Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

InfoBox civilians break down

Since Palestinian sources clearly blur the line between civilians and combatants, reporting an unknown number of Hamas commanders as civilians it is only fair to remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal above can be discussed with other editors rather than making unilateral edits thanks. RomaC (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It was already mentioned here by other editors. I'm for WP:consensus. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What was mentioned was removing the breakdown from the infobox, not removing the civilians from the infobox. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It just comes across a little jumbled and not necessary to have all of the data in the box. Civilian casualties should be mentioned but the breakdown in the actual section would be much cleaner for the article.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with with AgadaUrbanit. The section below makes the "blur" even more problematic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You agree that civilian casualties should not be mentioned on the Palestinian side of the infobox? Nableezy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Never said that and I don't know where you got such an idea from.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Because that is what it appears he is arguing. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like we don't break down the PCHR numbers. The three asterisks are for the line which says the 940 number excludes policemen. The information beyond that point is just a list of civilian deaths that we are aware of, not that they were part of the PCHR count. It might be a little unclear. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely unclear. Blackeagle (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If civilians are typically mentioned in infoboxes there is no problem with having the number in there. It really doesn't matter too much. What does matter is that we have too many cells in the table and so much of a breakdown we need to specify the information with 4 asterisks. It is sillynessCptnono (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I reflected consensus in my edit, removing '***' and '****' AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Help

Ahhhhh. Help. I'm new to editing and I'm having trouble with reference tags. The section on Effects is tits up at the moment because of it. Can someone please fix it, or tell me how to fix it :)-N00B Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it, but you should try using the refTools, they are now available as a gadget in your preferences.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry again for the silliness. You might wanna wait though. It seems you had an issue with the content.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I can have an issue with content and also have issues with broken crap. I'll let you decide which is more important for me ;)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is already a well sourced significant section on this in the article, I am renaming the section with the name you gave it, because it is more succinct and direct. It definitely doesn't belong in "effects" because it was not one notable effect but a part of the military aspect of conflict itself. I had a brain fart and didn't realize that there was such a section, and thought you introduced new info. Of course, I should have known better as I had worked that section before.--Cerejota (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah that's fine. I didn't see it mentioned and figured it should be. If it's in there somewhere I can't complain, thanks for your help Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

casualties, IDF, fog of war

I see that we are qualifying casualty figures. While I often repeat that the fog of war means that these figures are inherently unreliable this close to conflict, I am concerned by the use of IDF figures. How does the IDF know this? They are neither on the ground, nor the government of Gaza, nor do they have any access to hospital information. It would seem to me their figures are a best estimates, and worse wishful thinking about the "targets".

The BBC has a great analysis on the "fog of war" and casualty figures. I think we should include ranges without qualifiers other than the sourcing like this:

Deaths:

100[1]-1000[2]

As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza.--Cerejota (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think we should be getting into assessing the reliability of primary sources. Wikipedia is generally pretty good at assessing the reliability of secondary sources, but we generally don't have the information or expertise to evaluate primary sources. As your question implies, we don't really have any idea what sort of methodology the IDF used to come up with that estimate. They could be taking a wild guess, or they could be relying on SIGINT and human sources on the ground in Gaza. Similarly, we don't have any idea how the Palestinian Ministry of Health came up with their numbers. They could have a list of the dead by name that's been carefully checked for duplication or they could just be adding up numbers of dead and missing with lots of double counting (for comparison, on September 30, 2001, estimated casualties from 9-11 was over 6,000; since then more careful checking has reduced the total to less than half that number). I think that all we can do is quote the various totals given in reliable secondary sources that reference these numbers and note the primary source those estimates originally came from. Blackeagle (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we do have a way to evaluate primary sources: we use secondary sources whenever possible and they tell us how reliable the primary sources are. I guess my point is that we should not use primary sources, but secondary sources for casualty figures. --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should use secondary sources to determine which figures we should give prominence to. As far as I can see the casualty figures, almost universally quoted by neutral reliable English language sources and international agencies conform to the estimates made by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. In the text, we should state that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figures cannot be placed on par with the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures. Note that I'm making no prior judgment on the reliability of these two sources; merely noting that secondary neutral reliable sources tend to quote one figure far more than the other. Please see my post below for several references. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Militant Activity

This section requires some serious work. For one, it is written almost entirely from the perspective of the IDF. Almost every piece of information here can be traced back to IDF sources. We need to use more neutral sources.

Second, I don't understand why we need to go into such extensive detail on the exact military tactics that Hamas used. For example, there is a separate subsection on "tunnels and booby traps" which, apart from reading very poorly, seems quite irrelevant and deserves a line rather than a subsection. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is not true that "almost every piece of information can be traced back to IDF sources", much of it can (there was more independent information that was mysteriously removed: I'll dig it up and restore it when I get the chance). The reason for this is simple: Hamas aren't talking much to the media, so much of what is known about the subject comes from IDF sources. If you can find independent or Hamas-based information that isn't there, by all means put it in. The details about tunnels and booby-traps reflect a focus by the reliable sources. This is presumably because those constituted a major part of militants' combat preparation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the section a bit. Presumably the IDF used land-mines and other "traps". However, we can hardly have a subsection on that. I think the problem here is that it is hard to get reliable information. Some of the Palestinian groups involved in combat, put out some information about their combat activities. The reason it was not put in, during an earlier discussion on this topic is that most of it is probably not verifiable. The same holds true of IDF reports. That's too bad; we'll have to keep the section brief till we get better sources. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of several paragraphs of sourced information. If you feel the content on this topic is incomplete, I suggest dealing with it by adding information. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jacob: Please don't remove sourced material because you don't trust the source of the reliable source. If there are reports to the contrary you can add them. It is important that for contentious material that it based on IDF info that the article state that the info comes from the IFD. However, it is inexcusable to remove the information. If it is reported on by reliable sources it cannot be removed unilaterally. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
See also section below which is related.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents (yes, again)

Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like opinions on listing incidents. Summaries are good but the list has turned into news. Wikipedia is not for news. In particular, a doctor on TV lost a kid and it was very newsworthy since it was an interesting and tragic story. However, this doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. So I would love to revert the revert but am open to any good reasoning as to why this one occurrence should stay in. Also, we should probably address all of the other fluff in the section.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If an incident is notable enough for it's own article, a link is all that's necessary. If it's not notable enough to merit an article, it probably shouldn't be in this one. That sort of thing is what the timeline article was created for. Blackeagle (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with botht the general point and the specific point.
On the general point, the notability of an incident is an objective fact: if RS cover it, the probability is that it is notable. Notability is not tied to being able to exist as a stand-alone article, for example we have List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. The bulk of the items there are not worthy of their own article, but taken together they represent a thoroughly encyclopedic addition to knowledge: using your criteria, we would limit this article (and related ones) to one or two notable events. A great loss for the project.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on what "not news" is intended to cover: we are encouraged to keep up to date in current events, and use news as reliable sources. In fact, we have WP:ITN, which is news. "Not news" is intended to provide a threshold on encyclopedic value of a given item. An encyclopedia article on a conflict should list notable incidents, including reactions in the media, incidents involving previously notable people etc. "Not news" is not against reporting news, it is against using the tone, intent, and immediacy/recentism of news media in encyclopedic articles - and mostly in the context of stand-alone articles, not of inclusion of news items within wider articles. There is a clear difference between being journalistic and being encyclopedic, but simply reporting on events is not one of them.
On the specific item, an interesting and tragic story if notable enough is precisely the stuff encyclopedic articles on events should be built on: it provides the zeitgeist of the event. But there is more: the figure involved was already notable, as a media figure and physician, so we are commenting on somethign that happened to a notable; notable crap that happens to notable dudes is encyclopedic in itself. If we list all the Pokemon in the world why not this? I reverted your removal of the material, but I see some room for improvement.--Cerejota (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The guy wasn't notable enough for Wikipedia until this event or someone just never got around to making him an article (he has one now kind of). If Alison Angel can't have a page than why should he :). In all seriousness though, I don't hate this info being in the article I just have a problem with editors adding anything they see on the news into it. This article is already bloated (someone mentioned in the footnotes section above) and this section plus its spin off page are perfect examples. The Arion and Dignity are two other incidents that are great stories to read about while taking a lunch but don't seem to be encyclopedic. Hopefully some other people will express some opinions on this since I might be completely wrong on this one.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on Arion and Dignity, they are key parts of the military aspect of the event - and the Dignity incident in particular involved notable people. I am afraid you are setting the bar way to high: if we follow this logic, none of the rocket attacks should be listed in wikipedia. While having a BLP or bio in wikipedia is a clear mark of notability, lacking one isn't. Besides the "no one got around to making it" problem, notability is not the only criteria for having someone with their own article, there is other criteria, such as having enough to write (notability is black and white, so a notable can give you just a few lines, or give you three articles worth of text). And BLPs from Israel are notoriously lacking, for example,
And I disagree that the way to fix a bloated article is to remove relevant information: it is to rewrite to be more succint (as I do with the headers all the time), and to follow WP:SUMMARY. But ultimately well sourced, relevant, and notable information should be included. This is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no deadline. Take your time, this can be fixed, but not by deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously if all the Pokemons are in. Unfortunately, the incidents section has been contested for awhile now for several reasons. Take a look at the archives and see how many times it has come up. It has been such a concern to other editors that it has been removed from the page and placed into another article (which itself is garbage). The incidents in both articles have turned into a list of anything bad Israel might have done that was picked up by the wire services. It is not good enough and all of the discussion here has not fixed that. I agree with you that it might be fixable but don't preach to me about Wikipedia standards because we can play that game all day. The incident section is trash. It has been since the beginning and it should be fixed.Cptnono (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Follow up: After rereading some of the references and events, I noticed that attacks on mosques and schools along with info on white phosphorus munitions are already integrated throughout the article in an appropriate way in the right places. Will removing the duplicate mention of these from the Incident section be a sufficient fix?Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The incidents section should go. It just encourages editors to add more and more, since if one is mentioned it is hard to argue why another one should not be. If the 'incidents' are important enough from a historical perspective - and some of them are -, they should be mentioned elsewhere in the narrative (as indeed they are already). The analogy of the rocket attacks is a good one, because they do not belong in an encyclopaedia either.--84.190.9.187 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree the incidents section should go, define the incidents exactlly, most put (If not all) are what israel did which makes it a bit one sided.Knowledgekid8716:56 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, notable incidents are notable because the sources made them so. One should not confuse asymmetric with one sided: the conflict was asymmetric, so the incidents will be asymmetric. This is formal logic. We must be careful to present the incidents in an NPOV fashion, but this is not done by removal - and by an large they are presented NPOV already. The recent suggestions that well-sourced, notable, information are beyond me: this is why we are here, to add encyclopedic information.
Perhaps Israel should give better weapons and training to Hamas, that way, the incidents are less one sided. --Cerejota (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Television has reported that shrapnel removed from the daughter and the niece, who are now in Tel HaShomer (hospital), shows that they may have pieces of metal that are from a Grad-type Katyusha rocket - and not from any ammunition used by the IDF - in their heads. Israel doesn't shoot Katyusha rockets. Hamas does.

