Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009): Difference between revisions

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

Intro

Moved to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

I am trying to gather stuff forma military history perspective on Operation Cast Lead, for example, "orders of battle", units involved, notable commanders, hardware etc. I feel this information is relevant but needs to be gathered and shaped first. Please drop anything here: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead. Thanks!

Request permission to upload photo

I want to know if would be okay to upload a photo of a victim of the Israeli assault. The victim is a "baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank." [1] I know user:23prootie(backed by a few other users) has contested the use of other photos because they were not of "the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children" and that the photos were not "tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood)" and there were copyright issues.

But this image past the tests because it is

1. of a child 2. Black and white, no blood. 3. Under a license accepted by wikipedia.

I have also uploaded an image of destroyed buildings [2]. I believe no one will contest that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realized how are we supposed to find photos of victims that contain no blood. They didn't die from pneumonia! La Howla - Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to elaborate on the 'Under a license accepted by wikipedia' ? Is the provenance of this image known because we seem to keep hitting issues with people putting AFP and such like photos on flickr ? I swear that in the end we're going to end up with images of the cats and dogs killed on both sides because everyone likes cats and dogs. What next, architects complaining that showing images of destroyed buildings is pornographic ? Bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The photos are released under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, the photos were uploaded by an organization called the ISM, and their web site links to the flickr account [3]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just trawled through hundreds of photos in the getty image library looking for this picture just in case it's AFP etc. I couldn't find it. That of course proves nothing but that's where these kind of images have been before. Does that help in the slightest ? Not sure. Hopefully including this photo won't turn into a 'prove with absolute 100% certainty that evolution through natural selection is a fact' type of argument over the provenance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that this is the original work of the organization. I know that there are people on flickr who upload images from AFP, as you have mentioned, but I do think that based on different factors (It is a Palestinian-based organization, they have access to Gaza, they have photos not found on any other news site that I have seen), I do think that these are their photos. Works that are not theirs but are in their photostream are under all rights reserved tags, meaning we can't use them. The works under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 can be trusted as their work. The only problem is whether uploading it will lead to another edit war. I need clearance. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This ISM photostream is really helpful. Personally I would give higher priority to wide angle photos of the devastation caused by 'precision bombing' if there's going to be yet another controversy over images coming out of Gaza. I think the priority should be so show what defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[56] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. looks like given that that is apparently what this is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are not many photos with a bigger scope of the destruction, let alone pictures free for us to use. I chose that particular photo of the buildings because it is taken from a distance allowing for a bigger glimpse of the destruction. I don't think anyone will object to the photo that I have added already. As for the photo of the infant, there is not many shots of the victims of the assault, the ones available at ISM are shot from a close angle featuring only one victim in each photo. So the options are limited to us, thus we use what we have. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough..and before anyone starts contesting graphic images again showing dead and injured people (..not wishing to jump down anyone's throat before they've even said a word but I'm going to anyway...) can I ask them first to test their arguments in the contexts of other articles e.g. Viet Nam war and so on and so forth to make sure they make sense as other people have tried to point out. Alternatively if this event is a somehow a special case let's hear those arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the photo with the caption "Almost one third of the victims are children including this infant killed in an explosion caused by Israelis in Attattra, northwestern Gaza" and already user:Thingg has reverted. Thus the edit war has begun, to be continued...--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of this discussion. I'm just trying to help out.... :( Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong and I can understand your action. Thanks for reverting your edit and you are free to share your thoughts on the matter. The discussions are mostly in the archive, but I summarized some of the main points in the first post of this thread. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This image was removed between last night and this morning. I don't know by whom or for what reason, but it seemed like there was consensus here about its inclusion. I would like to remind everyone on this page of wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit [4]. I restored the image and I will leave a note on the user's page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this picture, WP:NPOV --Rick Smit (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No...and Why? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to include this picture, then- for balance- we should include a picture of one of the elementary school children's playgrounds that Hamas has fired a rocket into. The Squicks (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

balance? you do realize that 98 percent of the killed were killed by Israelis. So you think 2 percent Israelis = 98 percent Gazans and others killed by Israelis?? If you want to add the Israeli photo, go ahead and add at least 20 more Palestinian photos. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the image here on the Talk page before but it was removed by User:The Squicks with this edit who claimed it blocked his ability to post comments (unaware no doubt that without notifying me, it could constitute a form of vandalism). I am reposting the image in a smaller form so we will all know what exactly we are talking about (in anticipation of its next removal without an edit summary). I have no problem whatsoever of posting other images for balance. I do think an honest portrayal of the events on the ground is in order (something that is difficult because, to my understanding, international journalists have been denied entrance into Gaza by the IDF in violation of an Israeli court order). This makes the posting of this particular image all the more pressing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, balance but proportion as well.

Fallacy arguments such as if we don't have A we should not have B doesn't work. While they were two photos related to Hamas attacks and none of the impact from Israeli's attacks, no one advocated removing the two photo. Instead I found one of the latter and added it to the article. The argument if we find A, then we can have B doesn't fly. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby: Let me try to understand your logic. Since the Palestinians have failed to kill any Israeli children so far due to luck, the childrens' preperations, and their own inspid incompetence, that means that those attacks morally mean less compared to the Israelis one's that succeeded? How does that fly, morally? Is there any moral difference between trying to kill someone and failing and trying to kill someone and succeeding? If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level? The Squicks (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks are you going to compare the type and amount of firepower used by both sides as being the same?? The images aren't about what each side has attempted to do, it is about what they already have done. You show the results with the images and I did say balance but proportion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no inherent objection to including the picture. I just support morally proportionate balance. So, if we represent the 'A' side with a picture we need to represent the 'B' side with another picture. I would like it if Cdogsimmons or another editor would find a 'B' side picture. (I can't do it myself, since I have never used Flicker and the other sites).

The firepower is not the same, but I'm not talking about firepower- I'm talking about both moral sides. There is an equally valid point of view on both sides. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. But anyway, I did say add a photo though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo. Remember there is only one Palestinian photo, not 20, not 5, not 2. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The body count speaks for itself. Balance in the article IS a concern. I see no problem with presenting accurate, well sourced images portraying both sides of the conflict. As I indicated before, the IDF's censorship of the International Press is an impediment to that goal. If you want to put in 20 pictures why don't you try doing that and we'll see what the result is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have access to photos that are under the same license from the same source. But I didn't think that I needed to add anymore and that they didn't represent a bigger scope of the carnage. Here they are [5] [6] [7] [8][9] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please upload more photos to the Commons. Other Wikipedias in many languages need the selection of photos. We also need a variety of photos of Israeli casualties. We also need more bomb damage photos from both within Israel and the Gaza Strip. Please see all the subcategories of commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Create more subcategories if necessary. It is difficult to find these type of free images for any conflict or war. Please upload them. See commons:Category:War casualties and commons:Category:War damage --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the inspid incompetence seems to be present on both sides seeing that Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right... At least the IDF is trying to sort out the militants from the civilians they're hiding among. Hamas fires rockets almost exclusively at population centers, and sends suicide bombers to explode in buses, restaurants and night clubs. Do you not see the moral difference here? Rabend (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Um dropping one ton bombs and firing missiles in densely populated areas doesn't suggest sorting out the militants from the civilians. No one buys the collateral damage excuse. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Always the victim, forever and ever. Rabend (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo? We had the reverse situation before (an Israeli bias in photos), some users complained, and then the situation was resolved in a civil way with a compromise. Why can't we do what now? The Squicks (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't resolved until I added the photos, and even then it is still being contested. Do what I did. Search for the photos, learn how to upload them, upload them, insert them and then prepare to defend the usage. Don't expect others to do this for you like I did. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I attempt to do that if you and other editors are just going to prevent me from adding a photo? The Squicks (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not going to do that, assuming that the photo you find meets the set criteria for inclusion. And because you care about improving the quality of the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I would be the one to challenge your photo. Go ahead and find a photo and photos of any of the three Israeli casualties or the injured, or the shocked victims. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, you are being very provocative. on one hand, you said this is Wikipedia, and we're only here to report, and on the other you've said "Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them.". I suggest you calm down as you are not helping this discussion. Also, the article itself currently states "*Casualty figures in Gaza cannot yet be independently verified" in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezek (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Nezek, I was quoting The Squicks. "This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report" is not my statement, it is his. He wanted to debated the morality, and we debated it. I don't mind debating it, and of course he initiated the conversation. Being pro Israeli, The Squicks's words were like beautiful music to your ears, while my response (using the same language), was provocative and angry to you. In the end, I could give a rats a** what you say. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're being oh-so immature throughout this whole talk page. Since you took the time to explain yourself, you obviously do care what I think. It doesn't matter pro-what are you, and how you justify it: you aren't helping by arguing politics, so stop it. --Nezek (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're being oh-so useless throughout this whole thing. Why don't you contribute something worth the time you spend commenting on my comments. Your posts don't contribute anything other than to bait people. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is as much my place as anyone else's to tell you to stop initiating debates that contain your personal views and unverified claims. So please, don't tell me where I contribute and to go somewhere else. I'm trying keep the neutrality of this article. If anything, your personal attacks, temper, and language are attempts to bait people, and that can be said for other discussions you're a part of. For example: [10] [11] [12] [13]. I only suggested you think about your replies. As you should for your next one on this thread. --Nezek (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of your worthy contributions....Oh, but there is none. This is just the most pathetic display of whining. Why stop there, make a list of all the edits of mine that you think are "bad" and cry about them. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I want and hopefully you have more for your list. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You've made yourself into a "bad boy" in your own head, as if anyone cares, And you're trying to call /my/ comments pathetic. Man, you're measuring contributions as if they were a currency! There is nothing more ridiculous than a Wikipedian getting all defensive over a talk page comment that tells him to chill. If you don't want to take my advice, you're welcome to ignore it. --Nezek (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks: "If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level?" This is the old "intent" argument used by Israeli propaganda: Israel kill unintentionally, so Israel deserves only praise, while Palestinians kill intentionally so Palestinians deserve to die.

