the typical reader, the statement in the roof knocking section re 90% of phones being down, would dispute the statements that Israelis were calling and warning residents. This is the false implication that I was referring to. I'm not disputing the statements that Israelis warned residents before bombing, that have appeared in numerous, if not all, reports on the subject of roof knocking. From all the reports that I read, it appears that Israelis were calling and warning residents of homes before they were bombed.

On the other hand, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? I think we can work this out. Looking forward to your response. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your concern is the typical reader(where is he from? the US? Canada? Europe? Africa?) this will 'implied' the user's educational background, customs, upbringing, father-son relation, political orientation . We can't control these things, and indeed, we are trying to balance the article. In any case, the point that you are making doesn't seem to get support from the article itself. It's clear, by Palestinian sources(who don't like these calls for various reasons) that calls did went through, even with the majority of the network being down. Besides this, whatever else we might discuss would certainly make for a good conversation, but i'm afraid of infinitesimal importance to this article. Cryptonio (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Cryptonio, There still appears to be some misunderstanding. So let's try another approach to communicating.

Do you agree with me, that reports indicate that Israelis were calling residents of homes in Gaza, to warn them before the homes were bombed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That the tactic exists, is unquestionable. That it has been use in this theater according to sources, yes. That in those sources Palestinians have let their objections known is also very clear. That you don't seem to understand that one claim cannot survive without the other is also clear. I will revert your edit. This situation must be tackle together and we will do that. We know where you stand but until other issues are raised(hopefully today) that section stands on his two feet. Cryptonio (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, we'll both tackle this right now. Cryptonio (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your remark, "That the tactic exists, is unquestionable. That it has been use in this theater according to sources, yes." -

Good. Apparently your answer to my last question is yes, that you agree with me that Israelis were calling and warning residents.

Re your remark, "That you don't seem to understand that one claim cannot survive without the other is also clear." -

I didn't understand this remark. When you wrote "one claim", what claim were you referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That since you haven't brought any sources on roof knocking that does not address Palestinian concerns, we can't therefore have a claim without the other. I will move roof knocking into Air strikes since it is a military tactic and was not a phase in the campaign. This is best for the article as a whole. Cryptonio (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Re your remark, "That since you haven't brought any sources on roof knocking that does not address Palestinian concerns, we can't therefore have a claim without the other. "-

This remark is very unclear. Please clarify.

2) Re your remark, "I will move roof knocking into Air strikes since it is a military tactic and was not a phase in the campaign. This is best for the article as a whole." -

There hasn't been any prior discussion of this edit of yours and your reasons for making it aren't clear. You'll need to explain this some more before it can be considered an acceptable edit. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Necessary changes that you prematurely brought about with your unilateral edit by editing the roof knocking. As it stands now(and by the 'chopping' that the roof knocking section went through by other hands a few days ago) three sentences does not warrant its own subsection. Not even such novelty as roof knocking. It still has prime real state(versus at the end of military operations) and still does not miss a beat on being out of place(altogether in this article). I doubt even Jalapenos would object to this. Cryptonio (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your remark, "three sentences does not warrant its own subsection." -

I agree it was getting pretty small, so your edit is reasonable in that respect. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the complete quote is "Hamdi Shakura, a human rights lawyer at the Palestinian Human Rights Centre in Gaza says despite the hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up, only 37 have been destroyed."

Have you read it? do you want to imply that only 37 houses were destroyed by air strikes? 37 houses were destroyed of HUNDREDS that were warned. not 37 houses total were destroyed. and where else is this mentioned? Cryptonio (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I gotcha Bob, i removed the whole section. Pardon, didn't see it was covered in another section. It shouldn't be a problem anymore. peace Cryptonio (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the image as I found it offensive. Please do not put it back on the talk page without looking for consensus first. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rslt s n cnsensus--Cerejota (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that we all have different opinions about what ought to make this article better. But I have a question for you: is there an article on this conflict that is reasonably acceptable to all of us (or at least almost all of us)?

I am still learning the ropes here, but it seems to me that more current articles tend to be highly unreliable, while some of the older articles are the result of greater consensus. I wonder whether we can't edit to a template? Much of the stuff we are talking about it well-worn territory, so to speak.

Your thoughts? Betacrucis (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is better done as we are doing than to a template. A couple of weeks ago the article was very good, but then some very large amounts of detail were added that gave undue weight to Israel's suffering when in reality, Gaza suffered more.

I think over time, the article will improve, particularly as the war becomes part of history and slowly (and sadly) is forgotten.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's remove all the vowels. It will shorten it while maintaining readability. Let's be honest, sensible languages don't bother writing out all of the short vowels. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spprt Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spprt Betacrucis (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sensible languages which don't bother writing out some of vowels require letters to represent vowels from time to time. For instance first letter in word Gaza is vowel ع. Purely from linguistics point of view. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually غ and not really a vowel, but nice. Nableezy (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Glottal_stop Betacrucis (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I think we should be like Wheel of Fortune and only use R S T L N & E 's instead. Actually, we have cut tons over the last couple days hopefully without removing too much from any particular section. Also, at first glance the article doesn't seem very intuitive for the reader.Cptnono (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is mostly due to the complexity of relations between the Is and the Ps. As "will i am" read this, i can't help but notice how messed up the Middle East is. Knee jerking over here, not respecting the Sabbath over there. At the end, albeit very detailed and informative, the article reads like a Noam Chomsky article(a lot of information per para). Of that, we could be proud of though, even if it will never be quoted as Noam Chomsky is ignored world wide. A few more days and I'm ready to move on. I heard the Russians are coming again. Cryptonio (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, You make me love you more and more with each of you new comments. Some people do love sensible jokes very much. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This all started....

Sorry guys but I have to do this again. The first sentence reads: "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip." Now while it is true that the the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is part of the ongoing I-P conflict, it did not start when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. It has been ongoing for the entire year. Why was there a "truce" -that was not honored- if there was no conflict going on? A truce for no reason? This wordage suggests that nothing happened prior to Israel's military campaign, which clearly is not so. It also works to frame the debate in a certain way, ie what is relevant to this conflict and what is not. It has been suggested for instance that issues surrounding Shalit's kidnapping and/or release are not relevant to this conflict because Israel did not specifically say she was launching Op CL in order to capture Shalit. It ignores comments in June of 2008 from Hamas that Shalit would not "see the light of day" unless Israel acceded to all of its demands. In fact, arbitrarily choosing a "start-date" of December 27th for this conflict is not neutral. The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict started January 1, 2008. It escalated on December 27, 2008. If we can't get the first sentence right, nothing will fall into place. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the first argument. It is true Hamas/Israel has been playing a tit for tat kind of game preceeding this war and obviously the war was simply an eruption of such tactics, but I can't see how we could possibly crafted such complexities into the lead without major war. Also, in terms of notability, the topic is about this conflict. Not past conflicts. Maybe we can rewrite the history section (background) to incorporate these facts...but I doubt a consensus is obtainable solely based on how POV and opinionated the conflict is. I do agree that the date should be changed to when the war was actually initiated, not during the "escalation." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, I'm curious why you are taking this position given that it expands the opportunity for editors to describe events in Gaza prior to the commencement of Cast Lead which will certainly not put Israel in a good light. Maybe you don't care which would be great. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't nice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Really ? It's a genuine question. No offence meant. Tundra has always been very open about his POV which is a good thing in my book. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hooray, I can agree with you on the Background section being the place for the info before the primary operations. That does feel better than giving you a hard time, Wikifan.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, please checkout this diff, in which you argue the contrary position - and in the context of that article, I would have agreed with you 100%. I think we should be clear that this article covers the topics that began with Operation Cast Least. The background links copiously and provides a general overview to the articles that cover the events before Operation Cast Lead. We all know this began with the Big Bang, the question is if we ar egoing to use the hyperlinked nature of a wiki to keep articles within discrete topics, or we are going to have unproductive edit wars because we feel the justifications for one side are not sufficiently covered. I know what my vote is. Fleas have little Fleas.--Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli assault on Gaza, which began on Dec 27, is certainly a notable event. This article is about that event. I fail to see the point to this talk section. RomaC (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, please re-read, it is not the same issue. To others, if you want to call this Operation Cast Lead that is one thing. That Operation did indeed start Dec 27. No one is addressing my point here. Firstly, I don't believe that the events prior to CL "put Israel in a bad light." Israel restrained and restrained itself. Hamas was well aware when it kidnapped Shalit that Israel considered such events as tantamount to a declaration of war. See 2006 Lebanon War. They took that chance. When Israel did not immediately respond they rocketed her, putting Israel communities under seige. @Wikifan. The best way to do that is to change "started" to "escalated" "flared" or some such (as was in the lead for some time) thus demonstrating the article is going to be about the military campaign and not the 2008-2009 conflict, which began 1/1/08. There is already an article 2007 conflict, 2006, and this should be a continuation of that. When we talk about the background, we can refer to those other articles. This article is trying to frame itself around Op Cast Lead, and restrict the relevant information only to this campaign. If you are going to do that either rename the article or include the relevant issues for the whole year. I am having a really hard time understanding why this isn't sinking in. I must not be expressing myself well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring that 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict exists already and that there was consensus to merge into 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict (btw, near unanimous consensus for the merger). I hear what you are saying, but re-read what I am saying: there are other articles to which alls this information belongs, but this is not that article. In particular, ignoring 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict leaves me confused, as it is the natural place for all this information. This article covers the Gaza war, not the events before - even if we should provide a fair amount of background, as we already do. --Cerejota (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is clear consensus this article should be renamed. What we have unable to achieve is consensus on to what. You should be aware of this, as you have participated in all the straw polls around this. This is the Gaza war, and this is about the only thing the Israeli and Palestinian press agree on about this war.--Cerejota (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard in a report on the radio that it was called "The Gaza War" in the region. I am not there and don't speak the language so if anyone is let us know since that could be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure they are many informal references. Is there actually an official formal name for the war besides OCL for Israel and Gaza massacre for the Arab/Muslim/not Israel neighbors? Eh, that's another discussion prefer not to derail this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "Gaza War" did not start with Israel's Op Cast Lead. Maybe we can get consensus on that? You don't have "truces" unless you have violence. This article is claiming that the Gaza War started with Israeli initiation of hostilities. What exactly is the difference between earlier airstrikes and Israeli incursions and Hamas rocket strikes and killing and kidnapping of soldiers pre 12/27/08 & post? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find me a single press, non-partisan source that said so, it will go a long way in convincing me. You see, pretty much every source disagrees with this view, they all clearly make a difference between pre OCL and after OCL. Primary sources, including the IDF also speak of "began". Tundra, this goes beyond any percieved or real POV you have, and into the realm of the logical: if everyone is saying the sky is blue, insisting it is green, alone in your soapbox, won't make it green. I already pointed to several articles that cover the events leading up to Operation Cast Lead, which started this war. This is what the article covers. --Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No Cerejota, it is you who are mistaken here. All of the sources (including the IDF you linked to) say "Operation Cast Lead started", "military ops started", "Israel offensive started" etc. Not ONE of them say that the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict started on that date, as this article says. I don't care if the whole world insists the sky is blue, if it ain't, all the consensus in the world isn't gonna make it blue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving the goal posts and playing nomic: I already linked to the appropriate articles that cover the events between January 2008 and the begining of Operation Cast Lead: If you didn't poison the well with circular, unproductive, and ever changing "debate", this article would be named Gaza war. The overwhelming majority of the editors who want the name changed. You yourself suggest renaming as a possibility. You have been told this in this thread. Stop being unproductive.--Cerejota (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But all the consensus in the world will make it so Misplaced Pages says it is blue. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The notable conflict that this article addresses began on 27th with the launch of Israel's military operation. I doubt any reader will be confused. It was of higher scale than any military sortie during the time period and we note that it is part of the ongoing general conflict. If we need to change the title we could try but I highly doubt there will be any consensus since there are a handful of valid titles other editors will push. Readability wise it is OK and the facts are fine unless you start twisting them to meet a certain argument.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What the IDF thinks about the deaths

They claim that 1,338 died, nearly all of which they could explictly identify, and around 1/3 are non-combatants-- which would be around 450 deaths, not 1200 deaths with 250 non-combatant deaths as the article currently says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The casualties section has this. though we only say they say they have identified 1200 of which 300 were women, children under 18 and men over 65 (as that source says, in fact we use that source). Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we use the UN/AJ/BBC/whatever source, which comes straight from Hamas/Gaza. IDF disputes this, but unfortunately because the major media/org chose Hamas numbers over Israel, which is kind of Israel's fault anyways for not releasing any official figures sooner, but a sad fact anyways. I like to think it was for ethical concerns, but hey...Hamas could be right. They're so honest after all and have no motivation to exaggerate. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

wtf was the point of that? just to be annoying or was there something you wanted to add to the article? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if disputes are annoying. My sincere apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did your comment have anything at all to do with changing the article? If yes say why because I didnt see it, if no then say it so I can stop paying attention again. Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm..ok. Well, I was simply alluding to my disappointment with our emphasis on clearly biased statistics that will eventually be exposed once investigation-time nears. Get it? Chill man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I would kindly ask that you keep your personal opinion on whether one set of numbers is more clearly biased then another to yourself. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are Palestinian sources giving different statistics and only one Israeli. It sucks but we can't really give better numbers until more reliable and complete independent investigations are done. In reaching consensus (which is essentially compromise at times since things do need to get fixed) I was forced to drop a line like "...at least 1,200" which doesn't hurt my feelings. I hope the reader sees the numbers (which are damn close total wise) and figures it out. Hopefully we'll have a good set of numbers to work with over the next few months. If not, we can always revisit it.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"The several Palestinian" statistics are all Hamas as far as I know. I know Fatah doesn't have any authority in Gaza, and definitely not to an extent where they could drop off numbers to the press. It make sense considering the UNRWA relationship with Hamas. The disputes will hopefully be resolved soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR is a non-governmental organization, and you should know they have criticized Hamas as they were one of the sources in your beloved 'Internal Violence' section. Nableezy (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is we can't do a thing until better numbers come out.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Address to UN President/council

The following source is an address by a UN official to the council/president: http://www.webcitation.org/5eVPe7S1A. I am curious as to the nature of this address- can we say that it reflects the UN, or just this official? And can we say that it is fact, or just opinion? I am actually asking here, I don't know and would like an answer.