The saddest part of this is that Dr. Abuelaish is apparently the rare 'Palestinian' who strives for peace. Apparently, even he could not keep the terrorists from using his home. See: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinian-doctors-daughter-may-have.html

I have not seen this Channel 1 Israel TV report, but local witness on the ground (my brother) confirmed that it indeed happened. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you are normally quite civil, but putting quotes around Palestinians and saying it is rare for them to want peace, you are soapboxing in a possibly inflammatory fashion. Think about how you would feel if someone said "He is the rare 'Israeli' who strives for peace". Furthermore, perhaps you were honoring your username, but that is simply not true. For example, a poll in September 2008 had this result:


Notice that the question is not do you want peace, but if there would be. Almost 60% of the Palestinians think this will happen by the time their children are adults. And there are other polls etc. I would offer that the majority of the Palestinians not only wnat peace with Israel, but want to have a good relationship with Israel, and see this as achivable within a generation. I will not repeat the words of Yitzah Rabin that I have quoted before, except to reflect on the fact that we are all humans, who bleed, shit, love, and hate the same.--Cerejota (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiscanner analysis also shows a statistically significant interest by Palestinian IP editors in Britney Spears. An interesting and somewhat unexpected factoid. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, using scare quotes around "Palestinian" suggests that you deny the existence of Palestinians. Also, arguing above in a backhanded way that these "people" are mostly against peace is indeed Soapboxing and, like your earlier 'joke' about femicide, is inappropriate here. RomaC (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you RomaC, Palestinians do exist, and don't you loose your sleep: woman in my surrounding are safe :). I hope the hate will stop and people of peace will raise their voice. If you read carefully you'd notice that I just quote blog of Carl in Jerusalem, which is unworthy for Wikipedia inclusion. I personally think that situation on the ground is very sad and complex, the war generally is extremely ugly especially from close distance. Here is very shocking Newsweek quote:

Why just we can't all live in peace AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Way off topic. Does any of the above have any bearing on the article? If anyone has any thoughts on how to work in the UN HQ bombing incident it would be appreciated. It is touched on several times throughout the article already and does not need to be here. The sources and a few lines are good so I don't want to delete it if these can be used somewhere else. Also, is there consensus on whether the Doctor's event stays or goes?Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree way off topic. To the point, The Doctor's event incident mostly discussed in blog type media. Channel 1 investigation report did not get into Web RS AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now merged three of the "incidents" into other sections of the article. Any edits (not full on reverts) to the latest Jan 15th one are greatly appreciated. Does anyone have any other thoughts on what to do with the remaining few? I don't know where they should be but still think the incident section needs to go.Cptnono (talk)

Background

I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267764091&oldid=267753026 Your suggestions are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not good. why? Looks confusing and not neutral. And some futher edits made it as the first line in section. I reverting it and suggest you put it in 'Conflict escalates section' Brunte (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestion. I've tried to touch casus belli of this conflict according to timeline and events prior to Lull 2008 , which described in Background section. Could you explain how you find it unbalanced? What confused you? I'm not really sure how this edit could be integrated in the 'Conflict escalates section', since deals with events after Lull 2008. Could you explain? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My wrong, conflict escalates section suggestion was a nobrainer. But a justification have nothing in the background to do. And your justification was onesided. That is the answer to both your questions.'Casus belli' is already in the lead. Brunte (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The background is supposed to expand upon the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No justification for anything, on my side. Quoting 3d party sources about events on the ground. I'll re-commit. And indeed looks like another cycle of violence is underway. It's funny how justification for more bloodshed could be found. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is considerable justification given in a narrative voice. You are overloading that section with everything you think Hamas is guilty of and with barely any mention of any Israeli actions or justifications from Hamas for these actions. Nableezy (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm quoting word in word Xinhua, Jpost and Aljazeera in time line order. What do you mean narrative voice? I propose that we discussed facts and not questions like blame, guilt or justification. Please be fair, any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
So you disregarded the opinion you asked for... Brunte (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This was added today to the background section, "Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens"; I have used equal space to add corresponding UN figures on Palestinian casualties: "while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations." RomaC (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I discuss my changes with you in order to get better neutrality and balance. Again let's not get into who killed more, this line of discussions will lead us nowhere. People of both sides of the boarder are suffering for no clear reason. I'd prefer to discuss facts and not persons or put blame on each other. Please do not call names. I'd be glad if you'd look into diff and explain what is wrong with additions. For no all I get is total removal L:). It is far from Wikipedia:BRD. Thanks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
To me the amendment is the perfect example of how this article should be written. RomaC's approach is systematic, neutral and provides balance/symmetry. Try to ignore the numbers and the names of the countries when you read it. It's textbook NPOV to me. Just facts and figures speaking for themselves. There's no blaming or name calling. Maybe 'targeted killings' could be improved but I don't know how. Yes, it might make Israel look bad/good for some people depending on their views but that shouldn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thank for explaining basics of NPOV. I agree that we should talk only about facts and bring 3d party quotes as-is, without original research. Talking about good/bad is irrelevant, and depend on POV. Still we are not on the same page. RomaC is great editor but he commented on some unrelated amendment, which was not added by me. Could you comment on this proposed diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=267985738&oldid=267973921 Could you relate to each of 3 quotes? Which one is NPOV and which one is not? How it could be improved? Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, explaining things to people when they already understand them perfectly well or 'stating the bleeding obvious' is apparently a gift of mine so I'm reliably informed. You're much better off asking experienced editors like Cerejota to review your edits than me. Anyway, for what it's worth...I don't see the following sentence as necessary since it's covered further down...(and we already have a huge spike in the word count when it gets to rocket/mortar etc). What's the value added for you, specifically mentioning Ezzdine Al Qassam so that a link is possible and noting that it goes back to 2003 ?
Ezzdine Al Qassam, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), claims responsibility for launching rockets into southern Israel since March 2003. [93]
Again, not sure about this. Palestinians get kidnapped by the IDF all the time, lot's of them. That's one of the things that annoys Hamas etc obviously so I'm not sure that the fear of kipnap without actual kipnap is very notable.
Subsequently Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.[94]
This one seems fine and notable to me
Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.[95]
Actually, I hadn't noticed some of the other stuff in there e.g.
  • "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction". I thought Hamas officially supported a 2 state solution like everyone else whatever the rhetoric of their propaganda. The Middle East is rich in rhetoric.
  • I guess Egypt aren't really blockading the coast. Maybe they would if the Israelis weren't....
Probably doesn't help much.Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i agree with sean's assessment
i would add that these parts are an issue:
"allowing only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis."
um, wasn't there a humanitarian crisis, blackouts, food rationing, etc during the blockade before the conflict? how can we say they allowed enough goods to avert it if it happened?
"Since 2005 the Palestinians have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles of various types into Israel, hitting cities such asSderot, and Israel has responded with heavy air strikes and a total blockade of Gaza.Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel around 600%. Israel conducted airstrikes on Gaza during 2007 and 2008, against Hamas and other targets."
the structure of "palestinians launched rockets/israel responded" is pov. it could just as easily be stated "israel blockaded, destroyed farms and orchards, demolished homes, and refused to allow in enough goods to sustain the population/hamas responded. lets just state all of the actions and let people decide who responded to whom. Untwirl (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thank you for analysis. I see what you mean. I'd appropriate if you could integrate the relevant quotes/sources into the section in clear NPOV way. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reactions section

i thing this is misleading

"Thirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks, though none expressed support for Hamas.[citation needed] Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive. Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence."

"mostly in the Muslim world" and "mostly in the western world" parts that i dont get. are japan, france, switzerland, mexico, spain, etc etc muslim countries? those parts should just be left out. Untwirl (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with WP:SYNTH. We can reword sources to fit the encyclopedic voice, but we should never draw conclusion not drawn by the sources themselves.--Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It needs to be rewritten. Lose the numbers, lose the 'mostly in the' parts leaving almost nothing, probably the more general the better. Maybe even simply use what is in the main article
International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict came from many countries and international organisations. International reaction to the conflict was also notable in the level of civilian demonstrations all around the world, which in many cases displayed sentiment significantly different from the official government line.
It's interesting to note that there isn't really even consensus over there about what condemnation is etc so the catagorization required to make these kind of statements 'x countries mostly in' summary statement is doomed and not what we're meant to do. Copy/paste is easier. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that having the numbers there is ok, if we can agree upon it. However, "mostly in the Muslim world is misleading" (what defines "mostly"). Also what is the point of bringing religion into this?VR talk 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
CerejotaSean, this exact paragraph was discussed over at the International Reactions article, and received consensus. VR, "mostly" means "more than half of the countries specified", and we're not bringing religion into this, we're bringing politics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
But it's not there anymore is it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What isn't where? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Many things but this time I meant the paragraph back up at the top quoted by Untwirl from this article i.e. "Thirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world..." etc is not in the International Reactions article (or is it?). Maybe I'm missing your point. Perhaps you are saying that this paragraph was agreed over there in the International Reactions article and put in this article (but not that one).....and what Untwirl says below. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph was suggested by user:Saepe Fidelis on the International Reactions talk page and received consensus there. As far as I know, Saepe never put it into the International Reactions article; I don't know why. The paragraph is just a common-sense summary of the info in the "Countries" section in that article, all of which is sourced. "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing" - from WP:SYNTH. Is anybody arguing that there is a change in meaning here? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
unless there is a source that says "mostly mulsim countries condemned israel and mostly western countries supported them" this is or and synth. there are many descriptors that could be used, these particular ones are very pov. it doesn't belong there. Untwirl (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so, we have a rough consensus to drop the muslim and western qualifiers and just state the numbers, yes? Untwirl (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that approach if the numbers are derived from the reaction article + discussions/consensus on categorisation of reactions there i.e. on the basis that the reactions article is the master for this info. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)..........to clarify in light of Jalapenos' comment below. Apologies for my lack of clarity. I'd prefer the muslim world and western world dropped from that sentence. I'm okay with just numbers if...see above.... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a "rough consensus". Untwirl supports removing the information, I oppose, Sean (if I understand him correctly) conditionally opposes, and the conditions are filled - you're all welcome to look at that discussion page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i support, sean supports, vr supports, cerejota supports, you oppose. sounds like a rough concensus. i'll repeat this point because it is important: unless there is a source that says "mostly mulsim countries condemned israel and mostly western countries supported them" this is or and synth. there are many descriptors that could be used, these particular ones are very pov. it doesn't belong there. Untwirl (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
the crickets i hear lead me to believe that this is a workable change. i will make it. Untwirl (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Changes I've made to Rocket attacks into Israel section

The problems with it were:

a)We don't need details of every rocket attack on this page, that's what the timeline's for, so I've linked to it
b)There was a lot of detail about rocket attacks that happened before this conflict.

I've removed problems. Please don't reinstate without consensus here.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews23: That's not way things work around here. If you want to remove sourced material from an article because you don't like it, you should gain a consensus for its removal, then remove it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

not only is jalapenos reverting what he calls removal of sourced information, he is using misleading edit summaries to remove sourced information. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 Untwirl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
and i agree that we dont need to document every rocket attack. do we mention every airstrike or tank attack, or gunshot by idf?Untwirl (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ::User:Jalapenos do exist reverted the changes, justified above, without any consensus here, and saying to see the discussion page. I see no reasonable argument for his changes. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jandrews. Procedurally, when one wants to remove several paragraphs of long-standing, sourced information, one must seek consensus, preferably by listing the proposed edits separately and discussing each one. You are welcome to do so here. I can begin the discussion by noting that, contrary to your claim, the page is far from including details of every rocket attack (there were several hundred of them), rather the page had basic details of several of the most notable rocket attacks, notable because of direct hits on targets, serious casualties, etc. Last I checked, there was no mention of rocket attacks from before this conflict, but even if there were, that would not justify removing content on rocket attacks during the conflict. In addition, you removed content unrelated to rocket attacks, and so far have not explained your removal. Please do so. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl, I'm glad you agree that the content dealt with in the edit you refer to was sourced information, as you will see if you check the edit carefully that I was restoring content removed by Jacob, and that I did not remove any content whatsoever. I expect an apology for your false accusation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