• And our information about intent comes from where? -- from Israel, of course! That is like getting our information about Jewish "intent" from German propaganda. But that is only half of the problem.
• The other half is that the focus on intent opens the door to thought crime, something I as an American find utterly repugnant. If someone breaks into my house and murders my children, and I try to kill the intruder, who is more blameworthy? By your intent logic, I am! -- after all, I intend to kill the intruder, whereas the intruder, who murders my children in cold-blood, without passion or intent, is blameless!
• What you fail to take into account is the justification for the intent. If I live in a place that has been under a murderous occupation for forty years, then I have good reason to hate the occupation forces: my hostile intent is justifiable.
• Condemning me for my intent alone inverts the moral order and facilitates a delusional blame the victim worldview -- delusional, because there is only so much blood we can squeeze out of a stone, as the current slaughter in the Gaza Strip demonstrates. Eventually, we run out of hospitals to bomb -- accidentally of course -- and then what do we do? NonZionist (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infantvictim.jpg‎ && Casualties

Let's stay calm everybody. Don't make these issues personal. They should not be personal. Making things personal only messes things up. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's verifiable, refer to the video link posted above under section 'Photos'.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also recommend discussing this in the section above devoted to this subject already. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What mates it represent the casualties unfairly? That was a real child who was killed on the Palestinian side, there are about 1000 vs 10 deaths. So I don't see what's represented unfairly — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are tasteless, offensive, and sensationalistic images all over wikipedia. Man, there is child pornography in here: Virgin Killer. Yeah, this is offensive to Israeli interests, but we are not here to take care of the ego of one side of a conflict, I am here to write an encyclopedia, which usually are better served by pictures. That said I will support removal if that is consensus, and if it is proven that the image is doctored, false, from another conflict, or a copy-vio. I am sure that if this is the case CAMERA will continue their selfless struggle for accuracy and find it - unless, of course, the image is true, in which case some other way to make it the others fault will be found. Until then, your reasons are not good reasons to remove, nor reasons to remove antisemitic protests in San Francisco (which if I am not mistaken, were not removed, but moved to an appropiate sub-article). --Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you're going to make up your own comment and respond to that like Cdog did below, I'm not responding to you either. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

moved by Superpie (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Sensationalist? What does that mean? If you are shocked by this image, perhaps it is because the thought of dead children is shocking. As a matter of FACT, there are 300 of them in the Gaza strip today as a result of this conflict. As a father of a 6 month old, I personally don't like this picture any more than you do. I wish it didn't exist. But to remove this image is TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!! This is the reality. A dead child. If you want a cookie cutter version of that reality reflected by wikipedia we have vastly different ideas about what this project is about. I refer again to our set policy that wikipedia is not censored - WP:CENSOR. "Sensationalism" is in the eye of the beholder for which I do not see a set policy. I don't understand you when you say that this dead child is the "fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties" besides my perception that you would like to minimize the importance of this image for whatever reason I have no idea. This is the image that we have. If you want to give us other images to debate lets debate them, but don't hand me a line like "you don't like this picture so it shouldn't be here". It's about as effective as the 5 anonymous editors who have tried to surreptitiously remove the image while no one was looking in the last two days.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything that Cdogsimmons said multiplied by 300. Perhaps we should step back a bit and make a list of the mandatory minimum requirement in terms of images for this article i.e. identify key themes e.g. lots of dead/injured human beings, trashed infrastructure/medical stuff, no food/water, rocket attacks, demonstrations and so on and make/agree a list of what must be in this article to illustrate what is happening for a reader. It might provide a bit of structure to efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I am almost appalled that you say you agree with him, considering you're generally civil and on the mark (as in the remainder of your comment, sans the first sentence). Hopefully you only agreed with the content of Cdog's comment, rather than its tenor, although I'm not even sure why you would do even that, because Cdog for some reason seems to think "babies" and "children" are equivalent (apparently just for the sake of his arguement). Even though I specifically say "I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be)" he centered his whole arguement around the fact that many children are dying and the allegation that I just don't want gruesome images in the article. But, as I said, if Cdog just wants to yell and scream about something, he can go to his corner and do that. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cdog, try this for a second: Read my comment aloud, and then get a friend to read yours, ensuring he includes the SHOUTING!!!! you implied with your comment. Your reaction in that scenario should hopefully be something to the effect of well, if the guy's going to be such a jerk about it, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to him. I just wanted you to act that out so it would be no surprise to you when I say that if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, please don't take me too literally, I'm rarely literal. I'm not advocating a gallery of 300 dead babies, that can be left to contemporary artists. Yes, I agreed with the content rather than it's tenor. I like peace and quiet. The basic problem is of course that we somehow must show what has happened in a way that genuinely adds value to the article and it will certainly upset some people. I have no strong attachment to this particular image but nor do I see a charred dead baby as either "Sensationalism" or different in any way whatsoever from a dead adult, child, soldier or militant. Maybe that's just me but I really don't. One thing I tried to say before somewhere is that these moral judgements people make about images are often based of local/regional/religious etc cultural value systems that can't be extrapolated globally and Wikipedia is global. What you find acceptable/unacceptable/sensationalist will of course be based on a local set of rules in your head/society. Those rules won't necessary make any sense whatsoever in a different place. For example, feet are extremely offensive here but there's no hesitation in showing blood and guts in the media. Death has a completely different treatment in a Buddhist society vs others. We need to find the best images for the article. I don't know what they should be but I'm not willing to exclude any on the basis of local cultural tastes/values. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

..and to me choosing the images is an optimisation problem not a moral problem. The objective is a good encyclopedia article and not moral/cultural imprinting by inclusion or exclusion of material. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. and on that note I would like to bring up what tariqabjotu said above. If this image really is "at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties", and can be verified as an extreme and isolated case, it would mean it doesn't fairly represent the Palestinian casualties, and should be removed. I especially want to hear tariq's say and what sources he is basing this on. --Nezek (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjot, you appear to be pretty quick to say my argument is not worth responding to because of those three capitalized words. You said, "if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you." And on my talk page you said, "judging by your comment on the article talk page, mere words are incomprehensible to you" which I take to be close to a personal attack. My comments were not intended to offend but to stress the importance of the issue. Perhaps I was out of line although I notice you like to use bold yourself. But what's up? I asked you an honest question about a matter of policy [14] and you respond saying I'm not worth talking to. I'm not very happy about such a response, especially from an Administrator and a member of the Mediation Committee. Just so we stay on track, you cited WP:UNDUE on my talk page as the reason why this photo should be removed for "Sensationalism." I really don't think that one picture of a casualty on this very long page is undue. And I don't think the picture is as clearly sensationalist as you claim it to be. Now there is also a picture of a wounded man near the bottom of the page. So maybe it does violate WP:UNDUE. (I really shouldn't have to make these arguments for you). Two pictures of two of over 5000 Palestinian casualties. Is that undue? Do you want to take a vote? I also second what Nezek and Sean.hoyland said above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, Cdog, you're making up your own comment and then responding to that. You are simplifying my point to "I have a problem with images of casualties" or even "I have a problem with images of dead children". As the original comment said, but you have ignored twice, my complaint comes from the fact that we're showing a dead baby. How many babies have been killed in the conflict? I don't know, and I am unable to find a source that suggests a significant proportion of the people killed have been babies. However, infants and babies hardly get a mention in the article (once or twice in this collosal article). We only have five dead babies confirmed in the text of the article, and one of those is pictured in the article. Out of a 1100+ casulaties, we're representing these five mentioned in the article. I don't think we should assume there are a significant number more are dead babies, unless we can demonstrate that is the case. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But Tariq, the picture fairly represents the injury to the baby, an individual. Many people have died in many different ways. Practically we don't have the luxury of doing an injury frequency analysis and picking the mode, selecting an image of a victim with the associated cause of death from a library of victims categorised by cause of death and so on in an attempt to somehow comply with a novel interpretation of WP:UNDUE. A Palestinian died as a direct result of IDF actions, she was a baby, we have a picture, that's it. We need more pictures so that we can find the best ones to illustrate what happened. We should approach that in a dispassionate way to optimise the quality of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are OK with uploading the image.Trent370 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, maybe you (based on your 14:42, 16 January 2009 comment) are incapable of seeing the difference between an adult and a child (and by extension a baby), but I think it's obvious to everyone else. That's why we (and the media) have capitalized on the number of women killed, the number of children killed, and, now, the fact that babies were killed. Those are important distinctions. We're choosing to illustrate Palestinian deaths by depicting the most defenseless human being possible. If a significant number of babies were killed, then it's appropriate. But, I see no evidence of that in the article or anywhere else. You're pulling the classic slippery slope fallacy; I'm not asking that we create a catalog of images of victims, and select based on a variety of factors that you're inventing to just to make your arguement, so let's drop that line of attack. Again, if you want to make up a comment, and respond to that, fine. Don't involve me. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, thank you for clarifying your point. As I've said before on this page, I have no problem with other pictures being presented. I have no problem choosing pictures that are representative of the conflict. To my knowledge, there are NO other pictures of any dead individuals (babies, children, adults, the elderly, Hamas members, non-Hamas members, etc.) available at this time on Wikipedia. None. At least none have been brought to my attention. There was a picture showing a number of dead Hamas policemen on this page earlier but it was removed for copyright reasons. Your argument appears to be that this picture only represents dead babies. I disagree. I think of babies as being within the category of children so I think it is also representative of dead children. I also think of babies as being individuals so the picture is representative of dead individuals. I also tend to think of the dead as being casualties, so the picture is representative of casualties. I object to the way you are personalizing this as you did in the comment above aimed at Sean.hoyland ("maybe you... are incapable") and your previous comments made toward myself. Allow me to reiterate, as I have said before on more than one occasion on this page, I have no objection to you or anyone else presenting other images to post on this page that might be more "representative". I do have a problem with people trying to remove this image without debate after there was some consensus found to keep it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the article because of the presence of the image, I feel too sick with it being there to be able to concentrate on the wording. So, to me, removing the image from the article would not amount to censorship, because its presence already acts as a barrier to me reading the no doubt neutrally worded, sourced and informative text on the conflict. Of course it is sensationalist, and not in any way necessary for understanding the article. But I doubt anybody cares about such cold hard logic. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus bombs

I added to this article a statement regarding the IDF’s use of white-phosphorus bombs, and provided a source to support it. However, within 15 minutes 'Jalapenos do exist' removed it without discussion. Does anyone else agree that it is a very relevant issue within the current conflict, and should be mentioned in the article? Palestinian doctors are seeing a large number of civilians arriving at hospital with serious chemical burns, and an independent source (HRW) has supplied video footage of the bombs being deployed. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why he would. It is an important element and it is verifiable by many reliable news source. I will restore the section, and if he doesn't like it, he should be the one to take it the talk page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is, since dumping phosphorous is legal. As well, wouldn't you rather have a lit battlefield where the militants can be targeted and the innocent civilians spared rather than an unlit battlefield where the IDF has no choice but to destroy everyone in the area? Regardless, I expanded the section and think that it should stay. The Squicks (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd rather that they be brutally scorched and physically scarred for the rest of their lives rather than for them to be put out of their misery. No, I rather that both things didn't occur. That loaded question is offensive. And the point is of this discussion is that the use of white phosphorus is one of controversy, thus it belongs in that section. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are any sources claiming Israel is using WP as a weapon (like coalition use of 'shake and bake in Iraq' - which is probably illegal), and not just for smoke/illumination (clearly legit, I think)? The HRW note by Reuters even underscored that they had only seen it used for the latter purpose. kzm (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, that's undeniable and this article is supposed to provide a comprehensive understanding of what is actually happening 'in theatre' to use that deeply offensive term. Furthermore, surveys show that 9 out of 10 parents would rather that lethal projectiles of any nature were not rained down on the streets where their children play so removing it seems weird. Okay, I just made that up but you get the point. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that phosphorous is legal too. I thought the issue was really about Dense inert metal explosive which really are pretty controversial and perhaps are not well understood in terms of their long term health implications. Anyway, I'll leave it to you guys. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)..I'm not saying they are being used by the way, I'm saying that injuries have been seen by a couple of medics which they say are consistent with that weapon being used etc etc..previous IDF activities..etc etc..and so on. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Logicman, I explained in my edit summary why I removed it. On that note, I recommend reading edit summaries of edits that interest you. To repeat: the issue was included in the section "Alleged violations of international law". I read the sources you provided, and in those sources there was no allegation of an international law violation, nor was there a refutation of such an allegation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Happy editing.