Also, I disagree with the quotations used from the document. Quotations such as "on good days" and "endless haggling" are emotionally charged, and misrepresent the actual situation (since it would appear from these quotes that Israel withholds aid/supplies for no reason, not taking into account rocket attacks, etc)). It is doubtful that reliable sources have used these quotes to describe the situation, as they are ambiguous and open to interpretation (i.e. what is a good day? What constitutes endless haggling? etc)Kinetochore (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can check this Xinhua report. --Darwish (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that it reflects the UN's official stance. There may be some follow-up documentation I am not aware of but it is simply his report to the UN according to that cite alone. Even reliable sources use commentary some times. I see no reason not to summarize the statement without quotes if their is glaring bias in the wording or potential to unbalance the section. This may not be inline with our guidelines so hopefully another editor will no more. .

Follow-up: The other link above gives it a little more weight but I still think we should attribute it to this particular guys report. He is an important guy so we should give him credit where due. After reading the lines a little closer it looks like the paraphrasing is appropriate as is. I did just edit out where it said "UN" since the source and line were related to the previous sentence where it stated the complete diept name. It hits hard but it is being taken from the report. We could reduce the lines from the UN and IRC if we have any weight issues but i don't think that is necessary at this time.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that. It does reflect the official stance of the UN, Mr. Holmes was appointed as an Under-Secretary General and as the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN. This was a report to the SC about what he, in that role, found. I dont think it can presented as fact, but I think it can be presented as the opinion of the UN as an institution. An comparative example would be the US Secretary of State reporting to the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. What she says to them is the position of the US government, not just her personal opinion. My 2 cents. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A report from a subordinate does not equal an official stance. He certainly can speak for his department I would think. It looks pretty clean on the page last time I checked, too. The Secretary of State scenario is slightly different but it disregards all sorts of ins n outs of setting US policy and the different branches and blah blah blah.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He isnt a subordinate of the SC. He is reporting to the SC on behalf of the UN, as Under-Secretary General, and as the Emergency Relief Coordinator. Yes, I remember civics class and all that nonsense about separation of powers, but pretend for a second that the executive is the 'government of the US', or rather lets just use another country like the UK. If the Foreign Secretary says something to the House of Commons in a report, he is speaking on behalf of the government, and what he says is the position of the government. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, the UN isn't a bureaucracy. Comparing the typical hierarchy of a democratic republic is IMO a false analysis. After reading through the sources I do find it rather suspicious that we as editors chose the most emotional/powerful words for quotations, when there were obviously more cordial/formal tones used. The UN-secretary general has plenty of appointees with varying opinions, so it is slightly incorrect to assume every statement by x official is the opinion of the United Nations. Of course, I'm not disputing their actual opinion, they've been awarding Israel with "condemnations" for years unabated, so this totally makes sense and is not the least bit surprising. But, I think we should avoid any errors (no matter how small) in this particular situation considering how influential the UN name is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would not be entirely opposed saying Under-Secretary General and Emergency Relief Coordinator for the United Nations said such and such as opposed to the United Nations said such and such. But when a UN spokesperson says something the UN is saying it if they are speaking in that capacity. I think this report qualifies, but I wouldnt be opposed to explicitly citing it to him as that. Nableezy (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is he an official spokesperson? the UN does have official speakers such as Chris Guinness who speak literally on behalf of x official, typically word-for-word or something similar. I doubt this person is simply an additional appendage for secretary general or whoever is representing this viewpoint. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When an official representative of an organization or government speaks in his official capacity then he is speaking on behalf of that organization or government, but I just said I would be fine attributing it to his official position, is that fine with you? Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No he is not. He is speaking on behalf of himself and behalf on whatever committee/specific organization represents. Do you have any idea how many "official" members are in the United Nations? It definitely has a singular agenda on many subjects, but to cherry-pick a controversial statement from an individual member of the UN and basically say "this is the opinion of the United Nations", well...that is most definitely a mistake from a factual perspective. Again, if he isn't an official speaker, or isn't appointed to speak on behalf of the organization in that particular situation, any comment made by him is simply a reflection of his views and/or the views of his constituents. How far up was this guy on the food-chain? I'm willing to bet I can find an alternative view from another "official" member of the UN if given the time just to prove what I'm saying. I'm not an expert on this subject but this can't be too complicated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say 'official member' or that would include every member of the UN, I said official representative of the UN, not official representative to the UN. When that representative of the UN says something the UN is saying it. Likewise if the US ambassador to the UN says something to the UN SC, the US is saying it. Colin Powell didnt just talk about WMDs to the SC, the United States did. Nableezy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And what about 'Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN' makes it so he isnt appointed to speak on behalf of the organization, this isnt some guy in an office. He represents the UN in that capacity. And what about when I said I would be willing to cite the comments to 'the Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN' was not clear, does that not quiet your objections? Or do you want to continue arguing points I didnt make? Nableezy (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, take a look at it if you haven't had the chance in awhile. I think it meets your criteria from a few comments up. The guy was speaking on behalf of his department not the complete UN in this instance. Also, I was not about to patronize you by debating your hypothetical above so no worries. If we want to run around about general politics it will need to be archived a dozen times!Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I said I was cool with that wording, and ill stop now. I just dont like seeing my words twisted around to support an argument I did not make. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I lost that in the discussion above. I'm happy that wasn't too painful in regards to the wording in the actual article. I'll stop now too, just wanted to get the last word in.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, it doesn't matter anyway, attribute it to john holmes. In the second paragraph, his statement is already attributed. So, just move the attribution above one level and it's enough. --Darwish (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Darwish (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, John Holmes is the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It's a very high level position in the UN. OCHA isn't just related to the "Question of Palestine" as some editors here misleadingly have that impression, it gives humanitarian reports from all around the world including Somalia, Russia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ... and others. --Darwish (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not so much concerned with the attribution of these quotations as with the use of them in this article. As I said above, I disagree with the the use of the quotes 'on "good days"' and 'after "endless haggling"'. They are vague, confusing, and very abstract (i.e. what is a good day? What constitutes endless haggling?). They mean to the reader whatever the reader wants them to mean (i.e. a good day is when the Israeli prime minister buys a new hat, endless haggling lasts exactly 6 hours, except on wednesdays when it lasts 8). They do not add anything to the article, and their removal would actually provide the reader with a greater understanding of the situation (an understanding that is not bogged down with unclear metaphors)Kinetochore (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge others statements, we just report it. That's like when the UN said the MoH figures aren't "seriously challenged". People said "define seriously" and such weird stuff. All of those arguments does not fit here at all, and it doesn't matter. We only seek verifiability, not truth. --Darwish (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why these particular quotes must remain in the article, Holmes is an important man, and said a lot in his report, but these quotes do nothing to enhance or improve this article (see proposed edit below)Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, It's clear that the statement means that on the best days 120 trucks pass per day, otherwise smaller numbers pass. Nothing is irregular or ambiguous about the statement. It is quoted as-is and also reported in the linked Xinhua report. And I'll say it again, it's not our job to judge notable people statements, wordings or logic. --Darwish (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You've fallen back into the loop. I would have the same issue with 'the best days' as I do with 'good days'. Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposed edit:The Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations has stated that after the end of the Israeli operation, at best, only 120 truckloads get into Gaza, instead of the normal daily requirement, including commercial traffic, of 500 trucks at minimum. It is also reported in his statement and other UN humanitarian office reports that essential items such as construction materials, water pipes, electrical wires, and transformers continue to be effectively banned, or only allowed infrequently.

I changed "on good days" quote to "at best", and removed the "endless haggling" quote. Meaning has not been changed, and clarity has improved. Do you object to these changes? Kinetochore (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you are right, it's much more readable now. Thanks. --Darwish (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference tag errors...

If you look at 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#References, there are about four reference tag errors. Can someone fix this as I do not want to get involved editing this very sensitive article. kilbad (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Am always on it, but the kids my fellow editors refuse to follow the rules, or at least get the refTools, like every other editor does, and then use them. I mean, they are what, the fourth item in the "Gadgets" tab in the "my preferences" link on the top right of the screen. It obviously requires 1337 hax0r level understanding to activate.

Also, dudes and dudettes, if you remove a source, please verify it is not referenced somewhere else. You know, that ultra-inappropiate NPR piece might be actually appropiate somewhere else in the article. I am just sayin' that all the POV fights in the world can be tolerated as long as the cesspool is pretty and properly smelly. There are few things more desconcerting that specting to smell manure and then come upon rotten eggs...--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done 3 of those where for outright ref repeats (including the name= option). Remember, a reference is only included once, any subsequent use goes by <ref name=XYZ /> no need to put the whole information. However, when removing named ref tags with sources, pleas emake sure they are not being referenced elsewhere, and if you are fully removing the source, to remove all instances. Part of being considered disruptive is precisely reverting refs without taking the precautions, as it shows thoughlessness and haste.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way. I made an error fixing a few. I put what I thought was a valid reference and had an error. I had to get out of the office (it has been a slow week) real quick so I left on of them as a straight ref to a web page. Apologies if someone had to cleanup after me.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not bothering fixing semi-completes, the sources are too fluid to really bother. I only fix dupes and broken refs. Sometimes I'll do a cite if there are other things broken besides.--Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled into a few "site name here" and the original was removed and had to look them up based on the cite title alone. I'll keep a better eye out on my end when vetting sources since there is at least a chance if it was me who removed the original full on source(s). I'm going to say I'm too busy to go through the history and find who is to blame but realistically I don't want to admit it too much if I screwed up : )Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"However, when removing named ref tags with sources, pleas emake sure they are not being referenced elsewhere. And how do you do this? i mean do you have to look at the entire article, is there a code or something? Cryptonio (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Internal violence consensus

New section?

Per Wikifan below: "It is my strong opinion that this occurrence needs its own section, titled "Internal violence"

Per Nableezy below: "I wouldnt object to it being in a separate section, I only disputed it did not belong in the military activity section"

Per me: "I would not object to a separate section for this that is not under casualties and not under military activity section."Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made a separate section, and changed some content, see below. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have been that in sync. I beat you to the punch but screwed up my edit the first time. Victory is (kind of) mine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant I changed it in the article. Nableezy (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw. Feeble attempt at humor. I'd jump into the content discussion but it sounds like you two might have it under control.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

doubtful. Nableezy (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

Can we clarify who supports/opposes the current section:

Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights stated on January 31 that "it had credible reports that Hamas operatives killed six members of Fatah" and that "35 were shot in the knees or beaten." The Hamas government in Gaza endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of the rival Fatah faction during the conflict. A Hamas spokesman responded to these charges by saying "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law... if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out."

Previous:

diff 1

The very original was more or less the same in terms of message and it included far less details. This is weird considering the summary argument offered by some...

Awhile back we had a discussion, here: not so productive

I personally think the current one is all right, except for this sentence: Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75. Grammar is rather off, we know how many have died and the wounded from the original article.

The current argument, per "consensus", was actually a response to someone totally removing the information, retitling it "other casualties", and putting it in the casualty sections without referring to talk. I didn't think a new consensus was appropriate simply because there were less than 4 people in the discussion (really 3 actually), and the particularly, dare I say "uncivil" reasoning: Your BIAS did not allowed you to see that both Cptnono and Nableezy were on different sides on this issue and they were able to form a compromise. It is your ineptness that does not allow you to see through these things. Did Israel killed those people? no. Did Israel killed the border guard? yes. was the guard Palestinian? no. should it then go into Casualties? no. Did Fatah and Hamas started their struggle this year? no. Is it useful to even mention what happens between them? no. Can we afford them a couple of lines? yes. and so we did. You are trying to make this Fatah-Hamas battle as earth shattering, like as if capable of replacing everything else that goes on between Israel and Palestine. You are the least capable person that should make a judgment call on this issue. For you won't be able to see past the dump truck in your eyes. realize this, please.

I personally could not care less about the name calling because I can empathize (I mean, I'm the one who has to live with the ineptness), but seriously...I did involve myself and attempted to be as reasonable as I could but I think a new section was necessary just so everyone gets a voice and we all understand what's going on.