jalapenos - did you follow that procedure when doing this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 why did you use a misleading edit summary for your removal of info? Best, Untwirl (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, this is the same edit you mentioned above, and which I pointed out did not involve the removal of any content whatsoever. (We both got stuck in an edit conflict on the talk page). I still expect an apology, of course. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Mentions of previous rockets? How about:
  • 'Since Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely in 2005 the Palestinians have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles of various types from Gaza into Southern Israel, hitting major population areas such as S'derot, Netivot, Ashkelon and Ashdod as well as numerous other towns and villages causing over 1 million people to sleep in bomb shelters and causing panic amongst the populace. The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure'
  • 'From June 28, 2004 to January 27, 2009, fifteen people have been killed in Palestinian rocket attacks and dozens wounded'
Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Those lines must have been added recently; good catch. I agree with you completely that they should not be in the "Palestinian militant activity" section, since they do not deal with the events of the conflict. They are relevant to the Background section. I would heartily support moving what can be salvaged from those lines (they have a POV problem, too) into the background section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
jalp - i apologize unreservedly. you did just move the part i thought you deleted. Untwirl (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
i still believe "that we dont need to document every rocket attack. do we mention every airstrike or tank attack, or gunshot by the idf?" Untwirl (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I responded to this above. Currently the section only documents a few of the most notable rocket attacks, similarly to the section on the Israeli campaign, which mentions the most notable airstrikes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You can be spicy, but this a cool solution...:D Brewcrewer: of course consensus must be discussed, but removal of un-discussed material - specially one out of section, and with undue weight, is OK as long as there is no edit warring. That is what we call around here WP:BRD, nothing to get hostile about.--Cerejota (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon me joining the discussion without having read the whole section, but I just wanted to add that thirteen rockets and several mortars were fired at Israel today. Any volunteers to add that to the graphic? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that this info was moved to the Background section, "Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens". I have used equal space to add corresponding UN figures on Palestinian casualties as follows: "...while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations." RomaC (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Now if we can just get that kind of systematic approach to NPOV throughout the article we're in business. Nice work RomaC. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, RomaC. The only reason I moved the text you quoted to that section, rather than deleting it, is because jalapenos would have just reverted it otherwise.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews, for future knowledge: I wouldn't have reverted such an edit, and it would likely have been improper for me to do so. I had reverted your removal of several paragraphs of long-standing, sourced information without discussion. This would have been a removal of a little bit of recently added sourced information with some discussion (i.e. with me), and thus a different case. I also happened to agree with you that the info did not belong where it was and that it suffered from POV problems (see above), but, again, that's not why I wouldn't have reverted it. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents: Is this vandalism or what?

Why removing such well sourced and important paragraph from the "Incidents" section:

UN Headquarters: On January 15, the IDF shelled the UN headquarters in Gaza where hundreds were sheltering. After analyzing the Unexploded ordnance, the UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by 155m White Phosphorus ammunition.[237]. 3 people were injured and hundreds of tons food and fuel were destroyed,[238] drawing condemnation from European countries.[239] Israel claimed Hamas fired from the site, but apologised for the "very sad consequences" calling its attack a "grave error". After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident.[240]

And the remover even completely deleted that the compound (which hosted hundreds of refugees) was hit by white phosphorus as asserted by the UN. How can this be explained? --Darwish07 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And let's be clear, this is different from the school incident discussed above. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I moved it. The information is almost all there it just isn't under the disputed incident section now. I merged it with a previous mention of the event. Read the article. The white phosphorus was edited slightly but still mentioned. The only thing not included in my edit was the European countries line since it was ambiguous and the sources stated only a few. Go ahead and edit but don't accuse me of vandalism if you don't feel like reading the compete article.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, The white phosphorus part was not "edited slightly" as you state. It has been moved from "The UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by WP" to "according to a spokesman". This is downplaying of well sourced information. The cited UN report, which was removed, clearly said:

The type of UXO removed confirms that the compound was shelled by 155mm White Phosphorous artillery.

And this was not a spokesman, this was a UN official report. I'm assuming good faith cause I think you thought it was a quote randomly found in a news website, but it was not. You didn't read the cited report first, and yes, I also didn't read the subarticle. I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I was questioning if this was vandalism "or what". Anyway I'll return the paragraph to the main page itself, cause this is an important incident and it was not even summarized in the main page before moving. You may want to discuss this afterwards, cause this section was moved without discussion here. Peace. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Both versions stated that white phosphorus was used. Both referenced UN. Yes, the later referenced only one spokesman so I apologize if several UN representatives said this. 3 shells is just as encyclopedic as the size of the ordinance. You're being a little picky and I can only assume defensive. Also, if you scroll up, you'll see a discussion about the incident section so again, stop falsely accusing me just because you didn't read the page.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: The link for the report is not working for me. If you honestly think my neutrality is off go ahead and tinker with the wording. It now states "The UN asserts white phosphorus shells were used during the attack." simple, to the point, the truth, should be OK.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
the un didn't "assert", they "confirmed". when you take out the analysis part and then add "assert", you degrade the authority of the source. you also removed the un's response to israel's assertion that hamas was firing from the site. the original wording was more npov. Untwirl (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It said assert previously (before I touched it. Scroll up). Changed it to confirmed. Not that complicated.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: The link to the report is not working. If someone can add the source that would be fantastic. "you also removed the un's response to israel's assertion that hamas was firing from the site" - Don't follow you on what line is being referenced, Untwirl. Go ahead and add it. This is also the 2nd time you've chimed in on an edit to hastily without reading it close enough.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) better to chime in and realize i'm wrong than to make pov edits without discussion as you seem bent on doing. however, if you read more closely you will see the line i refer to: "After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident." (scroll up)

enough with the snide comments ("not that complicated", "editors pulling at straws", "this is the 2nd time . . .") you obviously weren't reading closely enough yourself or you would see the line i am talking about, unless you are being wp:dense? try to agf, and i will do the same. Untwirl (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Point made. The edits, however, were discussed. You have had two knee-jerk reactions to my edits. Apologies for coming across crass but that is incredibly frustrating. I've even asked other editors to edit the Jan 15 incident since I was concerned with POV (which was, arguably, there before I touched it). Go ahead and add the line if you want it there. Done.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
no prob. sorry if i've seemed to be jumping on your edits without cause. thanks for being amenable to compromising. Untwirl (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Understandable given the complexity of such an intense issue. No worries.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War aims

The ex-parliamentarian Uri Avnery remarking on the war aims expressed, not by official declarations, but by many interviews in the press and on television in Israel during the campaign, writes as followes:

The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war crimes: (1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to “fix a price tag”. “to burn into their consciousness”, “to reinforce deterrence”, and most of all – to get the population to rise up against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at (literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical teams from reaching the victims, killing people indiscriminately. In certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was opened on people trying to escape.' Uri Avnery, 'Under the Black Flag', Counterpunch 02/02/2009

It's only his synthesis of comments made to the Israeli public. There is, in most wars, a distinction to be made between public declarations concerning the casus belli and the actual reasons for going to war, esp. one that is a war of choice, as was both this and the recent Iraq war. So any authoritative comments from IDF strategists or political sources that use the kind of language Avnery remarks on, in explaining the war's aims, should be noted for eventual use.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Brunte (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is January_2009_Gaza_attacks article nessesary ? Merge in here perhaps.

I read January_2009_Gaza_attacks and find it contans much less extra material compared to the section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Internal_violence than other linked articles have. I suggest either its merge in and deleted or that section Internal violence to be tighten or merged with another section. Discuss. Brunte (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge. No reason to have a separate article. Blackeagle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
People are calling it a good article and it IS featured in the main news section, before you remove or merge it I would take a poll.Knowledgekid8717:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Even issues that are purely aspects of this article are being spun off because of WP:SIZE. January 2009 Gaza attacks is not purely an aspect of this article, and should clearly not be merged. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I think that article should be deleted then. Can someone help as I dont know how to request it? Brunte (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Info box Palestinian casualties questionable

While three sources are provided, all seem to be referencing Palestinian medical workers or Palestinian-organized services. Including reuters and UNOCHA give the impression that these media groups are independently verifying the death/wounded toll, when in fact they are just citing (albeit subtly) information from Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian medical services.

I honestly couldn't care less about the casualties themselves, but the Palestinians have a long history of inflating, embellishing, and often times falsifying information regarding casualties.

Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know for a fact those sources would be considered unreliable from a POV perspective, but they're the only ones we can go by for now.


I think Israel might have their casualty estimates, perhaps that could also be included? Like, say "casualties disputed" or something along those lines. Be cordial, please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times already. The numbers provided by the Palestinians have been widely reported in all media, cited by the UN, HRW, AI and Btselem. We can certainly include official Israeli estimates, but it should not take prominence over the statistics that have been used in every single source that I have seen. Hamas has also disputed the number of Israeli soldiers killed, would you also like to include that and say those numbers are 'disputed'? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We do have the IDF figures in the infobox: 700 militants and 250 civilians. It is missing their total which also includes a couple hundred who have not been identified either way. Or so they claim. If we have Hamas figures I'd include them also. Although Hamas is the government (or really the state) of Gaza so I guess that kind of makes the MoH numbers the same thing. If they have a claim for numbers of Israeli soldiers killed, I'd include it also. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that, at least I think, is nobody uses those numbers at all. Everybody is quoting the Palestinian numbers for Palestinian casualties and the Israeli numbers for Israeli casualties. Until there is some independent verification on either side I dont think we need to vary from that. In the media, at least what I have read and I like to think I sample from a pretty wide spectrum, the Hamas claims for IDF forces killed are mentioned in passing as just that, as are the Israeli estimates for Palestinian figures. I think it would be better if we did the same, for the infobox include what is being widely reported until we get an independent number, and somewhere in the casualties section bring all that up. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

restored sentence: antisemitic violence

i dont remember exactly, but i do recall a question being put forth as to whether this violence relates directly to this conflict. the source itself says violence has "tripled." doesnt this mean at least one third of it is unrelated? Untwirl (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just mentioning it has greatly increased would suffice? Saying 2/3 of anti-simetic violence is a result of this conflict is probably more detailed than it needs to be, and we can't be sure of that whole "Trippled" buisiness anyway. 2/3 is a definite amount and we don't have definite, or do you have a source of a survey or something?Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i didnt restore it, just questioned its relevance. i think 'greatly increased' is fine, if it needs to be here at all. Untwirl (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Probably not all that relevant. Considering that the conflict appears far from over after those attacks that took place in the last few days. Eventually the size of this article will be called into question and things like this will probably get trimmed out anywayAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What we can say for certain is that the reporting of antisemitic incidents has increased. RomaC (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's being discussed below, move all suggestions there from now Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

International/Legal issue is heavily biased and needs balancing

Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section. Also, I think we should include counter-opinions regarding the legal criticism. I know for a fact that many notable and more qualified than Richard Falk, who is more of an advocate than a legal expert.

Can we agree on this?