Here is what B'tselem has to say about the legality of the use of white phosphorous: 'The Third Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which relates to incendiary weapons, states that such weapons may only be used against military objects. When the military object is located within a civilian area, the use of phosphorous is absolutely prohibited.

Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.

The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel’s obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.' [15], so your contention that this use of phosphorus is legal is incorrect. It may only legally be used as a smoke screen and only against a military object outside of a civilian area. Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Btselem contradicting the International Red Cross with that statement? The Squicks (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, both groups say it is acceptable to use as a smoke screen in a non-civilian area, both also say that the use of it as a weapon in a civilian area is not acceptable. The ICRC is saying that they have not used it in this way, but they have not said that it is permissible to use as a weapon as B'Tselem is accusing them of doing. But yes, the ICRC has said that the IDF has not used it in this manner. I was just disputing the assertion that 'dumping phosphorous is legal' Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And HRW has accused them of using it as a weapon in this illegal manner. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, here is a link to BBC News that talks of the use of white phosphorous. It also mentions the UN allegations of illegal Israeli use of the stuff (in other words, it is a legal weapon, but they are using it against civilians, which is illegal). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm Someone reference that in the article. That constitutes an alleged war crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.50.218 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the use of white phosphorous be considered chemical warfare? Trent370 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell is there hardly any mention of the white phosphorous and its potentially illegal usage in this article? I don't understand, as there are plenty of sources from the UN and news media talking about how the Israelis are using it in their bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.25.125 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Section titled: "Iranian involvment"

As Iranian involvement is widely reported as an important feature of this conflict, please feel free to improve upon but not merely delete all related content as Pietru il-Boqli did [| here] and Tiamut did [| here].

Below is the content of the Iranian involvement section at the time of this post:

Iran is viewed by many observers to be a serious component of the "Battle of Gaza." [[16]] Hosni Mubarak warned that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." [[17]] Saudi Arabia's [Shura Council] member Mohammed Abdallah Al Zulfa stated that "Iran is the big threat in today’s world, supporting all the terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah to some other terrorists that we don’t know their names yet," and that "Iran destabilized the region by supporting all the illegal activities and activists such as Hamas." [[18]] "Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman reportedly told the Israelis that Egypt wouldn’t oppose a quick strike designed to bring down Hamas." Palestinian Authority chief Abu Mazen blames Hamas, which is largely an Iranian proxy, for the fighting."[[19]] Hamas "has drawn itself increasingly into Iran's orbit. Much of its imported weaponry, and the expertise with which it now produces and refines its own rockets, have been provided by Iran. Dozens of its commanders have been trained in Iran in recent years, coming home and disseminating that 'education' as Hamas has built an army in Gaza. And, increasingly too, Hamas has come to act in the service of Iran's aims," according to a Jerusalem Post analysis. [[20]]

Doright (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the archived discussions, people decided that it was not good to start section on "Iranian involvement" or "US involvement" because it would never end. If you do insist on including this section, I will insist on a section on US arms supplies to Israel. US involvement is well-documented as a matter of official record and extends past some US/Israeli rhetoric and allegations that has yet to be confirmed by anyone. Tiamut^talk 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Exclusion

Tiamut, please provide a link showing where "people decided" the article should NOT represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue and that WP:RS views of prominent academics regarding the Gaza conflict should be entirely excluded from this article. As cited above, for example, Dr. Michael Ledeen states in the published article: "Everyone in the Middle East knows that the serious component of the Battle of Gaza is all about Iran." My entire edit contribution is merely a summary of his article. All the material is his. I merely included the links to his references. Doright (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You need to read the archives, it is not our responsibility to bring you up to speed on all these issues and the discussions pertaining to them. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian involvment cont.

BTW, all the references Doright mention are old references that are not related to the article anyway. Even the single 28 Decemember reference he cited mentions a pre-28-December quote. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it again, every reference cited in that section; is either: a)Journalist opinion, b)News agencies analysis, or c)pre-war events and quotes. The section has summed up neatly all the kind of references that can not be used in our article.--Darwish07 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Congress Cheers Israeli War on Gaza
• Bush Ordered US to Abstain From Gaza Vote
• Rights Groups Condemn US Role in Gaza Conflict
• Rice: Hard for Israel to Avoid Killing Gaza Civilians
• US Abstention Stuns Security Council
• American Weaponry Facilitates Killings in Gaza
• British Link With Drone Aiding the Israeli War Effort
• US Says Arms Shipment to Israel Not Linked to Gaza

And here are articles about Iran:

• In Washington, All Roads Lead to Tehran
• Iran Bans Activists From Fighting Israel
• Tehran Opts for 'Moral Support' in Gaza War

The attempt to draw Iran into this slaughter is yet another indication that Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan is being used as the script. The attack on the Gaza Strip is not an "intensification" of a conflict with Palestinians as the introduction suggests: It is a continuation of a conflict with the entire region. Here's the timeline:

• 1996: "Clean Break" hatched
• 2000: Neo-con PNAC calls for "new Pearl Harbor"
• 2001: PNAC gets its wish
• 2003: 9/11 used as pretext for destroying Iraq
• 2006: Israel destroys Lebanon
• 2007: Israel bombs Syrian installation
• 2008: Israel wipes out the Gaza Strip
• 2009: Israel gets U.S. to wipe out Iran and Syria

But, of course, we're supposed to pretend that all of these invasions exist in isolation. NonZionist (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, enough with the secret-evil-puppet-master-Zionist-moneybanker-scheme-to-conquer-the-world stuff. You have your own sandbox. Use it. Don't clog up article talk pages. The Squicks (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a valid point, that Iranian involvement in this conflict is negligible to US involvement. There are RS articles about shipments of arms immediately prior to the initial attack, along with RS detailing US denials that the two are related, as well as the boasts of Olmert that he convinced Bush to order the abstention of the UNSC resolution. And if the 'Iranian Involvement' section were to include allegations from the past about funding or other support, that would surely open up a 'US Involvement' to further detail past support of Israel. And I don't see the word Zionist anywhere anywhere in his post besides his username. I would say neither belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Iranian involvement is NULL compared to the US involvement. This Iranian section is totally based on quotes from the past and a couple of journalists opinions, thus if this section to be added, I have the rights to extract unbelievable facts from the academic paper "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". And no one will be able to attack it cause it's considered a reliable source. People want to play the that game? I think it's just better for everybody to stick to the war facts and not bring our own views on here.--Darwish07 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian involvement in NULL? Hardly. Just like Hizbollah (which is also a military organization that took its own people hostage in the name of religious(?) belligerence), Hamas is a militant organization that is heavily dependant on Iran. Anyone with access to intelligence information will tell you that. Media information, however, is a whole other story, the difference being that the US and Israel are western democracies, which by nature allow more access to info and as a result more can be discovered by reporters, while Hamas and Iran run dictatorships whose leaders are elected democratically. As such, there's pretty much no free info or room for journalistic investigation there, and if you publish the wrong kind of article, the Iranian governemnt will shut down your newspapar. So the fact that there are less reports about Iranian involvement do not necessarily weaken this statement, but rather reflects the amount of freedom that a reporter has. Rabend (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Iran involvement = NULL for the sake of soapboxing, but I said that it's null "compared to the US involvement". It's not our job to assume what the situation of a country is, or bring opinions that's not reliably cited. As I said above, all the cited references are:

• Journalists opinions
• News agencies analysis
• pre-war events

which isn't accepted in Wikipedia. My reply is simple, if we're going to return back in time and dig in opinions and analysis for Iranian involvement, we can add a 300-page paragraph describing the US involvement alone. For the sake of avoiding useless and ugly debates, and to avoid digging in events pre-war, this section must be removed. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The place for details of support Iran might provide to Palestinian organisations belongs in the separate articles on those particular groups. The section on Iranian involvement in this current Gaza conflict should be deleted immediately. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The simplest approach is to not deal with who is supplying who in this article. Apart from anything else the volume of material supplied by the US and Iran are differemt by many orders of magnitude so it's simply absurd to just mention the Iranian supply chain. 125.27.13.215 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a section documenting the heavy U.S. involvement. The huge involvement by foreign powers turns the conflict into a global one. NonZionist (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted the whole section. The whole article was sliding to utter nonsense, sorry. The references of both the Iranian and the US sections was of funny quality. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran vs. US involvement:

First, the United States government is heavily involved in supplying Israel. It has been since the Eisenhower Administration, although actual amounts of aid have varied from year-to-year. The U.S. has also heavily supplied numerous other countries, including Egypt. I oppose adding either a U.S. section or an Iran section, since both countries are in fact "interested spectators," although the different between U.S. Aid is that the United States has supplied weapons and supplies and money (the last two though private citizens and NGOs) and even a handful of U.S. Jewish (and fewer non-Jewish) volunteers and immigrants, while Iran has supplied both weapons, money and the Iranian equivalent of the Green Berets. (Namely, a few companies of trainers/elite militants) who provide aid and training to Hamas Forces, as well as proxy aid from the Syrian government. I feel that adding this section or a section like it, especially without a great depth of sources, is beyond the scope of the article and Iranian actions especially are going to be hard to verify. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Darwish, ty for the extra policing. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than simply discarding this important and well-sourced information, I have moved it to a new article: 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement. NonZionist (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if NPR or The Washington Institute for Near East Policy are considered RS, but they seem to have their facts straight. I assume a blog is not RS?--84.109.19.88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Though i strongly agree with there being a " Foreign involvement " page, i believe it should be in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict rather than having its own page. This is mainly because it is strongly relevant to the conflict, as both sides are obviously contributing to the crisis, for example iran suppling hamas with weapons whilst USA supply Israel with weapons. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2009 (GMT)

Is source of dead baby photo a reliable source?