It is my strong opinion that this occurrence needs its own section, titled "Internal violence" (NOT other casualties), removed out of the casualty section, and placed somewhere else. Ok, I'm extremely tired right now so my plan was doing this before I went to sleep and then responding to questions later. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah what a cheap shot(to borrow the expression). Caught me in a moment of blindness and rage. Sleep well. Cryptonio (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap shot? Lol ok, You didn't break any rules as far as I can tell so don't worry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at how small the casualties section is, something that is covering over 1300 casualties, without discussing individual details as to where they were killed, how they died, how many suffered from WP burns, and any other number of details that could be mentioned? Have you noticed things that have gotten a thousand times more press coverage, like Zeitoun, or the schools, or any number of other events have barely anything mentioned about them in this article, that they are detailed in a separate article Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as is this in a separate article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? I wouldnt object to it being in a separate section, I only disputed it did not belong in the military activity section, but the amount of detail you are going into is ridiculous. Nableezy (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the original gave less detail than the new one currently does. again, the content is a secondary issue, we already had a general idea (it's less than a paragraph last time I checked), but my main concern is with the sudden reversal and weird "consensus." I seriously don't want to have a repeat dispute till I know for sure this is going to be a "real" consensus, kind of wasted an easy an hour of time responding to the previous section and several days discussing the one beforehand. Point is, it's a notable happening, Hamas is (or has) killed off a significant # of fatah/palestinians who alleged-spied/collaborated with Israel during the war. This campaign has been on-going since they ceased control of Gaza, but the notable aspect is solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel. I haven't messed with the detail for more than a week since I didn't think I had to, it was already down to the bare minimum. And as I said, the current one contains more words and details. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a separate section for this that is not under casualties and not under military activity section.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This: "Gaza residents say Hamas is using schools and other public buildings in Gaza City, and the towns of Khan Yunis and Rafah, as detention centers to interrogate members of Fatah. They said three men have been blinded during questioning and over 60 of them shot in the legs as punishment. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights has provided supporting evidence for these claims. " is less detail? I think we can take out the end of the quote right now and just leave "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law", it says the same thing as the end, but the paragraph is as it should be, accusation followed by response. Nableezy (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I seriously dont understand why you think this is so shocking that those who commit treason are executed. If it is notable 'solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel' then it isnt notable at all. Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just made it a separate section, I also changed the first sentence from: "Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75."
to:"Hamas has been accused of executing several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel."
because the source says no such thing as the original. I also removed the end of the Hamas quote. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it shocking that Hamas is executing people suspected of collaborating with Israel? Geez. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, again I dispute the deletion/removal/allegation because Hamas ADMITS to executing Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaboration, but again my main argument has to do with the absurd switching and traveling sections that make no sense whatsoever. In the event that is taken care of, then we can move on to crafting a paragraph that we can hopefully all agree on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see the quote where they say they did not execute members of Fatah? Do you see anywhere in the source provided that Hamas 'publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating'. I can not see such a statement in the source. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources you probably removed from the previous versions, this is straight from the sourced article: Abbas accuses Hamas - A top aide of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, accused Hamas yesterday of killing, arresting and torturing Fatah fighters in Gaza, as well as "obstructing" efforts to reconcile the warring Palestinian political factions, by raising "new conditions." - Hamas confesses to "arresting" but doesn't specify who: Ihab Ghissin, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza, confirmed his men had arrested scores of "collaborators" with Israel during and after the war. However, he refused to say whether the detainees were members of Fatah and denied the detainees were being tortured.

Hamas admits to killing collaborators - Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, said: "Maybe some of them were were killed because they were acting against the population, against the resistance."

Hamas tortures Fatah members - One of the victims is Abdul Karim, who asked for his safety not to be identified by his complete name. The 30-year-old, who used to help run Fatah youth camps, said Hamas operatives beat him with sticks and a length of hose for two hours in a basement next to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

described how masked men with ID cards showing they were members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas armed wing, shot her brother in the legs. The family had fled the house but returned on 18 January, the first day of the Israeli ceasefire. At 8pm several gunmen appeared at the gate asking for her brother, a 36-year-old Fatah military intelligence officer who had not been working since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007. He was then shot in the right leg and again in the left. "They were holding us back and we were watching him bleeding," she said. The victim is now in a Cairo hospital after two operations on his legs. If you are disputing whether Hamas actually killed Fatah members, you are sadly mistaken. Hamas has admitted to arresting and "killing" collaborators, most of whom were clearly Fatah-related. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Nableezy disputes it personally, if an up to date well verified source does it should at the very least say that Hamas denies it. (This time I'm really going to bed. Good luck gentlemen)Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says Hamas has publicly executed members of Fatah in this conflict? One that does not say so and so said Hamas did this? Maybe I should go over to the 'sourced article' and see if there is anything in there that is presented inaccurately as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that it is at least alleged: "In the West Bank, Fatah officials said at least 19 of its members have been executed and many more brutally tortured." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/22/MNHV15EHUT.DTL (bolding for ease of reading and not mean emphasis)Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported by mainstream media that Hamas has executed Fatah members and Fatah supporters. Whether Hamas had admitted it killing Fatah members specifically is at this point entirely irrelevant IMO. I'm gonna go check out the section, I'll add suggestions in a sec. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. Just rephrased some sentences and fixed a few statements, one said 40-60 Palestinians were executed when only 19 members of Fatah have been reported in addition to 35 Palestinian. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the Main article for this section is Title 2009 Hamas Reprisal Attacks. We should either change the main article to Internal Violence in Gaza or change the section in this article to Reprisal Attacks(in gaza). Cryptonio (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Waaay too much detail, we dont need to know some had their hands broken. There is no way this should have more detail than the casualties section. The former member of Btselem line is also not needed, that is just counted as some of the other non-Fatah Palestinians executed. And the last Hamas quote is not needed, restoring old, but keeping "Fatah officials in Ramallah reported Hamas of executing at least 19 party members and more than 35 Palestinians". Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that much detail. It's less than a paragraph, I don't see how mentioning a secondary quotation and a former member of an Israeli-based charity being executed is over-doing it. Readded till consensus is made. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The charity worker was sentenced to death 6 years ago, or did you not read the article? Will remove again. We are not going into individual details on the other casualties, why should we here. Nableezy (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And again, the new paragraph crafted by you or who else mis-attributed several facts from the sources. I found another source from the Reprisal article and used it to support the accused/reported executions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go into this type of detail then you should also want to go into this kind of detail on the 1300+ Palestinian casualties that Hamas did not kill. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? this has nothing to do with the overall casualties, this has to do with the internal violence section and I am honestly uncomfortable with your constant need to bring it up as if it has any relevance. We might as well delete the rest of the sections and bold the entire article with "1300 palestinians killed." : ) I kid, but seriously, let's stay on task here. First, even with my addition the "details" included fall well below the other sections, such as reaction, timeline, previous conflict, etc. Second, this is beyond "other casualties", in fact even if nobody was killed it still wouldn't matter. We need to look beyond dead bodies and focus on the acts themselves, that is where the relevance exists. It is true the charity worker was sentenced 6 years ago, but he was executed for collaborating with Israel in this specific incident. the charity ranks among AI, and works with the UN, so the notability is right there. I'm not going to re-add them cause I know it will turn into an edit war which I'll most likely lose, so I urge you to consider these facts so we can avoid a week-long discussion that will probably lead to more frustration for both of us. I agree that the broke hands thing should go, but the 2-3 sentences added aren't a lot of details to justify a deletion. The version I edited was less than 7 sentences. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The specific incident he was executed for took place Nov. 22nd 2000. He was not executed for collaborating with Israel in relation to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also a 5 page Amnesty International Report on this. Surely it deserves a place here. Here's a CNN report on it: & here is the report itself from AI entitled Palestinian Authority: Hamas’ deadly campaign in the shadow of the war in Gaza]. This is all part of the war. It belongs here in some detail. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want to expand this further then the casualties section will likewise be expanded to include every single report from AI, from HRW from whoever. We will talk about percentage suffering major burns, and all sorts of details that we can find and source. Keep walking down this road, if you want to cover this with a microscope the casualties section will be dealt with in the same manner. I am cool with an AI quote in the section from that report. Nableezy (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Get real, 10% of the sources already are AI, HRW, UN, etc and up til now my guess is that 99% of that 10% was pointing fingers at Israel. That's alright then. So you will insist on including every single report that damns Israel if we use one that damns Hamas? Not exactly my idea at working toward consensus. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I get the point. Essentially, if we are going to go into each individuals detail in the reprisals there is no reason not to with the casualties. To me that is the worst idea ever so how about we figure out what general info is needed and from there we can find the sources to edit or maybe even leave it. The way I see it::::

• Hamas imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed both collaborators and members of Fatah.
• Hamas has something to say about it (basically they don't feel bad since traitors get what's coming but have specifically denied targeting Fatah)

Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to do that with the casualties, i spent a decent amount of time chopping it down with you and Betacrucis. But this insistnce we highlight these actions that have received exponentially less attention than the casualties with such detail is ridiculous. And the way you see it is pretty much how it is in the article right now. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Nableezy? Unlike the war, wiki isn't a tit-for-tat game. We're trying to compromise here but you seem infatuated with this whole casualty thing (which is perfectly fine I have no argument with that), but it's conflicting with my and apparently Tundra's reasonable suggestions. again, it's only 7 sentences. And again, casualties aren't the important part. Not sure if this matters, but there has been suggestions that Fatah was planning to over-take Hamas in Gaza following the war and Hamas' execution/bullying could simply be a tactic to prevent that. It's hard to determine if all these people were executed for spying, or even if they were actual Fatah members. It's basically a he-said-she-said deal, and like the casualty figures, extremely difficult to calculate without error. Back to my point, these aren't a significant amount of details considering the notability of the event. It is my preference that we expand on the section or merge the reprisal attacks article into this section, but reducing it to 4 sentences is IMO very lame. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Nableezy's statement, I swear I will jump off my roof if we have to move this section again so toying with it in the casualties section is not at all what I want. I don't mind the section as is. If Wikifan wants to throw some stuff in here I hope it meets one of those two bullets since that is really what is important to THIS article. On a side note I have no problem with the specific article having tons of data that makes Hamas sad (bad wiki form but a laughy face should go here)Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt mean moving this back to the casualties, I am fine with a separate section. I meant I dont want to make that a monstrosity of a section it would be if we go into that type of detail. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It isnt about tit-for-tat, but if you want the detail of this section, which has not been given anywhere near the weight the casualties have in the world press, to be so expansive you should also want the casualties section to be covered in such depth. Such a position would be called being consistent in your interpretation of policies. And if you demand that this section be covered so in depth, then the casualties section will be treated the same. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know I'll have no problem getting banned for edit warring either of you for putting in too many events (well a little sad about it maybe). Keep the events in the specific article and make this summary good enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like tit-for-tat. There is already a huge section of "Incidents" (or was last I looked). "Such depth" is not exactly how I would describe half a dozen sentences in this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Look again, they have been moved out to Incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The casualty section is over 6 paragraphs long while the internal violence is less than one, even with the few "details" added. You're overstating the controversy of these details Nab. I couldn't care less about the casualty section, I'm totally ignorant regarding the specifics aside from the general opinion of Hamas and Israel. Feel free to make a section and I'll gladly lend my support if it is needed, assuming the details are reasonable and aren't particularly POV. Frick I hate edit conflicts, 3rd time already. Am I just a slow typer lol? Cptnono I'm not editing war, in fact I encouraged Nableezy to hold off on the editing before consensus because that's what started this mess to begin with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on the Palestinian casualties is narrowly focused on each sides numbers. That is it. Nothing else is in there, nothing about WP burns, nothing about how many had their heads blown off by a dime weapon, nothing of the sort. The detail in the casualties section is at a minimum, both to avoid any 'POV-pushing' and also to try to keep the article at a manageable size. That is how all such sections should be. There were more stories just on the Zeitoun attack than there are on this, that isnt even mentioned here, it is in the timeline article. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically POV about the inclusions? Is a secondary quote from Hamas truly overkill? I think you're making this more of a deal than it needs to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For a reference, here is a diff of the two versions: . "At least 75 were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken" is unnecessary detail, which I think you agreed was not necessary earlier. The last quote is not POV, it just is not needed at all. Unnecessary detail. Such detail is not needed, put it in the main article if you want that quote so much. We dont need multiple quotes answering the accusations, one is sufficient. And I think I am making as big a deal of it as you are. Nableezy (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And I think I demonstrated why the Btselem worker info is not needed here as well from this edit. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan: As I asked Nableezy once I'm asking you: Are you arguing just to argue? I honestly don't think you are. I think you hate the injustice that was done to the members of Fatah and perceived collaborators like I do. Go ahead and balance the section out. Make sure that it states that people think Hamas fucked up. While doing that other editors are going to put in what sources they find that are counter argument. Go along with the process and while doing it please go into further detail in the appropriate article. This article has to be summaries in certain sections since every subsection is so long. It is what we have to do to make a readable article.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The only difference in 'balance' between the two is the part Wikifan agreed wasnt necessary, the shot in the legs part, the part I said was irrelevant, somebody being executed after being convicted 6 yrs ago for an act 8+ yrs ago, and the extra quote. This comes down to the former Btselem worker being dealt with individually when it isnt even related, and the extra Hamas quote saying it is Fatah propaganda. If you both feel the extra Hamas quote adds anything at all to the article go ahead and put it in, I wont take it out. But the Btselem worker bit is wholly irrelevant, and the way people were hurt is way too detailed. Those two things do not belong in the section. Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the charity worker issue per reasoning above, but also the description of wounded. Hamas systematically shot Fatah/opposition/whatever in the legs and obviously tortured a few others. They weren't simply "woundeD" as a result of attack, their pain was intentional and precise. That needs to be clarified, "wounded" is much to vague and a simple half-sentence will (or has) clarified the difference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "tortured" or "assaulted" but that may be a concern and if we say specifics it is not inline witht he article. I'm happy to see what Wikifan wants to come up with but worse comes to worse I'll look up some sources tommorow (off to game and drink too much right now) and see if there are up to date and relevent sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me how somebody who was convicted by PA judges six years ago when Fatah controlled the PA for collaborating in the deaths of 4 Fatah members by the IDF, now being executed has anything at all to do with this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will wonder later why would I even bother engaging you in an intelligent manner. But you must explain this.

"but the notable aspect is solely based on their targets - those who sided with Israel." wikifan

How does that relation contributes to the article at all? Is there any ulterior reason besides the fact that they were targeted because they "sided" with Israel? Are you saying that their 'democratic rights' were taken away? their liberty to side with Israel?