Oh, another thing I think we need to de-emphasize our inclusion of Richard A. Falk in the section lead. He possesses nowhere near the credibility nor the impartial opinion necessary to be considered a legal expert. What I mean is, if are going to continue using his name, his extreme bias must be established. Passing him off as impartial, which this article does, is simply a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't agree. Falk speaks on behalf of the UNHRC in his official capacity. His important statement was released by the UN on behalf of the world community. This is not a statement by a fanatical anti-Israeli blogger. It's the UN. If anything the section needs to emphasise that and de-emphasise the Falk as a person aspect. Your argument amounts to saying that the UN is extremely biased and that the article should point that out. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol. No, that's not my argument. And I couldn't care less if he was speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ himself, he is a controversial figure and recognized for his extreme bias and shouldn't be passed off his an impartial legal judge. This was the interpretation of the section author and NOT the media or the world. Please do not put words in my mouth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, he you didn't address my other points. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he did. Falk is fully qualified to speak on international law and is an official representative of a UN organization. That is how he is presented and that is how he should be presented. That some don't like what he has said does not change any of that. Nableezy (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is ignorant. Falk is fully qualified to speak internationally because he was appointed by a UN-sanctioned organizations. Extreme analogy: If Hitler was appointed as UNHRC legal expert, would that make his opinion crystal truth and therefor be passed off as fact? Hardly a fair analogy, but it's the same reasoning. Falk is a questionable figure, and choosing him while ignoring many other notable people IS blatant bias. And, neglecting to emphasize his controversy as an "expert", or in the least highlighting the ethical challenges filed against him, IS bias. If our goal is to report facts, and those facts can be ascertained quite easily through simple research and discussion. then we MUST do that. And like I said, it was the interpretation of the original subsection author and not the world. I'm not denying his opinion is important, but passing it off like it's evolutionary science is, in good-faith terms the ultimate shade of ignorance. And in non-good faith terms, lying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'r looking for balance where there isn't one to be had Wikifan. The fact is that Israel have been accused of a lot more International Law violations than Gaza. Between the WP contraversy, UN facility attacks & civillian deaths all alleged Israel simply has more to answer. Not saying that they were right or wrong, or what the ruling on these allegations should be. It's just the nature of the beast here, Israel has an internationally recognized government and that makes them beholden to some things Hamas might get away with Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, focus on what I said instead of reducing points into simple sentences. If you're going to avoid my arguments, then just don't respond. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a brief statement something like 'Falk, a controversial figure amongst supporters of Israel' but is there really any point given that it's redundant/self-evident ? What I would say is that the whole section probably needs to be split off to a sub article and summarised in this article. It's too big. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ease up turbo. You said that "Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section" I think that I made concise argument against that point. The reason I didn't comment on your dislike of Richard Falkis because it wasn't worth mentioning. Whether you like it or not Sean and Nableezy said perfectly why he was a reliable source. That you didn't agree didn't make them wrong. That the discussion didin't go your way doesn't make our address of your issues anything but full, and calling me out like I was out of line was foolish Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
He is fully qualified because, as the article you linked to says: "a Bachelor of Laws from Yale University, and a Doctor of Laws from Harvard University. He is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001-04)." And your extreme analogy is beyond an analogy, it has reached the point of stupidity. I am sorry if that is uncivil, but complaining about bias when writing in a biased way, and complaining that the world media is biased against Israel, and now that somebody who is appointed by the UN, unlike Hitler, as an expert in the field of international law and specifically how it relates to the I/P conflict is also biased just does not carry a whole lot of water. You have some information about the man as it relates to his views in general try putting that in the Richard Falk article. Here, when he speaks on behalf of the UN it is as if the UN is speaking. He has been appointed this position by the UN and official statements are made not just in his name but in the name of the UN as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Come'on. Type "Falk" in the above search engine and you will see identical arguments. I'm not denying his qualifications according to his academic portfolio, or the fact that he was pointed by the UN. No, the thing is, I don' care. I really don't. I'm not denying that he is neither of those things. I'm simply saying his position of authority is highly contested by major media and equally notable figures, and this NEEDS to be addressed. Or, in the least, supplamented with an opposing viewpoint. As I said, we're giving the hate Israel party a FREE pass just because it's the UN. Let's take the UN out of the equation, it's still Richard A. Falk. My analogy was PERFECT because it used your exact reasoning in the context of a villainous person, unlike Falk. But your justifications could be applied to the Hitler scenario. Let's end this b.s and focus on balancing the section. If you're concerned by NPOV, and you believe the section is perfectly fine as is, I question your judgment as a wikipedia user. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The UN appointed Richard Falk to be a "spokesperson", look up spokesperson. They didn't appoint him Emperor of the world. He performs the function of a tape recorder. He could eat babies in his spare time. The fact is he speaks as the UN's mouthpiece. He doesn't dictate policy. He doesn't sit on any council. He just stands in front of a camera to put a face to the UN. Now if Richard Faulk was leading the investigation into the International Law violations, then I'd be right behind you cryin foul Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you Andrew, but we're giving him the credence of Emperor in the the way he is portrayed in the international lead. I remember the original international lead about a month ago and didn't even remotely paint Falk the way it does here. And we had the same information then as we do now. What happened? Oh yeah, user bias. Of course. SHOCKING! Like I said, search Falk in the engine. This isn't a unique argument, we just got tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to fan:

falk as hitler? i'm going to agf here and hope you're kidding. let anyone comparisons of israel to nazi germany, and they're anti-semites, but you can throw this rubbish around?

falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov. if you feel the whole world has an anti-israel bias, maybe you should contribute to the mars wiki Untwirl (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, that was a little combative. retracted. Untwirl (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:"Let's take the UN out of the equation, it's still Richard A. Falk.". No, let's take Falk out of the equation, it's still the UN. This is the key point, not who Falk is or what pro-Israeli media etc think of him. Are we going to have to add qualifiers to every pro-Israeli lawyer's statement e.g. 'extremely biased X, a controversial figure to 99.9999% of the world asserts that...'. Come on, it's unreasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We deal in sourced marterial. Richard Faulk is in a lot of sourced material because he's the UN spokesman. What can we do? Reject good sources because they feature someone we don't like. That would violate WP:Stupid BullshitAndrew's Concience (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a WP:Stupid Bullshit page ? People around the world have to deal with stupid bullshit everyday in their work, relationships, shopping, media etc. It seems like a clear gap in WP. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you think the UN is part of the 'hate Israel party' put that in the UN article. I wish you good luck with that. Here however, it is the just the UN. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said that and you are not addressing what I said. It's not that I don't disagree with, in fact, this has nothing to do with disagreements. His position of authority needs to be emphasized according to his questionable relationships with contradicting sources. I'm getting tired of the vicious jerk circle and unprecedented level of ignorance. Choosing sources that fit YOUR agenda might seem neutral to you, but it isn't. Balance is an important part of wikipedia, and if you think the legal section deserves to be a moral bandwagon from sources self-selected by those who have worked on the section, then I don't know what to say. Justifying the bias because it's the UN is not an excuse. There are sources outside your jaded agenda that offer an opposing viewpoint, and the ones that are reputable and relate to the topic deserve to be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You know what is ignorant, thinking that if someone criticizes a country that means that someone is biased against that country. It does not matter you think he is biased, he speaks for the United Nations when he serves in his official capacity. That you think the UN is biased is also, to use a term you used earlier, mind-blowingly retarded. Nableezy (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok no one read the first half of this debate, and then read that last paragraph. You might get whiplash or something (also sighn your posts) Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And finally, I quote the words of the man in question, I think he speaks to the issues Wikifan is raising:
Israel had all along accused me of bias and of making inflammatory charges relating to the occupation of Palestinian territories. I deny that I am biased, but rather insist that I have tried to be truthful in assessing the facts and relevant law. It is the character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of Israel's approach, especially its harsh blockade of Gaza, resulting in the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants. By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction.
in an editorial in the guardian (shit I forgot, the guardian is notoriously anti-israeli too) Nableezy (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Save the preaching please. This isn't a forum: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Nableezy, your ignorance is beyond saving. I craft a simple, easily-understandable argument, which you and others, manage to completely ignore and/or respond in such a way it makes me question if you actually read what I wrote. No wonder people like me no longer care about these kinds of articles. Users such as yourself refuse to accept opinions that don't fit in your thinly-manufactured agenda that borders completely insanity. unfortunately, I can only sympathize as everything I do is, *gasp* against the status-quo established by Anti-Semites like yourself. A month ago the article was ridiculous, but now...LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Strike that bullshit accusation of anti-semitism. Not once have I said anything that could possibly be taken as anti-semitic, I in fact have actively engaged with Israeli editors who were not beyond retarded to try to find something that could be accepted as truly neutral. For the complete jackasses I have no patience. Nableezy (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And I dont think I even have to respond to you saying 'save the preaching please'. All you have done is preach bullshit to try to get bullshit into the article. Please stop. Nableezy (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Please do not devalue this term. It's extremely offensive to do that for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not bullshit and I will not refuse. My original post was clear and factual, and many of you bombard me with bullshit and misinformation that leads me to believe that your disagreement has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with anti-Semitism, or in the least, an unquestioned unjustified resentment. Your refusal to even look at the Falk errors boggles my mind, so don't tell me to shutup because I'm offending you. You're offending me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, bandying accusations of antisemitism is highly offensive to many editors here. Strongly suggest you strike that along with your Hitler analogies.RomaC (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan, i'm under the impression that the arbitration rules (and wp:npa) don't permit these (repeated) bullshit accusations of antisemitism. you can be blocked if you continue. Untwirl (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Wikifan. You obviously can't win your own argument so now your attacking the character of other editors. Nableezy is an anti-semite now? You've gone too far. If you want to make the edit on Falk go ahead but you're not gonna win an edit war against 3 people. I'll no longer argue with someone who blatantly attacks other editors when they disagree with you. Strike your remark accusing Nableezy of anti-semitism immediately or an administrator will be contacted. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Has it boiled down to this? I don't do what you say or I will be reported? Wow, thanks! This has NOTHING to do with disagreement. You are refusing to include facts, accuse me of being unproductive and saying I should simply go away. I called Nebleezy anti-Semitic because he admitted it through his postings. That's a fair accusation, I'm sorry if you find it offensive. All I wanted to do was clean up the section according to wikipedia rules but you refuse, and not only that, berate me with insults and what is clearly b.s. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Point to a single admission of anti-semitism, or even a single diff showing an anti-semitic statement. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You know what, fuck that dont. Aint even a point in trying to point out irrationality, it is futile. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
yeah, dont even humor him nableezy
you, fan, are the only one who has berated others with insults. no one but you thinks nableezy is antisemitic. you are disruptive. apologize and contribute meaningfully or find another article which doesn't make you WP:SPIDER Untwirl (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you really going to throw the rule book at me? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
its not the rulebook - it a cabal decree (much more official) Untwirl (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It hasn't "boiled down" to anything. You forced it there. You presented an argument and asked if anyone agreed. Three of us didn't and we told you why. When you didn't like that you resorted to insulting our intelligence and accusing Nableezy of racism. This isn't us buddying up against you. I've disagreed with Sean and Nableezy plenty before now, and there's at least one instance on this very talk page where I took your side on an argument and backed you up.(See the section on shock). Your are totally out of line here. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Any one using antisemitic arguments should be subject to immediate and automatic suspension, on the first violation, and indefinite suspension on the second. Anyone throwing such accusations against others in wiki, by the same token, should be reported. It is a gross violation of etiquette and particularly with Nableezy, totally unwarranted, and should be dealt with on AN/I unless wikifan strikes out his remarks. So far, though requested, he hasn't. Perhaps it is simply more efficient to not 'feed the beast' since his remarks are a string of clichés, and mostly unsourced. Ignore him.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure where to put this

'Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html

an ideas? Untwirl (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No where for now. Focus on the conflict/sovereign reactions before isolated incidents. I have 150 bookmarked news reports from reputable media sources that fully disclose the absurd level of anti-Semitic and violent protests occurring throughout Europe and the Middle East unabated by their governments. Where do those go? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Governments don't abate protests.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You can work with editors like Chesdovi, Brewcrewer and Jalepenos to ensure that the incidents are included in the article split off from the main reactions article. I think they will probably be the main people working on this at least at first. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
unlike your incidents, this is directly related to the current conflict. we have plenty of "isolated incidents" of "antisemitism" that are given space in the article. Untwirl (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas armored vehicles

Every once in a while I actually look at the article so I noticed this. The article says Hamas was using "armored vehicles" in the fighting, sourced with this Jerusalem Post article[3]. Is that assertion correct? I realize that Hamas seized them from Fatah but I would have thought they'd be more of a liability given Israel's air supremacy. Does anyone know about this? The current source is vague and it seems odd. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concensusbuilding for triming down the article

Jandrews23jandrews23 tried to remove parts not so related to the articles core. It was revereted by Jalapenos do exist here with the comment "Jandrews, I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. Your repeated removal of large chunks of sourced material has prompted a second talk page discussion. State your position there"

I disagree and reverted, and Jalapenos do exist reverted again "So get consensus. That's how we do things around here."