I'd simply like someone to show me that the source of the photo is a reliable source under wikipedia standards. If it isn't, I believe it should be removed. Lawyer2b (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Reliable sources. Is there a different guide for reliably sourcing photos? Lawyer2b (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source in my book. Though it is a Palestinian source, which I know is not acceptable in most cases. But do photos have to come from a reliable source? It seems that anyone can submit a photo even if they are not a notable person/source. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on wikipedia's standards for reliability, how can you say it is reliable? Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources notes, "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." I don't care that it is Palestinian or Israeli. If there was an equivalent Israeli group that wanted to submit photos, I'd challenge that equally. We would need proof that the photos from either source were real. Don't you think that's an objective and reasonable standard? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can submit a photo but I think that if the source is not reliable and someone challenges it, I think the burden of proof should be on the party submitting it. If some anonymous user just submits a photo of a horse for the article on horses, if people challenged it because they doubted it was a horse, the party submitting it should have to prove it was a horse (through consensus). if they couldn't, it should not be included. I'd like to see some proof that the alleged charred baby really is a charred baby and not a doctored photo or just a model/sculpture. I think that's the challenge that is being made. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the image is not legitimate. Additionally, Flickr is a reliable source (WP: Obtaining images). – Zntrip 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is the International Solidarity Movement. You can read further info about them here. I think the current understanding is that the photo (along with others in their photostream) are photo's taken by their volunteers in Gaza right now. Although the issue of whether they are a reliable source doesn't appear to have been addressed explicitly yet on the talk page I think it's fair to say that matters have proceeded on the basis that there is no reason to doubt that they are a reliable source. It's a bit of a tricky issue I agree. Perhaps someone else might be able to provide you with a better answer. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

..I'll add a bit more. I personally don't see this as any different from other images we have on the page e.g. the demonstrations, rockets, smoke over gaza that users have taken themselves and added. Nor do I see a difference in burden of proof for a dead baby image and a photo of a demonstation in San Francisco. Maybe I'm wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would challenge all those photos in this context. This is a news event. Shouldn't we want (demand) ALL material (photos, text, etc.) come from HIGHLY reliable sources? And if someone wanted to challenge the validity of a photo of a demonstration purporting to document something at the demonstration and it didn't come from a reliable source, I think I'd back that challenge as well. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ISM is confounded by Adam Shapiro. A notable member is Rachel Corrie. The organization is notable. If they have a history of faking photos and deception, it would certainly be noted and scrutinized. They are not an unknown organization --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, if the source is not reliable I think the burden is should be on the party submitting the photo. Also, that link you cite states that Flickr, et al. are sources for "general purpose image[s]". To me that's for things like the "horse" example I gave above. Not pictures that are supposed to document/prove events (e.g. a baby that was killed by a bomb). Lawyer2b (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As Falastine fee Qalby has pointed out, ISM is a well known nonviolent organization. What leads you assert the source is not reliable? – Zntrip 06:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing being NOTABLE with being RELIABLE. There are plenty of organizations that are NOTABLE enough to deserve a wikipedia article about them. There are far fewer that I think deserve to be considered a RELIABLE SOURCE for material in wikipedia articles that are NOT about them. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I point to the wikipedia policy on News Organizations as reliable sources. Can someone show me how ISM passes those standards? Lawyer2b (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also point to wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. Lawyer2b (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have any proof for that the images are faked, present them, otherwise I don't see what case you can make against the images. I'm been watching the photostream and it doesn't look like staged pictures on a stage. What would make the source unreliable when it comes to pictures coming out of Gaza? — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, if you have a reason as to why the ISM is not a reliable source I would like you to share it. – Zntrip 06:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to hide anything, but isn't it obvious? It's not a reliable source because it doesn't fit the description I read in the policy on reliable sources. The two biggest ones that leap out to me are 1) It's not a "mainstream news organizations" and 2) It's not Verifiable because it is Self-published. People need to go read the policies and then come back to tell me where I'm wrong (or right.) Lawyer2b (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be a mainstream news organization to be reliable, and isn't Flickr where they publish, therefore, not Self-publishing. — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And to add Wikipedia:SELFPUB doesn't seem to refer to Images — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I think for a news event (like a war) Wikipedia should be using ONLY high quality news sources. You disagree? 2) I don't think Flickr allowing you to display things on their website is what wikipedia means by "publishing". (Aren't *I* supposed to be the lawyer looking for technicalities? LOL) By your standard then anything anybody uploads to flickr is considered "non-selfpublished"? I don't think that's what its intent was. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, no we can not only use "ONLY high quality news sources", especially when it comes to images which are usually copyrighted or hard to find in a War zone were Media isnt allowed in. And there is still the fact, I've seen no reason to question the pictures source as being non-reliable for images from Gaza — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that WP:SELFPUB was not supposed to apply to photos. It says that you shouldn't "cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." The limit is not on MATERIAL, it's on the SOURCE. If you're citing from Flickr, you're citing a SOURCE that is usually not allowed. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're questioning the reliability of this source only. I mean WTH is Marek Peters [21] why should we accept his photos? Is Mila [22] a reliable source??? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the RS policy applies to images. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted above that I think the larger the assertion of the photo perhaps the greater the burden of proof that should be needed. Example: To say, "here is a poster at a rally" seems less an assertion than "here is a baby that was killed at that rally by such and such an event". But I think I've said a few times in this discussion that I would support challenges to those photos as well. I think the idea that the policy on Reliable Sources and Verifiability NOT applying to photos is Ridiculous. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But still, you seem to question the authenticity of this picture, then you should get some evidence for it, and not claim "they haven't proven enough", when there is no reason, that I can see, to question the authenticity. It's already a known fact that Palestinian children have died is it so impossible to get one on a picture? — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually my smaller issue is not knowing if it's a true photo or not. For me, the bigger issue is simply the policy doesn't allow it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." Apparently it doesn't matter whether someone thinks it's true. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The policies that you are citing are for source information. Images, however, are different because the image itself is a form of proof. I would come to the conclusion that the image is genuine because the ISM acquired the image from Gaza, and the ISM has no history of publishing fake images. It is also reasonable to trust the claims that the death was caused by the IDF. Do you not agree? – Zntrip 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. I think photos have to pass the same standards as text. But I could be mistaken. I just want someone who knows to say whether they do or not! Arggggh! (LOL)

If this photo had appeared in a reliable source such as Al Jazeera would you be satisfied that it meets the inclusion criteria? I actually haven't really disagreed with quite a lot you've said so far. It seems perfectly reasonable to me but that isn't how Wiki works in practice for images as pointed by others. I don't think the burden of proof bar is set as high as you are assuming. For example, I have personally uploaded a photo of victims of a massacre that I took myself with my own camera to commons. Are you suggesting that that photo should not be used in Wikipedia because my reliability as a source has not been established ? The image speaks for itself. It seems to set the bar unreasonably hign. Having said that I'm not really an expert on these matters so I'm probably not helping much. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it was from Al Jazeera (which I think is considered a reliable source according to wikipedia policy) sure. I hope you're not offended, but I think a photo you take is questionable simply because you are not a reliable source. If the article is notable enough to deserve a photo, why can't it come from a news source? If you submitted your photo to a reliable news source and they carried it, it would have the credibility needed to be included. Again, this is my interpretation of how the policies should be applied. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I don't really disagree with you in theory in an ideal Wikipedia and no I'm not offended because my wife can readily confirm that I'm not a reliable source on pretty much anything apparently. :) Anyway, I'll leave it to people with more expertise in these matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is video where a Palestinian paramedic describes the finding of the body Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.

Attia Barami: “The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct URL and that the part of the video you are talking about is 2:20 min. after it starts. – Zntrip 07:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes...There is no image of the body in the video, but we can agree that the photo description matches the medic's information. Particularly these parts in bold. The Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the baby’s body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the video, and from about 2:20 there are images of the body — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh crap, I should have watched the whole video. I have a problem and it is not being patient. Thank you btw! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want to include links to the video/audio that come from reliable sources, go for it! But you can't just say, "here is a photo from an unreliable source that matches a description from a reliable source and therefore the photo becomes reliable". I think that is attempting to "game the system." Gentlemen/women, I must go to sleep as it is way past my bedtime where I live. Hopefully someone who knows more than we do can say what the proper application is of wikipedia's policies. Lawyer2b (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to sleep, we need a break. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is only you who say the source is unreliable, but I've seen to reason for it to be unreliable, especially when comes to images from Gaza it looks like it is quite a reliable source — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is still no source to the claim an Israeli tank ran over the baby...--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[23], read Attia Barami's statement/interview — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion this is. I too had questions about the picture's origin and thanks to Lawyer2b's earnest questioning we have our answer. The video clearly portrays what reasonably appears to be the same dead child as in the picture. I think Lawyer2b's concern that the image is not from a major news outlet is understandable, but in combination with the fact that the International Press has been restricted from reporting inside Gaza, I think that the picture's credentials hold up just fine, for now. I haven't heard of the ISM faking pictures. And the picture looks like what it was claimed to be: a dead child killed during the Gaza conflict. I have questions myself about the story about getting run over by a tank and being eaten by dogs. I don't see evidence of that happening in the picture. But that hasn't been how the picture has been presented on this page. In fact, no claims have been made about the origin of the picture in article to my knowledge. It could hypothetically be just a picture of a dead baby, next to the caption "a lot of babies have been killed during this conflict." Obviously if evidence comes to light that the photo is somehow not what it appears to be, if it were a doll or something, (a hypothesis that was made earlier in this page) that would change things. But based on the record as it stands now, I think the burden of proof has been met that the picture is authentic (it looks authentic), and that people who question its authenticity should present their own evidence.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article now does say the infant in the picture was killed in the Zeitoun attack.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real point to the discussion, or it was lost. The problem with your argument, Lawyer2b, is that it started from being about reliable sources, but then when we pointed out to you that the sources for other photos are not notable nor reliable, you quickly changed your argument to one of verifiability. When we verified that this body is indeed of a baby killed by Israelis in a attack during this assault, you switched back to your first argument... You still didn't prove that the RS applies to images, "it would be ridiculous if it did not" is not proof.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, 1) I'm sorry you don't see the points I think I am making, namely, that there is a photo which appears to violate wikipedia standards and what should be done about it (i.e. Do the same standards that apply to text also apply to photos?) 2) Several times you have brought up that "sources for other photos are not notable nor reliable" and I believe each time I have responded that I support challenging their usage as well. You seem to have consistently ignored my response. Why? 3) I'm unclear. Are you saying I'm being disingenuous? Lawyer2b (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, I am not aware of a wikipedia policy that an image on a page dealing with a current event must come from an "established news source". Therefore, I do not believe that this image violates any wikipedia standard. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm amazed. What has scarcity of sources to do with reliability? If we have no RS for material, the obvious solution is not to include the material. There is no press allowed into gaza? so don't publish what you think the press would have published if it was there. The lack of reliable sources is no excuse for lowering standards or using unreliable sources.--Stenwolf (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that an article dealing with a news event is restricted to using only images from "established news sources". Scarcity is beside the point. Censorship however is the reality that we are dealing with in Gaza. Propaganda is the reality. This image, to my knowledge, meets Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of WP:RS distinguishing between types of content for purposes of reliability determination. Either we require RS for included material or we don't, as far as I can see from WP:RS. When something doesn't have RS, why include it? Are images somehow privileged content? If you think so, please share your reasoning. Past practices, IMHO, are not very strong reason for continuing a bad pattern.--Stenwolf (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stenwolf and Lawyer2b, this is actually quite an interesting discussion that could affect policy. I suggest raising this issue at WP:Image's talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, users are encouraged to upload their own photography, yet that does not qualify for OR or RS issues. Most RS images are copyrighted, so unless there is an article that is about the image they are almost always off-limits. I would suggest you look at Wikipedia:IMAGES#Obtaining_images for information on how we are advised to use these so called non-reliably sourced images. Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun incident?