Wikifan, i know very well why i took the high road(rogue way) with you. you embolden yourself with your opinions in a way that describes you as blind. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That you think you are hot stuff, is your right, but that someone does not soften the landing for you is also your fault. Why is it that, when Israel comes in contact with the rest of the world, differences is the only topic? Cryptonio (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are an hypocrite, a condescending charlatan. Not once in here have you shown ANY remorse for the innocent civilians dead at the hands of Israeli soldiers. Not once have you come out of your shell to even question one single motive, that per Israel reasoning, puts the fault in their own hands. Not once have stood up for anything on the other side. Have you suffered? Well many also have suffered by the hands of Israelis. You are a scum. I pity the womb that carried you. Now, all of the sudden Hamas kills Palestinians who 'sided' with Israel(what did Israel showed to them?, the Torah? the light? did Israel wiped them clean off their sins???? ) and your hogh ideals and morals come trumping trough. I pity the weak hands that someday will carry your casket. Have you send money to those Palestinians' families? Have you even prayed for them? Cryptonio (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you strike the personal attacks. He doesnt have to show any remorse, whatever he thinks is up to him. This is not the place for this. Nableezy (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, chill out guys. According to this jpost article here, proxy error though, guessing site is overloaded so just wait a few hours he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel. I already know about the previous conviction, but he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel? Here, I'll say it again just so we all understand and Nableezy doesn't confuse himself: Haidar Ghanem, a Palestinian journalist who was a former employee for the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, was accused of "collaborating with Israel" during Operation Cast Lead and was executed by Hamas on January 7. Comprende? Again, I could live without the charity person if you guys care that much, but everything else looks fine. The wounded elaboration, sentence improvement, and second quote by Hamas (which is far more verifying than the current one IMO). Cryptonic as much as I find your analysis amusing, please hold off on the judgments. I've provided mountains of evidence for my rationale and suggestions, responding (and repeating again and again), so don't twist this into some juvenile "wikifan hears no evil, sees no evil" (like seriously, wtf?) personal angst. I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can, I truly am, but I don't understand what you guys actually have a problem with. What is wrong, specifically, with my version? It's only a sentence or 2 longer, provides clarity (which I justified quite bluntly), and no where near the "explosive unmerited details" as accused by Nableezy for the past day. So, in clear, civil terms, what...and I mean quote the paragraph in its specific form, is wrong. bold it, italicize it, whatever...just so we don't continue this rather tearful argument. ; ) I simply want a solution here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, please refer to wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda/opinions/blah. Ok, thanks. lol. I'm actually laughing right now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Like seriously, don't question something as juvenile, when you say things like WTF. Like, seriously. Paris Hilton clone. Cryptonio (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you would also be wise to follow your own advice. And yes he was executed by Hamas for collaborating with Israel. What you dont seem to understand is that the collaboration that he was executed for took place 8 years prior to the start of Operation Cast Lead, and was found guilty of collaboration 6 years prior to the start of Operation Cast Lead. And that the collaboration was in relation to the killing of Fatah members. Unless this article is about the death penalty in Gaza, this is not related at all to the topic of this article. Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And nowhere in that source does it say he was accused of "collaborating with Israel" during Operation Cast Lead. Nowhere, stop making shit up. Nableezy (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What it says is: 'was among dozens of suspected "collaborators" who were executed by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.' Bit of a difference. Nobody is disputing that the day he was executed was in OpCastLead. But he was not executed for collaboration that occurred during Cast Lead. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm washing my hands off this. Cryptonio (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Goosfraba

"Fatah officials in Ramallah claimed that many of the alleged collaborators were in fact Fatah members who had been rounded up by Hamas militiamen during the war. They said that Ghanem was executed on January 7 in Rafah." It is easy to conclude that Hamas might have executed Ghanam as a result of this war. I'm just going by what the article says. why would Hamas execute someone who killed members of Fatah? That's an OR question and certainly doesn't apply, but opinions seem to fly back and forth at me without address, and it's quite unsettling. Again, I said the charity worker is secondary to my original claims. you truly are making this more of a deal then it needs to be, we're talking 2-3 more sentences (the original) that clarify the wounded and include another quote by Hamas, or we can delete the previous and use the new one which IMO is far more descriptive of Hamas' attitude. Second, you say "I'm making shit up", well you incorrectly paraphrases/cited the casualty # in the section and didn't explicitly state who were behind the reports (original said Israel/Fatah sources, extremely vague and Israel's opinion isn't even in the article, Fatah is the one complaining while Hamas practically lols at Abbas' face...more or less). I hope you see where I'm coming from. You guys are getting way too emotional from my perspective so take a deep breath mmmkay? Try to remain civil please thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, that wasnt my sentence. And I kept your sentence on the numbers. Second, it may be easy for you to conclude that, but you would be wrong. Do some actual digging and you will find he was convicted 6 yrs ago for a crime that toook place 8 yrs ago, and under pressure from journalist groups Arafat then Abbas did not carry out his sentence. Hamas did, not for anything that took place during this campaign, but for what happened 8 yrs ago. So again, stop making shit up. The source you are using does not say he was collaborating during Cast Lead, it says he was convicted of collaborating 6 yrs ago for collaborating in the deaths of 4 Fatah members and that was what he was executed for. Nableezy (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it wasn't your sentence, it was the sentence from the article. You kept the sentence on the numbers only after I edited your rewrite. Before your editing the previous version contained more precise casualty/wounded listings. Your edit didn't even connect with the source. I'm not making "shit up", I was simply going by what the source says. They published the event in the same article that highlighted the Hamas-reprisal, it was a reasonable conclusion. this isn't OR or POV-pushing, and your accusation of "making shit up" is a blatant wiki:afg violation. But again I will repeat, the charity worker is secondary to my original claims, which you have yet to respond to. I bolded it so there is no confusion. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

like i told you before, agf is not everlasting, if somebody consistently acts in a bad faith manner that assumption flies out the window. but back to the point, anything where you say 'it was a reasonable conclusion' is by definition OR. You are concluding something that is not in the source, which is what OR is. To your other 'points', you earlier said the hands and knees shot was not needed, why is it now, what made you change your mind? We dont cover the type of injuries for the 5000+ injured and 1300+ dead why should we here? And last, none of this paragraph was mine, you still dont understand that, I took this from somebody elses rewrite assuming it was consistent with the original. Last, the extra quote. What point does it server? What does it say that isnt already said? Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Have I acted in bad faith here? Have I accused others of "making shit up"? No, I have not. You cannot continue to bring up the past whilst I do not, though it would be reasonable for me to if this is how the game is being played. It was not OR, I simply quoted what the article said. Did I include my own words? Did I make it up myself? No, I sourced it, stamped it, whatever. But, as I said, SECONDARY claim. You have any idea how much crap has been pumped into this article without such hostile response(s)? Every day there is some guy who adds in a little detail that is clear OR, without a single complaint. I know you don't like me Nab, it's all good...but I'm trying to make this about the article, not personal angst. The secondary quote is more descriptive and clearly necessary. It's not repetive, it doesn't promote a POV, it is simply a factual statement and is Hamas' response to the direct, and is far less vague than: "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law." The secondary quote was far more direct and clear. I also like how the current statements cut off the "if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out." Weird. The quote I inserted is right above in the previous post or one before. Who is this somebody else? Someone rewrote it, I personally didn't care, I simply pointed out and corrected the inaccuracies and included verifiable information that doesn't warrant such aggression. The hands I edited, the knees are important because it was systematic. They weren't casualties of war, so your example of 1300+, 5000+ wounded is totally irrelevant and I truly am bothered why you continue to bring it up as if it is relevance? Am I supposed to feel guilty?? I stated why it was necessary to mention the knee shooting, Hamas went into homes and shot suspects in the knees and tortured them. "Wounded" is not an appropriate reflection, especially when there are dozens of sources to verify my above statements. I've said err...3 times from my count. Feel free to ask again, those this time I might copy/paste cause I'm truly getting tired and am nearing the part where one shouldn't have to agf. But, I believe this whole discussion might be the result of confusion, which is why I'm continuing it. Thanks for your quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

When you repeatedly say the btselem worker was executed for collaboration that occurred during cast lead you are indeed making shit up, both because it is not in the source and because it just is not true. I have no idea who originally edited that section into the casualties section, but it wasnt me so when you keep saying that i removed this and that and other nonsense, you are again making shit up. And regardless how you feel about the systemic nature of the wounds, they are wounds that are being given greater weight than the burns caused by the systemic usage of white phosphorous, or the severed limbs caused by the systemic use of dime weapons, and so on and so on. And thus unnecessary detail, just as it is unnecessary detail in the casualties section. I bring that up because it goes to issues of weight. Those casualties have gotten thousands of times more press coverage (what partly determines weight) but are not discussed in any where near the depth that you want to here. What dont you understand about that? Nableezy (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not making shit up, that's what the source says. He collaborated with Israel and was executed during the raids. The "during OCL" was solely based on the context of the article, I didn't bother looking up his rap sheet. I didn't make "shit up", in the worst case it could be considered I sourced something wrong (such as what you did), but nothing was "made up." I didn't pull it out of thin air. Those kinds of statements are extremely extremely extremely inflammatory and it seems you standby them, fair enough. As far as I know you were the one who totally deleted the Internal violence section, moved it to other casualties, and erased 90% of the info along with their sources. If not, you appeared to be indifferent/critical when I brought it up. IDF did not systematically attack x people with bullet holes to the knees to create fear in suspected-collaborators. It is not UNDUE weight, it is a fact. Wounded is simply inaccurate, they weren't wounded. They were shot in the knees one-by-one, sanctioned by Hamas' internal security and no prejudice was taken. It was a policy developed specifically to tackle these dissidents, they weren't casualties of war. From what I understand IDF did not sanction policies to attack civilians intentionally, that may be your opinion but a consensus has yet to be reached. And by the way, the article has paragraphs of information regarding white phosphorous and illustrative pictures of injured civilians. You're claim of undue weight compared to the mountains of detailed info truly is a wonder in my eyes. Clearly you are more concerned about unrelated casualties not receiving the amount of attention you believe they deserve, than this actual issue. If that is the case, I urge you to make a section and file your complaint there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as I helped bring the casualties section down to its current state. And yes, you made up that the man was killed because of collaboration that occurred during cast lead, your source does not say it, and it is not possible that it is missourced because it is just not true. And yes there are images of wp shells and wounded, not one of somebody wounded by wp, and the number of people who have suffered burns from wp is also not covered. You dont seem to understand this, so aint even a point in trying to explain it. Nableezy (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

After googling it I found many good sources that actually use descriptions and terminology I was initially not sure about. Highlights include the following:

• The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Independent Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and a senior EU official were critical of reprisal attacks on Gazans. Details of findings very between the groups.
• Allegations included abductions, extrajudicial killings, torture, unlawful detentions, and threats.
• Targets included those accused of collaborating with Israel, members of Fatah, opponents and critics.
• A Fatah spokesman said that 14 Fatah members in Gaza were killed and that more than 160 were shot or beaten.
• Hamas was criticized for either doing the attacks or not stopping the attacks depending on the source.
• Hamas has denied any involvement by members of its security services but acknowledges that Hamas fighters targeted suspected informers for Israel.
• "The government distinguishes between any violation of the law and actions taken by the resistance to protect itself from the danger of spies during wartime," / "The government confirms that it will show no mercy for collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be judged under the law."

There are tons of other details but I think the above are the most important. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Like how my responses get larger while yours seem to shrink, interesting. Glad you lost good faith and clearly didn't understand my post as I proved WHY I didn't "make shit up." Though it is probably concerning for someone to say such a thing and then realize it wasn't true. Either way, I've provided enough factual information to back up what I say and your undue weight claim defines moot. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yours get longer because you need to make more shit up to back up the original shit you made up. What you said was wrong and not sourced, you made it up. Get it through your head, you are wrong. My posts get shorter because I dont want to have to rationalize for the irrational. Like this one. Nableezy (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you fine with how the section is after your latest edit? You see I just cleaned it up, did not remove anything. Nableezy (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Cpt, I like your points and most of the sources in the reprisal attack article will verify them. I do hope in the future we will be able to put more info on the reprisal attacks section, but for now I think this is good enough. Feel free to edit in whatever, but you can deal with the resistance LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Warms my heart. I am also fine with it as this edit, though I would rather not have the shot in the knees part as I think it is unnecessary detail, I am willing to leave it be. Nableezy (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't mess with anything beyond my latest edit. The knee quote is from PCHR and I think it was there before our discussion though I'm not sure. The other knee quote was more descriptive if I recall...I can't remember I'll go look at the diffs. Glad we could compromise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you guys have a compromise which is almost consensus. I wanted to throw this paragraph in to see if it was better. It is longer than I originally intended but hits what looks notable while still being a summary..