And thats what I like to do. Your views editors! Brunte (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


section is too long - i agree it needs to be summarized.Untwirl (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

jalapenos 3rr

you are well past your allowed number of reverts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268127450&oldid=268127353

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268145847&oldid=268145302

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268262758&oldid=268261420

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268272567&oldid=268269432

it seems that you are the one who needs to get consensus. don't revert again or you will be reported. this article has special rules due to arbitration. Untwirl (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I made several edits in the past few days reverting removals of large sections of sourced material without discussion. According to Wikipedia policy, drastic removals require discussion, and, if opposed, require consensus. Regarding one such removal, you sought consensus and failed to gain it. My other calls to propose the removals on the discussion page went completely ignored. Reverting improper edits does not require consensus.
As for my reverts: I don't think that I was in technical violation of WP:3RR, but I was definitely pushing it. Thanks for the heads up; I will not make any further reverts in the near future. On that note, I'm asking all editors here to be on the lookout for discussionless removals of large sections of sourced material, and other such ninja editing, and act against it. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah reverting ninja edits is not 3RR, but can be edit warring, people need to look at the context before raising blockable offenses and embarrassing admins into bad blocks. Jalapenos and I don't always agree, but he is largely responsible for many of the good things in both consensus and content. Plus, he has a sense of humor, something I hold dear. --Cerejota (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Awww  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
wp:ninja states, "Edit ninjas are users who move from article-to-article, making edits, often in violation of WP:NPOV and they are often successful by working together in clans. They are silent, but deadly. Like real ninjas they combine astounding accuracy, cunning, and skill with senseless and pointless destruction and mayhem" i feel that this is an unfair and grossly inaccurate characterization of mine, jandrew, and bruntes attempts to summarize. all of us are discussing things here and you are now making personal attacks. i suggest both of you strike those remarks and try to be civil and respect other editors attempts by agf.
jalps - every one of those edits was in the last day. if i went back the last few days i'm sure i could find many more.Untwirl (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Triming section Anti-jewish and anti-arab incidents

As antijewish reactions is detalied reported in another artcle I suggest a hevy triming of this section. Suggested text:

Anti-jewish and anti-arab incidents

The number of recorded antisemitic incidents during the conflict more than tripled the number of such incidents in the same period of the previous year, marking a two-decade high.[3] United States-based human rights group Human Rights First called them "antisemitic backlash attacks" to the events in Gaza.[4] The incidents received responses from representatives of several governments, most of whom condemned them and/or called for calm.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]


Brunte (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the trimming down. Currently, the section is blown way out of proportion. I mean just compare it to the paragraph on the massive civilian demonstrations that happened worldwide. Also compare it to the section summarizing reactions by the world governments. Finally, the "section" doesn't need to be a section, but can be a paragraph in the "Reactions" section.VR talk 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This was already discussed above in "antisemitic incidents" and "antisemtic incidents edit revert". The subsection is already extremely trimmed-down, both because it selects only a few of the most notable incidents and statements, and because it mentions those incidents and statements in a very condensed way, merely noting that they occured and not even giving the most basic details such as how many of each type of incident occured, the exact location, the response, etc. I agree that there should be more info on civilian demonstrations (and I think I was the last editor to add info there), but I disagree that a comparison between the two is apt: demonstrations are expressions of opinions, whereas backlash attacks are actions, usually crimes, and are thus more notable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, I agree that the description of the Rome boycott is too long. I would support a trimming-down of that incident if another editor can propose a fair way to do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I remember that the discussion also mentioned most of the incidents as copy from its own article. As of that it could be read ther. Trim trim. Brunte (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoever said that was wrong, you can check. And according to WP:SUMMARY, sections that become too large for the article should be spun off and a summary section should be retained in the original article. This is precisely the case here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
as a comparison, the summary of the humanitarian crisis has 12 lines of text - compared to 6 pages in the spin-off article , while this 'summary' of anti-jewish incidents has 14 - compared to 14 lines of actual text and 2 1/2 pages of a chart in the spin-off article. the balance with regards to important facts, directly related to this article is way off.Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The spinoff article on antisemitic incidents was slightly longer than the article on the humanitarian crisis. So according to your yardstick, the 14-line summary section on antisemitic incidents is just the right size; though I disagree with your yardstick. The spinoff article, which was far from thorough, was improperly deleted after a stalemated deletion discussion. The info may end up in the International reactions section, as Cerejota and - I think - Sean suggested, or it may go up for undeletion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
that the page was deleted is not a piece of evidence that helps your case, here. the article which is currently linked to , international reactions, contains exactly the amount of space i specified. for you to think anti-jewish incidents compares equivalently in relevancy with the humanitarian crisis in gaza, and thus merits more space, is really hard for me to fathom. Untwirl (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the page was deleted neither helps nor hinders my "case". My point was that the spinoff material is about as long as the spinoff material for the humanitarian crisis, and the fact that at this moment not all of it appears in any article is a temporary technical issue that is being resolved. I stated no opinion about the notability of backlash incidents vis-a-vis the humanitarian crisis, I merely noted that according to the yardstick you proposed, the backlash section is approximately the right size. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the page was deleted by administrator means it does not exist. if you have valuable information then i suggest you add it to the international reactions article, where it belongs, and help us summarize that section here. Untwirl (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The section was summarized fine, until you and Brunte removed almost all the sourced information from it without discussion. You and Brunte have yet to even present to the editorial community an argument for doing so, except for your argument about using the amount of spinoff material as a yardstick, which you have apparently abandoned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i havent abandoned anything. all of my arguments stand. i'm just feeling like you are being WP:DENSE and i dont feel the need to repeat it yet another time.Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-arab incidents

a section i dont find necessary, merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

merge is fine, i just don't want the relevant sourced material removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the expansion into the West Bank: I just removed one of the links since it said essentially "this is when we should look out for expansion" instead of citing it actually occurring. I fixed the link to the second source which specifically did state there was recent expansion due to the conflict. Should this be moved to the "Effects" section instead of being in this section?Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I accidentally added the redundant "West Bank". Thanks for catching it.Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
that's okay, its more clear at the end any way. however in the haaretz article it did say this, "Just over the past few days, while Gaza is being pounded, I have observed and documented two such examples: land being flattened for a new site near Etz Efraim, and construction work in an outpost near Kedumim."http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1054154&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y Untwirl (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Really, all my complaining yesterday about not reading sources fully and I did it? Nice. It should go back in then. At least I fixed one of them, right? : ) Done Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
no harm. we're cool. Untwirl (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I merge in both anti jewish and anti arab subsection on the reaction section. As it is now it dont look good. And I hope it dont swell upp to much in either side. If then we can restore sections. Brunte (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article already corrected. Brunte (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins notified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed

Brunte (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Human shields in Gaza

"Gaza victims describe human shield use" By JPOST.COM STAFF [4] "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields." Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2009

Extremely relevant as part of "Palestinian military activity", but it is quite an extraordinary claim, so it should be subjected to verifiability via more sources.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
For example, I would like to know if they are related to Yasser Abd Rabbo. --Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an "extraordinary claim", these types of allegations are as old as the I-P conflict itself. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and WP:V has no requirement for a multitude of reliable sources. There's enough sentences with silly string citations. Moreover, the JPost says that this information comes from the Al-Hayat al-Jadida. So it looks like all POV's are satisfied (unless there's some card-carrying Hamas supporters here). If we want to be extremely cautious we can always go....."According the Jerusalem Post, the Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported that..........."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense... but is still extraordinary in the sense that it can be controversial: as I said, is definitely relevant.--Cerejota (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
if its added, it should be followed by this from amnesty international reporting idf taking over civilians home' and vandalizing w/ graffiti and excrement. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-soldiers-leave-gaza-homes-devastated-condition-20090123

"In most cases, the families had fled or were expelled by the soldiers. In some cases, however, the soldiers prevented the families from leaving, using them as "human shields". Untwirl (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh puhleeze, the credibility of AI trumps that of JPOST. BTW the evidence of Israelis using Palestinians as human shields (and literally) is overwhelming. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually it does not. Amnesty International is not even a news source, it doesn't even meet the WP:RS threshold. The Jerusalem Post is considered a valid reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
AI is a RS, on the same grounds that HRW is a RS as demonstrated here. Al-Jazeera is also a RS as is the JPost. Nableezy (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
here are some more

do you like haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060390.html "On Monday, on one of the walls of the house that became the IDF position from which soldiers shot the two brothers who died at their father's side, we found two inscriptions in Hebrew: "The Jewish people lives" and "Kahane was right," referring to right-wing extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane."

or http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059513.html "Report: IDF probing racist graffiti left by soldiers in Gaza"

the independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/my-terror-as-a-human-shield-the-story-of-majdi-abed-rabbo-1520420.html "My terror as a human shield: The story of Majdi Abed Rabbo"

brisbane times? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-for-gaza-peace/2009/01/30/1232818724423.html

the australian? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24987294-2703,00.html

ynet? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664281,00.html "Givati troops leave 'Death to Arabs' graffiti in Gaza" Untwirl (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: You see to have gone off topic. The issue here is whether Hamas has been using humans as shields, not whether some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
this is the problem. as an american (i'll divulge that) when us troops are accused of atrocities in iraq or guatanamo my knee jerk reaction isn't to deny it. i call for an investigation, and hope the soldiers and commanders responsible are punished. from your side of the pond, you are so biased that you call shitting in peoples cooking pots and holding them hostage "messing up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire." yes report on the hamas using them if it is verified by more rs. yes report on idf actions that have been reported on in multiple rs. spend some time finding rs like i have and then advocate for their inclusion Untwirl (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl: Your comments are a bit unclear. If your English is not up too par, you might want to contribute to the Wikipedia of your native language. Regarding the substantive issue, all of the links concern vandalism, not human shields. The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent and is solely based on the statements of the "shield" himself and has yet to be independently verified. I rest my case.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, let me slow it down for you since you seem to be missing my point.

1. you say neither amnesty international nor the independent are reliable due to their "notoriously anti-Israel stance."

2. you advocate for the inclusion of jerusalem post, seemingly asserting that they don't have a pro-israel slant or an "anti-hamas" slant.

3. your bias is crystal clear, hence my observation above of your brushing off war crimes as "some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire."

do you need further explanation? maybe you should translate it into your native tongue so you can understand it better. Untwirl (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

oh how cute, blame the victim:

"I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. "

btw - please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. Untwirl (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah, wrong gender, tundrabuggy Untwirl (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
amnesty international nor the awarding winning independent with their vastly experienced journalist donald macintyre are reliable sources ? that's funny. i'm getting flashbacks to the whole bbc arabic is unreliable because it uses squiggly writing unpleasantness. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Your characterisation is very cute but self-serving and false. No one made such a claim except perhaps you just now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
tundra -your friend brewcrewer said exactly that
Brewcrewer said that bbc arabic is "unreliable because it uses squiggly writing unpleasantness"? I'm willing to bet more than the money in my pocket that you can't provide that diff! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
TUNDRA MADE A JOKE??!?!?!?!?!?!?111///1!!!!//???!--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Call me an optimist, I'm willing to bet money that TB is a nice person too. Okay TB, you win. I can't supply that diff. Unfortunately no one has used that argument yet. It's come close though but the editor doesn't seem to be around anymore....which is a great loss because he could understand arabic, english and hebrew. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course" (linked to criticism of amnesty)

and "The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent

care to retract your statement? Untwirl (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hereby retract my unfounded claim that AI and The Independant are unreliable sources. Wow, this is confusing because I could have sworn that I didn't...never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
literalists. Untwirl (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

Currently, the lead paragraph on casualties reads "However, as of February 1 2009, the number of Palestinians killed, and the proportion of Palestinians killed who were civilians, remains a matter of contention. According to figures compiled by the Israeli military, between 1,100 and 1,200 were killed, over 700 were militants and 250 were civilians.[46][47][48][49] [50] According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, 900 were civilians, including 410 children, and the remainder were police officers and militants.[51][52]"

I think this is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the secondary sources that we have access to. Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification. For example:

BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed"

Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead"

Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians

UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials."

AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"

Reuters: "Israel's Gaza offensive ... killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Gazan rights groups said 700 civilians died, many of them children."

Economist: "About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, in nearly three weeks of fighting." (On January 15)

It is true that the Israeli military has questioned these figures, but the Israeli figures have not been widely taken up by neutral reliable sources. Of course, we should include the fact that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figure cannot go ahead of the other figure and I think the phrasing should make it clear that an overwhelming majority of sources accept the other figure. In light of this, to present these figures as a matter of serious dispute misrepresents the sources. I propose something to the effect of: "About 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health [refs]. The Israeli military has questioned the number of civilian deaths [refs]." Jacob2718 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree that "Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification," however i dont believe israel's 'estimate' is relevant at all. we wouldnt quote hamas for how many israelis died. Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The IDF has spies, no doubt, and informants. It cannot, itself, do what people in the field and hospitals, are doing, direct crosschecking of dataq in hospitals with the families. Since in the war, the IDF shot 'everything that moved' (words of a northern commander), as in Vietnam, statistics are systematically tilted to 'identify' whoever is shot as a enemy, i.e., here a Hamas operative. Like all armies and governments in war, it's never been particularly reliable, in any case.
Apparently there is intensive work being done to control and crosscheck the figures given by the Palestinian authorities, now underway. Some of the difficulties are well explained by Donald Macintyre in The Independent Sunday, 1 February 2009]
'a count of the dead and the wounded is possible. And it has been and is being done. There is a difference of 85 dead between the figures that have been published by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and those that have been arrived at by the two leading human rights centers in the Gaza Strip - Mezan and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. This gap, however, is not a result of an intentional inflation of the number of dead and wounded, but rather the result of a number of errors that occurred because of the heavy load: For example, in the aerial bombardment on Saturday, December 27, of the civilian police buildings in Gaza City, seven students of the nearby UNRWA vocational school were killed. All of them - inhabitants of Rafah. It is possible that they were listed twice - once as people from Rafah who were killed and once as people killed in Gaza City. There were people who were taken to Shifa Hospital who when they died were transferred to hospitals in the places where they had lived. It has happened that by mistake a number of names were listed twice. Sometimes there is an error in the name, which is later corrected. Sometimes neither a corpse nor remains have been located. In this way, the body of H., an Iz al-Din al-Qassam member, was lost. Only his shoes, which were found, confirmed that he had been killed. Four members of the Haddad family, parents and two children, got into a car and fled the army that was approaching the Tel al Hawwa neighborhood. A shell incinerated the car. The neighbors were able to identify the four scorched corpses only by the license number of the car, and they reported this to an investigator from the Palestinian Center. Nor is anyone able to intentionally lessen the number of Palestinian fighters who were killed. Every family is proud to say that its son fought and was killed in battle, so that sometimes the error could be the other way around: that someone is called a fighter because a certain organization adopted him, but in fact he was killed in his home and did not even know how to fire a rifle. Investigators who are very familiar with the field have their own ways of knowing who was an armed fighter and who was not. When on January 14 there was a report of four corpses in Shokka, east of Rafah, the field worker from the Palestinian Center knew the name of one of the dead and knew that he was from Iz al-Din al-Qassam. He concluded that two of the others, who were his age, were also in the military organization. However, the fourth man was 42 years old when he was killed, which is not so congruent with the profile of a "fighter," and inquiries to his family confirmed that indeed he had no connection to the armed group.
In the two human rights organizations the confirmation of the names of those killed, their identity, their age and their sex is carried out in a number of ways: In real time, each of the organizations had field workers present at the hospitals. They saw the bodies and spoke with family members. Other investigators did everything in their power - in conditions of mortal danger and running between the bombardments - to get to the place where people were killed and wounded. If not there - then to the home of the family or the wake house. If this was not possible during the course of events - it is being done now. Each investigator has a detailed questionnaire that he goes over with all the affected families and in which all the details are recorded. The work of getting everything down in writing will take at least a month and a half or two months. Then in all likelihood the slight gaps in the figures of the two human rights centers will be corrected.
The data, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, as of January 22, are as follows: 1,285 dead, of whom 1,062 were non-combatants (895 civilians and 167 civilian police). Of these, 281 were children (21.8 percent) and 111 were women. There are 4,336 wounded, among them 1,133 children. The 6-year-old girl who we saw in the Zeytun neighborhood, who holds her hands up in the air in fear every time the photographer brings his camera near her, is not included in the list of the casualties.'Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, of course Israel killed some 99% non-combatants according to PCHR. What happened to the 410 children that were killed earlier? That's a discrepancy of 130 children. Did they count ALL the children twice? How old are children? Is a 16 & 17 year old considered a child? Now since Israel only killed some 200- odd "combatants" why weren't the so-called civilian police or others able to stop these "combatants" from firing into Israel and causing retaliatory fire? It was not as if they had got no warning as to what to expect. In fact, today's news includes Olmert saying that they will have a "disproportionate" response to the current rocket fire [5]. It would make sense if the civilians who appear to outnumber the militants considerably, were to take matters into their own hands for their own safety. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Well, that is why a number of us have argued for not putting the casualties in the lead at all, but we were over-ruled. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you go back to primary school and work out the percentages. 1,062 non-combatants of 1,285 makes 223 combatants, which as a percentage of 1,285 comes out, at a glance at around 16-17%, meaning by their calculations 83-84% were civilians/non-combatants, not 99%, as your queer calculation asserts. If you read front-line Israeli reports from the IDF there was actually very little contact with Hamas. Most were killed on the first day, then went underground. Their strategy was survival. All sides exaggerate, spin and tilt figures in war. The Palestinians at least had this excuse, they had to make their calculations with several thousands people in a few weeks registered at several hospitals, and conflicting data from several sources, while under siege. The IDF calculations were done in comfortable quarters, mostly by counting all dead as around 75% 'Hamas operatives', the figure they pushed from the beginning. We'll know in a month or so, and will then update.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
so warning of a "diproportionate response" (against civilians, i presume) somehow justifies it? hamas warned israel that rockets wouldn't stop until they lifted the blockade, which they didnt, thereby according to your reasoning "causing retaliatory fire" by hamas rockets. Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some weird concepts of mathematics operant here. The lead now has

About 1,300 Palestinians were killed including 900 civilians and 410 children (with the remainder being police officers and militants) according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.[70][71] The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed.[72][73][74][75] [76]

Both figures are nonsensical ('and' as in 900 civvies and 400 children should be '900 civilians, of whom 400 children' (that figure should itself be adjusted down), otherwise you get 900+400 = 1,300, no place for militants. Likewise the IDF is made to claim that of 1,100 killed, 700 were militants and 250 civilians, meaning 150 were neither militants or civilians. What were they, zombies?
Does anyone actually control this farce (farcir 'to stuff', an appropriate French verb). It is a farcical stuff up. I note also in para 1 an unfixed ref., standing out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do indeed qualify the amount of causalities. It would be kinda irresponsible on their part not to. See Battle of Jenin, where Palestinian claims of massacre were later found to be nonsense and the IDF numbers were correct.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrew, where are your links for this statement? jacob provided 6 or 7 to back up his assertion. once again you are jumping in with your opinion that isnt based on rs. if you want to make contributions to this discussion, do some homework. Untwirl (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. The links he provided are the exception. We all know that the amounts of dead people are almost always qualified to the source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
be civil? your suggestion that i contribute to a wiki of my native tongue was condescending and uncivil. i simply asked you to provide some sources for your opinions, which you have yet to do. what "we all know" is irrelevant - provide a source. Untwirl (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
i see you dont mind being slapped with a trout. well, here goes - *whap* Untwirl (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You have a native tongue ? You should probably give that back. Tongues and such like sometimes have local cultural/religious significance. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
my native tongue is cruelty free and certified organic. mmm delicious. Untwirl (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. Bullying doesn't last long around here, call it the revenge of the nerds if you will. --Cerejota (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures need to be attributed, especially if they are disputed. We have numerous sources attributing the claims, the opener found some who don't (yet they might do in other articles, e.g. reuters attributes those figures to Hamas here). There is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not attribute their figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow.

Also, there is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not cite the Israeli figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow. The Israeli figures were just recently released, and all that was released was a kind of a "preview" that is yet to be completed. It is thus no surprise that they are not yet cited by everyone. We need secondary sources to wp:verify information, but we need to present these informations following wikipolicies such as wp:npov. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On checking the problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its website does not give official figures. No official figures apparently exist for the IDF statistics. The IMFA only cites for this information the same newspaper articles our own article cites, and frankly this is pure lunacy. That a government cite newspapers for statistics that it itself is the source for. The IDF figures in the newspapers are revelations made off-the-record, or privately, to journalists by briefers. This is complete contrast to the Palestinian case, where there is an official source for the figures (may be wrong, but at least they assume responsibility for their calculations)
Secondly, the IDF does not 'claim' these are correct figures. The IMFA site says that the IDF 'believe' that 700 are Hamas operatives. To claim is to assert a fact, to 'believe' is to take on trust, in lieu of definitive evidence, that such and such is the case. Therefore the wiki description should have the word 'belief' for the IDF figures until their report comes out.
As to the discrepancy I pointed out between 950 (militants and civilians) and 1,100-1,200 total, the remaining 150/250 are believed by the IDF to be mainly Hamas militants also. So so far, only in as regards the IDSF/Israel figures we are in the realm of belief. The PMH figures are asserted on the web-site to have been based on extensive crosschecking, and are generally supported by an independent authority (the in loco UN people)Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
skapp - there does seem to be a mainstream consensus not to cite israeli figures. (see jacobs examples above) the (one) example you linked to does attribute their numbers to "medical sources" in gaza, but it also makes no mention of (unofficial) israeli estimates. 7:1 mainstream sources that dont attribute their numbers, and 8:0 that don't mention israeli estimates, seems to be in consensus on not adding the israeli estimate or qualifying the number with moh or hamas. Untwirl (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I continue to oppose inclusion of casualties figures in the lead, - it shoudl say something vague like "causualties happened" - and push for their inclusion in the infobox. As to quantities, all of these discussions would be solved if we provided an upper and lower range, and then a few sources. Keep the narrative for the Casualties section. --Cerejota (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you still of the opinion that Israel's figures shouldn't be use AT ALL?(i think you at least brought up that point). because that was BOLD and I'll add my opinion as well. There could be strong support for such measure. Cryptonio (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood my point. My point was not using IDF figures solely, fog of war and all that (in other words, the IDF is doing estimates, while the MoH is counting hospital reports; which is more reliable - in the non-wikipedia sense?). We need sourced min-max ranges, see the example I created above, which could include IDF figures. I also oppose the explicit qualification of any information, because we have a established way to reference and cite information and should therefore use it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this leaves much room for misinterpretation but: "As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza." Cerejota.
Anyways, thanks for clarifying your point. I wonder how you would then, minimize the coverage of Israel's figures in that section. Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I would like to hear arguments "as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza". I haven't heard them. But, this is approaching the threshold of the stuff I am not giving a fuck about. This aberration of ugliness will have to be fixed in two years when when the books get written. I still however retain hope we can reach an informative and inclusive range that is well sourced, such as the format I suggested.--Cerejota (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapons related word counts in the article for interest