It is an attack, Democracy Now! calls it an attack, people with common sense call it an attack. Leave the word incident for situations such as you wetting the bed. Shall we make the changes? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. We're not even sure this thing even happened. Unreasonable even, considering that the IDF just started the ground operation the day before. Rabend (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As according to who? you? No. You are not a reliable source. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Falestine, would ask you to provide links on the Talk page when you are putting a suggestion forward. "Democracy Now!" is not the best source, some editors will argue it is biased, so preferably to "neutral" sources. What happened in Zeitoun has been reported by Reuters and the New York Times. I agree "Zeitoun attack" or even "Zeitoun killings" are both more specific and appropriate terms than the wishy-washy "Zeitoun incident." Rabend, your objection to the content appears to be your personal opinion. Wikipedia deals with reliable sources and verifiability. The links here satisfy those criteria. RomaC (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in that Reuters article that could be a "confirmation" for the alleged IDF intent that is implied by the terms "Zeitoun attack" or "Zeitoun killings". Rabend (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the word 'attack' implies any such intent, it only states that an action occurred, it makes no mention of any motivation. If it were to say 'intentional attack' then I think you would have a valid point, but the word 'attack' by itself does not raise motivation or intent at all. Nableezy (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Check out the dictionary definition. It clearly implies intent. Rabend (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The first definition I see is '(military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn" ' I personally dont see intent in that definition [24]. So I respectfully disagree as well. Nableezy (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, let's go down that road. check the definition for enemy. The first definition is 'an opposing military force; "the enemy attacked at dawn" '. Are you claiming that the civilians killed in that incident were an opposing military force? because that would imply most war crime allegations in current conflict are non starters.--Stenwolf (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming that. Israel has claimed that they are attacking their enemy, Hamas. That because some of those subject to these attacks have been civilians does not somehow preclude describing it as an attack. My point, if you read above, is that attack does not imply intent. It implies the use of force against another. That Israel has, in the context of the wider attack on Gaza, also struck with military force other targets, oh lets just call them 'soft', while claiming those targets to also be enemy targets does not make it less of an attack that the targets were in fact civilian targets. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is about being wishy-washy. :D--Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

People with common sense call it an incident. Attack implies a planned move. Its not clear that the shelling was deliberate at all. Incident is much fairer. There is no greater weight for it being termed the Zeitoun attack than the Zeitoun accident. Keep POV's out of editing. I have just read the section in question, theres nothing to suggest this was a "military attack" in the sense of a military attacking which is deliberate. If an army strikes something without intention it is an accident, an incident but not an attack. I think the section should be returned to incident. Superpie (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No people who are trying to sugarcoat the massacre call it an incident. A shooting is called a shooting whether the shooter intended it or did not intend for it to happen. An attack is exactly what it implies, a display of violent physical force in where the people and buildings are slaughtered and destroyed respectively. The Israeli's intention is debatable, but their action is what it is, an attack, an assault, a slaughter and destruction. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think waiting for the facts to become clear before making assigning value terms in jugement is important. Many pro Israel writers would view the Zeitoun incident as an unfortunate accident. Incident is a good halfway point between the two views until the facts become clear. You have not addressed my view that when a military does not intend to strike something, it is an accident. Superpie (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a military attack, attack does not imply intent to strike a civilian target, it means intent to strike a target. How can you say that when the military shells a target that they are not attacking that target? This line of thinking does not make any sense, whether or not it was 'an accident' is irrelevant to the fact that the military attacked this target. Whether this was accidental or premeditated is not implied by the word 'attack'. Nableezy (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. In the event you attack someone unintentionally you "accidentally attacked Barry", you did not just attack. Assuming I even accept the logic put forward here. "Attack is to strike at an opponent", or "particulary the onsent of planned aggression" the civilians were not opponents and its unclear as to if the strike was planned. Go ahead, wheel out the many definitions that fit the situation but the simple fact we can both quite easily find sources to substantiate our views only serve to evidence that incident is the better term than attack to use. Superpie (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what happened to the residents of that building in just one word? They were ____ by IDF (fill in the blank)...Anyway, this intention vs what actually occurred argument is going no where. Solution, we use the name that reliable secondary sources call it. User:RomaC pointed out Reuters and New York Times, calling it an attack.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are failing to address the points I am making talk. As the writing notes ACCURATELY, the event would appear accidental. Thus accident is much more accurate than attack. The victims were ACCIDENTALLY attacked. We are not required to sum up the event in two words minimum, the inclusion of accident or the compromise, incident is more than possible. If you continue to be deliberately evasive in ignoring my points I shall be forced to find out what to do in the event editors cant agree and i'd rather not spend my time doing that Superpie (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Accident my a**. Yes please go find other editors to speak with, you're unable to understand what attack means, you are unable to comprehend that WP has a no original research policy and that we go by the information supplied by secondary sources, and no the attack wasn't an accident, they attacked the building as simple as that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN and the BBC are both refering to Zeitoun as an "incident" . Im not doing any original research at all, im noting the body of text which we're discussing right now. Have a read. Stop being bloody obstructive. There is more evidence for it being FAIRLY termed an incident than an attack. Ive outlined why repeatedly above and you have failed to engage with them. Superpie (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (thats the UN my friend) concluded there was no evidence the attack was deliberate. . Thought you knowing something about the event may be helpful. Superpie (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You just called it an attack. Hilarious contradiction. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Yes, it WAS an attack, I accept your logic about an attack being the application of force but I also note above repeatedly that attack can be interepreted to mean intention thus making incident, given that the event appears accidental more logical. It can be "accidental Zeitoun attack" in which case you'll get pissy or it can be "Zeitoun incident". Its your choice, stop getting in the f* way. Superpie (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we name it "The unintentional accidental crumbling of Zeitoun building" for dumbf*cks like you who intend to shove the pro-Israeli pov into everything. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just choose one of the options Falastine. Superpie (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Zeitoun killings"? People were killed, in Zeitoun. "Zeitoun shelling"? RomaC (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, next time you do that, I or some other editor will request you be blocked. You can make your point without calling other editors "dumbfucks". Also, "incident" is a neutral way of calling it: let the facts speak for themselves... Ask the MILHIST people.--Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to object to this, the phrase "accidental attack" is not the opposite of "attack", it is the opposite of "intentional attack". The word "attack" does not imply intent, that the house was "attacked" is indisputable, and the article makes clear that nobody is accusing Israel of intentionally targeting civilians. This insistence that we not call a spade a spade is ridiculous. Nobody has suggested titling the section "deliberate attack" or "intentional attack" but this insistence that we not use the word attack makes no sense. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy I have above listed definitions which make clear that attack can be taken to mean intent which makes incident a much fairer term to use. I do not understand why describing it as an incident is undesirable, light on this issue would be good. Superpie (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "attack" in the context of a military conflict as neutral descriptor as you can get. Remember, the whole conflict is optional, so there is already implied responsibility, which is not the same as intent: any reader should be clear by the time they get to this part, two days into reading the article, that Israel's stated intent is to not harm civilians. If nuance is sought, let presentation show the facts and let the reader determine if the attack was intentional or not.--Cerejota (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a thing where I come from, but if you dont mean to cause pain to someone, it was an accidental event, if you did, it was an attack. I really am bewildered by the refusal to use incident instead of attack which I maintain, is biased but i'll abide by the emerging consensus. Superpie (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting all the arguments above (automatically excluding Falastine's, naturally), I think that 'incident' is a good, balanced term. Rabend (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, by definition, if you shoot at something you are attempting to cause it pain. Also, by definition, if you shoot at something you are attacking it. Not knowing that what you are shooting at is not actually a military target does not take away the intent of shooting it. Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Israeli's were shooting at the family within this house, or even at this house at this moment in time. Only that they shot it. Superpie (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie presents an interesting argument above: If a belligerent fires a weapon that causes death and destruction, but there is no evidence that they were shooting at that particular target, the event should be called an "incident" rather than an "attack." But this logic could be problematic, arguments could be made that List of Qassam rocket attacks should be renamed "Qassam incidents".

Again, how about "Zeitoun killings"? (as people were killed, in Zeitoun); or "Zeitoun house shelling", as a house was shelled in Zeitoun. These terms seem to me to simply reflect what has happened, much better than "incident." RomaC (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I walked into an article populated almost entirely by the obtuse? Qassam Rockets are fired with the intention of hitting Israel, thats as accurate as they go. Please dont go being a pain in my ass by trying to draw parraells between what appears to have been an accident with the current evidence and a true malicious act of war. RomaC I would agree to the "Zeitoun house shelling incident" Superpie (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sugarpie, do you think calling other editors "obtuse" is constructive? RomaC (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think identifying unreasonable attitudes and unreasonable arguments is proper yes. I think many editors here are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to dilute this very simple discussion with so much debate that it will go away. Superpie (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Hamas intentionally targeted one of the places hit by any of the Qassam rockets? That would indeed be incredible. I see no difference in the argument that they did not intend to hit 'this house' or 'these people' then saying Hamas did not, indeed could not, intend to hit any specific target, and thus it should not be called an attack. Are you saying that the IDF did not intend to hit anything at all? Then you might have a point, but I dont think that is what you are saying, unless you mean that somebody is dumb enough to fire multiple shells and think they are not going to hit anything? Your argument does not make much sense to me, and it is not because I am obtuse. And if I were Warden Norton you would get 2 months in the hole for that. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, sugarpie? Oooh baby. Superpie (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun discussion continued

The section's narrative states that it is disputed if that "attack" happened at all, so I think it is not ok to use "victim of the Zeitoun attack" in image captions and "Zeitoun attack" as the section's caption - it should be "alleged victim" and "alleged attack". Also, the narrative needs a rewrite so different POVs get equal weight, which is not the case now. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See above. Concensus is that attack is apparently, fair. Superpie (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To OP: On the one hand, I strongly agree that a full rewrite is order (mostly for flow, pacing, etc reasons to assist the reader). But I can't understand what you mean. There obviously was some kind of an attack; given that there are real victims. How can we use the term "alleged victim"? That's like calling someone an "alleged pregnant woman", an "alleged white man", or saying "alleged man wearing alleged green shirt" in response to a picture of a green-shirted fellow. The Squicks (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That came across as much too snarky. (...) Look, the fundamental fact is that there is a large number of sources supporting the fact that it happened. And only the IDF disagrees. I'm 100% for NPOV between both sides. But this is a particular situation where the IDF basically has nothing to say. So, there's not much... material that we can say on their side. We have details of the incident and then their denial. Their denial is just that- a denial. It can't be expanded into a counter-argument, like how the UN school section has a counter-arguement. The Squicks (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The narrative states (sourced) that Israel says no such attack happened. The victims pictured are claimed by someone to have suffered/died during the attack, which only makes sense if the version "there was an attack" is true. If however the version "there was no attack" is true, the pictures are of victims from other attacks. Per WP:NPOV, we must not support/tell only one version ("there was an attack"), which is done if pictures are captured with "victim of the attack". 08:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I must agree here. This incident is a little too controversial to be taken as fact. It is really not clear what portions of the story are actually true, anywhere from 0 to 100%, as opposed to the UN compound, which Israel confirms it attacked and explained why. Since this incident relies heavily on eyewitness accounts, and we really have no idea what happened there, its mention should be a relatively short one, and without an image. The UN incident, however, deserves coverage. Rabend (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged victim? I mean, give me a break... some people should seriously check their cynicism at the door: you can rightly question the events surrounding the incident, but question the victimhood of actual people? Man, get out of your soapbox, and be, well, human for second. A victim, is always a victim.--Cerejota (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to become personal. If you read the above you will find that I in no way dispute that the depicted victims are victims. The question is what incident they are victims of, and whether we can attribute them to a Zeitoun incident that according to Israel did never happen. So far we have two pics and one narrative about Zeitoun. To use "alleged" in the captions is just one way to avoid integrating the different POVs already presented in the narrative into the captions again. But we cannot have image captions stating "There was that incident and this is a victim of it" and at the same time have a narrative saying "It is disputed whether that incident happened at all". Skäpperöd (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the incident, only who/what caused it. Superpie (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From the article: "The IDF stated that it had no knowledge of such attack, and argued that the claim is unreasonable since it claimed to have no forces present in that area on January 4th. Israeli television claimed that Gaza hospitals had no knowledge of the attack." Skäpperöd (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we're not even sure this thing happened. IDF does not acknowledge it, it does not fit with the location of forces at the time, and all we have is eyewitness accounts, and images from god knows where. The IDF generally acknowledges such tragic incidents/accidents and attempts to explain them (like the several UN shellings). As such, this incident should get minimal coverage here, if at all. Rabend (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And we say the IDF does not acknowledge it. The attack has received a lot of coverage around the world, that the IDF disputes the account that is in numerous RS is not reason to have this be not discussed. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IDF generally acknowledges such tragic incidents/accidents and attempts to explain them (like the several UN shellings