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Independent Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and a senior EU official were critical of reprisal attacks on civilians in Gaza during the conflict. Allegations through different reports included abductions, extrajudicial killings, torture, and unlawful detentions. Targets included those accused of collaborating with Israel, opponents, and critics. A Fatah spokesman said that 14 members of the party in Gaza were killed and that more than 160 were shot or beaten. Hamas has denied any involvement by members of its security services but acknowledges that their fighters targeted suspected informers for Israel. A Hamas spokesperson said that the internal security service "was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard." Hamas also said that "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law." Cptnono (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the current version has gone through several drafts and your summary is heavily edited, your inclusion of ICHR and AI are concerning since their criticisms have varied specifically, simply saying all are "critical of reprisal..." is in clearer words cheap considering the wealth of info and sourced available to summarize. Also, your stats are wrong, 19 party members have been killed, not 14, in addition to ~35 more Palestinians according to PCHR. Some people have suggest executions go up into the 100s, and PCHR's relative silence regarding the issue sparked the debate. But at this point we don't have enough verifiable sources to qualify and even if they did it would be a long casualty debate regarding notability blah blah etc. Also, I don't know where you got 160. Please review the discussion above, and previous discussions linked, in addition to previous drafts and most importantly the most recent paragraph before offering entire replacements. I personally think we should leave it alone, there is nothing wrong with it, nothing is POV, and no rules are being violated. Unless there is some truly spectacular addition or new information is available that qualifies, I would encourage it. For now we should keep it to grammar only but that's my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to debate it and I did read many sources and the discussion above. I am not terribly attached to it but wanted to see if it was preferred. I'll throw up the sources if you would like for use in the other article. The ICHR and AI wording was a pain since they vary on what actually happened and at what levels but it might work well in a format where it can be explained better.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you here but many users are insistence on summarizing to the dot, meaning you'll have to fight for every word to get put in. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Images on this discussion page

There were a good number of images in use on this talk page, many of which were, either by themselves, or as a result of the caption underneath them, likely to increase rather than decrease tension here. Some served no purpose except to inflame the discussion. In the interests of editorial harmony and acting as an uninvolved administrator, I have removed them all. CIreland (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I hardly think the images here were likely to offend. For example the sock puppet oneJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yah, unless there is an specific instance of someone being offended. I mean, there are plenty of chances fo runinvolved admins to get involved, but they show up over the one good thing here? Jezz. So I am reverting.--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, You may not be aware of the whole situation. Please see the discussion here . Also, please note the administrator's comment, "In the interests of editorial harmony and acting as an uninvolved administrator, I have removed them all."    

Please observe WP:AGF. This administrator really deserves it for the time spent and work done for the sake of the Misplaced Pages.

Perhaps now that you know the whole story, and you recognize that the administrator acted in good faith, would you please restore the administrator's edits?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was not aware of the whole story: you failed to notify anyone in this talk page about it until now. All I can say is that no, we will continue to do this as it is generally see as a way to reduce tensions and not take ourselves too seriously, even when we are. Of course, I will take care not to do it to your posts, as you are offended. I call on others to also respect your wish to not be bothered by our infantile antics.

As to reverting the actions of an admin: those where unilateral desicions, using editing tool, with no admin authority, he is just another editor, with all due respect. We can revert even Jimbo Wales if we feel that we are right and with the consensus. This is different from enforcement of conduct issues via blocks etc. In no way should by reversion be interpreted, as it seems you do, as me not assuming good faith. I think "CIreland" acted in good faith, but perhaps he was not aware this was a common practice in this talk page, and perhaps he acted unilaterally. As I have said, one can be both wrong and in good faith. In fact, most of the time people are wrong is in good faith. One can also be 100% right and be a total bad faith dick. One thing is completely separate from the other.

In the future, in the interest of not having misunderstandings, I suggest that before you go to WP:DRAMA or any noticeboard, you at a minimum try to engage your fellow editors in the article talk page. Quite frankly, running for WP:DRAMA for something like this and behind the backs of everyone is pretty high in my list of the Stuff You Thou Shalt Not Do If You Really Want Shite To Be Civil. Also, please see WP:LAME, we all are lame at some point (hell, I got me a block for being lame - an from an arbcom clerk, no less). Its good to know and learn how not to do it too often.--Cerejota (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But surely the editors who use this page know best the atmosphere in which we work. And apart from you, no-one has objected to any images. In fact we have been posting such images for over a month, then you swan in and try and change it all. If you can't handle a few pictures, how can you handle editing an article of this importance and controversiality.

Cerejota is like our administrator. He is doing a good job of peacemaking, and people on this page respect him and generally accept his judgments. So we don't need external administrators, however glorious their record, coming and changing things when no one except you and him, who havn't been regular users, has any objections. So please leave the pictures, and leave the running of this page to those who have been involved since the start. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews23jandrews23, Could you please explain this behavior of yours which I posted here on the administrators' noticeboard :

• The first instance of this problem was when the editor modified one of my messages by putting the image in my message unsigned. I deleted it and left a message on his talk page.
• Then he put it unsigned elsewhere in the section. I used the unsigned template to sign it for the editor.
• Then he removed the unsigned template and his message is now unsigned again.

JJ, You didn't seem to want to take credit for the unsigned posting discussed in the above remarks. Why is that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I first added the image, I didn't intend it to be in the middle of your post. When I replaced it, I made sure it wasn't anymore. I didn't sign it because it is a picture, not a comment, and in any case most of the caption was added by someone else, who I won't name as I don't want to drag them into this argument. Given that explanation, can you accept that we are adults here, if someone really finds any image offensive they will complain and we will remove. So perhaps we can leave the images, with the support of most editors, and move on. Let's get back to discussing and editing the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Signing your contributions to this or any other talk page in the Misplaced Pages is normal practice that responsible editors follow. That's so other editors know that you are the editor that put it in the talk page, and not someone else. Your response is not adequate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, chill! He just told you why he didn't sign. There is a history tab. And Image doesn't have to be signed, unless that is the intention (as I did with my Duck image). As Jandrews said, lets go back to the Real Important Stuff.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I want to stick to the article for the most part I did want to mention that the images were not grossly offensive. I assume they were meant to be humorous and at times to make a point. Maybe there were too many of them but they were not exactly trolling or overly offensive as indicated by the discussion on the noticeboard. Sounds like it was taken too far.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is lame. For what it's worth, there's absolutely no way whatsoever that I'll comply with a no images on the talk page policy unless it comes from a consensus of the editors here. The role of the images is obvious. And Bob, I added text to JJ's image and I didn't sign it. Why would I sign it? To show how fantastically witty I am ? Not going to happen. If you have a problem with that take it up with me. I'll just ignore you though unless you get consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the images were innocuous enough and cool, but the one that was reported was not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to blow it out of proportion. Most images haven't hurt anyone's feelings so lets address it as they come up if need. I hate the images but at the same time get a kick out of them.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is only one image that is unacceptable, and that is only because of its disgraceful caption. Whoever is doing it, you know who you are and you know you wouldn't accept a caption that indicated that the other side's suffering was posed for the camera (which it frequently has been shown to be). DESIST. Betacrucis (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You really don't have much of an argument when you yourself engage in more offensive conduct A parent and his child being shot at is not comparable to the gloomy girl sitting under a destroyed wall. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find best about this whole thing is that nobody has objected to fact that the "Palestinian discusses when would be a convenient time for his house to be bombed" image is an image of a clearly gay, proudly gay, gay guy standing in New Orleans, probably somewhere near Bourbon street after a long night partying. This is a great step forward for gay rights, the right to be ignored/misrepresented just like everyone else. Brings a tear to my eye, I'm filling up. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

bomb shelters not relevant to roof knocking

The following sentence is out of place in the paragraph on roof knocking and its relation to roof knocking is not supported by the source.

No safe haven or bomb shelters exist, making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians had no place to flee.

When the inhabitants of a house are given ten minutes warning to leave, just getting away from the house is the place to go. Bomb shelters are relevant when you don't know where the bomb is going to be dropped. So I moved the sentence to the last paragraph of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can get pretty far from the building in ten minutes. Unless a source says the lack of bomb shelters is related to roof knocking it is commentary on our part and has no place there. Also, militants did have bomb shelters in the north. The cited report then goes on to contradict itself: "UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings." There are obviously places to flee and it looks like the IDF knows not to drop bombs there. Although they are reputable I am beginning to question this whole line. They are saying it is really really dangerous with some colorful writing.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, It looks like you agree with my edit. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you are probably right. However, rather than removal, proper attribution should be done: a notable organization very much competent and expected to opine on these things is saying something. Its sourced etc. Unless you have an argument other than your opinion, I would be hard pressed to agree with you.--Cerejota (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think you might be confused on a few things, but I'll still try to respond to your message. I think my response will satisfy your concerns, but if it doesn't, we can continue the discussion.

The sentence is still in the article. I didn't remove it. I moved it to the end of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in new position at end of Air strikes section

(I took the liberty of adding this section title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) )

Unless the move is in dispute still, does anyone have any thoughts on me wanting to remove it or at least address it differently? As mentioned above it looks like this particular line in the report is overly dramatic.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I may disagree. It's reported in several UN reports as-is. If the situation is dramatic, let's not blame the messenger for being dramatic. First report:

The entire civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains vulnerable. There are no public warning systems or shelters. Homes are located next to potential targets.

and most importantly this:

There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee. UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings.

The statement is very relevant and well cited. --Darwish (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I could care less who we blame. As it looks with contradicting lines withing the source and other secondary sources I don't know how much weight we should give it. I don't see how anyone can read the paragraph in the report and not see bias. When you couple it with other sources saying something different it means we have to rejudge how much weight it is given in the article. In all seriousness and not to prove any points or try to win an argument, reread the paragraph in the PDF and then reread the sources and let us know what your conclusion is.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a change in wording? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards deleting it. To keep it in would take too much explaining. Maybe something like "There is a lack of bomb shelters in Gaza" or "Most shelters in Gaza cannot withstand heavy bombardment" would be acceptable. The report was in regards to the crisis civilians were facing so its paraphrasing seems like commentary in the airstrikes or roof knocking sections.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Cptnono, For reference, here's the sentence from the wiki:

No safe haven or bomb shelters existed, making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians had no place to flee.

117. "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - January 7, 2009, 1700 hours". UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2009-1-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)

And here's the excerpt from reference 117:

"There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee."

Now why would you want to change or delete the sentence in the wiki? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the next sentence in the report and other sources are somewhat contradictory. The report is already written in a dramatic tone. Also, "no place to flee": So refugees cannot run to a camp on he other side of the boarder is true but it could be easily assumed by the reader that Israel carpet-bombed the every acre of land based on the wording.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the situation was labeled by the UN as a "critical protection crisis", so they're not dramatizing, and the sentences were not contradictory. You can provide a counter-argument to the UN report statement but you can't just debate against its validity. It's not our job to do so --Darwish (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, For reference, here's the whole section from the report, with the "next sentence" that you mentioned highlighted in bold:

"A critical protection crisis:

There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee. UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings. Of particular concern are the growing numbers of children killed and injured. Every other person in Gaza is a child (56 percent of the population), and they remain dangerously exposed to the fighting around them. At least 101 children have been killed, almost one thousand injured and tens of thousands traumatized."

1) The next sentence indicated that those places are not bomb shelters, which is consistent with the previous sentence.

2) The next sentence indicated that the GPS coordinates were provided to Israel. It's not clear how safe that makes those places. For example, a mobile rocket launcher could park in front of one of those unfortified shelters and result in a bombing.

3) Re "carpet bombing" - In my opinion, it is unlikely that anyone reading this wiki would think there was carpet bombing.

4) Re "dramatic" - Something like that was my first impression too. But on second thought, I realized that I don't have any source that contradicts that portrayal. However, it would be helpful if you could find a source that contains some info that indicates in some way that the UN report's portrayal was exaggerated. Perhaps such a source may turn up after a time when the situation is analyzed more.

5) The "no place to flee" remark in the UN report may be exaggerated, but then again, it may not. For example, it depends on what is defined as safe. As far as I know, Gaza is a relatively small place with 1 1/2 million people, and it's not clear that there are any places, or enough places, for all those people to go where they have both the necessities of life and are safe. By necessities, I don't mean just comfortable, but necessities to support life for possibly weeks.

The bottom line is that the sentence is OK for now, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate each of your points since that would be me just trying to "win" on my part. I do understand what you are saying. That line alone can be taken completely out of context though which is my primary concern. It would be very easy for a reader to take it out of context. Bomb shelters were left behind and are in use in northern Gaza, residents have make shift shelters, people have basements, and although it is a densely populated area there is open land in certain places. People also took refuge in UN refugee camps locations. Yes there was some bombing but it was not the norm at each camp. Saying that people had no place to flee is commentary in the report that is easily be disputed. I have no problem with mentioning that it is super dangerous and that there is a lack of proper bomb shelters for civilians but the current line is biased and an exaggeration.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a number of reasons for your opinion that the "nowhere to flee remark" is misleading. Could you get a source or sources that we can use to support your point, i.e. that suggests the statement is misleading? That would be very helpful and I would try to work with you to show that the "flee" statement is not reasonable, if you can supply the sources. If you can, I think there are various ways to improve the info in the wiki regarding this issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny you mention it. I took a step back to figure out what as really bugging me and came to the same conclusionCptnono (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So I google newsed "gazans flee" and several other things. Most of the hits were in regards to them fleeing to UN schools, hospitals, Egypt, and "fled the city/fled to the south/etc". I found a fantastic article that put it pretty well. Basically, Gazans don't know where to turn, are finding random places to hide, and are always under threat. I'm not a fan of the wording in the line and even question its placement (Humanitarian Crisis seems more relevant) but after reading: "http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1230456545284" I can't honestly argue against that there is no place to flee. Apologies for the debate on nothing and check out the article if you haven't seen it.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I haven't studied it yet but I will. I wanted to get back to you fast on the idea of moving the sentence. I quickly looked at the Humanitarian crisis section and I couldn't find a place where it would fit in. Maybe you might have better luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you find a place. Let's discuss it first before moving it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure myself but it looks like all of the tools available to Israel were used to cause this panic among the populous so the line in the "Air strike" section is a little off. It doesn't fit too well there so it doesn't need to fit particularly well in another section but is still notable enough for mention.Cptnono (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you feel that it's OK there for now. If you have any more ideas about it later, let me know. Thanks for the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality/factual accuracy disputed.

Not sure who put the tags up there, but as per Wiki rules there should be an explanation. If the explanation is somewhere out there, can it please be moved to this section? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion a couple of days ago, several actually. Cerejota can link you or you can search the talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, but a section on this must be opened. Cryptonio (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? We already had this discussion, several times, less than 4 days ago. This talk alone is evidence for the dispute tags, as is the wealth of arguments and sources provided to verify such claims. I wasn't involved so much in the tag-inclusion so talk to Cerejota and Tundra, they're the ones who came to a compromise if I recall. Feel free to make continue the section but I don't see the purpose of it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That we disagree isn't a dispute. Its you.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

I've read the past discussion, and it seems as if Beta was who claimed this tag(s).