2 aircraft
3 airstrikes
3 army
5 artillery
5 bomb
3 bombed
1 bombings
3 bombs
5 booby
1 explode
1 exploding
4 explosives
2 gun
1 gunships
2 helicopter
2 helicopters
3 katyusha
3 launchers
3 missiles
19 mortar
5 mortars
6 phosphorus
6 qassam
47 rocket
34 rockets
2 rockets'
4 shelled
5 shelling
13 shells
6 tank
2 tanks
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me vulgar and immature, but I found the line "5 booby" to be kind of funny. Now if only the Hamas messages to Israelis' mobile phones had said "booby on all cities, shelters will not protect you", instead of "rockets...", we'd be able to crank up the booby count a bit. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As per request: you are vulgar an immature. :D--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Me too and I deliberately didn't go and check whether it was accompanied by 'trap' because that would have ruined the Woody Allen-esque Sleeper (film) images I had in my mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
how bout, "boobies will not save you!" "booby is not your friend" "or "death to boobies!" Untwirl (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What, no mention in the article of UAVs, the drones, with their special missiles, and surveillance cameras that allow controllers at headquarters to view with great clarity everything on the ground, with such precision that indeed, they consistently killed children and civilians, even in open fields, as Amnesty reports. Bet there were high 5s all round the video feed at HQ when catching this 'breaking news' beamed back from the drones.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't offer an interpretation of these figures because I wanted others to do that but since no one has, here goes....bearing in mind that this is just a semi-deterministic method to assess NPOV/it's just bit of fun...sort of.
  • not mentioning UAVs etc seems consistent with the whole not mentioning anything much apart from rockets approach that seems to be apparent from the figures.
  • rockets and related terms are mentioned too much, did I mention that ? aren't mentioned enough.
  • we need to mention more about rockets to increase the popularity of the article because apparently they're quite popular ::::with editors and therefore readers in order to increase advertising revenue. sorry, i've forgotten, what are we trying to do here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a predictable result of the fact that one side in the conflict has lots of different types of weapons, and the other side has pretty much one type of weapon: rockets. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Asymmetric warfare is asymmetric. However, if you sum what is Israeli vs Hamas weaponry, Israel comes up slightly bellow, clearly not how this has played out. I think we mention rockets too much, too often, compared to say, shelling in Gaza. But this has some potential to be a storm in a teacup... we should fix the article without an eye to terms. --Cerejota (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with both of you to a certain extent and since stopping rockets was the stated aim you might reasonably expect related words to have elevated word counts. This does look a bit more like a spike than an gentle hillock which perhaps should trigger a warning light...maybe just an orange alert...although changing the colour of the light bulb is a lot of effort. Since the article (and any article) is meant to avoid accidentally and implicitly advancing a POV through the language used (e.g. terrorist) we should be able to use simple techniques like this every so often to get a rough idea of what's going on in the article. For example, if it were an article about crime in Thailand and the words 'Burmese' and 'migrant' appeared 100+ times it would be reasonable to assume that something a bit odd was going on. Anyway, it wasn't meant to trigger a storm. Quite the opposite actually. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Section Title: 'Gazan response' or 'Palestinian militant activity'

Please say which title you think is better, since otherwise this is just going to back and forward between Jalapeno and me.

  • 'Gazan response'

Support since it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive' and also because 'Palestinian militant activity' does not sound neutral, it makes it sound suspicious and illegal(maybe it is, but then 'Israeli offensive' should be changed to something like 'Israeli attacking troop activities' (OK a bad one but I can't think of better)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Better After some rereading I think that 'Palestinian militant activity' sounds more negative than 'Israeli offensive' and is therby not npov. Brunte (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • 'Palestinian militant activity'


  • Discussion

I think neiter. If 'Israeli offensive' stands, the other should be something with 'defence' in it. ex 'Palestinian defence' or 'Palestinian defence of Gaza' Brunte (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't any of these options are all that great. "Gazan response" is pretty generic. It doesn't really say who is responding and doesn't convey that most of the response was military in nature. "Palestinian militant activity" is only slightly better. It says a little bit more about who but is just as generic as to what. "Palestinian defense" doesn't really fit because many of the activities (rocket attacks) are defensive only in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense". On that basis the Israeli actions could be considered "defensive". Anyone have any other suggestions? Blackeagle (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I really have to conclude that we probably shouldn't have two separate sections for Israeli and Palestinian actions. These are really two sides of the same coin. Does it really make sense to talk about the Israeli Ground invasion in one section, then Palestinian Engagement with Israeli forces further down on the page?
So, how about reorganizing the Campaign section like this:
  • Israeli airstrikes - the current Air strikes and Warnings subsections
  • Palestinian rocket attacks - the current Rocket attacks into Israel subsection
  • Ground invasion - the current Ground invasion, Attack on Gaza City, Preperation, and Engagement with Israeli forces subsections
  • Attacks on Israel from outside of Gaza - the current subsection of the same name
  • Notable incidents - the current incidents subsection
  • Ceasefires - the current Humanitarian ceasefires and Unilateral Ceasfires subsections
Propoganda and psycological warfare would get folded into the media section or article. The very first paragraph under Palestinian militant activity describing the militant groups involved and the Internal violence subsection get spun off into their own section describing who's involved on the Palestinian side.
It's a pretty big change, but I think it would make the article a lot better and get away from the current "he did, she did" format Blackeagle (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I agree 100% with Blackeagle's suggestion as the only only policy compliant framework so far. He has had the gonadal fortitude to bring the obvious cluster-fuck the section is. We should be able to provide an NPOV narrative in the encyclopedic voice without segregating obviously related topics by combatant. Of course, as I said, I can live with well sourced, verifiable aberrations as long as we do not cross the line into SYNTH. I just think we should reconsider how we have arrived to these "solutions". Consensus is hard, sweaty, and time-consuming. Which doesn't mean that we are immune from the fact must reach it. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli 'shock' victims may have crept back in

Do people remember the previous discussions about this? The Israeli govt includes 'shock victims' in their casualty figures. In the infobox it now says 182 civilians injured. I would guess this includes shock victims once again. As noted before, there are probably over 1 million victims of shock in Gaza.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to determine the exact number of "shocked" victims because mass media tends to be more selective when it comes to Israeli news, but perhaps we shock can technically be categorized in the injured section. Also, depending on one's proximity from an explosion, "shock" could imply physical damage. Lest you forget, shock can cause internal and psychological injuries. But I doubt 182 victims injured also includes those who were "shocked." Under your reasoning, the victims would exceed 50,000. Sderot and Ashkelon have been experiencing daily rocket attacks for over a year...Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shock can be a physical condition. An adrenaline rush can widen your vains causing a sharp drop in blood pressure. This is where the term "Scared stiff" comes from, with the person being physically unable to move. I'm not sure it's enough on it's own to threaten someones life though. Obviously if you have a large open wound and go into shock you can bleed out, but I'm pretty sure on it's own it won't leave any lasting damage. At the most a lie down, perhaps some hydration and the victim should be fine in a day or two. Certainly would require some medical attention though just in case. So I guess it could count. It's not on par with bullet & shrapnel wounds though. (Forgot to sign in)Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition to Acute Stress Reaction, which is the kind of shock I mentioned above, also see Circulatory Shock. Circulatory Shock comes in multiple different forms, several of whitch can in fact cause death by organ failiure if not medically treated, therefore it seem there can be no question that these numbers belong in the casualties sectionAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been against counting them together. Although I would note that we also count Palestinian psychological victims. I included a link to this a while ago but the head of the PCHR counting said that they had counted about a thousand fewer wounded than the MoH and he attributed it to the MoH counting psychological trauma. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they should be counted together either. But there are also sources from Palestinian medial officials saying they believe more than 50% of all Gaza residents will suffer from PTSD and other psychological trauma. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been arguing for weeks that we should include information about psychological trauma. But not to combine it with other injuries in the infobox to create a combined "wounded" number. Back then nobody agreed with me that we should include any sort of psychological trauma at all. Although back then we mostly just had the Israeli "shock" figure. If we get Palestinian information I wouldn't be surprised if a few editors become more interested. Even though I did include an article with Palestinian information like two weeks ago. But I don't know if anyone read it. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about PTSD or people who are having nightmares because they saw some nasty things. I'm talking about the people who suffer from the medical definition of shock. As in they hear a bomb go off and their bodily reaction can put their lives at risk. If it is the latter it should be mentioned in the casualties. If they require medical attention as a direct result of the conflict then they are casualties. If they are having nighmares or PTSD they should be left out of casualties, as this reaction is purely psycological. In summary I think that if immediate medical prevention is required to save their lives then it counts. If it needs counselling or therapy it doesn't count. This is not an attempt to make light of psycological trauma, merely my suggestion of how this issue can be resolved Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG. People, this would all be solved if we had ranges with sourcing. I will repeat this as mantra. There is absolutly no need to have long edit warring and talk threads on casulaties if we follow this simple formulation. There is a fog of war and all an any attempts at casualty figures by any side have to be treated as part of their respective PR efforts. However, they are published as primary sources and repeated by RS, and obviously central, so we must include this.

Say aye and lets get over with, so we can edit war on better things, like lovefests and rockets. Yeesh, at least the Babycue debate had some serious systemic implecations. These here is close to being lame.--Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

vandal ip

could someone report it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=268117343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) '

You can do it yourself.WP:AIV. He was handled fine, not blocked, but warned and has not edited again. If s/he edits again in the same fashion, s/he will be blocked. --Cerejota (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"anti-semitic incidents"

jalps - 2 of us now have agreed and removed material that is duplicated word for word in the international reactions section. it should be summarized and that is all. don't say "see talk" when you have not posted anything discussing this to the talk page. i will wait to revert you until others weigh in. Untwirl (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I seem to get into talk page edit conflicts: I was posting my comments here but lost the edit conflict to your comment, so I'll just respond to it. Jandrews twice removed two whole subsections of the article, "Israel" and "Antisemitic incidents", without discussion. After the first time he did it, I explained above that this is not done: when removing large portions of sourced text, one must seek consensus first on the talk page. The fact that you agree with Jandrews is of absolutely no relevance, though your input in a discussion in which you explain why you agree with him would certainly be relevant and perhaps influential in determining the outcome of the discussion. You have just begun such a discussion, contributing the sole argument that the content of one of the subsections in question ("Antisemitic incidents") is duplicated word for word in another article. If that is the case, I can assure you that the other article copied from here and not the other way around. If you think there was some problem with them doing that, I suggest you take it up on that article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This article starts to be bloated with proisraeli material with less connection to the conflict. This section is one of them. I find 'antisemitic incidents around the world conected to this conflict' complicated. Do muslims see diference between jews and israelis? Is Muslims attacks against jews, who most of them support israel antisemitic? In any case israel dont make it easyer to be of jewish heritage. Brunte (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Brunte, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you perhaps be clearer? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What part dont you understand? Brunte (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Everything past the first two sentences. (Though I'm not sure I understand even those two sentences: how is information about antisemitic incidents "pro-Israeli"?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If anything, this article is pro-Palestinian. Virtually all Palestinian-news media, especially government casualty reports, fail every wiki reliability laws. Yet, oddly enough, we still use them as references. So let's end this pro-Israel b.s because we all know it's the direct opposite. The international media has been biased against Israel from the start of the war. And since this article is heavily reliant on international sources, the article is undoubtedly slanted. Now, can we move away from the pro-Israel tirade and focus on the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a section of anti-musslim attacks in the article? Seems like having the section at all is unnecesary. If you look at the disussion above I said merely a mention that the attacks occur should suffice. It seems impractical that we list the anti-jewish incidents when this article is about the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. It just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I support that. Brunte (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A. If you have information about notable attacks against Muslims which, according to reliable sources, were directly related to this conflict (as you agreed the antisemitic attacks being discussed were), then by all means add it to the article: WP:BOLD. B. The subsection does not list "the anti-jewish incidents"; it briefly mentions a few of the most notable incidents, without even going into basic details. C. The subsection is a part of the section "Effects", which, as its name implies, does not deal with events of the conflict, but with "direct results of the happenings" (your words). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Equal weight is important. If we're publishing content demonstrating the results of the war but not necessarily part of the actual fighting, then all sides must be posted. IF there's reputable sources that report on the growing anti-Semitic/anti-Israel protests occurring throughout Europe and the Middle East, then it MUST be included. Under your reasoning, everything that wasn't physically influenced shouldn't be included - like international reactions, organizational opinions, etc. After all, "it just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention." Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about an exclusive "antisemitism' section, maybe an inclusive "backlash" subsection to International reactions section would be germane. But how do we judge whether a physical assault on a Jew in Paris is directly related to this event? Or if the decision to ban Arab parties from the upcoming Israeli elections is directly related to the event? Seems we would be opening an ugly can of worms here. But go ahead, if the section includes info relating to both sides. RomaC (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I think that notable backlash attacks against any group, considered by reliable sources to be directly related to this conflict, should be in the subsection, and the title of the subsection should reflect the content. I don't think that the subsection should be in the International reactions section, since that section deals with views and public expressions thereof, whereas this subsection deals primarily with tangible actions, and is thus more suited to a section dealing with concrete effects. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I owe you an apology Jalapenos. I was under the impression that the section had been changed to a list of anti-simetic happenings. I read over the section again. And while it's longer than I would have made it, I don't think that it's unbalanced or unworthy of note. The fact that I thought it had been moved from the section that it's in sparked my remarks about having an anti-musslim section. When the section is viewed as a whole and not in individual sections it is not unreasonable. Further Anti-Simetic of Anti-Jewish is more appropriate than "Backlash". It is what it is and what it is, is anti-simetic violence and discrimination as a result of this conflict (Don't know if that all bade sense) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you needed to apologize for anything, but I appreciate that you did. Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if you insist on overcrowding this article with 'effects', i suggest adding this:

  • anti-arab incidents in israel

"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F%3Fpage%3Drss%26id%3DRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26&ord=18771778&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

and this:

"Israel's election panel disqualified two Arab parties from running in the February 10 elections based on a motion filed by two far-right parties which claimed they did not recognise the Jewish state's right to exist. "Obviously, the right wing is stronger with the war. The Israelis are selling more cheap popularity in the streets," said Jamal Zahalqa, head of the parliamentary group of one of the two parties, the National Democratic Assembly. . . .The leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Sakhnin, father Salah Khoury, has organised a campaign to send food and clothes to Gaza, but fears the consequences of supporting the Palestinians in the enclave. "We identify with the people in Gaza, but we don't want to endanger ourselves," said the Arab Israeli. "We want to stand in our land. We're scared. Right wing Jews see us as enemies." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0R8Cdp-6NO1kvXp38rf3KRMk7Aw

and articles about settler violence against arabs in the west bank, which i shall find shortly. Untwirl (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Untwirl, your efforts to find relevant information for the article are laudable, though I would stress that the aim of adding information should never be to "counteract" information one thinks should be omitted, per WP:POINT. About the first incident: I don't think hate speech is notable enough for a summary section, which is why I refrained from including incidents of hate speech when creating the section. About the second incident: this was already discussed a while back, with the conclusion being that no reliable sources consider it related to the conflict. By the way, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned that decision by the Central Elections Committee, so in effect nothing actually happened. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I also have problems with this section, as it represents only one side of the backlash. First, this: "Italian trade union Flaica-Cub called for the boycott of shops owned by the "israelitic community" ("comunità israelitica") in Rome, interpreted by the media as Jews, in protest at the Israeli offensive. Following an outcry and threats to sue the union under Italy's anti-racism laws,[385][386] the union stated that the proposed boycott was directed at products made in Israel ("Boicottaggio dei prodotti israeliani")" is too long considering it seems to boil down to a misunderstanding. As it is the strong suggestion here is that a boycott of Israel constitutes antisemitism. What we're left with is a few assaults, some angry letters and a lot of spray-painting. If this is going to be covered then it has to be covered as it relates to both sides, not only as "antisemitism." For example, we should include "A blue Star of David with the words "Israel forever -- Arabs never" was spray-painted on a back door to the Sts. Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Washington suburb of Potomac, Md. Local police said the incident is being investigated as a hate crime."[6] No? RomaC (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Rome boycott: I've seen quite a few news articles on the boycott, and none of them took the union's post-fact explanation seriously. I agree that the description of the incident is too long. I originally wrote it very briefly, then another editor added the details, presumably he thought it was fair to get the union's side in; I didn't want to delete his contribution. Regarding the church defacement: I could see making a case for including it, but then we would have to include other incidents that happened after the ceasefire, which I wanted to avoid for length reasons. Additionally, the source you brought did not connect it to the conflict (and considering it happened almost two weeks after the ceasefire, I don't see why it would be considered connected). Finally, there's a notability issue. I think what makes a defacement of a house of worship notable is the defacement itself, with the message being secondary. In this case, the message is undoubtedly anti-Arab, but is the defacement itself an anti-Muslim act? Surely not, because it was a church being defaced. So what was it? Anti-Christian? You get the idea. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
maybe we should clarify the anti-semitic part and explain that arabs are actually semites, too (sons of shem) so violence against them is anti-semitic as well by definition. Untwirl (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See Antisemitism#Etymology. It was precisely because I expected misunderstandings such as these that I objected to user:Cerejota's naming of the section "Antisemitic incidents". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world to various incidents in Israel IS anti-Semitic. World opinion is woefully against Israel, as is the protests against it. Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable. There will always be some people who have a differing opinion, but the case remains: Anti-Semitic outbreaks far outweigh any anti-Muslim/Arab protests. And keep in mind, the majority of anti-Semitic outbreaks are intense and violent. And while there is a significant number of pro-Israel protests, very few even remotely resemble the activities organized by pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian groups. When did 10,000 angry fundamentalist Jews storm a predominantly Arab housing project and throw moltolv cocktains and rocks at the windows, whilst screaming "glory to the God of Jews" and watching a German officer storm into the Arab ghetto and taking down the flags? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950850066&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Oh, and that source could be used in the article. A sovereign democratic government banning the waving of Israeli flags is VERY relevant to this article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Just as it is irrelevant that it is still illegal to wave a Palestinian flag in Israel. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And I can think of a few times recently such actions have been directed at Arabs in such cities as Hebron. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, you have to accept that if the international media is biased against Israel regarding this topic, the Wikipedia article must be biased too, because Wikipedia's policy requires sticking to the reliable sources, and until books and academic papers are written about the conflict, the media is the main reliable source we have. If you don't accept this, you will simply not be able to be a productive contributer. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, good night everyone, I'm going to bed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is mind-blowingly retarded. Why wikipedia still sanctions propaganda-fallacy driven articles such these is BEYOND ME. No wonder nothing ever gets done in these kinds of discussions.

And Jalapeno, don't accuse of not being a productive contributor. You are the one who is unproductive solely based on your refusal to publish facts. There is plenty of reliable sources that provide a far differing spin then what is seen here. Sleep well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikfan, a concern I have here is that if we take the number and scale of anti-Israeli actions as greater than the corresponding anti-Arab actions, and then declare that treating both with the same regard is "laughable", would it not then be consistent to apply the same relativism to damage and casualties in the conflict itself, and dismiss Qassam rockets as "laughable"? RomaC (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Jalap, I respect what you are saying, that the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the ban on Arab parties in the Knesset, and if this means "nothing happened" there, then it would be consistent to conclude that nothing happened in Italy, where the union re-named its Israeli boycott campaign. RomaC (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if it is "reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world" (and according to you, anti-semitic) to include the fact that there has been a pro-israel backlash against arabs, then you have a very broad view of anti-semitism. as cerejota once wisely said, calling everything antisemitism "cheapen(s) the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism." Untwirl (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? What is the line between acceptable, or "true" anti-Semitism. As far as I can tell, the bangwagon hate occurring throughout the developed world is anti-semitism. The stone throwing, the beatings, the massive angry protests, the lawsuits, everything. It's all rooted in hate, and it is light years ahead of any event organized by extreme Zionists. There is no excuse to be ignorant. The facts are right under your nose. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you contend that, "Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable." and i say there is no difference. jews do not have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice. all people deserve to be treated with respect, jews, arabs, blacks, etc. i'll just repeat and agree with you that "there is no excuse to be ignorant." Untwirl (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. When the vast majority of the Arab world and many European nations act indifferent or support violent protests against Jews and those who support Israel, it is laughable when you try to cancel out these alarming activities because of a few anti-Hamas/Arab/Muslim etc... demonstrations. It's like equating someone who throws stones and someone who shoots rocket launchers. And BTW, the Jews as a whole aren't notorious for impression. Their respective for non-Jews and ethnic minorities greatly exceeds the tolerance given to non-Muslims in the neighboring theocracies. Point being, the anti-Semitic protests are notable and should be given a section. Just because some users think it doesn't matter because "all sides do it" is not a justifiable excuse. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"It's like equating someone who throws stones and someone who shoots rocket launchers."
i hope you see the irony of that statement with respect to the israel-gaza conflict. Untwirl (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, anti-semitic incidents are being dealt with in the reactions article. There was a standalone article. It was nominated for deletion and it was deleted yesterday. I am not going to help you find this stuff because I find you unhelpful. Please play nice. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I do see the irony and thank you for telling me you won't help me. Never in my wildest dreams did I think you would NOT help me. I'm totally and completely shocked at your irresponsibility in not helping me. I think I might die from your lack of help. Seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to put Sean's refusal to help you under anti-semitic incidents? Nableezy (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh brother. Why are people in the real world very nice wherever you go in this world but so many people in WP aren't. I'm bored of this so I'm going to tell a little story now with an example of what anti-semitism isn't. Last year I was in a remote area on the Thai side of the border with Myanmar and we were chatting with a really old hill tribe guy about stuff. We asked him why there was a camp so far away from the nearest town, who was there, what was going on etc. He said it was for tourists from Israel. We asked "why are they all the way out here". He said "They're very noisy". True story. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So there was a camp for Israelis "so far away from the nearest town" because they were noisy? Just how noisy were they? Were they shooting off celebratory gunfire? Did they use megaphones and electronic music? Maybe you are naif to have taken this "really old hill tribe guy" at his word. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you asked Tundrabuggy I'm very happy to expand the info. They were a bunch of youngsters doing what youngsters do best, make noise, laugh a lot, probably drink too much and generally having a good time. I should add that I'm pretty sure the old guy didn't know anything about Israel apart from that it's the name of a country somewhere out there over the mountains where tourists live, all of which he lumps into one category, Farang=foreigner. His remark was delivered without any irony and was about how annoying young people are when you get old. I thought it was funny. He seemed confused that I thought it was funny. For interest, there are tonnes of Israeli tourists in Thailand and they are throughly nice people. Hell, there's tonnes of Israeli, Arab and Iranian tourists shopping in the same Tesco Lotus down the road from me. Imagine that! Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Low
  2. ^ To Eleven
  3. ^ Highest anti-Semitism rates in 2 decades, Jerusalem Post, 25-01-2009
  4. ^ Human Rights First Condemns Antisemitic Backlash Attacks in Europe, humanrightsfirst.org 23-01-2009
  5. ^ Rise of anti-Semitic incidents in Latin America troubling, Oppenheimer Report, 29-01-2009
  6. ^ Assaf Uni, Sarkozy urges French religious leaders to condemn anti-Semitic incidents, Haaretz 15-01-2009
  7. ^ Israel concerned by anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. Associated Press 12-01-2009 (retrieved from the International Herald Tribune)
  8. ^ Dutch premier hears concerns of anti-Semitism, International Herald Tribune, 23-01-2009
  9. ^ German, Polish ambassadors blast comparisons of Gaza campaign to Holocaust, Jerusalem Post, 19-01-2009
  10. ^ Moratinos warns against anti-Semitism in Spain, monstersandcritics.com, 20-01-2009
  11. ^ Turkish Jews fearful of anti-Semitism after Gaza, Ynet, 27-01-2009
  12. ^ MPs urge hate-attack clampdown, Jewish Chronicle, 22-01-2009
  13. ^ Sadiq Khan, No Excuses, Guardian.co.uk 17-01-2009
  14. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7863356.stm, BBC, 01-02-2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_29&oldid=1136754162"