Welcome to the world of hasbara, unless this was meant to be comical and ironic. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

even in their denial, the idf refers to it as an attack, "'The IDF stated that it had no knowledge of such attack," not incident. it seems neutral to me. Untwirl (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as we like to bash the IDF, it is an army that is part of a very democratic and highly transparent country. Hasbara does not cover up significant events, it explains them, as the name suggests. The only reports of the actual incident happening that I have seen rely on those "eyewitness accounts". Perhaps I am wrong, but it looks like RSs are regurgitating these accounts. I am not one to completely cover up things. But in this case, the only thing I heard about it is from nameless eyewitnesses. And for me, that's not good enough. Particularly as the descriptions are of such horror stories. Horror stories, like soldiers rounding up people and shooting them in cold blood, necessitate stronger confirmation, due to their being powerful elicitors of emotions. And I don't find Mads Gilbert to be a confirmation for anything. I think we are doing a disservice to WP by leaving is so much dubious detail. Rabend (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing per MoS

A lot of headins are too long, too elaborate and some infact are clear synth and npov violations. Fixing. of course feel free to revert, but keep in mind that everytime you revert wikifairy stuff, a puppy dies. Please, I beg you think of the puppies. They are cute and innocent. Think of them. Then try to revert. :D--Cerejota (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did do one that is controversial, which is "Effects on Gazans" for the "humanitarian crisis" long thing. I think this is not a question of POV, but of the narrative and encyclopedic voice. Let the facts speak for themselves: if there is a humanitarian crisis, any half-wit will see it if properly sourced.--Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, there's been a talk about it in /Archive 17. Please check it there. And I can't see how "Effects on Gaza" is shorter than "Gaza humanitarain crisis". --Darwish07 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Count the letters and spaces? 15 chars vs 23 chars. Shorter. That said, lets revisit. We need to have a pretty article, too. --Cerejota (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that :). The idea that it's illogical to reduce "humanitarian crisis" to "effects" cause of 8 letter. "Gaza Humanitarian Crisis" is not big at all, and there have been very much bigger titles throughout wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I've waited for your reply but nothing happened. I'll return it back. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian sources?

Is there a consensus that Iranian sources don't meet WP:RS? I ask because content from them keeps being removed. [25]

If Iranian sources aren't allowed, shouldn't US sources be removed too? The US is as biased towards Israel as Iran is biased against it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is concensus that evidence solely sourced from Iranian sources dont make wprs. Only a case by case review can work with sources.Superpie (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? because they are swarthy Middle Eastern people? from a country in the axis of evil? Bush jr. thinks they are bad... What is the reason? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think evidence sourced solely from any one country's press wouldnt make wprs. Obviously that and the Iranians being all swathe. Superpie (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because WP:RS clearly frowns upon extremist sources, which Iran's leadership currently is.--Stenwolf (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli leadership sucks too [26] we should not cite Israeli media ever --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really fair to compare Iranian and US sources and treat them as equally unreliable because the metrics available don't support that position. I suppose as a general guide

• Iran is still locked in a battle to avoid being relegated right of the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index (method here) with the likes of my charming neighbour Myanmar.
• There's a strong state oversight component
  

As for which sources are regarded by WP as reliable, no idea but I'm sure someone here can answer that. I do think many editors would benefit from spending 20min a week reading the Tehran Times to broaden their minds. It often has interesting articles. Furthermore, since the writing is all squiggly, goes the wrong way and is from an alien foreign culture that I assume has the wrong god and that is too complicated for me to bother to understand I'm just going to conclude that it's inferior, irrational and evil by it's very nature to save a lot of time and advocate assigning an unreliable status to all Iranian sources on that basis while somehow convincing myself that I'm complying with guidelines....
I just wanted to get that in before anyone else suggested something along those lines. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are we arguing here? Is it (a)Should Iranian government's statements/claims about the war be included? [I think 'yes'] or is it (b)Should we consider the Iranian government's statements/claims about the war to be exactly the same as independent reporting by BBC, The New York Times, and so on in terms of how we cite things? [To which I answer 'WTF']? The Squicks (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why the article said "As reported by the Iranian TV". I don't know what are people arguing about, throughout the whole article, if a controversial media is quoted (Israeli, Hamas, Iranian, ..) we always said "As said/reported/stated/claimed by X". This is not a blog, this is a news agency. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes to what Darwish07 just said. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, you just summarized WP:Attribution. Of course, you are the same genius who defined wikipedia better than Jimbo Wales, so its no surprise ;).--Cerejota (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anyone here who disagrees with (a)? Anyone who agrees with (b)? [Not being sarcastic; I really am asking. The Squicks (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing 'As reported by Iranian TV" seems somewhat un-preferable compared to Iranian TV said on 16 January that" or "Iranian TV has broadcast" or "Iranian TV has stated that". This is much more a matter of copy editing than NPOV issues, though.

I'm not aware of any blanket bans on Iranian sources, nor Israelis sources, nor Palestinian ones etc. Can anyone inform me of such a policy?VR _talk 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OLD wikimeme. Here is how its started: a bunch of public execution pictures were removed as copy-vio. So all kinds of editors (some of which are here, or their socks ;-) got up on arms because "OMG! CENSORSHIP!", and started saying that since Iran wasn't a signatory of any copyright treaty, then we could copy their crap at will. Not so, said, well, Jimbo Wales himself: copyright is local as per wikipedia, so if its a copy-vio in Elbonia, its a copy-vio in wikipedia. Henceforth, some kids had to be corrected because they said "OMG! JIMBO SEZ NO IRANIAN SOURCES!!!", which I think was resolved via WP:DRAMA, but the meme was born. There is no ban on sources, only great variance on what is realiable. If its Debkafile/CAMERA or YNET its "SUPER-DOUBLE RELIABLE" if its Electronic Intifada or Al-Jazeera its "A PIECE OF CRAP". But no ban.--Cerejota (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest i think both sources should be used although it should clearly be stated where each source came from. And by doing this we shall let the reader decide whether this is biased or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeMiStIeRs (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Length

Has work begun on grouping sections together, summarising them, and moving bulky material into linked articles? How to begin such a project? I have no experience whatsoever on this kind of thing, but I could try to help (with guidance?) if anyone takes up leadership in the effort. I really feel that all of the collaboration here has resulted in an article that is highly informative with a surprisingly small incidence of NPOV what with all of our emotional investment in the issue. Congrats all around, and let's see if we can continue to improve. PinkWorld (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I was going to have a pop at moving the International Reaction stuff on, however im stuck for ideas in bringing the two different styles together. Advice from an experienced wiki on this would be great. Superpie (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time a user moves some information out to another article, the information gets moved right back in. Often a user who summarizes gets accused of making the article POV. I tried to keep control on the article size, but have given up.

Perhaps if there was a collaborative effort amongst several users we could successfully bring the size down.VR _talk 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see directly above for concrete proposals. I am able and ready, but need this pesky thing called "rough consensus" :D.--Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposals area good start. However, how do we prevent information from coming back into the article one it has been moved?VR _talk 05:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask everyone to regard the International reactions sections as a work in progress. Im concentrating on World reactions right now, I know it looks like I've taken a hatchet to it but I think its neccessary. Please message me with issues. I will viciously set upon any unexplained reverts. Superpie (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're increasing the size of the section, I'll have a terrible temptation to revert. On the other hand if you're reducing the size, then all the power to you buddy.VR _talk 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Im cutting it down rather drastically, I just want to assure everyone im basically moving it on to the sub article on reactions and not vandalising the section :) Superpie (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, good job.VR _talk 06:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Created a new section for UN-only info, just so you know.--23prootie (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry i've been reverting you. I think perhaps its a good idea to move the UN response to International Reactions and leave direct UN involvement in aid etc where it is? It looks rather like the UN hasnt made comment on the issue if a reader was to click just to international reactions Superpie (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of reference is taking up almost one third of the page. Anyway to reduce that? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian ceasefire

The Humanitarian ceasefires are currently mentioned in two sections: 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Humanitarian_Ceasefires and 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Humanitarian_aid. Given the length of the article, I propose the material be covered primarily in the first section, with the second section just referring to it, concentrating more on the aid.VR _talk 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest this bit: "Israel has repeated the temporary truce every day from January 8th to 13th. Shortly after 1 pm during the January 9th truce, the truce's start-time, Palestinians fired three Grad-type rockets at Ashdod. While supplies were being transferred through Kerem Shalom border crossing On January 9th, Palestinian militants fired several mortar shells at the terminal. No casualties were reported.[309]" be moved to the first section outright and I agree with you on the issue of focus. Superpie (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but i think someone who knows needs to make it unambiguously clear right up front whether or not Israel is supplying aid (which they pay for) to Gaza in this article re: this unaddressed question in the archive

• This sentence seems problematic According to the Israeli media, Hamas has been raiding and looting trucks carrying humanitarian aid sent by Israel and international organizations in the sense that it says 'sent by Israel' quoting the source and yet there is no entry for Israel here. Nor does Israel appear in the list of countries supplying aid in the Humanitarian aid section. Is anyone in a position to clarify/rectify that apparent contradiction ?

That section was subsequently removed but this issue still seems important because it appears to be 'common knowledge' in the US that Israel is supplying aid, it goes unchallenged and might just be careless/disingenuous phrasing by part of the media and editors here. I expect it to reappear at some point as it has many times before. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If its any use, media in the UK notes that 'Israel allows aid in' but makes no further comment on where the aid came from and who paid for it. I'll have a look for some sources. Superpie (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's eons away from being a objective, neutral source, but its worth mentioning that the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that "Meanwhile, Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency ambulatory service, has been put on high alert and is operating 600 ambulances in Gaza to help any wounded or sick in the area. On January 12, the Israeli government released official plans to build a field hospital inside the Gaza Strip to be run by the IDF Medical Corps in order to aid any Palestinian civilians wounded from the daily operations."