Here are his reasons, i suppose. Which hopefully further addressing will be provided rather sooner, because nothing specific was pointed to.

I know that you all know this. That's why the activediscuss tag is there. But the activediscuss tag is sterile; this article isn't simply being "developed", it is being used for POV purposes.

The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion. What possible other reason could there be for a lack of neutrality? The tag is to flag the lack of neutrality, not the act of editing in a POV fashion.

Everybody agrees that the article is not neutral.

The article is not neutral.Cptnono

Personally, I think the neutral tag should be on this article. It simply states the neutrality is disputed. Clearly it is; those both for and against Israels attack think the article is biased against their viewpoint. Jandrews23jandrews23

Also, there is no balance in the talk. It is extremely one-sided, and we know which side that is. I'm not trying to build walls but it's true, so we should stop kidding ourselves and face the facts if we want to get things done. This talk is far from productive and I know I'm part of the problem, which is why I won't edit anything major without a strong and FAIR consensus....lol. Good luck hehe. Wikifan12345

The neutrality tag is fine. I hate too much junk but it makes sense. Both ask the reader to look at the article with care but for different reasons. A tag at the top is better than tags over each section since neutrality swings wildly throughout the article.Cptnono

My feeling is that further tags are required - the article is, in parts, poorly written and generally crapulent. I know we've all put effort into it but you know it's true. There are significant enough flaws to warrant substantial rewriting - if anybody could be bothered. Some of the tags that this article deserves: -{cleanup-rewrite}-, -{weasel}}-, -{COI}}-, -{unbalanced}}-, and especially -{Disputed}}-. The latter because it is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral; facts are in serious dispute. At this stage I think it is crucial that readers understand that the article, as it stands, is unacceptable. The activediscuss "in development" wording doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with this article.

Tags will be removed when it can be proven that the issues do not exist. Until then, there is a prima facie case for their inclusion. Relevant tags do not favour one side and they are totally unobjectionable. Betacrucis

Absolutely. Totally agree with Betacrucis on this and his reasoning. Tundrabuggy

Why?--Cerejota

Because it isn't: the article is already clearly tagged as non-neutral. And yes, I am asking "why" he agrees, I am interested in the reasoning etc. Perhaps a solution would be the use of -{article issues}}-: why I do not want this is because it will mean five tags cluttering up the article, when there are clear alternatives that the community has devleoped precisely for these issues. You people are making it into a WP:BATTLE, when it isn't: it is about common sense. --Cerejota

These are the "quotes" that I found relevant on this discussion...with this one being the best "descriptive".

My feeling is that further tags are required - the article is, in parts, poorly written and generally crapulent. I know we've all put effort into it but you know it's true. There are significant enough flaws to warrant substantial rewriting - if anybody could be bothered. Some of the tags that this article deserves: -{cleanup-rewrite}}-, -{weasel}}-, -{COI}}-, -{unbalanced}}-, and especially -{Disputed}}-. The latter because it is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral; facts are in serious dispute. At this stage I think it is crucial that readers understand that the article, as it stands, is unacceptable. The activediscuss "in development" wording doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with this article.

Tags will be removed when it can be proven that the issues do not exist. Until then, there is a prima facie case for their inclusion. Relevant tags do not favour one side and they are totally unobjectionable. Betacrucis

• Poorly written

• Crapulent?

• The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion

• facts are in serious dispute

• is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral

Since those other tags are not currently on, i will not include them. Any suggestions on how to address these concerns? Cryptonio (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Poorly Written

Section on how to work out this concern.

Solutions to fix "Poorly written"

1)

2)

3)

4)

Crapulent

Section on how to work out this concern.

TO fix crapulent

1)

2)

3)

4)

"crapulent" means something else, no? RomaC (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How not to edit in a POV fashion?

1)

2)

3)

4)

Facts are in serious dispute

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts that are disputed

1)

2)

3)

4)

is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

selection of information that is non-neutral

1)Concern with quote selection: Refer to Talk:Address to UN President/councilKinetochore (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)  Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2)

3)

4)

One more problem. While doing an accuracy check, I already found a copyright violation within minutes. Anyone would like to admit responsibility? Maybe then we can correct whatever edits you made and educate you on the rules of Misplaced Pages's citation policy. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that a copyright violation? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I readded the info so I could find the source and review any alleged "plagiarism." The source is not in the sentence reference so I had to re-add it, just give me a minute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from the Washington Independent (not BBC as I mistakenly said in the edit summary) article: wrote in The Jerusalem Post that there is “almost no comparable example” anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. This is not a quote from Cotler, and it wasn't placed is quotation marks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is the opinion of Cotler. Perhaps the quotations were used to emphasize words, but from my POV that is a statement made by Cotler. Is it the writer's? No. If plagiarism is your concern, go ahead and paraphrase, rearrange sentences, or whatever but deleting information according to such a questionable excuse is a mistake. We want to avoid writing the article by our beliefs so if the section uses the source word-for-word, put a "according to x source" with Cotler 4 word quotation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is required by policy to delete copyright violations. If you want that information, you fix it, it is not my responsibility to paraphrase the information. Don't just restore the violation and expect me to do the work. I don't even think it is necessary for the article so for me to make an effort for it is out of the question. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it the best I could. I restored the violation so I could fix it, I said that so calm down lol. Thanks for bringing this up though. Cotler had a much larger opinion on the conflict so I included his quotes in the section and deleted the one you considered plagiarized. Wouldn't have noticed it, and the original source was rather lacking in notability IMO. Cheers!

I am sorry to say but your recent edit must be reverted because "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Please revert your edit. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will just revert to the version before I removed the copyrighted text and then I will fix it. It would be much better than the extensive quotation of copyrighted text. Also it is too much attention given to a non-notable. Furthermore, this article is not a polemic, try to keep it as NPOV as possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to keep one of the quotes that you provided instead since you removed the one that was contested first. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not debating this "copyright" rationale, but the entire paragraph is basically quotation and a word-for-word statement by Cotler. He is being interviewed by Jpost, he released his opinions to a recognized-media organization, whether it is copyrighted or not is totally irrelevant. 95% of all quotions in this article are "copyrighted", but as long as there is a source and no OR, POV-pushing, or "plagiarizing", there is no reason to delete. I'm not denying your sincerity here, but I encourage you to speak with more a experienced and objective user like User:Cerejota. 2 sources provided, quotation given, no commentary by any user or even the interviewer. If you have any more disagreements, which I'm certain you still do, hold off on the reverting for now and wait for Cerejota or more users to come in and offer their opinion. You're claim is copyright violation, correct? We can debate that. In terms of NPOV, he is an "expert" in this subject, whether his views are controversial don't really matter. We could apply the same reasoning to Falk, who is by far one of the most POV and opinionated "experts" in this article. May I reiterate, please please refrain from further reverting. A couple more and it may constitute an edit war, and that is never pretty. This isn't particularly a "crucial" section IMO, and again my edits are sourced and simply expand on the original quotation which I also corrected a few inaccuracies. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this is not a copyvio. Its a fair-use of a media statement. Its how all content in wikipedia is developed. However, this article is not about Hamas, so I do not see the relevancy of the quote here.--Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)  Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But it is undue weight for one persons opinion. We are almost quoting the entire interview, I kept one quote and removed the rest. Nableezy (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will ask admin Moonriddengirl, she seems more familiar with copyright policies than any of us here. But I would support deletion because it is undue weight given to one person. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In brief, I agree that this material does not meet our non-free content criteria. For an explanation of why, please see here. --Moonriddengirl 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So I assume now this is resolved. We can establish that lazy-ass writing (stringing together quotations) is not cool and the version we have now is okay. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't ok but it should be resolved soon. The version we have is woefully understated and there is a wealth of information to further explain Cotler's position in a non-copyright/fair use violating way. Much of what he say is agreed upon by the IDF in the later paragraph, a notable expert verifying a governments opinion is certainly notable. Similar to Falk verifying the angst of the Arab League...hehe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Falk is not given a fraction of weight that you want to give to Cotler's position. Again, undue weight shouldn't be given to this one person, the one sentence that we have up suffices. Even Cerejota doesn't find the quote relevant and you were the one who asked him for his opinion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? falk, abbas, sourani, all laughable characters IMHO epitomize the classic wikipedia triple threat. They all basically have the same general opinion, and together their weight far surprasses the Palestinian section by 4 paragraphs. My intend on expanding Cotler's opinion was to compensate for the obvious imbalance. As I said, the undue weight argument is moot for reasons provided at Moon's talk discussion, which I assumed was where this conservation was going to stay. Cerejota never said he didn't find the quote relevant, and neither did you. You said this was a copyright/free-use, relevance is indisputable. He comments the legality of Hamas' actions in Gaza, in all the quotes none stray away from the topic as far as I know. I plan on crafting an alternative paraphrased/trimmed/appropriate quotation/non-plagiarized paragraph with Moon reviewing said paragraph before posting. Waiting for her response, however. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it relevant, that does not mean we put everything the man said. We also use Cordesman and others, each organization is given its proper weight. We are not putting all of what one person had to say in here. Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

this isn't everything he said, the original quotes were a fraction of the total interview. There are mountains of commentary from Cotler regarding this war, and considering how unbelievably lacking the current Palestinian section is, I'm hoping some people might be willing to help me out here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But lets say we wanted to include a similar portion of everything Falk has said about this, would that be all right with you? Due weight isnt necessarily equal weight, the quotes of Falk, as he represents the UN, have gotten considerably more weight than what Cotler, who is a former president of the Jewish Canadian Congress (i think thats what the article said) has said throughout the world. We cannot give more weight to what this man has said as compared to what Holmes has said. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I reading the same talk page as you? What did Cerejota mean by "However, this article is not about Hamas, so I do not see the relevancy of the quote here" I thought he meant this article is not about Hamas so he does not see the relevancy of the quote here. But I will let him clarify his position if he wishes. There is also the problem of undue weight. Still, not those three combined is given the undue attention that you wish to give to Cotler. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you link me to that quote? Seems rather out of context considering the article IS about Hamas. You keep saying there is the problem of undue weight, and I explained why that is true, but to a different extent. Feel free to explain to me the problem of "undue" weight according to your perspective. Why was your original excuse for deletion plagiarism and not undue weight? Understand, eventually we'll have to supplement the Palestinian section with something so hypothetically speaking, if you trying to initiate some sort of roadblock I don't think it will work. I'm not questioning your motivates but this talk has experienced its fair share of drama. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, the problem it seems to me is that editors often appear to want to give equal weight/space to the allegations of violations of international law against both belligerents when in fact the emphasis in the major relevant RS is heavily weighted towards allegations against Israel. WP:DUE seems to provide clear guidelines under these circumstances. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the guidelines, and sourcing isn't an issue. I'm trying to expand the Palestinian section, it makes sense considering the amount of information available and the blatant imbalanced when compared to the Israel section. The major "relevant" sources mostly come from the UN, or members of the UN, or those who belong to some form of government, or experts who are known to take a stance to against Israel. We cannot pass off these views as impartial or objective by gift-wrapping with legal conclusions, these are allegations at best, saturated and zealous opinions at worst, nothing less and nothing more. The problem may be undue weight from your perspective, but I see the much greater problem - a clear and rather odd imbalance of criticism. 7+ paragraphs for Israel and a little less than 3 for Palestinians. And the Israel is compounded with more details and emotive quotations, while the Palestinian section defines standard and unnecessarily ordinary considering the circumstances. I was originally against the whole legal section or merging it into it's own article cause I knew it would be prone to these kinds of arguments. The entire legal argument rests solely on the GC, which, oddly enough might not even apply in this war, or so I've heard. Anyways, whatever happens I do plan and hope to expand the Palestinian section according to information available. I think the 1st paragraph in Israel/International Law could use a grammar cleaning, especially with the opening sentence and repetitive use of Falk and weirdly separated quotations. Not sure who put in the final tag with [Humanitarian Law, but it doesn't seem sourced though it is obviously a valid conclusion based on the opinions of cited notables. I believe we cannot make that conclusion simply based on how polarized the conditions are or even humanitarian law applies in a legal sense for this situation. And, the whipping out of said law is unfair considering how friggin huge and lengthy it. Many commentators have picked out various clauses that support Israel's massacre..errr...war, whatever you call it, while others have drawn completely opposite conclusions. The sentence appears to be more assertive than it should be, there must be some clarification here IMO. Again, this won't lead to a consensus so like my other response, please create a new section or move this convo to it. It's hard to navigate through this talk page with random discussions LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It gets really frustrating when you don't pay attention to the conversation. This is plagiarism and this is extensive use of quoted copyrighted text and undue weight, if you go over the conversation we had, you will know that this was my stance from the beginning.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Much of what Cotler says is fluff which boils down to accusing Hamas of committing war crimes by claiming they targeted civilians, attacked from civilian areas, and recruited minors to fight. You know it is that easy to condense 7 sentence of fluff into one concise sentence. Are you willing to accept this as a compromise? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It gets really frustrating when you don't even recognize simple sentences. I bolded them for you. It is plagiarism but not to black-marker extent. I did not put the "plagiarized" statement there, you TOTALLY removed it and I had to re-add something to replace the "plagiarism." I wanted to make sure no more accusations of "plagiarism" occurred, then you said undue weight blah blah, deleted...that's fair, but don't spin the truth here. Nothing is fluff, this are all individual points and like most things in this articles they are accusations, though I'm sure you dispute that. : ) Can you condense using human as shields, inflating casualties by launching rockets in close proximity to homes (on top of a home, for example), and using children for military purposes into a single sentence? And most importantly, citing specific legal documents (as Cotler cites them) to support the statements? Can you? We did it for Israel. And since we are using Abbas' opinion on the legal argument Mahmoud Abbas, then I'm sure we can plug in some nutty ultra nationalist leader or current heads of states in Israel for the Palestinians. Correct? It needs balance and I'm just trying to find it. So can you help me instead of accusing everything I do as against the rules? I've done everything in GF, most of the time I don't even edit articles without going to talk unlike most users here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I put something related to this in the "I have a solution" section. Sorry it is so scattered. This page is so big and confusing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, if this does continue though I hope we make a separate section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a solution

Its very simple... Look over and decide what references are the best, and REWRITE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. A number of editors can work on each section and have it assigned to them. Its time the conflict here ended.(Knowledgekid87) 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

lol. You have a point. But let's just make the sentences make sense for starters, like this one:

"Israel has been accused of collective punishment by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk; of targeting of civilians by Falk, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)'s Raji Sourani; of disproportionate military response by Falk and EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel; of failure "to care for and evacuate the wounded" by the Red Cross; and of the use of human shields when fighting in residential areas by Amnesty International - all of which would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions "in regard to the obligations of an occupying power and in the requirements of the laws of war"."