If that's true... it's obviously very notable. I gave up looking for an unambiguous RS but then I have a short attention spa....oh look a puppy, look at his little face. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:DarthArafat.png

Darth Arafat sez: "You cannot hide forever, The Squicks"

I have looked and I see that Magen David Adom's actions are covered by more reliable sources. I have to admit, thought that reading "In Erez neither we, nor the Palestinian ambulances are allowed to cross and park truly 'back to back'. Patients have to be carried from one ambulance to another, a distance of approximately 50 metres, through the checkpoint. Such are the security rules" made me extraordinary angry and I almost screamed "Stupid ----ing Israelis. Stop making it so hard for me to want to support you." c est le vie The Squicks (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Luke, I am your father, come my son to the dark side ;) Nableezy (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side is for losers! Don't do it! ;) Rabend (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Some nice flikr photos of Magen David Adom are here. The Squicks (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I don't believe that we can use any of them given the copyright; I'm just posting the link for deep background. The Squicks (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(quadruple edit conflict. i hate all of you, in a good way) Ok I added a passing mention to the Magen David Adom. More info on their activities should be added to other sections like "Shelter", "Health", or elsewhere in the "Effects on Gazans" section.VR _talk 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that we want to keep the article as short or make it shorter, but I would really like to see some distinction made so that the fact that Israeli groups are- indeed- helping in Gaza is made clear. So, Israeli is, in fact, giving humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Squicks (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I think help should be mentioned on a what basis, not who basis. So there may be a section on hospital treatments of victims, but there should be a section on all things UNRWA or RED Cross related. So if the Red Star of David has, say, provided some ambulances, it should be mentioned in the "Health" subsection where we talk of the shortage of working ambulances.VR _talk 08:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But if its mentioned on a 'what' basis, than the oddity, curiosity, and ironic nature of the aid is not depicted. BTW, here are some more sources on it: [27] [28] [29] [30] The Squicks (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all apologies: when I wrote "but there should be a section" I meant "but there shouldn't be a section". Your above sources tell me that we should split the humanitarian issue into another article, so that we can cover it more comprehensively (including give attention to the Red Star of David).VR _talk 08:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we use the term "Red Star of David" or "Magen David Adom"? I would prefer the latter since the latter is more widely used by all observers. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the first mention in the article be Magen David Adom (Red Star of David), and subsequent mentions just "Magen David Adom"? Its what most sources in the English language use... While everyonbe in Israel knows what Magen David Adom is, I am afraid the rest of our readers might not possess this knowledge. --Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera photos for day 17 and 18

[31] I added photos from day 17 and 18 footage, please make use of them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

Okay then, nice work. The only thing that I think that I can add (and I know this is nit-picky) is that 'Injuredmother.JPG' seems like a poor choice for a picture since the mike is blocking most of her face. It's not astecially a very good picture; it's like having someone's thumb over the camera lens almost. The Squicks (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then let's not add that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the photos! BTW, where do you get copyright free images from? Just curious.VR _talk 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User Tiamat found the Al Jazeera creative commons repository [32] You can take stills of the video footage. Right now I am having trouble getting a shot of IDF helicopters launching some sort of weapon very randomly on the dense residential area. I think I should just give up on getting shot of that. But out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what type of weapon that could be, I spotted this in two videos I have watched including this one [33] starting 9:15. I have taken stills from other parts of video, however, and I will upload them shortly--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For free images see the resource section here: Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

I uploaded day 14 and day 12 images as well, here is what I have so far.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arion

The editor might have had this vessel confused with another one since the article did not match a few news stories matching the story. One of the cites was to a main page of a news source that did not mention it and another was in Greek. The original editor might have translated it incorrectly. POV concerns as well. "Free Gaza" activists/participants would have sufficed instead of a breakdown of the passengers. Please see: http://www.financialmirror.com/News/Cyprus_and_World_News/13555 and http://news.ert.gr/en/greece/society/17696-neos-apoplous-gia-to-arion.htm Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I was looking at the most recent expedition not the Dec. 30th one. The sources still need to be updated and the section should be checked for POV and minor corrections. My apologies.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Greek vessel Arion has made two attempts to reach Gaza with activists, doctors, parliamentarians, and supplies. December 30: Arion encounter with Israeli ships in international waters. Claims to have turned back after being rammed by an Israeli ship. Israel denies this. Some sources state "technical" difficulties. Jan 14: Arion again encounters Israeli ships in international waters. Forced to turn back after the ships threated to open fire. A third attempt might be made. The section is still inaccurate as is. Too many news sites to reference so google news: "greek vessel gaza december 30" "The Arion" etc. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

pamphlets

Pamphlets dropped on Gaza from Israeli planes contain a phone number (972-2-5839749) where anyone can report Hamas "activity" for "targeting". As this number can be dialed from everywhere, I think its quite dangerous and has abuse potential. Maybe it should be noted in the article. --helohe (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NO. It's important information. Its dangers are well known. A lot of Iraqis and Afghanis got rid of neighbours they disliked with this kind of trick.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You think the IDF'll make a sortie over the Welsh vally's? ;). This is very important to note in the article Superpie (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another detail that might be noteworthy in the article is IDF's use of Gmail as a secondary way to contact them. You can see a scan of the pamphlet here (source). To my understanding these pamphlets ask Gazans to become a sort of confidential informents for IDF, and so any contact is considered a government secret. And yet the Israeli government trusts this third-party company with it's data. Could this be a first? it's certainly reckless --Nezek (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The pamphlets are only one of the methods the IDF deploy to target hamas activity, so in reality it is not relied up on too much, though how ever i see your concern regarding fake phone calls. Most of these calls may be and will blocked once the person has " prank " called the number. Although this worries me regarding the iraq incident where people just phoned and said they thing their next door neighbor is a terrorist. Though again i hardly think the IDF will only relay on one type of information before it acts. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

Palestinians killed by Hamas

Firstly this should not be part of "casualties3", grouped with the Egyptian casualties. The Palestinians killed belong in Palestinian list of casualties.

Secondly, I suppose those killed should be included in the civilian count, as that is what news reports seem to allege (i.e. there was battle between the Fatah and Hamas). Finally, it was agreed on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_7#Infobox_blaming to not say who killed who, but only who was killed. If we were to go to the "who killed who" route, we'd have to make note that some Israeli deaths were caused by themselves (i.e friendly fire), and who killed and wounded the Egyptians (both Hamas and IDF), cluttering up the infobox unnecessarily.VR _talk 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as to the infobox. However, when/if we create a casualties subpage we need to note seperately in the body text of that article that some Palestinians have been killed by Hamas. The Squicks (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we also note that some Israelis have been killed by Israel (friendly fire)? Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry, this has already been reported on several occasions on the main Israel - Gaza conflict section. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

Mads Gilbert

Mads Gilbert should be adressed "Norwegian doctor and political activist Mads Gilbert" rather than simply "a Norwegian doctor". Just terming him "a (Norwegian) doctor" suggests he is a neutral bystander, which he is certainly not. This is not about judging his views and political activities, just for clarification, as he is cited at least twice as a source in controversial incidents. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't that's fair. The source only refers to him as a "doctor". He is many things (say, a male, a father and husband maybe, a university graduate...) but we should only mention him by what a reliable source[34] used mentions him by. And the reliable source I see calls him a "Norwegian doctor" nothing else. If users are allowed to call people whatever they want, without the RS saying so, then this will set a dangerous precedent.

Finally note that a person can have two different capacities in two different contexts. Ariel Sharon, for example, was a Prime Minister in one context, but he may be called a general in another.VR _talk 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the source addresses him just as 'Norwegian doctor' we should do the same. Nableezy (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that since this guy is very controversial ("When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: 'Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.'"), a mention of his "activism" must be part of the context of his report. It doesn't matter if this specific source only notes he's a doctor. We can put together from other places a more complete picture (even from his WP article), and thus can report on that. Rabend (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is good form to:

1. If the source had a Wikipedia article, Wikilink the source, e.g. Mads Gilbert

2. When introducing an article which someone might considered biased (and when discussing a war, you can assume that, 100% of the time, readers aligned with one or another combatant in the war will assume that the article is biased), it is good form to quote the article in format "On date, source reported that info>.reference", for example

“ The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of Depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. ”

Even that is not enough for some people, for example some editors may prejudge that anything coming from the Iranian Government is automatically false, and will summarily delete references from sources they denigrate without comment. At that point you get an edit war.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But should we do that with Israeli news sources too? So say "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" or "The conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post..."?VR _talk 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to go to that extreme. We should assume that most resources are reasonable enough. But when someone decides to quote a very controversial source, such as the Iranian government TV or that Gilbert fella, that disclaimer needs to be there. In my opinion, we shouldn't ref such sources, as it's pretty much like reffing a blog, but some editors insist on the above two sources. Rabend (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was simply trying to point out a double standard here, where Iranian sources are called Iranian, but Israeli ones are just sources, no qualifier added.VR _talk 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erxnmedia and Rabend here. If some individual reporter/activist with an equally strong bias were to visit Gaza, such as Norman Podhoretz, and pronounced the Gaza situation to be mostly normal and the civilian death count to be incredibly exaggerated-- would we take that at face value? Would we simply state: "According to reporter Norman Podhoretz, ______"? No we would not. The Squicks (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" I would say "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz" and for "The conservative Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post" I would say "The Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post" and let the reader follow the wikilink to judge the quality of the source. I do not consider a story in Press TV to be automatically biased because it is Iranian; because it is Iranian Government TV though it is noteworthy to point that out, just the same as if Israel had a state-sponsored newspaper, I would be tempted to point that out. For the people inside Gaza, Iranian news is not controversial, it is only controversial for people outside Gaza. Wikipedia should have WP:NPOV and this needs to be maintained scrupulously in war articles. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit redundant to use the term Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post? It's not like readers will see that and think: "Oh, right, the paper from Jerusalem, Texas". The Squicks (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Palestine? Nableezy (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So from now on every sentence will be of the form: "According to the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, The British newspaper The Telegraph, The United States magazine Playboy, the Russian newspaper Pravda and Martian TV program Mars Today, there is a truce.[sources]"?
I mean, every sources out there is biased to some extent. Wouldn't it be easier to just note the sources that the majority here perceives to be potentially very biased? Rabend (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't perceive Iranians or people from a particular country, ethnicity or religion to be "very biased". Whether sources are biased must be decided on a case to case basis.VR _talk 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be on a case to case basis. I also don't perceive Iranian people to be biased as a default. I do, however, consider anything coming out of the Iranian government to be very biased. Rabend (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Playboy is perhaps the finest and most reliable news publication in the US, please do not compare it the Telegraph and those others! Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the main concern over Press Tv is, however this can be true to any other news paper. And in this case we should use our common sense to see whether an article is biased and further more i disagree with Gilbert being politically active. Having an open mind in politics is different than getting actively involved in politics. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (GNT)

Maybe you should read about him then. Rabend (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the article should actually state "Norwegian doctor and pro-Palestinian activist", so the reader is aware of whose account he is reading. Not writing that is witholding important information by giving the apperance that a neutral doctor is making a claim, when clearly he is not one. Rabend (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Kaufman

His reaction belongs in International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict not here. I don't even want to explain why not (non-Israeli/Palestinian politician making remarks with no bearing on the conflict).VR _talk 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post

Unfortunately, there is no room in International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict either. So it looks like he is being flushed down the Memory Hole. I should have saved the text while I had a chance. At least I got to read him before he disappeared. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls: It tolls for thee. NonZionist (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you want to explain? What policy are you basing this on? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The extensive stuff from Kaufman in the Reactions#Individuals subsection has to go. It's too long and doesn't belong here. I'm going to abduct it to my /tmp unless the person who added it moves it somewhere first. Any objections ? In 100, 99, 98, 97, 96.... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, buddy, its already gone. I guess you'll have to hold your count and wait for the next POV pusher (let's hope that doesn't happen).VR _talk 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

suits me. i got stuck at twelvety Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen, again

Listen people you can not deny the fact that the IDF considers Hamas policemen as terrorists and count them in their reports of the numbers of dead. So, in reality, when you put the number 138 beside the 400-650 number in the infobox you duplicate the numbers of dead. Their place is not beside the 400-650 number but in the notes section. I even went as far and stated that the 400-650 numbers is not for militants but for fighters as some people have a problem with puting the cops in the category of militants. If you want I can even change the name from fighters to combatants, but at the end of the day they don't belong in the main part of the infobox, because most of them, if not all, were Hamas operatives, or potential Hamas operatives, seeing as 40 who died were recruits. They are considered the enemy by the IDF and they included them as such in their estimate of 400-650 dead. So you can not put 138 beside that number, the best place for them is in the notes section. If oyu want, we can add in the notes section beside the 138 number that some regard them as civilians and not combatants. However, bare in mind that an estimate of 670 dead has been given by the Palestinians who gave the numb. 138, and of those some 520 have been identified as women, children, elderly, newsmen, soccer players and medical workers by the Palestinians. So what? You are going to tell me that of the remaining 150 dead 138 are policemen and there were only 12 regular male deaths. Fact, the Palestinians are not counting the cops as policemen and the IDF is counting them as Hamas operatives. End of FACT.BobaFett85 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Fipplet (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what was mentioned in the sections above. Since reliable sources disagree about whether to consider Hamas' security forces as "non-combatants" under international law, we must list them seperately. I believe there is a consensus among editors to preserve that neutrality. The Squicks (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the INFO box has as vague a surmise of 400-650 dead according to IDF calculations, that means the IDF's own calculations have a 33% margin of error, and the 250 may well include 135 policemen. The 135 figure for police killed is, by contrast, fairly specific. Under international law, police forces are combatants if the party attacked had given prior notification of their inclusion within the military. Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

HRW says that policemen are civilians unless they are engaged in hostilities, so I would say the presumption is that they are civlians "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes." [35] That Israel says they are militants can be presented, but if it is so should that line from HRW. Nableezy (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user The Squicks, there should be a separate article on whether the census should count Gaza policemen as Hamas operatives, although again a policeman can also be a hamas operative. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (GNT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeMiStIeRs (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about, user NeMiStIeRs just said it. The IDF counted the policemen as Hamas operatives when they stated the 400-650 number, thus when they stated that number they INCLUDED the policemen. There is no margine of error, THEY INCLUDED THEM IN THAT NUMBER. So when you separate them in the infobox it seems as the cops were separate fatalities from the those 400-650, while probably most of them were members of Hamas, and thus counted as such by the Israelis in their 400-650 number. Let's not kid ourselves gentlmen, we all know that most of the policemen are Hamas operatives. Also, that HRW talk about policemen are civilians until engaged in hostilities. Well, from that point of view they became combatants when they were attacked by the Israeli Air Force. The Israelis regarded them as an enemy. Thus, you proved my case for me. They are not civilians. Also, have you seen any reports of policemen being killed since that first day? No. That's because they all threw away their uniforms and changed into their Hamas militant uniforms to fight the Israelis. But, I see what the problem here is, so here is a consensus proposal, we count the 138 cops in those 400-650, and make a note of that in the notes section, but, and here is my proposal, we don't say Militants or Fighters in the infobox, but Armed Forces: 400-650. My reasoning, the Palestinians regard their militant groups as their Army, as well as their Police Force. In many countries their police forces are part of their armed forces and fight in their wars, example Iraq, policemen and soldiers die at the same rate in the same situations and are used for the same thing, to fight the war. Also, not all of these guys Hamas, there was a bunch of Islamic Jihad guys who got killed so we can not just say Hamas operatives: 400-650. So I think this is the best solution. The main problem here is all a matter of wording.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the infobox number can include the policemen, but there should be a note that policemen are counted. And no, the did not become combatants when they were attacked, they had to combatants to allow the attack. If Israel regarded them as their enemy and they had not been involved in any military activity, then Israel regarded civilians as their enemy. Read the HRW doc, it can explain better than me. I dont think we should say that they are combatants or civilians, but if the israeli count is including them it should be made clear that the count includes x policemen, with the note, soured to HRW, that 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' without making any proclamations that they were or were not combatants. But as far as me proving your point, I think you misunderstand what I said. I would argue that it was impossible for any of these men to engaged in hosilities as many were killed in the first attack, which was without warning. So how could they be involved in hostilities before the Israelis started bombing them? But that is my opinion, and obviously doesnt belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. is problematic. It also seems to be incorrect. If a Palestinian policeman provides direct material support to military people (say, he carries the missiles to the people who fire them), then he is arguably not a civilian even though- technically- it is true to say that he is not a "Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities". The Squicks (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the international law is wrong. The law is the law. I'm just saying that their interpretation of the law is in dispute. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See this story: Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." and "The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted. However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities."

HRW is indeed a reliable source, but their interpretation of international law in this specific situation is not the only interpretation out there. The IDF interprets indirect military support classifying someone as a combatant. HRW disagrees. We cannot as Wikipedia editors simply assume that one interpretion is simply correct and that another is simply incorrect. That is just our opinions. The Squicks (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As the BBC reported, "Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - quoted by Israel, although not signed by it - says that for a site to be a legitimate military target it must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage"." HRW and the IDF agree with this. It's just that they disagree on its application. Frankly, Nableezy, don't you think that effective contribution is a can of worms? It's so vague. HRW says 'direct part in the facilities'; the IDF says 'indirect part'. I personally may be completely opposed to the Israeli strikes of police depots, but I can't say that my interpretation and my definition is the only one out there. The Squicks (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say we should include the Israeli allegation that these people were indeed 'involved with terrorism within Hamas' but we should not present it as fact. We don't have anybody reliable saying that these people were actually involved in any 'terrorist' activity. As such, I think we should give the Israeli rational for attack them, as well as the statement from HRW, which as I read it says that if they were providing material support then they are valid targets, if not then they are not. And yes I think it is vague, thought I dont see that as necessarily a bad thing. I am down with saying Israel has stated that these were valid military targets. But I would also want the position of HRW, which takes no position as to whether these policemen were combatants or not, that 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would qualify the HRW quote with an explicit citation. Nableezy (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationale thru Israeli allegation that they were involved in terrorism is a good idea. Rabend (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also can you please include your sources in your debate and provide the link, as i was just reading your comments i have seen most of the things that you have commented on are true and the sources are correct how ever there a few things that can be seen as a opinion rather than fact. Also some quotes that have mentioned .... unfortunately i have not been able to find them on the internet, thanks --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

We don't have anybody reliable saying that these people were actually involved in any 'terrorist' activity. I cited The Los Angeles Times before. How is that not reliable?

Regardless, so I guess the article would say something like this:

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions says that a site must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage" for it to be a legitimate non-civilian target. The IDF has stated that, as policy, "[o]ur definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." The IDF interprets the Conventions such that Hamas-related police officers are not civilians, referring to its intelligence that the officers support militants firing rockets. Human Rights Watch disagrees with the IDF's interpretation, saying "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes." B'Tselem also considers the officers to be civilians.

The Squicks (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, how ever i merely meant that some quotes weren't exactly quote they had been slightly doctored to fit the users opinion though again i did not mean to point towards you. I Apologise if any offense is caused. Although regarding your LA times comment, i think i must have missed the link as this edit section is so big i was skim reading it. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

Look if the IDF considers policemen to be combatants, then Hamas and its supporters argue that all Israelis over 18 are combatants since they have (technically) served in the army. It is my hope that such faulty logic is not repeated on wikipedia. Separating the policemen from both civilians and militants preserves neutrality, not taking either side.VR _talk 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well VR, in that case, if you want to separate them then you CAN NOT put the number 400-650 in the infobox, because the IDF counted all of the policemen in that number, you should remove 138 from 400-650. Go ahead, in that case I agree with you compleatly and will support you all the way. Put the policemen separately in the infobox, heck I'll put them for you, BUT in that case you CAN NOT put the number 400-650 in the infobox, because the readers will think that 400-650 is exclusivly the number of militants killed while separately from them 138 cops died, while in reality the 138 cops are among those 400-650 counted. And if you do that, then some readers might think that the IDF is claiming to have killed all those militants in addition to the cops and thus inflating their numbers of enemy combatants they killed for their propaganda purposes, and that is not neutral on your part. Also, the numbers would not add up and readers would be confused: 138 cops+670 civilians+400 to 650 militants is not equal to 1,100 people killed, but if we would count the cops as those militants and look at the lower number then we would get 670+400 (138 cops) then we would get 1,070 which is preaty much close to 1,100. I think my math just now actualy proves my point on the cops being counted as fighters by both the IDF AND the Palestinians themselves and not as civilians. Also, I heard today that the head of the Palestinian Interior Ministry was killed, that would mean he was a policeman in essence, the head of the police forces and we should count him as a civilian right? But, hey look at that, he was also one of the four main leaders of Hamas, who would have guessed. So, what to do know?89.216.232.27 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) About the LA Times article, let us just examine that for a moment. The relevant sections, or at least what I think you are referring to, correct me if I am incorrect, but the relevant passage was this:

Hamas, the militant group that has controlled Gaza since mid-2007, has an estimated 20,000-strong security force composed of police; Protection and Security, a unit similar to the U.S. Secret Service; and Internal Security, an intelligence and interrogation squad with a rising reputation for brutality.
Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns.

From my reading of that passage it does not follow that the police are necessarily involved with any rocket firs. It says 'many security force member moonlight . . .', but it defines security forces as much more than the police. So I personally dont think that this article can be used as evidence that police forces are necessarily involved with any 'terrorist' activities. I would, as I said above, have the 400-650 figure in the infobox with (includes police forces)* with the note from HRW. In the body of the article I would have the numbers the IDF cites, with the HRW comment, with the IDF claim that these people were involved in 'terrorist' activities. I personally think that this is reasonable, but then again I haven't been known to be all that reasonable. Nableezy (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

I removed

Israeli air strike on Gazans

as a non-free image. Since it even has the aJ logo imprinted on the image.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

These are free images. Look at the license and source, you will be able to verify them. Please revert your removal. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will revert it now, since I am not sure you are on or not. Always please check the page for each photo before removing the image so we can avoid this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, confirmation Aj has made these pictures free, if you are in doubt go to their website and check the section on Gaza, all picture they take or upload are free to be distributed, though it is illegal if you doctor the photos. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

BTW, Pretty hip of All Jazz to embrace the Creative Commons. CAMERA declares the Creative Commons antisemitic in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)