This one makes more sense and would be less POV.

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk has accused Israel of "collective punishment", "targeting civilians", and "disproportionate military response". Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has also accused her of "targeting civilians", as has PCHR's Raji Sourani . EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel has accused Israel of "disproportionate military response". The ICRC has accused Israel of "failure to care for and avacuate the wounded" and Amnesty International has claimed that Israel used human shields when fighting in residential areas. Collective punishment, targeting civilians, and disporportionate military response all constitute violations of international law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, according to a statement by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

This rewrite makes more sense, and the last part needs to be attributed as one man's opinion, even if the man does have standing. The way the last sentence currently reads it sounds as if wiki is explaining the WP:TRUTH to us about the Geneva Conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, for interest, I'm not opposed to your rewrite....mostly. It's clearer however I don't quite follow what you mean by "less POV" or why Tundra refers to WP:TRUTH. The last part "according to a statement by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. " is unnecessary because collective punishment, targeting civilians, and disporportionate military response do all constitute violations of international law as defined in the Geneva Conventions. It's not a POV. X saying that Y did Z is the POV of X whereas 1+2+3=6 is not a POV and has nothing to do with X. See what I mean ? This is why the international law section used to start with an explanatory section something like
"Under international humanitarian law, warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensure that attacks on legitimate military targets are proportional, and guarantee that the military advantage of such attacks outweigh the possible harm done to civilians. Violations of these laws are considered war crimes".
..whereas now it starts with "Also".
I've linked the terms in the opening sentence of the Israelis section to the appropriate legal articles which provide the necessary background info and verifiability. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing. I want to clarify for you about the last part, and why it is necessary to add that Falk says it. It is a position. While collective punishment, targeting civilians and disproportionate military response may indeed constitute violations of Geneva Conventions, following as it does the accusations, The article that it refers to is specifically refering to Israel doing these things as against the Geneva Conventions, and they way it is worded it sounds like a fait accompli-- ie "all these people accuse Israel of these things, so it must be true that Israel has violated Geneva Conventions and is judged guilty." However, it has not gone to court, and there are specific experts that say differently. Thus it is not for wiki-voice to imply that we are international law experts. It must be for RS to do so. Thus it must be attributed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I haven't edited that specific section, but from what I understand that is Falk's statement. The Geneva conventions has been debated left and right, with both sides blaming each other. Falk's credibility is extremely low, considering his support for 9/11 conspiracy theories and the ayatollah. Then again, that's wikipedia so it could very well be totally bullshit lol. Even under the assumption that his opinion is "objective", we cannot blur the line between expert opinion and fact. If you truly think it is unnecessary, then it is a blatant slap in the face to the dozens of "experts", such as Cotler, who disagree. We can cherry pick any statement from the Geneva Convention, but it his opinion that Israel violated x according to the Geneva Conventions. This isn't a universally accepted truth and is highly contested by many people (including lawyers), most of whom aren't even half as weird as Falk. But that's my opinion anyway..LOL. Also understand that the Geneva Convention isn't the defining rules of law here, there are several legal aspects, especially Rome Statute. Hamas has been accused of using human shields, employing children as soldiers, training soldiers from mosques/schools, building weapons/smuggling militants through homes, and most importantly, launching campaigns from densely populated civilian areas, which some say inflates more civilian casualties when Israel responds. this is just a bare-bones response you'll get from any other user, so be prepared for more in-depth argument, which I really don't want to do since I'm super biased here.

So yeah, probably not the best idea to remove it. If this truly bothers you and you have sufficient evidence and are willing to put in the hours, make a section I guess. I don't know. It's so late I can barely type so I'll probably regret posting this lol. Again, make a section because posting in between users is kind of rude I think. Especially if I don't see it and end up looking like an idiot...: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Wikifan, your missing my point. I wasn't clear perhaps.
X saying that Y did Z is the POV of X. e.g. UNHRC (X) accusing Israel (Y) of war crimes (Z) is the POV of the UNHRC (X) and obviously has to be attributed to the UNHRC.
Whereas 1+2+3=6 is not a POV and has nothing to do with X e.g. saying that collective punishment, failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians etc violate the Geneva Conventions is not a POV. It's just a statement of fact, it's not controversial and it has nothing to do with Falk because it's in the conventions themselves. In other words, if Falk accused someone of murdering someone you wouldn't need to add "which Falk says is illegal". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no go here. If something is particularly wrong with x section, post it here and we can comment/collaborate/wikipedia it. But ordering a rewrite of an entire article, including parts that are obviously well-revised and sourced, is IMO overkill. I do agree with your inference that more care needs to be taken with POV and the article clearly suffers from constant POV-pushing (both in talk and article), but this idea, in plain terms, is pretty retarded. Sorry man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is beginning to come together but most of the Campaign section is frustrating to read. Things being repeated is probably the most obnoxious thing. I don't even know where to start.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the campaign section needs a total overhaul. And now that this is over and we know what has gotten the most coverage I think we can briefly cover the incidents that got the most attention in here if we can cut some other stuff down. Nableezy (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're taking this out of context. Falk is accusing the IDF of violating the Geneva Convention according to "targeting civilians, collective punishment, and disproportionate military response." These are Falk's opinions, and while they might co-inside with the Convention in some way, his wording is totally off and clearly evoking a strong sense of emotion. Even further, it remains to be the case if any of these things have occurred. The only info we get is from Hamas and Israel, neither are objective or reliable sources. And again, this is Falk's opinion. He isn't holding a legal document, highlighting x sources and impartially and objectively comparing the circumstances given. He is shooting absolutes and powerful words to persuade. Whether you see that or not I don't actually care, but it seems you don't understand the realities of this. And from what I know, it isn't certain Hamas or Israel are even signatures to to rules Falk is pulling out. If that is the case, then the argument itself wouldn't hold up in court solely based on technicality, and thus the inclusion of the GC in the article wouldn't make sense unless there was a strong denotation that these rules do not apply. Again, this is from what I've heard. I know Israel signed the GA 50 years ago, but not sure about now. these are secondary though and shouldn't be considered, point is...I don't personally see any merit in the argument. I'm clearly a strawman (unintentionally I presume) because you seem more committed than I do so PLEASE make a section so everyone can have a voice instead of making me look bad. ; ) You don't need to use analogies to convey your opinion, but I prefer literal terms to avoid confusion. I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions, and especially . This is simply one piece of the pie and Falk has picked what is easiest to scream, not prove. You've been motivated based off Falk's analysis, so to prevent further confusion I urge you to do a little googling and find some experts. And AGAIN, make a new friggin section. Whatever ends here it is not a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. You object to a direct mapping between Falk's terminology and the language in the articles of the conventions without attribution. That's fair enough I suppose given that they are somewhat different. That is the advantage of having a sentence that explains the terms Falk uses (like we used to have) Nevertheless, Falk's soundbite terms do directly map to various articles in the conventions and we need to make that clear for readers. I'm familiar with the conventions, I'm not confused, I understand the legal realities and I'm not motivated by Falk's analysis. My motivation is to make sure this section is encyclopedic, brief and easy to understand precisely because it's a bit technical. I'm also keen to ensure due weight in this section because without it NPOV is fucked and NPOV is my main motivation in all I-P related things. If you find that surprising that tells you more about you than it does about me. :) This is the one part of the article I try to keep my eye on mainly because it's grows like a tumour. I'm not trying to make you look bad. I didn't realise you needed help with that. :) Anyway, yes we need sort out this section. Reducing it to about 4 sentences would be good. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some clear grammar issues with first paragraph IMO so I encourage editing in that respect. But I am strongly opposed to any statement by Falk that is not proceeded/succeeded with a phrase clarifying it is his opinion, accusation, allegation etc. In the end, we all know this, the GC has been used both both sides to scream at each other. I'm not disputing collective, disproportionate, or whatever according to humanitarian law, but this Falk's opinion on what has occurred. It is an allegation, not truth (not necessarily false). Maybe in 5 months when investigation looms and there is a verdict "punishing" Israel, I won't object. As a UN appointee, he obviously deserves a certain place in the article no doubt, but manipulating his words and saying, "Israel's actions violate GC...x..x..and x", won't stick. It's an allegation. The source says it's an allegation I'm sure, everyone who's reported on Falk explicit say "Falk accuses..yaddayaddayadda." Not, "According to the GC, Israel violated yaddayaddayyaddaa." You see where I'm going with this? This seems important to you so make a section, I'm sure other users have an opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation further up. According to Dore Gold, who has to be at least as unbiased as Mahmoud Abbas who is quoted above "According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it. " Dore Gold was Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is current president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Also from the article this paragraph in relation to "disproportionate force"

"Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage." In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort."

So perhaps you can begin to see why we cannot accuse and then add that these accusations constitute violations of the Geneva Conventions without trashing the NPOV. We can only use RS to make these accusations and tell us what the law is. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dore Gold is only one example. Could we incorperate his opinion somewhere in the article?

This constant objection towards what the UN says or do, is totally acceptable. But it cannot stand as the last word. I know of someone who constantly tries to remind us that the UN is well informed in these matters and that they are not censored. Whether or ANY of the involved parties are guilty of something is up for debate, but that they are being accused of something is not. Now, of course there could be opinions about the merits of the cases, but the UN and other parties cannot be attacked due to the information it provides(since it has little or no power among the 'powerful'). There is a rule in American Football, in a scuffle by opposing players, the referee will not 'flag' or penalize the player who started the quarrel or threw the first punch, but rather the one who retaliated. Fair? who cares, that's the rule, it would be better to learn and study why the rule is in effect rather than dismiss it on grounds that is "anti-rationale". Cryptonio (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, currently there are rebuttals by both sides against accusations by the UN and other parties, and even a counter-rebuttal by HRW on Hamas rationale(as there is also a counter-rebuttal on Israel's section). Lets leave the accusations made by the organizations alone and perhaps expand the rebuffs by the sides involve in this conflict, since we all can agree that the UN's and other organizations findings and points are not final. But lets not clear ANY sides of any wrongdoing. Cryptonio (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza war — As per the last RM discussion, there was clear consensus that a name change was needed, and there was rough consensus on "war". I have removed the "Israel", because that divided the !votes. I hope people will understand that this article needs renaming, even if Gaza war proves "temporary" it should beats the "temporary" one we have now. — Cerejota (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support - just do it.--Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support (Loosely)Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it is an improvement, simpler, easy to find, doesn't mention Hamas, romanised and therefore consistent with Naming conventions (Tibetan). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Semi-Support - Simple, but it needs a "2009" qualifier since there has been alot of other wars in Gaza even before 1948. --Darwish (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - We have done this same song and dance over and over again. 1. Gaza is NOT a country, 2. War was not declared on either side, and 3. this conflict is part of something bigger that has been going on for over 60 years.Knowledgekid8711:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if either side declared war (for instance see Vietnam War, or Korean War which was officially a 'police action'). All that matters is what do the sources call this. Nableezy (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War and the War of Attrition. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If your concern is that the article implies Gaza is a belligerent, the new name is better than the current one. Cerejota's suggestion has "Gaza" as the location of fighting whereas the current title has "Israel-Gaza" which could be read as a conflict between the two. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The media can eat up as much as they want on a story, it still cant be called a war. The biggest thing for me is that gaza isnt even a country. I just really think the title war is unneeded.Knowledgekid8723:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is your own logic and reasoning telling you that, or in other words WP:OR. I dont think War should really be used either (I would honestly favor Attack if my personal feeling matter), but we should be, as always, reflecting the sources judgment on such matters on not replacing that with our own. Nableezy (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seems ambiguous and unclear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• maybe we should start the survey again with the year, would that help ? e.g. 1430H Gaza War...oops I mean 2009 Gaza War. We could use the Thai calender to avoid the 2008/2009 transition, 2551 Gaza War...okay, maybe not. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose without a complete re-write of the article since this "war" did not start December 27, 2008. This article is intent on describing OCL and pretending that OCL is the whole "conflict" or "War." It is not. The conflict or war between Israel and Gaza has been ongoing. I believe it started when Israel withdrew her citizens and Gaza militants started rocketing Southern Israeli towns and villages. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand that you object to the scope of the article but why take it out on the poor title? Since this article describes only events during the military operation, shouldn't the title reflect the content? --JGGardiner (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Since the article describes only events during the military operation, as you say, it should be titled Operation Cast Lead, which I would support. However, OCL is only one operation in a larger Gaza conflict/war. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would only support this if it could be proved that most sources refer to the conflict as a war. For us to decide that it was a war is OR, since many could argue it was not, for many reasons. My understanding of the situation, is that some sources call it a war, but most do not. Kinetochore (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• That is better. It comes closer to expressing the actual name. It is also much easier for our readers to find. And that's really the most important thing. So I definitely support the change. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support moving the article to Israel's Offensive on Gaza. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see sufficient imperative for changing the name of an article that conforms with the names of all previous articles on the conflict. The distinction between 'conflict' and 'war' is a fine one, not one to forgo for the sake of simplicity. masqueraid 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masqueraid. I don't see the necessity or merit in the suggested change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support-- The term "conflict" is ambiguous. The article uses warfare related terms as "ceasefires", "attacks", "ground invasion", "air strikes", "combatant and non-combatant casualties", etc. The title should reflect this content. The "Gaza War" is use by the media 1 including the New York Times, and Washington Post. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support, for now and for all further proposals until eternity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title seems to be more appropriate an accurate to me. - fchd (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - even though I personally dont want to use the term 'War' as I think others are more fitting, my own opinions should not replace what the sources have said, and it seems pretty clear that they have in large used the term War. That either side did not declare war is irrelevant, that Gaza is not a country is irrelevant, all that is relevant in this discussion is what is the common English name, and that is determined by the usage in the sources. So I begrudgingly support the move. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that newspapers refer to current events and the names that they give to incidents are in the context of what's happening at the time. Thus they are not ambiguous for that present time-frame. However, in the context of a time-frame of years, the term Gaza War is ambiguous since there have been significant conflicts between Israel and Gaza in the past and there may be even more significant conflicts between them in the future. Please note that we need to keep the title unambiguous not just in the present time-frame, but in the timeframe that includes the past and the future too. Also, we want to keep the title consistent with other parts of Misplaced Pages. So the wiki should not be titled Gaza War. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I must second the above. Well put. masqueraid 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then we can change it in the future, but right now the RS are calling this the Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• A mere delay in changing the name of the article does not remove the problems associated with the change. This article exceeds and will exceed the scope and context of the sources you are referring to. Neither does a delay change the fact that nothing warrants this conflict to be labeled as the Gaza War as such conflict have and probably will happen in the future. Can you find such a previous precedent of changing the names of articles after a delay on Misplaced Pages? masqueraid 15:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to, because everything that was written was OR. That you think 'nothing warrants this conflict to be labeled as the Gaza War as such conflict have and probably will happen in the future' may very well be true, but it is your opinion. We are not bound by your, or mine, opinion, what we are bound by is that we use the most common English name that can be supported by the sources. Like you, I dont think War is the most appropriate term, though we differ in what term would be more correct, but my preference does not change the fact that the RSs are calling this the Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2004 Israel–Gaza conflict

2006 Israel–Gaza conflict

2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Please remember that The Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Content on Misplaced Pages is base on the of use reliable, third-party, published sources. It would be helpful if we start discussing about the use of the term in reliable sources and not personal opinions or other articles. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the link you gave, "other articles" and I could not find anything relevant to the present discussion. It appears to be about keeping, deleting, or creating a particular article or policy, not naming articles. Could you please identify more specifically what you think is relevant? Perhaps I missed something? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My point is that we are discussing changing the title of this article and no other articles. I can start pointing out all articles that use the term "war" but that is not helpful in any way. This discussion should be about this article's title and the use of the term "Gaza war" in reliable sources. If we keep the current title we should be more specific, this is a "armed conflict" not a diplomatic or domestic conflict. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Would it be more appropriate to say Israel-Hamas War? Are we talking about the "countries" involved or their armies? Israel could be multiple definition for its army and land/country, which is why I bring this up. I don't any objections to the current title and Israel-Gaza War or Gaza-War are just too vague. Tons of battles have been fought between Israel and in/around Gaza, what separates them? Certainly not the title, only the content - but the title is very important regardless. I'm neutral because in the end I really don't care and my main concern is not with the title, but the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes on my vote per requested discussion page guidelines: Supported by google news search it looks like. 2009 Gaza War could have worked if it would have waited about a week.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Something intresting I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/Gaza_war

Entering the words "Gaza War" in the searchbox, comes up with that article. It seems as if these conflicts are all connected.Knowledgekid8700:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Could just remove that redirect. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. To quote Bob K31416, "there have been significant conflicts between Israel and Gaza in the past and there may be even more significant conflicts between them in the future." The redirect refers to a general article about the conflict at large and is hence most appropriate. masqueraid 14:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If the commonly used name changes in the future we change this in the future. The sources call this the Gaza War. That is all that should matter here, not whether or not we think there are other Gaza Wars or if there will be more Gaza Wars in the future. All that matters is what do the sources call this. Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not meant to be, and isn't, a direct resemblance of the sources used to back the claims made herein. Rare, if any sources discuss this conflict as the Gaza War when treating the topic within the wider context of the conflict between Israel and the entities in control of Gaza.masqueraid 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

There is editor how consistently reverts much more then 3 edits per day on this article. Usually contributions from editors holding opposite POV. Looks like edit waring to me. I read WP:3RR, but I'm not sure if this rule talks about:

• more than 3 reverts in different parts of the same article
• reverting the same part again and again.

Does first case constitute 3RR ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes. but multiple reverts in a row count as one. Nableezy (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you quote and ref relevant rule? 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." WP:3RR. Nableezy (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But there is more to edit warring then 3RR, consistently having 2 reverts every day about the same thing where consensus is against you could be edit warring. Ask a more experienced user and they could probably explain it better than I could. Nableezy (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare

I'm removing this section. Looks like consistent WP:POV supported by Propaganda, to be more convincing. Israel warned number of times that if rocket fire from Governance of the Gaza Strip on civilian target in southern Israel will not stop ground offensive is on the way. I'm not sure what "lull" IDF broadcast mean, while militants continue to fire rockets. Only 37 have been destroyed, really ???. Maybe indeed Israel wanted to save civilian lives with leaflets.

• On December 25, 2008, After Israel had "wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered a 'Last Minute' Warning in an interview with the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya. "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger," he said.

• On December 26, 2008, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza for humanitarian supplies. At the same time, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shells from Gaza at Israel that Friday.

Welcome into discussion AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The section is well sourced, you cant just remove it without consensus. Nableezy (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing. Do you want to add anything on topic? Removal is a part of WP:BRD process. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And it was reverted, as have each of your attempts to remove sections at a time by other users. My on topic point is that it is not POV to say X has said something, no matter how POV what X said is. The section is well sourced and without OR, you cant just remove it because you dont like it. Nableezy (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Only 37 have been destroyed... 37 houses out of the HUNDREDS that were "warned" were destroyed.

The 'lull' is what Israel called the tactic they performed before the conflict, which involved radio address spreading 'false' information(false as we know it know, of course) and the source quotes an Israeli officer saying that was a psychological warfare tactic. Husbands and wives use these things. Cryptonio (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

Hamas military broadcast on the Internet claims that target of Israeli offensive is civilians of Gaza Strip. Israel claims that political and military leadership of Governance of the Gaza Strip was the target. I'm changing Palestinian side to what Misplaced Pages neutrally calls Governance of the Gaza Strip, looks more consistent with commanders flag and the rest of the article. The fact is there were Palestinians among combatants and civilian casualties also on Israeli side of the conflict. We should mention political and military entities which took part in fighting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we put Gaza as belligerent, the flag of Hamas is not the flag of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Compile error. Gaza is ambiguous:

Gaza

Gaza

Gaza

Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority secular nationalist flag is also wrong. Gaza leadership claims PNA/Fatah took part of fighting on Israel side. Some Fatah people were publicly killed by Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The belligerent is listed as 'Gaza'. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. The flag of Gaza is the flag of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused Nab: How is fighting Gaza different than fighting Hamas? Israel IS at war with Hamas, an organization which happens to be in Gaza. The title makes sense because it's natural to say Israel-Gaza conflict because those are "independent" states/territories. Similar to how the United States is "at war" with Iraq. However, I do not understand your reasoning why we put Gaza as a belligerent in the info box. Hamas is the belligerent, it seems fair to put their flag/symbol than the flag of the Palestinian Territories. I've looking through the past articles, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict , 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, in addition to the various operations and none of the articles show Gaza as the belligerent. None. The question of truth: What separates those wars/conflicts/freedom fighting/whatever from this article? Why the difference? This may have already been discussed in a prior consensus but I can't find it in search. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the IDF being the belligerent in one of the sides. Although Hamas is the largest fighting force in Gaza, there are other groups of fighters as well fighting against the IDF. We must wait till Palestine is recognized by Israel in order for the territory' to have an official standing Army. Cryptonio (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is assumed. Israel fights wars with the IDF. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The line 'Israel IS at war with Hamas' is purely the Israeli POV, we do not present it as fact just because they, or you, say so. Your past articles are slightly off in that most of them did not occur when Hamas was the government of Gaza and none of them contained what many of the sources call a 'war'. I did not change it to Gaza, a pro-Israeli user did in a compromise to reduce the size of the infobox from listing each militant group who says they are fighting with Hamas, including Fatah. And it has been there since. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do present this as fact because this conflict is obviously about Israel's campaign against Hamas infrastructure, not "other other groups of fighters." The references used in the article explicitly make it clear that Israel's aim is Hamas, not Fatah, not any other group unless they happen to be with Hamas. Can you find me a notable source in this article that mentions another militant group that is not part of Hamas being attacked by Israel? The fact that Hamas is now the de-facto majority ruler over the Gaza is even more of a reason for inclusion. It makes sense to include "Hamas" as the belligerent, not Gaza, and certainly not Fatah. From what I understand according to the references. Hamas and Fatah have dozens, if not more, of various cells and organizations, but almost all connect up with their dominant party. As far as I know there aren't a whole lot of notable independent militant groups within Gaza, as most of them have been brutally suppressed for refusing to assimilate with Hamas.

I really don't understand why you must insist this is a POV issue, I provided similar articles and logical reasoning, not opinionated POV-pushing. Let me make it clear: this has nothing to do with POV. I simply want the infobox to reflect what is actually going on (according to RS), not the opinion of editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And according to the RSs Gaza's infrastructure has been destroyed, not Hamas infrastructure. And because Hamas is the government of Gaza, and attack on Hamas is by definition an attack on Gaza, when governments are at war their countries/territories are at war. It was not the Republican/Ba'ath War (either time). It might be what Israel's aim is, but that doesn't really matter, we say what Israel's stated aim is in the article. But it is not a fact that they attacked Hamas, it is however a fact that they attacked Gaza. And yes, it has a great deal to do with your POV. And every single militia in Gaza, from Fatah to the PFLP to a few more said they fought with Hamas. And that was also supported by the sources, not somebody's need to see the Israeli governments line be used as fact in an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties chart

Agada, I've put the chart back for now because I didn't understand your removal on the basis of 'no consensus'. Did I miss that discussion ? Where is it ? It's a major change for the article in my view so I just wanted to give people a chance to discuss it. I'm neutral on it but others may not be I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean I mentioned in commit log that No consensous for inclusion of disputed Body countCounting casualties of Gaza's war http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855070.stm This chart is far from being a fact as section wording suggests. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice save. It is extremely bad faith to remove an illustration that has been in the article for more than a month without even going to talk. But I honestly didn't even notice the picture, so perhaps it was a good thing he did this. To be frank, after reviewing the picture I don't see why it is necessary or notable. I will summarize my complaints with bullets to avoid confusion.

Here is the picture in question since Sean didn't post: Shazaaam

• First and probably the most superficial claim is the that the picture is incredibly crude. Almost as if it was made from paint. Not hard enough to remove, but I thought I should mention it.

• Second - Is it necessary? We already have a casualty box, that makes it clear the numbers are estimated and disputed, which brings me to my next point.

• Third - statistics. We are at a point where objectivity is a crucial issue here, and it doesn't seem fair to include an illustrated diagram that carries disputed casualty numbers without emphasizing that they are estimates at best. But this is probably the most arguable point considering how emotional some users might become...so, my next point.

• Fourth - Sources. Reuters and UN are feeding their info from the Hamas-run ministry of health, and Jpost is simply citing stats from Israel casualties. This creates are a false sense of objectivity, listing multiple sources gives the impression the numbers are being widely-covered..but they aren't. They're simply verifying each other. This also creates confusion, the jpost article doesn't cover the Gaza casualties (or else I don't think it does because the article won't load), and the PMH is only reporting Gaza casualties. Reuters is reporting both sides.

I'm all for a diagram, but as far as I can tell there is very little reason to include it unless it manages to paint a clear and neutral picture, and not condense everything into a sloppy illustration. It might have been necessary a month ago, but with all the information we have I no longer see the point other than conveying a half-truth summary. In short, the casualty box is everything the diagram isn't. Unless it offers some unique perspective and is clearly neutral, I'm all for it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now(the current location) the chart adds aestheticism to the page(if per the opposition's rationale 'we are presenting a product to our clients'). I don't think is our job to either inform or misinform our readers, since I don't think a reader should use wiki to make up their minds. But we could help them by making the article and its information accessible and I think that's the only reason why the chart is/or was there. The numbers in them is a different story and I don't see any argument against them(at least for the exclusion of them in general in the article). Cryptonio (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/04/20090104gaza0124.html
2. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2095127.ece
3. Cite error: The named reference sfgate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Bengali, Shashank (2009-01-31). "Still in charge, Hamas attacking Fatah rivals". Miami Herald. Retrieved 2009-02-01. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
5. "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - January 7, 2009, 1700 hours". UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2009-1-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
6. "Olmert Delivers 'Last Minute' Warning to Gaza". December 25, 2008.
7. "Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings". The New York Times. December 26, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles